Salam Fayad, with his suit and his tie and his reputation for being an apolitical "technocrat," and with his American experience, is useful for the "Palestinian" Arabs as they downplay their never-ending ferocity. They do this purely for Western audiences of those whose goodwill they need, that is, those whom they most need to inveigle through personal charm and the plausible delivery of plausible lies that depend on the intended audience's ignorance both of Islam and of the nature of the war being waged (a tous azimuths) against Israel.
Salam Fayad is the perfect front man for this. He's the Very Type and Original of the Nobody-Here-But-Us-Accountants School of "Palestinian" Arab representatives. The same could be said of the henchman for many decades of Yassir Arafat, during some of his bloodiest years, Mahmoud Abbas. Didn't Obama say, anent Ahmadinejad, that Holocaust-denial was intolerable? Yet Obama just the other day met and exchanged smiles and handshakes with Abbas, whose MGU doctoral thesis was a long-winded discussion of the "exaggerations" of the Holocaust, which is merely a form of Holocaust denial. Why has his involvement in the worst acts by Arafat, why has his Holocaust-denial, why has everything that Abbas said at that recent "Palestinian" gathering in Ramallah been so willfully ignored in the calculation of American policymakers, beginning at the Islam-ignorant and naive top?
How many more times must what someone smilingly maintains or plausibly assures, for the most obvious reasons, be taken at face value by powerful people in Washington or New York? All that fake sweet-reasonableness, all that display of hollow indignation, and feelings-of-being-deeply-wronged, is abetted by, on the part of Infidels, all that careful inattention to the nature of Islam and so to the nature of the war being made on Israel. The nature of that war has been what it is not just this year, not just this decade, but for the last century. There has been the attempt to throttle the existence, and then before that the coming-into-existence, of a Jewish nation-state, even though the Jews did nothing more than buy land from the 10% that was held by private parties. Remember, or learn if you never knew, that 90% of the land ruled by the Turks and that the League of Nations assigned to the Mandate for Palestine for the creation of a "Jewish National Home" was "state and waste land," first in the possession of the Ottoman government, and then in that of the Mandatory authority, and finally, in the possession of the intended beneficiary and successor state to Mandatory Palestine, Israel.
Why is history, recent and ancient, continually ignored? Why are the texts and tenets of Islam ignored? When did a factitious and phony "peace" -- that is, a Rose-Garden Peace Treaty, which should never be confused with a durable peace, become the goal? A durable peace requires Arab Muslims to refrain from attack based not on the impossible abandonment of Islamic doctrine, but on the forced invocation of Darura, that is, "necessity" -- which can only happen if the Infidel enemy remains not only overwhelmingly stronger, but is clearly perceived as such.
But who has been the model, who has been the camouflage, who has inspired Mahmoud Abbas to take on the coloration that he does, chameleontically, whenever he meets with Western leaders? Abbas, this Slow Jihadist, differs not in ultimate goals, but only in matters of timing and tactics, with the Fast Jihadists of Hamas. He needs that Western aid to keep on flowing, and flowing, and flowing, to the "Palestinians" so that they can continue to make war, in every way, on the Infidel nation-state of Israel.
Why, that Perfect Model of Deportment, that speaker of American English, that man who is known for being merely a technocrat with a slide rule (oops, that dates me -- strike that, and put in here the name of any economic-planning software you wish), that man whom Mahmoud Abbas would have you think he is, is none other than Salam Fayad.
Fayad, however, is merely the useful front man, and probably not, himself, a bad guy. But he is useful to the bad guys, and that is the problem, because practically everyone else -- Mahmoud Abbas (nom de guerre: Abu Mazen), and the mythomaniacal "negotiator" Saeb Erekat, and Mohammad Dahlan, tutti quanti, are all engaged in an effort to use the West, to use America in particular, to push Israel back and back and back, stripping it of its last remaining, comically-tiny, "strategic depth," taking away control of the water resources it needs, and always and everywhere making the very demands it knows Israel will never succumb to: to give up the Old City of Jerusalem, and to allow back millions of Arabs who have taken to being called "Palestinian refugees." Close inspection of both the adjective and the noun in that glib formulation would show just how phony are the claims of almost all. And certainly what remains of those claims are far outstripped in numbers, and misery, and losses of all kinds, by the 900,000 Jews who fled pogroms in the Arab countries, beginning in 1948, with many arriving penniless in Israel.
It's really long past time to see beyond the Fayad-facade (or all the other caryatides of that shaky edifice, the "Palestinian Authority"). Without American and Israeli financial and military assistance of extraordinary size (causing the great, but artificial, economic boom on the "West Bank"), it would collapse in a New York minute. And it is important to stop making an Arab-Israeli or, still more tendentious and phony, an "Israeli-Palestinian" "peace," the ballyhooed goal of every new President, who devotes so much time and effort to that quixotic end. The antisemitic Carter was aided and abetted in that by the equally sinister, now out-of-the-closet Zbigniew Brzezinski, who the other day suggested that the Americans should shoot down Israeli planes sent to bomb the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran. But the "peace" that is ballyhooed is not peace but something quite different, a "peace treaty." And for Muslims, any peace treaty signed with Infidels has no lasting validity. It is only to be observed while the Muslims are not yet ready to take on the Infidels with whom they have signed such a treaty. The model -- see all the commentators, including Majid Khadduri in his authoritative "War and Peace in the Law of Islam" -- for Muslim treaty-making remains that agreement made by Muhammad with the still-resistant Meccans at Hudaibiyyah, in 628 A.D. This treaty was to last ten years (which is why the Muslims always talk of a "hudna" or treaty lasting ten years -- a point our policy-makers, and the press, seem determined not to note, much less explain to the confused public).
There is peace now between Israel and the Muslims who would, if they could, destroy it. That peace is one based on deterrence -- the deterring effect of the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces. That, and that alone, keeps Israel's neighbors in line. But what, someone protests, what about Egypt? Doesn't Egypt honor its peace treaty with Israel? The answer is No. Egypt has abandoned every single one of the solemn commitments it made to Israel, commitments to end hostile propaganda, to encourage tourism and trade, to change the atmosphere.
That was all, really, that the Israelis asked for, but it meant a great deal to them. And in exchange they were willing to hand over to Egypt the entire Sinai, for the second time. They had done so in 1956, only to see Nasser subsequently break every promise he made to the Western powers, not directly to Israel, for that hand-over. And they handed over not merely the entire Sinai (which was never historically part of Egypt, and became administratively part of it only in the 1920s, though this fact may come as yet one more surprise -- there are so many -- to those who make policy concerning Arabs and Israelis, in the chanceries of the West), but a Sinai in which oilfields had been found and developed, a resort started at Sharm el Sheikh, and all kinds of roads and other infrastructure built by the Israelis, some $16 billion worth in 1979 dollars.
But Egypt discourages, even punishes, those who visit Israel. Mubarak has not visited Israel at all, save once, to attend the funeral of Rabin. The government-controlled Egyptian media is full of such things as a television series based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," and Egypt is in fact a world center of antisemitic propaganda, and not only in Arabic. And what about that "peace" that Egypt observes? Egypt does not attack Israel for the same reason that Syria, or Saudi Arabia, or Libya, or Iran, does not attack Israel. Because it has calculated the consequences, and realizes that if it should attack, and should Israel yet again re-take the Sinai, Egypt will never ever get it back. Though the Israelis have shown themselves to be amazingly gullible and trusting over the last half-century, they are finally coming to their senses about Islam and about the nature and value of treaties signed, and promises made, by Muslim Arabs in order to obtain the kind of tangible concessions in land by Israel, that cannot easily be taken back.
No one here but us accountants, Mahmoud Abbas would have you believe, pushing Fayad forward and, when necessary, doing a passable imitation himself. But beyond Fayad, and under the coat of Abbas, is a dagger, the dagger of endless Jihad. He's the figure described by Chaucer when he englished Boccaccio's description in the "Teseida" of Treachery: "I con i occulti ferri i Tradimenti." And Treachery, with hidden weapons....
It's time to take out, all over the Western world, Khadduri's book, and that of Antoine Fattal, and those of a dozen or five dozen other real scholars (beware the espositos and armstrongs and the apologists of MESA Nostra) of Islam, and find out exactly what Muslims are taught about treaties with non-Muslims.
And it's time simply to put away childish things, things that in the past have been pursued by those who haven't learned a thing, haven't even recognized that they had a responsibility, a duty, to learn a thing, about Islam. The situation of endless Jihad should be regarded intelligently as a situation to be handled, not as a problem to be "solved." Among the Childish Things that should be put away is the idea of Peace, a real peace in the sense that we non-Muslims endow that word, not the "peace" that Muslims talk about, which means the "peace" that comes when the entire world has surrendered to Islam, and there will be no more war or strife, because there will then be no need for war. For Islam will everywhere dominate, and Muslims will rule, everywhere.
Stop worrying, all over the Western, world, stop fretting and stop pontificating, and stop the endless negotiations or negotiations about negotiations, stop the whole farce of the "peace process" and understand that there will be no peace, in the Western sense. Israel should not be pressured to further surrender tangible assets that give it tiny, but indispensable, strategic depth. Israel should hold onto the aquifers, and make clear -- as it should have done, through immediate annexation, in June 1967 -- that it will allow the local Arabs as much autonomy as is consonant with Israel's security, and the limits of such autonomy, will depend on Arab behavior. Their support for terrorism, and enthusiasm for it, will determine just how much autonomy those Arabs will have -- a lot more, one can be certain, than the amount of autonomy that Arabs have allowed to any non-Muslims or non-Arab Muslims (Berbers, Kurds, blacks in Darfur) anywhere in the vast lands, the twenty-two members of the Arab League, where Arabs rule and their will is done.
Nobody here but us accountants -- a meek, mild-mannered accountant, but a smyler with the knyf under the cloke.
Even though Obama has the gift of gab and a disarming smile, I hope he checked his wallet after exchanging smiles and handshakes this week with Abbas.
Oh yeah, for someone that is so smart, why did he forget his daughter Malia's name
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6-tiig_cKI
forget that Sasha didnt have spinal meningitis
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-claims-sasha-had-disease-that-she-did-not/
much less that he "forgot" the Reverand Wright's rants.
For someone so brilliant, he has a poor memory.
Israel doesn't get it. Please read below to understand why I say that...
Israel's PR strategy, from politicians of the left and right, is to show the world how badly Israelis want peace. In order to do this, they explain that when Egypt and Jordan wanted peace (treaties), Israel made the difficult sacrifices, gave up land etc, because the Israelis are a peaceful people with the goal of living in harmony and co-existence with their neighbors. The Israeli leaders will then go on to cite the many concessions Israel has already to the Palestinians since the start of Oslo and then talk about what else they are willing to do should the Palestinians even hint at living up to their responsibilities.
Of course, if the countries of the world don't already recognize that Israel has made generous offers and tangible concessions for peace, it is because they don't really care about the "facts." They need Arab oil, Arab money, protection from terrorism, a feeling of moral superiority of the Jews (to distract from their own guilt over a colonial past) often or solidarity with the Third World (or a supposed "people of color") out of ideological motivations. And other people just hate the Jews and animus toward Israel is the most politically correct way to express their feelings.
So, rather than tout the phony peace deals with Egypt and Jordan, why doesn't Israel make the point that the two "moderate" Arab-Muslim countries haven't kept their commitments, have made it illegal for their citizens to travel to Israel, take every opportunity to demonize and delegitimize Israel on the world stage, turn a blind eye to, or encourage, weapons smuggling into Gaza and consistently, openly and enthusiastically promote the most vile anti-Semitic hatred and conspiracy theories on a daily basis in their media, schools and mosques.
So if that is the best that "moderate" countries not involved in a shooting war (though not living in true peace or honoring their agreements to foster good relationships) can do toward Israel, why should Israel sacrifice its national security and the lives of its citizens in the hope that Palestinians, who speak openly about their desire to destroy Israel, honor suicide bombers and deny the Jewish connection to Jerusalem, would possibly honor any agreement that they sign. A little (really, a lot of) education regarding the Muslim concept of treaty-making wouldn't be a bad thing either?
Wouldn't it be better for Israel (honestly I'm not sure given the world's motivations that I mentioned above) to discuss what it gave up to Egypt, the Sinai, and what it didn't get in return?
Israel so wants to live in peace--a peace that will never occur--with its neighbors that it doesn't want to offend them by speaking truthfully regarding their conduct and intentions. I think Israel wants to keep the door open to better relations by not offending Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, so-called "moderate" Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims. But this isn't working, not least because the Arabs have no desire for peace with Israel and seek to slander Israel at every opportunity. Israel would be better off telling the truth about its neighbors in a way that at least makes it a mockery of the values that countries claim to uphold when they condemn Israel.
To sum it all up...why not just say that even the "best" Arab countries persecute their Christian populations, allow women to be beaten, honor killed and genitally mutilated, practice legal religious and gender apartheid, promote the supremacy of Muslims and hatred of non-Muslims in their schools, mosques and government-owned media and NEVER honor their agreements? Wouldn't that be better than downplaying the true nature of these degenerate Arab-Muslim regimes in the hopes that people, with the opposite motives, somehow regard you as peace-loving? Israel should tell the world to support the Arab jihad against Israel honestly, if that is really what they foolishly think is in their national interest, and spare everyone the high-minded B.S. regarding human rights, occupation, international law, etc., which are nothing more than tools used to attack the Middle East's only democracy by Muslims who otherwise have no use for such principles.
"War is deceit."
What Mohammed said (according to that "misunderstood" Qur'an) is still true for Muslims today as it was 1400 years ago.
This is the 800 gorilla in whatever room Middle East "peace" talks are held. Our naive, gullible and stupid western politicians and diplomats continue to think that negotiations with the "Palestinatians" will be more fruitful than the peace offerings to Hitler leading up to World War II.
Regarding my comment above...
By Israel touting the peace-treaty with Egypt, and surrender of Sinai to Egypt, as evidence of Israel's peaceful character, Israel continues to promote the commonly-held notion that peace comes through Israeli concessions and that land-for-peace is the proper and equitable solution to conflicts with its neighbors. If Israel isn't the guilty party (if it didn't illegally "steal" anyone's land), and clearly not the party that lost the wars, why is Israel ceding its land in order to make peace with its adversaries? Israel, by going along with this injustice, has given credibility to the rope being fixed around its neck.
4infidels posits five reasons why the West continues irrationally to ignore the facts about the problem of Muslims in relation to Israel:
1) They need Arab oil, Arab money,
2) protection from terrorism,
3) a feeling of moral superiority of the Jews (to distract from their own guilt over a colonial past) often
4) solidarity with the Third World (or a supposed "people of color") out of ideological motivations.
5) And other people just hate the Jews and animus toward Israel is the most politically correct way to express their feelings.
I shall now rank them in order of importance in my estimation, the first being the most important, the fifth being the least important:
1) solidarity with the Third World (or a supposed "people of color") out of ideological motivations.
2) protection from terrorism,
3) And other people just hate the Jews and animus toward Israel is the most politically correct way to express their feelings.
4) a feeling of moral superiority of the Jews (to distract from their own guilt over a colonial past) often
5) They need Arab oil, Arab money.
Not only do I rank 4infidel's fourth reason at the top, it is most important because if it were absent from the equation, and all the four other reasons remained in force, altogether they would be insufficient to cause the degree of comprehensive irrationality about Israel that continues today and has persisted for decades.
Furthermore, if my #1 remained in force, and numbers 5, 4 and 3 were removed, it would have no appreciable effect on the irrationality in question.
I think you're probably correct, Hesperado, in the way you ranked 4infidels five reasons for the West's continuing to play a diplomatic game that shouldn't be played anymore (but will be). Ideology trumps everything, even reason, and the West's self-loathing and ignorance of itself have produced political correctness and multiculturalism which in turn have created a maudlin sentimentality and non-critical approach towards the Third World. This isn't good for Israel, America or any of the West which needs Churchills, Reagans, Ben-Gurions, Trumans, Thatchers and Eisenhowers, not Obamas, Browns, Zapateros and Olmerts (Netanyahu at least being a step in the right direction as of late).
The West is drifing right now and the principal reason for this is rooted in bad ideas. Time for a change. Banning further Musim immigration to the West would be a great sign that such a change is in the air. Don't see it yet though.
Hugh,
In response to your article,
The "New" Policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan
Posted by Hugh on March 30, 2009 7:50 AM :
Hugh you wrote “Above all, it will do nothing to decrease hostility toward Infidels, for that is in the Qur’an, the Hadith and the Sira, and no amount of aid can erase what remains, immutable, in the Qur’an, the “most authentic” of the Hadith, the Sira.”
Hugh,
In spite of your recent epiphany on the nature of the Greater Jihad versus the Lesser Jihad, I see it is still ingrained in you to write as you had before still projecting the false premise that the only thing spread is “war” rather than faith and truth.
How can there be an inherent hostility?
It is not inherent in the Quran or the Hadiths that a believer must have hostility and show hostility to “Infidels,” as you put it, but rather there is a direct order in the Quran not to insult others for their belief and not to say anything derogatory about that which they worship. Sound advice for spreading the message of Islam and giving others the respect they deserve as well as the opportunity to hear the message. How can one abide by this order in the Quran if one is overtly hostile? That does make sense to me.
Yes, in the Quran Muslims are cautioned to be wary of those who seek to harm us simply for our faith, and yet this is not hostility, but just prudence. People of other faiths will not council us what is in our best interest in respect to faith, but rather they will only council us what is good for their own self interests…and thus we are cautioned not to take them as protectors and influencers in our affairs, awliyah, often translated bluntly as “friends.” The meaning is deeper than that.
There is clear and concise language from the position of God about the very nearly constant nature of the disbeliever…their stiff necked attitude towards the Creator, their steadfast refusal to obey, their obstinate arrogance when it is not within their right to be arrogant about anything in front of God…I mean, seriously, the tiniest microbe kills us, and yet many walk around in open defiance of the sovereignty of God dividing up responsibility for creation to imagined things when it is only God that is the source of all things.
Your diversion about ethnic and sectarian division among other nations is mute when one considers right here at home in the US we have both prosperity as well as ethnic and sectarian divisions across the board, and that this position of yours has nothing to do with prosperity or the lack of prosperity, yet it is rather the condition of humanity across all time having nothing to do with holding back or progressing towards prosperity. Economic, political, and military stability has a lot to do with prosperity in a nation, and not just “our way” but stability on the terms of the will of the people, true democracy. If it is the will of any people to rule themselves then who are you and I to dictate to them what should or should not be?
Colonialism is a failing industry and an experiment that was self defeating. The experiment of forcing an unnatural condition upon a populace has already failed multiple times on a national level in modern times…entire cultures have imploded and civil war resulted many times due to the artificial political lines and divisions forced upon other nations.
Hugh you wrote “Furthermore, it is Islam itself that stands in the way of long-term prosperity for all Muslim states and societies. Look around the world. Where, among Muslims, is there prosperity?”
There is prosperity everywhere, only not on the scale you measure by. Many nations that have majority Muslim populations are flourishing and beginning to rise from the ruin of colonialism. Yes, a few oil rich nations have not progressed as much as we have in America, but as much as you deride them for their “un-earned wealth” and the “accidents of geology” you must yourself admit that the majority of our American wealth was not earned either yet happened upon by the invasion and occupation of colonialists…a dark chapter of American history that sends your typical “patriot” into apoplectic fits if it is pointed out to them. Don’t be a hypocrite, Hugh, it doesn’t suit you.
I don’t claim to be a moderate, yet what I point out in Islam as my guiding light has some people pointing that finger at me. I have never claimed it, don’t aspire to it, don’t care for it, the mythical “moderate Muslim.” Don’t you even know, Hugh, that moderation is Islam itself, or that it is the middle road in faith, and that stern advice is in the religion itself not to be extreme one way or the other? Or is it that you ignore these facts since they do not support your agenda on this issue?
Hugh you wrote “They do not know, and therefore do not appreciate, and are insufficiently grateful for, the development of advanced Western democracies, with their solicitude for the rights of the individual.”
Hugh, to the above you must honestly add “the rights of the NON INDIGENOUS individual.” Really, you are going too far in painting yourself and others like you in lily white armor…no, you are not that noble image you write of…there is a darker side you are ignoring and white washing.
Hugh you wrote “Members of the Umma are taught that whenever other members of the Umma are in conflict with Infidels, the side of the Believers must be taken.”
No, Hugh, the religion teaches that the side of the just must be taken. What if the conflict is between two Muslims? One must stop the conflict and judge between them with justice…there is no blind siding with one or the other. Justice, Hugh, it is in the religion and not in a subtle way. You point out tribal affiliations that have nothing to do with Islam…you speak of the faith as if it were an ethnicity. Hugh, Islam is not what you think of it.
Hugh you wrote “The most intelligent Muslims began to see that Islam itself might have to be "reformed" to rescue Muslims.”
And again with the programming efforts, casting believers as “un-intelligent” by noting those who think that “reform” is needed as the “intelligent Muslims”. It is the human being that needs reforming not Islam.
Hugh you wrote “Another kind of Muslim reformer was Kemal Pasha, that is Ataturk, who attributed the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to Islam itself.”
Attaturk was a mass murderer who committed genocide against his so called “own people.” He reformed nothing, yet installed a regime not unlike Stalin murdering anyone who stood in the way of his “reforms.” His reforms are slowly unwinding and the Turkish people are returning to faith.
Hugh you wrote “because Islam discourages innovation, bida, including new ways of approaching economic problems, or societal needs that might be met by economic progress, as well as, because of inshallah-fatalism, acting as a brake on economic activity),”
This was a foolish thing to state. Islam does not discourage innovation or invention, the only innovation that is forbidden is innovation in religion. Really, Hugh, I thought you were more well read than this? Or is this a purposeful misdirection for your audience to follow?
Hugh you wrote “In Washington, it seems that among those still at the top, the understanding of Islam, even the grasping of the need to responsibly study what Islam inculcates, is still horribly, expensively, absent.”
It will be learned as taught by the knowledgeable and not the likes of you and Robert. Take your closing paragraphs, another attempt at programming your audience to see Muslims as “welfare baggage” on the state…sure you may point to some demographics that seem to support you, but you entirely ignore others that destroy this premise of yours.
The future is very bright for Muslims as well as others who learn to get along and to stop inventing reasons to promote hatred. The majority of people here in America will learn the truth about Muslims and Islam through the honest and open engagement with real people, real Muslims, in real world situations…not through the copy sold by the profiteers of mysery, not through the “if it bleeds it leads” media, not through the dissemination of biased and many times purposefully skewed reports such as we read here.
Hugh, I really hope that you are some day able to see through all the smoke screens that you and others like you have thrown up, albeit in an honest effort to defend what you see as “your country” from what you imagine as “your enemy.”
I am not the enemy… I am the future.
Peace
Abdullah
Abdullah Mikail writes above:
"It is not inherent in the Quran or the Hadiths that a believer must have hostility and show hostility to “Infidels,” as you put it, but rather there is a direct order in the Quran not to insult others for their belief and not to say anything derogatory about that which they worship."
Let's let the Koran speak for itself:
5:72-73
They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.
Damning people into eternal fire is not "saying anything derogatory about that which they worship" !!!??? How many millions of people does this include whose religious beliefs, who according to Islam, "ascribe partners to Allah"? It includes all Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus. It includes the Jews according to 9:30. It includes all Hindus, all the polytheists of the world.
Speaking of 9:30, let's quote it in full:
And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
So God himself fights against Jews and Christians, and God says they are "perverse" -- but that's not "saying anything derogatory about that which they worship"...!!!
More nice polite verses from the Koran about people who believe and worship differently from Muslims:
40:10. "Surely those who disbelieve [i.e., non-Muslims] shall be cried out to: Certainly Allah's hatred (of you) when you were called upon to the faith and you rejected, is much greater than your hatred of yourselves."
60:4. "There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk: Lo! we are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah. We have done with you. And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only ..."
35:39. "It is He who appointed you viceroys in the earth. So whosoever disbelieves, his unbelief shall be charged against him; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in hate in God's sight; their unbelief increases the disbelievers only in loss."
5:14. "And with those who say: "Lo! we are Christians," We made a covenant, but they forgot a part of that whereof they were admonished. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, when Allah will inform them of their handiwork."
5:64. "The Jews say: Allah's hand is fettered. Their hands are fettered and they are accursed for saying so. Nay, but both His hands are spread out wide in bounty. He bestoweth as He will..."
98:6. “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”
And, of course, the lovely verse 9:28:
"Those who practice Shirk are filthy." (almushrikoona najasun) -- or in one customary rendering:
"O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean..."
If you can't move the Mohammedan to the mountain of evidence, move the mountain to the Mohammedan -- though even that is, apparently, pointless.
In spite of your recent epiphany on the nature of the Greater Jihad versus the Lesser Jihad..."
The poster is apparently referring to what I wrote in response to some asserted "proof" on his part of something about Islam. What I wrote was this:
"Quod erat demonstrandum. I stand abashed and corrected."
It was not meant to be taken seriously, of course. But apparently he did. And he continues to do so.
Hugh
I read that exchange. And yes, when I read those words of yours, which you have just quoted, I could just hear the sarcasm dripping off every syllable.
Seemingly Abdullah Mikail couldn't. And thus he has been, as we Australians say, "sucked in".
Hugh,
Whether you were jesting or not, the proof was posted that is from Sahih Hadiths firmly grading the Jihad from that which is greater to that which is lesser and even a direct order for a Sahaba to avoid what was lesser in preference to what is greater.
The concept does not hang upon one questionable hadith as you noted before. It is the entirety of Islam that is the Greater Jihad.
Peace
Abdullah
Hesperado,
“If you can't move the Mohammedan to the mountain of evidence, move the mountain to the Mohammedan -- though even that is, apparently, pointless.”
As usual your out of context snippets lose the meaning…it must be considered as a whole. I can only lead you to the water, I can’t and won’t make you drink it.
It is the weakness in your own faith that leads you to think that evil rejecting people should some how be loved by God just “because.” To the evil Muslim, to the evil Christian, the evil Jew, to the evil rejecter of faith in God is their own evil…they get what they give… YOU SOMEHOW ARE MISSING THIS CONCEPT.
Are you forgetting to mention something? I think you are.
To the good who believed and did good because of it from all of humanity is their good and reward with God, as you ignore these that properly balance the scale:
2:62 “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
5:69 “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”
22:17 “Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the sabians, Christians, Magians, and Polytheists,- Allah will judge between them on the Day of Judgment: for Allah is witness of all things.”
And to what I referred:
6:108 “And do not abuse those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest exceeding the limits they should abuse Allah out of ignorance. Thus have We made fair seeming to every people their deeds; then to their Lord shall be their return, so He will inform them of what they did.”
16:125 “Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.”
Now to your selective outtakes:
60:4 “There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah. we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone": But not when Abraham said to his father: "I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah." (They prayed): "Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.”
Are you serious? Abraham said this AFTER his people threw him into the blazing fire….what do you expect him to do? And besides, look at the nobility that follows, you sort of left that out, didn’t you?
5:14 Enmity and hatred among whom?? Not against, not directed at, AMONG as in between…those who rejected God are left on their own to become hateful one among the other.
35:39 He it is That has made you inheritors in the earth: if, then, any do reject ((Allah)), their rejection (works) against themselves: their rejection but adds to the odium for the Unbelievers in the sight of their Lord: their rejection but adds to (their own) undoing.
Yes, those who do evil and reject God are not going to be loved by God. It is between God and them.
5:64 Those who said as such insulted God and deserved to be labeled as such. Or do you disagree? Are there people who say as such today? Then they would deserve the same.
98:6 ? Read the whole verse at least, and try to understand it in context to the Quran…it isn’t that hard you know…how can you miss it other than missing it on purpose.
Read the message in it’s entirety and you will find it is perfectly balanced, mercy is mentioned equally with punishment, heaven with hell, etc. All warnings came as well with mention of blessings…only, I feel and I could be wrong, that you have for so long listened to sermons that only mention the good outcome and you have not been reminded of the bad outcome. To the good comes good, to the bad comes bad…it is balanced.
Worship other than God and what do you think God should think of you?
Peace
Abdullah
Hesperado,
I think you hit the nail on the head when you listed "solidarity with the Third World (or a supposed "people of color") out of ideological motivations" as the #1 reason for the West's attitude toward Israel.
Once the Left saw that the working classes had no interest in their Marxist, utopian schemes to overthrow the greedy, capitalist, white, male-dominated system in the West (a system that, in the 1960s, gave the average worker the chance at a decent quality of life, including home ownership), the Left had to find a new horse on which to place their bets. So they turned to the Third World, which was striving to gain independence from the colonial powers and opting in many cases for "revolutionary" regimes. Since the Third World "freedom fighters" were victims of the great evil of our time, white capitalist exploiters, they would be forgiven their sins, including the atrocities they committed against their own people and the not so enlightened way that they treated their women. After all, the Third World man was so oppressed by the Western white capitalist that his treatment of women would better be addressed by destroying Western civilization than by holding non-Westerners to the universal standards of human rights the Left worships.
So with the West evil, whites the perpetrators of that evil and Third World the new proletariat that Leftists need to liberate on their way to redeeming the planet, Israel stands out as a sore thumb to those who control the media, the classrooms and the culture. A country with a white, European elite, closely aligned with the demonic United States, capitalistic and entrepreneurial, willing to fight for its survival, ruling over a Third World "people" who know every violin string to play that is music to the ears of the American/European elites, especially with their therapeutic, multicultural, tolerant, non-judgmental, group-think, citizens-of-the-world values. Thus, while we see Israel a the first line of defense against the Jihadists, the Left views the Palestinians as their front line in their fight against Western, captialist, Judeo-Christian hegemony.
Of course, reality and facts are irrelevant. That Israel has a Jewish population full of refugees, the majority of them children and grandchildren of immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, is irrelevant. That Israel is a tiny country on its ancestral homeland surrounded by 22 Arab countries doesn't seem to make those who want to more equitably slice the pie allow for one healthy Jewish state in a region of degenerate, brutal regimes. That the Jews suffered from European racism in ways far worse than any "Third World" Middle Eastern people that came into contact with European colonialism for a brief interlude in the 19th and early 20th century before "winning" their independence and reverting to their stagnant, miserable Islamic lives, doesn't matter to those for whom fighting "racism" is among their central creeds. No the wealthy, Western armchair lefty and the Third World want-to-be revolutionary have found a cause that can bring them together. Fighting the racist, imperialist, Zionist Jews in the name of the downtrodden, the oppressed, the marginalized and the non-Western "other."
As I say about Jews who make a spectacle of their anti-Israel politics...if someone told them about an ancient tribe that was dispersed from its homeland, persecuted and expelled from many countries, that ultimately fell victim to the most heinous act of European racism in which six million of its people were killed...and that people managed a few years later to finally re-establish sovereignty in its homeland after 2000 years, at great difficulty, buying worthless lands at high prices, draining the malarial swamps, turning the desert green and fighting for its freedom against an onslaught of armies from the surrounding states, motivated by religious hatred to deny that oft-persecuted tribe a spot on their ancestral land, the same land that those making their war of annihilation had no interest in for so many centuries. On top of that, the tribe, upon returning to the homeland and winning its independence, surrounded by enemies, sets up a rule-of-law democracy and seeks peace with its neighbors. In addition, the European ruling class of that tribe takes in close to a million refugees from the Third World as equal citizens and equal members of the tribe during their time of need. They even sent airplanes to rescue long-lost black African members of the tribe who were facing starvation.
If your typical Jewish leftist was told a story about such a tribe without mentioning that they were Jewish, that leftist would be the first in line to express admiration for them. Instead, today when Westerners of all races, religions and political ideologies find their destiny intertwined with that of the ancient Middle Eastern tribe ruling Israel, they have been brainwashed by the leftist media, educators and filmmakers to believe that Israel is the obstacle to the whole world living in peace and harmony.
Dumbledorsarmy,
Abdula M. “argumentation” reminds me of a Monty Python’s episode where a vendor of pet animals tries to convince a customer that the stone-dead parrot, which he tries to sell him is very much alive. He is totally unaffected by customer pointing out that the ex-parrots doesn’t exhibit even one characteristic associated with a presence of a physiological function. He argues with great zeal that parrot is alive even as it lies on the counter lifeless and limp and probably smelling bad already. He even maintains that parrot's inertness and the stink is the sign of great health (if taken in the right context).
Abdulla MikiMouth with a truly idiotic obstinacy and disregard for both the letter and spirit of the Koran and Hadiths, the screaming testimony of history, past and present, and endless refutations not only tries to sell us the dead parrot of Islam, but maintains that, in fact, it is an alive and mighty eagle.
What a chicken-brained fool.
Abdullah Mikail (AM) above adduces a hadith about the "greater jihad" and the "lesser jihad".
Apparently, AM didn't get the memo:
The hadith in which Muhammad is said to speak of "greater" vs. "lesser" jihad is of doubtful authenticity. It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah. In fact, a number of scholars maintain that this hadith is a forgery. One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers a number of factors, such as chain of transmission and other more reliable, contradictory ahadith . He quotes one authority:
"There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] to Jihad Akbar [greater jihad].' This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind."
And so after a meticulous examination of sources the article comes to a decision:
On the basis of the above statements we can conclude by saying, that the evidence used as proof or the basis for establishing that Jihad against disbelievers on the battlefield is Jihad Asghar [lesser jihad] and Jihad against the desires and Shaitaan [Satan, the devil] is Jihad Akbar [greater jihad], are weak if not false Hadith.
One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this:
A man asked [the Prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."
Unless AM can produce a hadith from the six sahih sittah: Bukhari, Muslim, Dawud, ibn Majah, At-Timidhi, or An-Nasai...?
http://www.peacewithrealism.org/jihad/jihad03.htm
Thomas - that comparison is hilarious.
Something else: it is necessary, when someone like Abdullah Mikail uses the term 'good' and 'evil' as he does in his rant just above, posted at 3.15 pm, to remember that in the Orwellian world of Islamspeak, 'good' boils down to whatever is 'good' for Muslims, that is, whatever benefits them, makes them stronger; while 'bad' or 'evil' = whatever is bad for Muslims or makes Muslims weaker. Pure expediency. (Just as 'knowledge' = 'Islam, sharia, Quran, etc', and 'ignorance' = 'everything un-Islamic').
The Scottish sceptic David Hume, however wrongheaded he may have been about various other things, was spot on, when he observed, of Mohammedan 'ethics':
"But would we know, whether the pretended prophet 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)
DDA,
Thank you for referring me to these very interesting reflections by Hume. I was completely unaware he said anything on the subject of Islam.
I am getting "Of the Standard of Taste” from my library to read it in the weekend. It also should be fun to recommend the book to some worshippers of Hume I know here who love to flaunt their “open-minded”, liberal view of Islam.
"worshippers of Hume"
If you're going to worship someone, Hume's a good one to worship. And his views on Islam cannot be dismissed, can they, by the usual glib dismissers, by invoking the term "fundamentalist Christian" or "neocon" or some other off-the-rack rubric ready to be flung. No, he doesn't fit into any of those those categories. Nor does Alexis de Tocqueville, or John Quincy Adams, or other acute observers and students of the matter whose observations on Islam were perfectly coherent, sensible, justifiable and, in today's world, might well be shunned as those of a "right wing holy-roller." And if Muslims had their way, Hume and Voltaire, John Quincy Adams and Victor Hugo, Tocqueville and Churchill, would all be suppressed, for their views on Islam and Believers in Islam are to Muslims simply not to be tolerated, not to be heard.
…his views on Islam cannot be dismissed, can they…
Oh yes, they can. This time not by “…invoking the term "fundamentalist Christian" or "neocon"…rubric...” by the usual crowd of dismissers. But I believe a separate category of misunderstanders would very soon be named and duly catalogued, their (misunderstanders')motives disclosed, the nature of their error explained and the new rubric added to the list to be invoked whenever needed.
The question is how many of Hume’s admirers would, after reading Hume’s "Of the Standard of Taste”, revise their view of Islam versus how many would rather temper their admiration of Hume and keep their tolerance of Islam intact.
Hesperado,
I haven’t missed anything.
The concept of Jihad is all of Islam, the struggle with everything you have to abide by the will of God in all things. I have said this many times before, but being raised in the culture you and others here have been you seem to always want the “John 3:16” proof so you can hang your hat on one sentence and say, “That’s it! That sums it all up!”
No, this is not a goal line to run toward so you can spike the ball and have it done with.
What I posted to both Robert, via e-mail, and Hugh here on JW was three Sahih Al Bukhari Hadiths that underline the gradation of the Jihad as to what is greater and what is lesser and it sums it up well:
This is proof of the concept of Greater Jihad.
Monday, September 28, 2009 12:50 PM
From: "Abdullah Mikail"
To: "Robert Spencer"
Dear Mr. Spencer,
I dropped this on Hugh, yet in the rush some type errors were made.
Be so kind as to notify him, if you would, that they were made.
This is proof of the concept of Greater Jihad.
I hope you and your family remain safe.
Abdullah Mikail
AbdullahMikail replied to comment from Hugh | September 28, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply
Hugh,
Here you have an ideal case of a person asking permission to engage in a justified, authorized, legal action of war, the lesser Jihad, and the Prophet instead counsels him to participate in stead in the Greater Jihad (that you pretend does not exist).
Sahih Al Bukhri
Book 52 #41
“Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.”
So, one may clearly infer what is the greater Jihad from the lesser Jihad in the aforementioned Hadith.
Further evidence of the Greater Jihad being named:
Sahih Al Bukhari
Book 73 #3
“Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: A man said to the Prophet, "Shall I participate in jihad?" The Prophet said, "Are your parents living?" The man said, "Yes." the Prophet said, "Do jihad for their benefit."
Sahih Al Bukhari
Book 52 #248
“Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: A man came to the Prophet asking his permission to take part in jihad. The Prophet asked him, "Are your parents alive?" He replied in the affirmative. The Prophet said to him, "Then exert yourself in their service."
So you have the evidence that the Greater Jihad, struggle to abide by the will of God in all things, is noted as the struggle that resides above the Lesser Jihad, fighting in a just conflict, and you have a direct order to abide by the Greater Jihad in preference to the Lesser Jihad so named.
The concept of the greater Jihad permeates all of Islam, it is the struggle to abide by the will of God in one’s life, period. In that mantle resides all other obedience including the duty of defending city, state, family, etc. you harp on so much here as if it were the only meaning of the struggle, Jihad.
Peace
Abdullah
P.S. For readers and Hugh alike, sorry for the type errors.
Permit me to indulge in a little pessimism and black bile:
I know that in these types of forums (I refuse to use the plural fora) we need to be vigilant about countering the propaganda of Islam apologists (whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims infected with the disease of PC MC). However, in my darker moments, I feel that any Westerner (and "non-Muslim Westerner" is to me a redundancy) who cannot see, or who has not the stamina to do the research that needs to be done to see, that the responses of Abdullah Mikail to my posts are sophistical obfuscations of my points, is frankly not worth the trouble of trying to win over. And furthermore -- to get even blacker here -- if the fate of the West hinges on Western masses who would be so stupid as to fall for the propaganda of Abdullah Mikail's sophistry, then I'm not sure I care to do my small part to save the West.
All this doesn't mean that I will not roll up my shirtsleeves to do the work that needs to be done on the morrow. It only means I have taken a moment to express the darker doubts that I suspect all of us feel at one time or another. Nevertheless, as the British people did in the shelters during Blitz, I trow I will carry on for a better day!
Hesperado,
If you say it is sophistics then prove it.
Hugh Fitzgerald hangs his entire career body of writing on the fact he says there is no such thing as greater jihad and jihad only means "holy war" does that about cover him in one sweeping brush stroke?
Then how do you reconcile that with the post immediately above yours?
Sophistry, I say baloney. You are merely trying to dismiss what you cannot overcome with the facts at your disposal...to say it is mere trickery that sounds good is not only foolish it makes you look weak.
Look in a dictionary at a term it is defined by a paragraph, multiple levels of meaning and there you have it we understand the word. An Arabic dictionary is the same...but people like you try to delete what is in the middle and shove the two words together destroying the true meaning of what you are "translating"
You do this enough times and you have something that is totally alien to the true meaning.
And you say it is "sophistry"...weak as water, your accusation is.
But hang around, we can discuss at length anything you wish. I am not sure what to name your tactic? Child like ignorance or child like curiosity...
"But why?" "But why?" "But why?" you sound many times like a broken record...if you ask that question enough times any discussion will reach a breaking point... a person who purposefully tries to deny validity of a point can do this.
So what to we dismiss your tactic as?
Peace
Abdullah