Abu Yahia al-Libi was criticizing Hamas, but the political leadership in the West would do well to ponder how much it might also resonate among Iraqis and their various foreign backers in the sectarian conflicts. "Al-Qaida criticizes Hamas," by Omar Sinan for the Associated Press:
CAIRO, Egypt - An al-Qaida commander who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan appeared in a new videotape Sunday criticizing Hamas and other Islamic groups that he said prioritized nationalism and electoral politics over jihad, or holy war.
Hamas is focused on the creation of an independent Palestinian state rather than al-Qaida's vision of a worldwide Muslim community ruled by Islamic law. Like al-Qaida, the Palestinian movement advocates violence to achieve its goal, but has also participated in elections alongside the moderate Palestinian Fatah group.
"We caution some of the Islamic groups, among them Hamas, which are risking the bloods of their sons ... to cleanse and purify their jihad of contemporary jihadi pollutants," said Abu Yahia al-Libi in the 90-minute videotape.
"Patriotism, nationalism, shared unity, the supreme interest and other slogans ... none of these have any space in the religion of Allah the Glorious and the Great," he said, criticizing groups such as Hamas for "abandoning jihad and jumping into the ballot boxes."
The authenticity of the videotape could not be verified, but it was released on a Web site commonly used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of Al-Sahab, al-Qaida's media arm.
We can not win a war we don't understand , Islams ideology wants to replace every ideology , lying and waiting to place fighters in position is part of thatjihad.
Washington's next step in fighting terrorism will be to assign a muslim "minder" to every citizen to help them understand Islamic tolerance.
I dont know how I became a bad guy but , Oh well.
'My Allah is better than yours...'
http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/19/my-allah-is-better/
The nation-state is meaningless to a good Muslim, to the precise extent that he takes his Islam seriously. It exists; he needs its passport; he wants, in the case of the Infidel nation-state, to enjoy all the fruits of that Infidel nation-state that are produced because it is the creation of Infidels, is well-run, is productive, has stability and the rule of law. Unlike refugees from Nazis or Communists, the "refugee" or rather immigrant from badly-run Muslim countries (where despots are the natural order, given how Islam inculcates the notion that political legitimacy is to be located elsewhere than in "will of the people."
Listen carefully to Muslim rhetoric in this country. It is always not-quite-what-it-seems-to-be: we hear, for example, the phrase "we are here to stay." What does that mean? Is that a rousing sign of loyalty to the American political and legal system? Or is it, rather, an aggressive and defiant expression -- we're here, we're not going anywhere, and we will do exactly as we please, in putting relentless pressure on the American legal and political system, on its educational system, on its social understandings, and will never give up, and don't think about trying to stop us because "we're here to stay."
Have you seen Muslims visiting the rude bridge in Concord or Gettysburg or any sites having to do with American history? In what fields have Muslims demonstrated an interest? Yes, in computer engineering, or other kinds of technology, and the more applied, the less imbued with values, including the values of science, the better. But when have you seen Muslims in this or any European country teach the history of that country, say Amercian history, or Western civilization, or European art, or European music, or much of anything at all save those same few areas of engineering (and some parts of medicine), and those same "Islamic studies" of a comically apologist nature (where those who haven't gotten with the collaborationist program are carefully kept down, or kept out)?
Islam does not recognize the nation-state. It flatly contradicts the idea of the nation-state, of loyalty to the nation-state. This does not mean that some Muslims, in some Muslim-dominated lands, do not feel a desire to claim that "their" country is the "leader" of the (Arab, Islamic -- choose one) world. Muslims in Egypt may mock the rich Gulf Arabs for being rich, and uncivilized. Muslims in Iran may mock all the Arabs for being "desert" or "primitive" people, as compared to the "civilized" and "sophsticiated" Iranians (there is a nationalist pride in Iran, but that pride goes against Islam, and always has -- and that appeal to Iranian pride could be useful in de-islamising part of the Iranian population). Muslims in Jordan may mock the Kuwaitis as languorous sissies. Muslims in the Gulf may mock the poorer Arabs...for being poor. Muslims in Iraq may mock the other Arabs because Iraq "has a culture that is thousands of years old" or Iraq "is the cradle of world civilization" (even as the present Arabs show a complete indifference to the pre-Islamic past) or some such puffery that they love to engage in (while we, looking at them, can only say "what have you done for the world lately?" and by "lately" we mean the last thousand years), and like to think of themselves as having been the inheritor of the Abbasid Caliphate, and full of this vast "middle class" that in Iraqi minds is exaggerated into something practically like England in 1920, when that "middle class" was, in that same 1920, almost entirely Jewish and Christian, and now -- or until the last few years -- was Christian with an admixture of those who were determinedly secular -- that is to say, as non-Muslim-as-possible -- Muslims.
Islam and the nation-state do not blend. Islam dictates to Muslims, inculcates in Muslim minds, a Belief System that offers both Complete Regulation, from dawn to dusk, soup to nuts, and a Total Explanation of the Universe. It has no need, it ignores, it effaces or steps over, the silly limits of those silly Infidels with their silly nation-states.
This has to be thoroughly understood by Infidels, if they are to protect themselves.
A nation is a cultural collective. Culture is all the life-affirming pastimes of a people.
islam has no more interest in culture or nationality than a cancer cell cares about the ethnicity or I.Q. or hair color of its victim.
the muhammadan should not concern himself with music, art or sports. the muhammadan is to keep busy fornicating and killing. Like a cancer, it's deadly efficient at one thing: conquest.
Islam: anti-Constitutional, anti-Bill of Rights, anti-freedom of conscience.
How much less does a belief system have to be before it is rejected as not just something un-American, but anti-American?
And anti-Western?
Today, one of the major faultlines is between internationalism and nationalism. Internationalism is taken up by both the Left (in the form of pushes for superstates like the EUSSR) and Islam (the idea of the Caliphate). Nationalism is sometimes espoused ad hoc by the Left/Islam alliance, as in the cases of the Southern Thailand "separatists" and, of course, the "Palestinian" struggle, but is only an outward appearance, under which lurks the cause of eliminating opposition to their internationalist agendas.
One of the lasting damages of Nazism is that now nationalism is criminalized in the eyes of many. But that is an historical error, for Nazism was never about mere German nationalism--it was about German imperialism, just like Communism was about forcing an socio-economic worldview and lifestyle on the whole world, and like now Islam is working on bringing the entire globe to its religio-political line.
Against the Left/Islam allied agenda of internationalism and superstate consolidation, the nation-state is one of the few stop-gaps. That is why the Unholy Alliance smears both nationalistic feeling and common sense (such as the wish to maintain more US control over what goes on the border with Mexico) and "Islamophobia" with the tag of, "racism". Their tarring of nationalism with the Hitlerian brush serves their purpose well. But nationalism, and its vital but much-maligned accompanying notion of cultural homogeneity--which means nothing more evil than the idea that a cannibal should change his dietary habits upon immigrating to a country where such habits are frowned upon (forgive me for my use of deadpan and understatement here)--is today one of the defenses for personal freedom, while supposedly "enlightened, progressive" internationalism, the alliance of Marxism's "We Are All Citizens Of The World" and Islam's "One Worldwide Ummah", is the threat to life and liberty everywhere.
Nationalism is not and has never been risk-free, and I do not support any kind of nationalism that advocates racial (meaning inborn, as in either white or black supremacism) homogeneity (in contrast to cultural homogeneity, without which, as I said, a nation cannot be a nation at all), but the internationalism of the Left/Islam alliance is much worse, threatening to engulf the whole world in the darkness of totalitarianism, supremacism and apartheid. The forcefulness both members of the Left/Islam alliance show in their opposition to nationalism only goes to show how powerful a shield it is against their agenda.
Zionist(=JewishNationalist)Youngster
Don't take this Al Qaeda missive at face value. Al Qaeda has been trying very hard to "shame" Hamas into coming onside for some time now, and Hamas hasn't been biting.
Hamas is Ikhwan -- loyal to the Islamic Brotherhood, from which it arose, and of which it is a branch. The tension and rivalry between the Ikhwan and Al Qaeda is well known. I wouldn't expect the AP writer to understand this, but Jihadwatchers should immediately see the significance of this message.
The Ikhwan is very much a global Khalifate movement, and Hamas is very much a part of it. Remember Farfour the jihadist mouse declaring that they will never have peace until they set foot in Andalusia? A stereotypical global jihadist slogan.
Some of their rhetoric aimed at the west tones that down because they know that "liberation" oriented nationalist movements, particularly in that part of the world, sell well here, whereas Imperialist rhetoric does not. It is this that Al Qaeda is picking up on. Hamas will not openly declare these goals in the west, and AQ will continually try to paint them as traitors to Islam until they get a piece of the action.
What AQ really wants, I believe, is a foothold in a potential micro-Khalifate, and Gaza may be one of the best opportunities right now, although there are also some in Africa.
In Afghanistan they couldn't have this kind of control because of the warlords, who were loyal to the Taliban. Although allies of a sort, the Taliban were not about to cede their government to AQ, and Bin Laden knew that there was no chance of Khalifate there.
The situation is similar in Northern Pakistan, where the jirgas and local clerics have power and are more interested in keeping the Taliban alive and/or taking the reins of power there themselves. AQ is seen as "other", although a friendly other, and worthy of protection. They will not quickly have ownership of that government.
In Iran, once again, AQ has a welcome, but only as guests. Any attempt to take power there would be viciously squashed. The African countries that might be possibilities are too unstable, have too many different power centers, and are too vulnerable to interference by outside Kafir nations.
Gaza is, for the time being, a little fortress -- a piece of dirt that could work as a throne for the Khalifate. Small enough that politics would be simple, and if Hamas would come onside, supported by a ready-made, vicious, and well-equipped militia. No matter that they would be under the nose of Israel, which is armed to the teeth and ready to strike.
In fact, all the better. This is not about ownership of a particular piece of land -- AQ does not care about Gaza or its people. It is about gaining legitimacy in the Muslim world, and what better way than to dance under the nose of the great zionist satan, establish one's worldwide government in the most brazen and daring fashion?
The polls in the Islamic world indicate massive grassroots support for AQ -- they know they have a short window of opportunity in which to capitalize on that support, but to get anywhere they need a highly symbolic victory, and a legitimate throne of power, however small, and however tenuous.
The Ikhwan know this, and know that it would shortcircuit their own global agenda (which is a light-year more advanced, and considerably more realistic, than AQ's). They will not surrender to these petty intimidation tactics.
The bottom line for muslims, and a common denominator, is their obligation to further the cause of Allah. Allah's cause is determined by the directions he put in his book, and the example of the Prophet on how to carry them out. Allah is the Nation State of Islam. The Ummah is its physical manifestation, the Imams the politicians, Shari'ah its laws. You can see for yourself how the perfect god and the perfect Prophet, created the perfect Ummah. And Allah would have us all share in this perfectness. He says so in his book, and Mohammad and a long line of Imams, have attempted to 'share' it with us. Yes, we can see what submission has done for the average muslim. If we hurry to the mosque, we can convert and be just like them...Perfect...
Muslims and Liberals share this attitude. The real radical Lefties also hate nationalism. They prefer the "village" to the nation.
This is part of the major problem America faces: we are not teaching our children and our immigrants to regard themselves as part of the American nation. Instead we are balkanized with the extreme Left promoting community over nation. It's a form of idiocy (the original Greek word for idiot meant someone who is only aware of his immediate surroundings).
Last week I was at a local community development meeting hosted by the county regarding rezoning requests by property owners. One owner requested his property to be rezoned for use by a private security firm which will use the land for paramilitary training against terrorism. You would not believe the amount of citizens who protested the use of this land for "war-like" activities. All they were concerned about was their own agenda; never did they think about the need for more protection from terrorism in our nation. One ex-Navy serviceman stood up and said to them, "Perhaps you should consider loving your country more than loving your community."
Amen.
Hmmm...I think Hugh hit it dead on...
The nation-state is meaningless to them...
He's right-it is...same for statist-socialists aka communists...but moreover, they just detatched themselves irrevocably from any hope of linking their "allah" with our God of Abraham:
Remember "render unto Caesar, that which belongs to Caesar, and to God that which belongs to God."?
Well, they cut any last hope of linking their death cult to Judeo-Christianity.
Actually, I'm glad...they did us a favor, as it makes me sleep better at night knowing our efforts to destroy the death cult islamofascism was the right thing to do after all...by their own words.