Bush: "Now, in the 21st century, our nation is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- the ideology of Islamic extremism"

You are so close now Mr. Bush. Now open your Quran and officailly link Quranic scripture, and Hadith to "Radical Islam", and Jihad.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/021115.php

The Quran sanctions suicide attacks.

“Allah has purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.” (tmq 9:111)

Jihad is required

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued”, (tmq 9:29) which is at the time of war and fighting.

So peace and fighting are two situations, which remain un-abrogated, i.e. neither abrogates the other.

2. In addition to this, the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said,

“I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah.”

Yes, it's good that he said "Islamic," but as long as people think we're dealing with "extremism," not mainstream Islam, we will be stuck with the illusion of a moderate Islam, which does not exist, never has and never will.

Fjordman:

Quite right.

RS

Yes, great idea, George. Once Germany was conquered we outlawed the Nazi party and fascist ideology. Brilliant idea doing that with Islam as well. Oh, not what you had in mind?

"Now, in the 21st century, our nation is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- the ideology of Islamic extremism,"

It falls short of its mark, especially in light of the fact of the friendly forum Bush was speaking in, but it is refreshing to hear him use the word Islamic.

It is unrealistic at this point to expect Bush to have labeled the enemy ideology solely as Islam, but it is not unrealistic for him to buck the State Department and re-institute the phrase Islamic Jihad.

I've always thought Bush was better and wiser than Condi's antics would lead one to believe.

=============

But will he actually do something about Persia? (aka Iran)

He clearly wants an historic legacy as a liberator. But will he act?

=============

Regarding Mr. Fjordman's comment, I think we are a loooong way from any American executive at any of the upper levels of gov't acknowledging what we know to be true of mohammedanism.

There is just too much regard for the traditions and ways of polite diplomacy -- and above all, too much silly piety about "religion".

The whole world it seems, is hooked on the idea that "religion" is an inherently good thing. The notion that a religion could be bad or even problematic, is just beyond their mental reach.

I just don't see an American president identifying mohammedanism as the evil doctrine of an evil empire.

... which, when one compares life in the mohammedan zone, to life in the rest of the world, one clearly sees that it is.

==============

The problem for the mohammedans is to question and evaluate the doctrines of mohammedanism.

The problem for the west is to question and evaluate religion in general.

We seem to be caught between the atheists who condemn all religion (especially Christianity) and various sorts of believer who approve of all religion.

Nobody seems to be forming an objective evaluation. It seems to be the third rail of public discourse these days.

By their fruits ...

I think that much of the present conflict is being addressed recent history and the past is not being addressed at all. I was listening to the NPR Diane Rehm show and much of what was talked about was flawed and misrepresented by certain speakers on the panel. I would hope that Islamic supremacist attitude is combated just like with Nazism and KKK was defeated. The world is full of peaceful creative and myriad of cultures that makes this a rich world with any of this hate and bigotry that Islam has.

"islamic extremism" Bush has it close, but no cigar. islam is extreme therefore neither words can be separated. where you find the pious muslim you will find terrorism and or no critism against islamic terrorism but acceptance of islamic terrorism.

Perhaps one day the word "fundamentalists" will replace "extremists". Maybe he would even be given a pass from the MSM, since Christian "fundamentalists" are considered by them to be contemptible and in no way representative of 'real' Christians.

"After World War II we helped Germany and Japan build free societies and strong economies," he told the freshly-minted air force officers.

But first, rather than trying to "win hearts and minds" we completely devastated them and removed any will to continue fighting. And in the case of Japan, we told them what role religion would play in the new constitution . . .exactly none.

Until we start fighting this war the way we fought WWII, we won't win.

Bushs' now a lame duck and nothing he says now will make any difference to his administration.

I hope, really hope, that this is the beginning of Mr Bushes cajoles. Maybe he'll grow a pair and come out with the truth now that his term is over.

He's probably gonna follow the code of the west an do it to Iran before they do it to us and maybe Syria as well. Why not go out with a bang and tell the whole truth about Islam as well.

The sentence, and the sentiment, both being not-quite-right, do little good. The policies in place, stubbornly maintained even as more and more is revealed or understood about the confusion and incoherence of the policies (including the censoring of that useful, even indispensable word "Jihad"). It's too late for Bush. Even when he approaches, or starts to approach, the truth, these statements cannot -- as they might six years ago -- do much good. At this point, given the squandering in Iraq, even when he starts to say things that start to make sense, he will not be heeded, and even sensible remarks -- if those remarks have been made by him -- may well be more easily dismissed than they should be.

It's a pity. The Iraq venture has, up to now, made the world a safer place both for the Iranian regime, embodying one kind of mass hysteria, and for the phenomenon of Obamolatry, embodying another kind.

I DON'T GET IT!!! Bush can say "Islamic" but he won't let the FBI or CIA say "jihad"? CRAZY!!!!!!!!

Some of you may be interested in this new online/hardcopy magazine with its discussions of these and related subjects:
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/85

Called 'Standpoint', it seems to be British in origin or orientation and with a healthy editorial slant; ie, not so much a slant as a sane worldview such as we espouse at JW/DW.

If you don't like it don't blame me; I have no shares or other pecuniary interest in it.

And if you want to read a petulant response from a Guardianist, just for fun:-
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/sholto_byrnes/2008/05/voices_from_the_right.html

Soon there will be some "outrage" expressed over these comments. Then the President will "clarify" his statements and emphasize that Islam is a "peace loving" religion.

Rinse, lather, repeat...

So bush strayed off the saudi-approved reservation. A phone call from prince bin talal will send him scampering back. Heck, bush might even purge the Defense Dept. of a Coughlin disciple just to get back in their good graces and ensure that saudi $ for his presidential library doesn't mysteriously get held up.

What's wrong with this statement:

"In today's struggle, we are once again facing evil men who despise freedom, and despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule. And once again, our nation is called to defeat these adversaries -- and secure the peace for millions across the world."

Answer: Everything.

We are not facing "evil men" who "despise freedom and despise America." That misstates the case. They view the world quite differently, and their notion of "freedom" is the "freedom" that comes not from mere man-made democracy, or solicitousness for the individual, but from the true bliss that comes from being not free but rather a "slave of Allah," fulfilling the duties he laid down, and carefully observing the regulations as to what is Haram and what Halal.

They do not "despise America" especially because it is America, as is implied, but have the same contempt and hostility for America that they do for all Infidels. It is just that America is more powerful and, at least in some ways, has been more resolute than other Infidel states -- though hardly resolute enough. America is regarded as the head of the Infidel camp, and hence America is a special focus of anger, but were it to be replaced by some other Infidel country that proved more resistant, that country would replace America as the most hated.

Their aim, claims Bush, is "to subject millions to their violent rule. Is that their aim? They see themselves as fighting to remove all obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam, and do not see themselves as trying to establish the rule of any particular group of men, mere slaves of Allah. They want, rather, the Qur'an (as glossed by the Sunnah) to be the final authority, the real ruler of the well-run Muslim state.

"Once again our nation is called upon to defeat these adversaries" -- as if, in World War II, the Americans had done it all by themselves, and impliedly, has no need for allies. People in Great Britian and Russia would be amazed at this description.

But still more worrisome is Bush's insistence that we will "defeat these adversaries." If the texts and tenets of Islam are what prompt Jihad, and if the trillions in oil revenues and millions of Muslim migrants to the Western countries explain the new power of Muslims to participate in Jihad, then there is no "defeat" in view, but merely a re-dimensioning of the problem, a cutting it down to size, which is possible, and Islam can be put back into its bottle, constrained, while the entire Infidel world -- not necessarily led by any one country -- comes to its collective senses about the meaning, and menace, of Islam.

And there is this:

"'And once again, our enemies will be no match for the men and women of the United States Air Force,' the US leader said."

Which enemies are those? The Iranians trying to protect nuclear installations are certainly "no match for the men and women of the United States Air Force." What about the 5-7 million Muslims in France, the 2 million Muslims in Great Britain, the 1 million Muslims in The Netherlands? Are they any "match" for the "men and women of the United States Air Force" or, to put the question differently, how are the "men and women of the United States Air Force" able to limit the deployment of the Money Weapon, to halt campaigns of Da'wa all over the West, and to stop demographic conquest by persuading the governments of the Western world to halt, and then reverse, Muslim migration and its consequences?

"War" is much more than bombs away.

This he sometimes acts as if he comprehends, then relapses yet again.

It's an intolerable situation. Not leaders, but people taking, here and there, a "leadership role" and playing that part, incidentally, quite unconvincingly.

From the speech:

"Now, in the 21st century, our nation is once again contending with an ideology that seeks to sow anger and hatred and despair -- the ideology of Islamic extremism," said Bush...",

"In today's struggle, we are once again facing evil men who despise freedom, and despise America, and aim to subject millions to their violent rule."

Does President Bush ever wonder just what it is that such extremists are being extreme about? Something they read?

Does he wonder what that violent rule is based upon and why it conflicts with Western notions of democracy and freedom of conscience?

Does he know that Islamic teachings are not limited to Qur'an? Has he ever heard of a hadith or a sira or of Al Azhar?

For whatever reasons, has he not publicly stated, all along, what he really knows about Islam?

Or, like Olbermann, does he remain ignorant?

You are so close now Mr. Bush. Now open your Quran and officailly link Quranic scripture, and Hadith to "Radical Islam", and Jihad.

Posted by: Fjordman at May 29, 2008 1:30 PM

LOL.. I knew readers would fall for this! Which shows readers do not know their POTUS/C-I-C, which shows readers merely follow the "speaches" "declarations" "promises"

First sentence:

US President George W. Bush on Wednesday likened America's efforts to quell Islamic extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan to the US fight against fascism during World War II.

Now, notice "in Iraq and Afghanistan"

Last sentence:

"Today we must do the same in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by helping these young democracies grow in freedom and prosperity we will lay the foundations of peace for the generations to come."

Notice again, "in Afghanistan and Iraq"

And if correctly written, the title should read: "Bush likens war against Islamic extremism to fight against fascism.. in Afghanistan and Iraq".

In short, POTUS still believes:
- "Islam is Peace".
- Palestine is "occupied".
- Israel should give lives and land for "peace".
- He needs to find ways to demonstrate that war agains terror is NOT war against Islam.
- Islamic extrimism has nothing to do with Islam.
- Majority of muslims are peace-loving(notwithstanding the "peace" "peace-loving" muslims "love" is the peaceful silence of Dhimmis, remaining after Kaffurs are killed).
- Ourside Afghanistan and Iraq, there is no Islamic extremism(and definitely not "Islamic terror").

.. but for a moment, he got you.. AGAIN (after he got your votes, tax-dollars, which he is funnelling to Abbas, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan; per instructions from his financers/extended-family in Riyadh)!

And in the case of Japan, we told them what role religion would play in the new constitution . . .exactly none.
by walterc

It's my understanding that we went further than that and required a CHANGE in their religion - the divinity of the emperor was discarded.

Imagine the West imposing a change in Islam that expressly forbade the killing of all non-believers and of all Muslims who leave the faith in adulthood and (for good measure) allowed the practice of other faiths in Arabia.

The whole world it seems, is hooked on the idea that "religion" is an inherently good thing. The notion that a religion could be bad or even problematic, is just beyond their mental reach.

The most puzzling aspect of this “war on Islamic terrorism” is the normal human brain cannot wrap itself around the fact that Islam’s prime directive, as established by its founder Mohammad and successor Caliphs, is to go and conquer the world for Allah; their ‘hijacked’ pagan Mesopotamian moon god raised to the ‘One’ (at the exclusion of all other world religions); which makes it a Supremacist ideology carried out for political goals of world domination. Thus, it is NOT a religion as other religions, since other religions are a personal communion between ‘man and God’. But not Islam, which dictates every act and thought under penalty of severe punishments for ever questioning or doubting, or else… (sound of large knife cutting across one’s throat)… which includes all non-believers, heretics, and apostates. Allah 'the Merciful and Forgiving' does NOT LOVE them, so cut the crap about this being a ‘religion of peace’. It's a Cult.

In fact, Islam is a Supremacist ‘Cult of Allah’. What’s so hard to understand? But most people won’t go there… because it's too troubling for normal human brains who want to believe God is an 'All Loving Being'. Obviously Mohammad's Allah is not. Not a religion.

What's to understand?

OT re: Mark Steyn

http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/2008/05/we-are-all-mark-steyn-call-for-slogans.html

More at Covenant Zone. Check it out if you care about keeping our Freedom of Speech.

OT re: Mark Steyn

http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/

You don't have to compare Islamic extremism to fascism...it is fascism.

Just as the Japanese, Italians, Germans, Spanish ect, all had different national identities and yet were all considered fascist, so are the Muslims who believe in religious socialism based on the Koran.

After WW2 the bulk of the fanatics were dead or in prison, hardly the case today.
The man lives in a fantasy, he's a living powerpoint slide show.
What we need is clarity of purpose. What we need is to inspire dread. They'd soon shut up.

Since the Koran preaches nothing moderate, there is technically nothing but "Islamic extremism" coming from their source document, that playbook for global domination, "The Recitation", commanded to become the Only Rule for all humanity by the intolerant, misogynistic pedophile warlord Mohammad.

This imperialistic effort for establishing a Total Theocratic Tyranny can take the form of the crude violent jihad, or the stealth jihad (AKA the soft "legal" jihad), or the sheer demographic jihad, or by infiltration through the immigrant/refugee/student/guest worker jihad, or whatever method subverts, invades, undermines, weakens and convinces the infidels to surrender, submit and be silent.

Bush remains as obtuse about the true nature of the enemy and their foul Ideology as a blind cave fish.

Too little, too late.

Thanks, StephenA55. The link to Standpoint is a keeper. An article entitled "A Religion for Atheists" is well worth reading for those of us who were raised with Christian beliefs, but do not call ourselves Christians.

Bush finally does something good. He might as well let the snake out of the bag, his term's almost up anyway.

Islam in action = Islamic extremism

Bush is not against Islam that is written in books. If they are dead letters on paper - he's fine with it.

But if Muslims start to attack against our freedoms - then he thinks we should fight back.