Who said that? What greasy Islamophobe dared to call into question the sincerity or adequacy of Muslim condemnations of terrorism?
Would you believe Khaled al-Jenfawi, a columnist for Kuwait's Al-Seyassah daily?
Anyway, in this story, "Muslims condemn Mumbai attacks, worry about image," by Karin Laub for The Associated Press, November 30, Muslim leaders and spokesmen worry a great deal about the possibility that these jihad attacks in Mumbai by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ will lead people to think ill of Islam.
Of course, there is one thing they could do about that that would actually begin to make people think better of Islam, but no one even whispers anything about doing it in this article or anywhere else. And that would be to begin to saturate mosques and madrassas with the message that jihad warfare is never justified, that the imperative to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Islamic law must be decisively rejected, and that peaceful coexistence as equals with unbelievers is to be maintained indefinitely. If Islamic clerics stopped talking about conquering Europe and America, and began to teach the opposite, things might begin to improve. If Muslim leaders worldwide energetically pronounced takfir upon -- that is, declared to be non-Muslim -- all those who maintained belief in the Qur'an's literal words of warfare, and in the traditional Islamic doctrines regarding jihad warfare (whether hot war or otherwise), and upon anyone who wished to impose Sharia upon unbelievers by whatever means and at whatever speed, and if those leaders demonstrated their sincerity by actions instead of mere words, informed non-Muslims might begin to think better of Islam.
But these things will not happen. They're not even on the table. Instead, many of the same people quoted in this article work to brand any non-Muslim who points out the ways in which jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism as a "bigot" or a "racist." And that in itself, however effective a tactic it may be among the ignorant and easily intimidated, is revealing.
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Muslims from the Middle East to Britain and Austria condemned Sunday the Mumbai shooting rampage by suspected Islamic militants as senseless terrorism, but also found themselves on the defensive once again about bloodshed linked to their religion.Intellectuals and community leaders called for greater efforts to combat religious fanaticism. [...]
"The occupation of the synagogue and killing people in hotels tarnishes the Muslim faith," said Kazim al-Muqdadi, a political science lecturer at Baghdad University. "Anyone who slaughters people and screams `Allahu Akbar' (God is Great) is sick and ignorant."
In Britain, home to nearly two million Muslims, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, said that "a handful of terrorists like this bring the entire faith into disrepute." [...]
A man identified as Sheik Youssef al-Ayeri said the killings are in line with Islam.
"It's all right for Muslims to set the infidels' castles on fire, drown them with water .... and take some of them as prisoners, whether young or old, women or men, because it is one of many ways to beat them," he wrote in the al-Fallujah forum. [...]
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the attacks as terrorism, but added that the violence is rooted in "unjust policies" aimed at destabilizing the region. He did not elaborate. [...]
Saudi Arabia said in a statement carried earlier this week by the Saudi Press Agency that it "strongly condemns and denounces this criminal act." An editorial Friday in Saudi's English-language Arab News said that "no civilized person ... can be anything but revolted and sickened by the terrorist attacks in Mumbai."
However, Jonathan Fighel, an Israeli counterterrorism expert, said Saudi organizations have been funneling money to Muslim militants in Kashmir.
"This demonstrates exactly the double game and, I would say, the hypocrisy of the Saudi regime," said Fighel of the Israel-based International Institute for Counter-Terrorism.
Throughout the Muslim world, the attacks set off soul-searching.
"I think that Muslims should raise their voice against such actions. They should forge a coalition to fight such phenomena, because it harms them and damages their image," said Ali Abdel Muhsen, 22, a Muslim engineering student in the West Bank city of Nablus.
Muslims and Arabs must confront the violence "that is taking place in our name and in the name of our (Islamic) tenets," wrote Khaled al-Jenfawi, a columnist for Kuwait's Al-Seyassah daily.
"Unfortunately, we have yet to see a distinguished popular condemnation in the traditional Arab or Muslim communities that strongly rejects what is happening in the name of Islam or Arab nationalism," wrote al-Jenfawi.
An editorial Friday in Saudi's English-language Arab News said that "no civilized person ... can be anything but revolted and sickened by the terrorist attacks in Mumbai."
"no civilized person" -- well, that lets the Moslems off the hook right there.
A man identified as Sheik Youssef al-Ayeri said the killings are in line with Islam.
"It's all right for Muslims to set the infidels' castles on fire, drown them with water .... and take some of them as prisoners, whether young or old, women or men, because it is one of many ways to beat them," he wrote in the al-Fallujah forum.
That's awesome that the AP printed that. It's tragic that this was the only time the MSM associated these attacks with Islam.
From above: "Anyone who slaughters people and screams `Allahu Akbar' (God is Great) is sick and ignorant."
I agree with that...Seems there are a lot of sick and ignorant people in Islam.
Does shouting Allahu Akbar while someone else is slaughtering people count?
Well, perhaps we can't manufacture recognition as distinguished here, but we do have several frequent Muslim posters. To them: Gather your loved ones and let's turn this thread into THE international memorial site for open and honest, complete and unqualified condemnation of the killing of these infidels by our resident Muslim posters, their family and co-religionist friends. Post now, post often, let's hear some broken hearts, tear-soaked bereavement, collective shame and disavowal, resolute outrage... a bottomless, compelling outpouring of support for the dead infidels' families, and commitment to whatever it takes to keep this from happening again ever again in the name of Islam.
(*crickets*)
What no cheering in the streets with banners waving and guns raised like the Palestinians did after 911...can a leopard change its spots.
From above:
"I think that Muslims should raise their voice against such actions. They should forge a coalition to fight such phenomena, because it harms them and damages their image," said Ali Abdel Muhsen, 22, a Muslim engineering student in the West Bank city of Nablus.
In other words, Muslims should avoid committing atrocities such as randomly gunning down infidels, earmarking Jews for murder, and turning hotels and other buildings into infernos because such actions hurt Islam's image in areas of the world still dominated demographically and politically by non-Muslims. Otherwise, these actions (or, as Abdel Muhsen euphemistically calls them, "phenomena") would be perfectly acceptable, so it seems.
Jihad warfare is never justified? Of course it isn't. But remove that from Islam and the whole house of cards will begin to crumble, founded, as it is, on force to subdue reason. Muslims know this, even the cowardly, confused and useless moderates, and that is why war upon the unbeliever will never be disavowed. It's all that Islam really has-----terror to compel submission. Remove jihad warfare and Islam will no more appeal to the majority of forty thousand human beings than would the institution of slavery.
Jihad Watch: You really have to do something about TypePad. It's awful. Methinks it might almost be an Islamic plot to disallow posting here at this sight------and I'm not even the conspiracy type.
looking back on history, this is no surprize concerning the way islam was spread, by the sword, can any muslim say no to this?
"Anyone who slaughters people and screams `Allahu Akbar' (God is Great) is sick and ignorant."--quoted from the article.
I agree.
“We met the workers of Khaybar coming out in the morning with their spades and baskets. When they saw the apostle and the army they cried, ‘Muhammad with his force,’ and turned tail and fled. The apostle said, ‘Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”
Ishaq, p. 511.
Let's hear it for Melanie Phillips at The Daily Mail. A voice of reason in stark contrast to the jihadists' most useful ally, the BBC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090762/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-Mumbai-atrocity-wake-frighteningly-unprepared-Britain.html
The Government and security establishment refuse to acknowledge that what we are facing is a religious war.
Instead, they think that Islamist terrorism is driven by grievances which are basically the fault of the West.
But you have only to look around the world or at the history of the past four decades and more to see the absurdity and inorance of this view.
Look at Thailand, for example, currently convulsed by Islamist terrorism in the south with bombings, beheadings and the murder of Buddhists.
Look at the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. Look at the Islamist terrorism in the Philippines.
Look ... at the attacks variously upon New York, Bali, Istanbul, Jakarta, Sharm el Sheikh, Casablanca, Madrid, London and India.
If we don't understand what we are fighting, we cannot defeat it. Mumbai is yet another wake-up call - to a Britain that is still in a trance of denial.
"— Muslims from the Middle East to Britain and Austria condemned Sunday the Mumbai shooting rampage by suspected Islamic militants as senseless terrorism,..."
but not a word against Jihad....
commonsense
seconding what you said.
They only disapprove of awful stuff like this if it 'harms Muslims' and damages Muslims' image.
Islam has no conception of the Golden Rule.
Whatever benefits Muslims is 'good'; whatever disadvantages them, is 'bad'.
And so far as I can tell, Islam subscribes the creed of Lord Voldemort: "there is neither good nor evil, there is only Power, and those too weak to seek it".
Here, for the benefit of new visitors, is the great 18th-century Scottish freethinker, David Hume, summing up Muslim ethics, or rather the lack thereof, in one magnificent paragraph, first shared with us here at jihadwatch by its discoverer, four years ago:
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet {Mohammed} had really attained a just sentiment of morals?
"Let us attend to his narration; and we shall soon find,
"that he bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society.
"No steady rule of right seems there to be attended to;
"*and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers*." {My emphasis added - dda}
David Hume (1711-1776) "Of the Standard of Taste: Paragraph 4" (1757)
http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20of%20art/hume%20on%20taste.htm#p4
Posted by: Rublev at September 4, 2004 1:17 PM
Marco Polo observed exactly the same phenomenon four centuries previously:
"The Muslims in Persia are wicked and treacherous.
"The law which their prophet Mohamet [Muhammad] has given them lays down
"that *any harm they may do to one who does not accept their law, and any appropriation of his goods, is no sin at all* {my emphasis added - dda}..
"And if they suffer death at the hands of Christians, they are accounted martyrs."
(The Travels of Marco Polo, Penguin Books 1958, pp. 57-58.).
In 'The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades', pp. 5-7, and then again in 'The Truth About Muhammad', pp. 97-99, Mr Spencer discusses the legendary Nakhla Raid, carried out by Mohammed's followers during a period that the pre-Islamic Arabs regarded as a truce month in which fighting was forbidden.
Allegedly, Mohammed was at first disturbed by this, but then, as Mr Spencer observes, on p. 99 of Truth About Muhammad:
"another helpful revelation came from Allah, explainng that the Quraysh's opposition to Muhammad was more offensive in his [allah's] eyes than the Muslims' violation of the sacred month: the raid was therefore justified.
"They question thee, O Muhammad, with regard to warfare in the sacred month. Say: warfare therein is a great transgression, but to turn men from the way of Allah, and to disbelieve in him and in the Inviolable Place of Worship, and to expel His people thence, is a greater transgression with Allah; for persecution is worse than killing".
"Whatever sin the Nakhla raiders had committed in violating the sacred month was nothing compared to the Quraysh's sins...
"This was a momentous incident, for it would set a pattern: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral principle.
"Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency".
Amir Taheri says says Mumbai terrorists were imitating the Prophet Muhammad
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/11/30/amir-taheri-says-says-mumbai-terrorists-were-imitating-the-prophet-muhammad/
But this is entirely a Madison Avenue effort -- an effort to rescue the "image of Islam." These efforts are always the same: a handful of Arabs and Muslims may express their "condemnation" which is not heart-felt but mechanical; this mechanical "deploring" is both fleeting and feigned, and among those who expressed such sentiments just after the 9/11/2001 attacks, in order to deflect criticism, were found to have made quite different remarks to fellow Muslims, from those they were busy making to audiences of Interfaith-Healing Infidels.
One would like not a phony "condemnation" of this or that act, but a recognition that all over the world, Muslims have been attacking and killing Christians, and Jews, and Hindus, and Buddhists, and anyone else who is non-Muslim but who somehow is seen as getting in the way of the demands, and the future dominance, of Muslims and of Islam. From the Christian villagers kidnapped in the southern Philippines, to the Christian schoolgirls decapitated in Indonesia and the bombs directed at foreign Infidels and local Hindus in Bali, to the Buddhist monks and schoolteachers and farmers killed in southern Thailand, to the Hindus beaten to death in Bangladesh, or the Christians charged with trumped-up capital crimes and then killed while being held in custody in Pakistan, to the attacks on Hindus in India itself (of which the last one, a few days ago, was merely the latest, and the most spectacular), to Amsterdam, and Madrid, and Moscow, and Beslan, and London, and New York, and Washington, where Muslims have deliberately killed Infidels, sometimes one at a time (Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh), sometimes en masse (the schoolchildren in Beslan, the subway passengers in Madrid, the bus and underground passengers in London). And if to the thousands of terrorist incidents perpetrated by Muslims, and recorded just since the 9/11/2001 attacks, one were to add those attacks that have been foiled, which did not take place and of which the public scarcely has any idea, then the full extent of those engaged in Jihad through violence becomes clearer. And if, to that, one adds all of the ways in which the other instruments of Jihad -- deployment of the Money Weapon, and carefully-targetted campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest, proceed -- one realizes that a war is on, at every level, of every kind, but that the only part of that war that the Infidels dimly perceive, and then largely attempt to explain away as prompted by poverty, or unemployment, or this or that discrete complaint, and not prompted, as in fact underneath everything it is and must be, by what Islam inculcates. Rich or poor, billionaire or beggar, those Muslims who take their Islam seriously remain a permanent menace to all Infidels, and we have no way of knowing which Muslims take their Islam seriously, or do not do so now but might well in the future, should they supper any psychic desarroi.
It's all, right now, on the playing fields of "image." The "image" of Islam. Good, bad, indifferent? An "image" problem.
Surely there are more people who have come to their senses who can now, unembarrassedly, reveal themselves, and share their own advanced understanding of Islam with their families, their friends, their acquaintances, and help to spread the word, that our elites attempt to suppress, about the meaning, and the menace, of Islam.
I know this is off topic, but it is a delight to read. I still can't stop smiling. Sorry.
http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1516/26
Here's a news flash from canada.
For several years now the Leftist Socialist party in canada has been far too cozy with the Islamists during the bogus Peace-marches ,they also took sides with Hezballah during the Lebanon crisis and they fully supported the "Alleged" islamists Maher Arar who tried to Sue candians for $400,000,000.00 after he failed to snek into the USA on a canadian Passport to meet up with his CAIR connects once he fled Tunisia as the Police moved in on his relatives that had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
But now you have to listen to a Political Coup attempt by the NDP's Taliban-Jack layton and the Separatists-Bloc Party of Quebec , the 8:00 minute audio proves that the Coup was staged long before the Auto-crisis bail-out announcement by our PM S.Harper.
The youTube audio details how the Islamists friendly Parties in canada have found a common thread to overthrow the Current Government in canada , these back-stabbing weasels should be arressted for treason and shipped to a Islamic Nation run by Sharia Law.
http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/ndp-conference-call-audio-part-1/
It all makes sense now for why the NDP and many Public Sector Unions have backed Hezballah and Hamas friendly islamic Org. in Canada , they have a overt hatred for any Westerners and will sell the Souls to Allah for a brief period of Power to reign over us.
They sammed the MSM with their rants about democracy until the Voters didn't vote the way they wanted , they it became a Dictatorship for them to topple and seize power.
Thank God our PM had the foresight to move Monday's session to december 8th so canadians could see exactly how treasonous they weasels are
who were cauht on tape plotting to overthrow Parliament.
Saudi Arabia said in a statement carried earlier this week by the Saudi Press Agency that it "strongly condemns and denounces this criminal act."
Killing someone in a bank robbery is a criminal act. The organized training for, and the subsequent execution of such a coordinated slaughter is more than just a “criminal act”.
An editorial Friday in Saudi's English-language Arab News said that "no civilized person ... can be anything but revolted and sickened by the terrorist attacks in Mumbai."
But what was written in Arabic, and what is taught in the schools and madrasas?
Krazy Kafir
That Steyn piece was hilarious...thanks!
TYPEPAD SUCKS
From al Graudian: posted by Matthew Weaver -
A self-defeating claim if ever there was one. Terrorists have no religion? How can you be unified and fight an enemy you aren't even allowed to name?! Idiots. I figure, the next time the mujis come a blazin' time to tell the press to pick a side and not tell us how we should think or believe. There's a collective comeuppance a comin'
Mark Steyn is brilliant. I've yet to read a better political satirist. And he makes you laugh too - except for those who are being fairly lampooned. He enrages them.
Oh well, just another incident brought to you by the misunderstanders of Islam. Wouldn't you think their coreligionists would set them straight???
I just want to say thanks to the entire JW/DW crew for their hard work in bringing so much truth and light to the Mumbai massacre.
God bless and protect you all. And all of the comment crew as well.
Most sincerely:
Undaunted
Should anything terrible befall the Jews, the British press has blood on their hands. They have done everything they can to demonize an entire people, feed the worst stereotypes and promote every crackpot accusation as worthy of repetition.
In a brief article on the rescue of the Rabbi's son, the Times Online chose to close the story with this quote:
"T. K. Bhat, who lives close to the Chabad house, said: 'It could be that the attitudes of the Chabad, which gives the sense of an elite club for Jews alone, is part of what provoked the terrorists to target them for the attack.'"
I am regularly angered by what I read in the press, but this is the worst. I feel like throwing up.
They could have chosen from among many quotes about the good feelings of Indian citizens toward their Jewish neighbors. Instead, they went with one that gives the impression that the mere presence of religious Jews is so offensive and objectionable that it could cause people to commit such terrible atrocities.
Solomonia's blog pointed me to this story. Here is the link to the Times Online article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5248330.ece
Muslim leaders and spokesmen worry a great deal about the possibility that these jihad attacks in Mumbai by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ will lead people to think ill of Islam.
Yeah...Ok... What I see is...
Muslim leaders and spokesmen worry a great deal about the possibility that these jihad attacks in Mumbai by a Tiny Minority of Extremists™ will lead people to WAKE UP TO THE TO THE DANGER OF ISLAM.
Islam is not a legitimate religion any more than Scientology is.
Islam is a government in the guise of a religion, originally created to benefit one man. Now dead, his creation goes on killing and killing in his dead name.
Islam is a lie and truth is killing it.
And apparently...Typepad still SUCKS!
"The occupation of the synagogue and killing people in hotels tarnishes the Muslim faith," said Kazim al-Muqdadi, a political science lecturer at Baghdad University.
.....
"I think that Muslims should raise their voice against such actions. They should forge a coalition to fight such phenomena, because it harms them and damages their image," said Ali Abdel Muhsen, 22, a Muslim engineering student in the West Bank city of Nablus.
.................
No concern for the Hindu, Jewish and Christian victims in Mumbai--only a concern about how this affects Muslims and the image of Islam.
Dumbledore's Army wrote:
"They only disapprove of awful stuff like this if it 'harms Muslims' and damages Muslims' image.
Islam has no conception of the Golden Rule.
Whatever benefits Muslims is 'good'; whatever disadvantages them, is 'bad'."
Absolutely.
Kinana of Khaybar cited:
"The apostle said, ‘Allah akbar! Khaybar is destroyed. When we arrive in a people’s square it is a bad morning for those who have been warned.’”
Ishaq, p. 511.
................
Thanks for reminding us, Kinana. The terror was the same in modern Mumbai on Wednesday as it was at the Khaybar oasis fourteen centuries ago. It is always a bad day when the Mohammedans "arrive in a people's square".
Quick, the Islamic Umma needs more window-dressing! And don't forget the usual--dissimulation, moral relativism, grievance mongering and play-the-victim!
Actually, I do think this kind of stuff is affecting a lot of people in the Umma in a positive way. Maybe it kicked them from the 16th into the 17th century. After all, there are 1.2 billion of them and still this atrocity is a rarity.
"That's awesome that the AP printed that. It's tragic that this was the only time the MSM associated these attacks with Islam."
Posted by: jdamn
I caught that too. The editor at AP, which is famous even among the MSM for its cowering, dhimmified response to Muslim infiltration of the West, only slightly behind behind The Guardian, in fact, must have gone to the loo or something to have let that through. I assume that heads will roll.
If Islam isn't such a bad religion, where are the people defending it? Where are they all? If there were any the media would gobble them up.
Christopher Hamilton
The Right Opinion, for the Right Wing
4Infidels wrote:
In a brief article on the rescue of the Rabbi's son, the Times Online chose to close the story with this quote:
"T. K. Bhat, who lives close to the Chabad house, said: 'It could be that the attitudes of the Chabad, which gives the sense of an elite club for Jews alone, is part of what provoked the terrorists to target them for the attack.'"
I am regularly angered by what I read in the press, but this is the worst. I feel like throwing up.
...............
Repulsive--more blaming the victim. And absurd, also--the idea that *Pakistani* terrorists would be moved to attack the Chabad House for these reasons are ridiculous.
Also--what sort of unbelievably palatial Xanadu would engender such murderous jealousy?
Here's a picture of Mumbai Lubavitch Chabad House:
ttp://www4.lubavitch.com/files.html/8596866/image|jpeg/chabadmumbai336.jpg?scale_max=336
A modest three-story structure. I suppose murderous jealousy is cheap in some places. sarc/
Here's the proper link:
http://www4.lubavitch.com/files.html/8596866/image|jpeg/chabadmumbai336.jpg?scale_max=336
Dude, you know that arrogant attitude was so offensive that they could feel it all the way over in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
And that smug little toddler boy...
/sarc (again; sorry, I'm trying to stomach it)
So were they elite, or were they missionaries, which would imply that they were trying to gain a following? Pick one and run with it, MSM. If you're going to vilify a handful of benign civilians at least be consistent in your fabricated reasons as to why they were so detestable.
Actually, I'm more comfortable when Mohammedans don't condemn atrocities such as these. Hearing those things is like salt in the wounds - not much different from somebody shooting a member of my family and then telling me 'Sorry'.
Looks like the Jews @ Chabad House were singled out for torture, and actually killed on the 26th itself. If that is the case, the Israeli security agents who criticized the Indian NSG handling of this operation wouldn't have gained anything had the Indians delayed the entry and done exactly what the Israelis said should have been done.
The doctor who treated them himself was shaken. Thank God the child of the rabbi was rescued - I can't imagine what he must have witnessed.
Now watch the Vast Majority of Moderate Muslims TM all around the globe, marching on the streets demonstrating in their hundreds of millions condemning these heinous acts, "not in the name of our peaceful and tolerant Islam."
Any minute now... Well, maybe not.
The mention of the Golden Rule by a previous poster reminded me of a story my mother told me when I was a child. She'd heard it from her mother, and so on. It's about the Jewish sage Hillel (ca. 60 BCE - ca. 9 CE). It seems a non-Jew asked Hillel to explain the Torah to him while standing on one leg. Hillel replied thus: "Do not do to others what is abhorrent to you. This is the entire Torah; all else is commentary. Now go and study."
Rabbi and Mrs. Holtzberg lived the Hillel tradition and died for it.
Interllectuals wow kinda like an oxymoron no.
Do not expect condemnation on attacks on infidels time and again the news has never challenged a muslim leader saying its a shame muslims killinfg muslims never mentioning others.
Those that have said this karzai, princes of saudi arabia,cair leaders,and the only one that said anything about christians jews being killed was guess who saddam hussien 911.
Got to remember that when there is a major terror attacks, Muslims are two-face, meaning in public they say words to condemm such acts, but in private among their own they offer words of praise for the holy jihad actions.
And how is that different from the rest of the time, Bigcatgirl? Almost all of the Muslims I know are absurdly saccharine as they live in little Mohammedan pedophile-housing enclaves and shuffle off to their MSU/Hamas meetings.
Well it means jdamm that in order to play nice and get brownie points with the non-Muslims, Muslims will do the two-face thing. It is different in private or at the meetings you discribed.
I just think that the taqiyya game goes without saying these days, and that any remarks they may make about terrorism, even if they mean them, mean something different in Mohammedanese, like it excludes jihad and kafirs are never innocent. They lie about not wanting to stone adulterers, to not keep all women in a permanent state of sex slavery, and about not being racist and not hating the Free World and being here for the express purpose of destroying it.
It is easy for Arab columnists and even Imams to condemn attacks against Hindus because Arabs have neutral feelings towards what they call` hunoud'(Indians, Pakistanis and Bdeshis)
They generally view them as despicable weaklings and servants.
In places like Iraq, the expression `do you think I am an Indian'? means do you think I am stupid!
But no Arab columnist dares to condemn terrorist attacks against Israel or America and attacks against Africans are not even mentioned in Arab media because Black Africans are just `abed' slaves whose death doesnt really matter anyway..
That is why not one Arab Imam condemned the Kenya and Tanzania attacks in 98.
So this must be seen in that sadly racist context. One has to know Arab culture and Arab mentality to understand what they say and how they react to events.
What no cheering in the streets with banners waving and guns raised like the Palestinians did after 911...can a leopard change its spots.
Posted by: DetectiveArbogast
Not at all. No cheering in the streets means they learned from 9/11 but they learned the wrong lesson: celebrate where no cameras can see you. Party in private.
In Britain, home to nearly two million Muslims, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, said that "a handful of terrorists like this bring the entire faith into disrepute."
Believe that if you want to. I'm less concerned with that handful of terrorists than I am with you and the lessons you teach. That handful of terrorists are celebrated by you and by others. Islam teaches that they are to be revered and that a similiar death should be the goal of any pious Muslim. It's the billion or so Muslims who refuse to reject violence who have brought "the entire faith into disrepute".
For every group of nineteen there must be nineteen thousand (or more) who donate their money to jihad, who call for jihad, who celebrate the death of any infidel. All Muslims have brought the faith into disrepute.
PMK
I think you are wrong about Muslims revering Jihadists. My experience has been that most Muslims have no time for them but wouldn't say so openly for fear of being seen as `sell outs' or `coconuts' trying to ingratiate themselves with the infidels.
Talk to them privately and most Muslims will tell you what they really think Jihadists are `crazed morons' is among the mildest descriptions I heard..
PMK,
"Not at all. No cheering in the streets means they learned from 9/11 but they learned the wrong lesson: celebrate where no cameras can see you. Party in private."
How true. Now that there are cell phones with camera picture taking power, Muslims now know better to do the tayaqqa bigtime to the non-Muslims so to not be viewed as being supportive of violent jihad. In private, the "high fives" are done.
They're still grateful for what they do. Even if they actually don't condone the attacks it's simply because it makes it more difficult for them to infiltrate our society and destroy it slowly. That's why they claim the Jews were responsible for 9/11 publicly but they venerate the jihadist as 'shaheed' in private, every Firday at the sleeper cell among their own kind. Their jihad is different, but it's still jihad. Gorgi, those Muslims who "confide" in infidels are also jihadists, especially those who always want to talk about Islam to (not with) you. They're doing propaganda for the cult and sizing you up for dawa suitability. Don't write them off because they could turn decent and you could be a part of that, plus you could learn a thing or two about their game - which is very transparent once you recognize it - and about criminal/abnormal psychology more generally, but don't trust them. And never believe them. Judge them by their actions and their associations, not their statements.
I repeat: Judge them by their actions and their associations, not their statements. More often than not their statements are quite at odds with their associations and actions. If they so much as go to a mosque, rest assured that they are completely different, far more honest, people there. Got it?
"Don't write them off because they could turn decent and you could be a part of that, plus you could learn a thing or two about their game - which is very transparent once you recognize it - and about criminal/abnormal psychology more generally, but don't trust them. And never believe them. Judge them by their actions and their associations, not their statements."
Nah. Simply never trust any Muslim. All Muslims are suspect. ALL. Not "some". Not "most". ALL.
jdamn, I'm waiting for the day you can say "all" and mean it, without some fudge factor lurking in your statements -- "Almost all of the Muslims I know are absurdly saccharine as they live in little Mohammedan pedophile-housing enclaves and shuffle off to their MSU/Hamas meetings."
No. Simply NEVER EVER trust ANY Muslims. Simply suspect ALL Muslims ALWAYS, under ALL circumstance swhatsoever, always NEVER EVER trust ANY Muslim EVER for ANY reason on God's green Earth now and FOREVER for FUCKING ETERNITY. Capice?
I think you are wrong about Muslims revering Jihadists. My experience has been that most Muslims have no time for them but wouldn't say so openly for fear of being seen as `sell outs' or `coconuts' trying to ingratiate themselves with the infidels.
Gorgi,
While your friends may tell you that, what they tell you or me in private does neither of us any good. If they think standing up for decency means they are "sell outs" and they fear that, then I have no use for them.
The "silent majority" of Muslims are a major part of the problem. Unless and until they stand up to the jihadists then they are no better.
Gorgi,
Do your friends go to mosque?
Do they make the hajj?
Do they give to Islamic charities?
If they do any of these then they support jihad.
Let's hear it for Melanie Phillips at The Daily Mail. A voice of reason in stark contrast to the jihadists' most useful ally, the BBC.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090762/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-The-Mumbai-atrocity-wake-frighteningly-unprepared-Britain.html
What is ‘frightening’ is that once Britain understands (what we already know) that jihadi activity against western civilization is sanctioned by Islamic teachings, they will start clamping down on mosque and Islamic ‘charities’ activities, including deportations of those few (tiny minority) of jihadists caught in the dragnet. But once they really understand the depth and scope of the jihad problem, they may overreact by mass deportations back to country of origin by the hundreds of thousands, including some who no doubt were truly innocent. This is what happens when rule of law and a just judicial system starts to fail, that there is an overreaction. The final drop is when the judicial and policing fails, then citizens (or subjects) take matters into their own hands, which ultimately ends in ugly vigilantism. Once it regresses to that low level, there is no turning back until enough blood is shed. Look at Lebanon as a prime example, which is certainly frightening, and a sad end to what happens in societies under siege by jihad.
Fill in the blanks with any other community looking aside from its members perpetrating crimes against victims. Yes, they are "sell outs". Sell outs from their conscience, from the rule of law, from civil responsibility, patriotism, moral duty, ethics, etc. Sell outs from just about everything that makes human beings truly human, except their fear and cowardice.
Once again we see the scam by the MSM and Imams , there is NO outright condemnation towrds the Muslims that did this.
We only hear about how islam doesn't not allow for the killing of "Innocent-Civilians" .
This begs the question for " Then who are the Non-Innocent Civilians that Muhammad was infering about"?
Could it be from Muhammad's own Doctrine that every Non-Muslims is an enemy of Allah and Islam and Ergo.....NOT a Innocent-Civilian according to the Muslim terrorists.
Either way, these are a sick bunch of people and very soon the 5 Billion non-Muslims on earth will get fed-up with the endless tripe coming for the
Muslim populations that only a few people have Hijacked their peaceful faith.
Islam is starting to appear like the predatory-pricing scam that was out-lawed in the USA ,and this was a scam by businesses to create a consumer base by coming into an area and run the store at a loss until they killed the compititions, then they merely expose their true face and jack-up prices once the ignorant masses had no more choices for shopping.
yes folks, predatory religion where it enters the USA and kills any compitition and then dominates the market because the only way out is death.