They've already told us. My column in Human Events this morning:
With the Obama administration moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other masterminds of 9/11 to New York City, many have pointed out that the defendants are likely to use the trial as a platform to spread their views on jihad, the U.S., and the war on terror. That's most likely true -- and we already know what they will say.They told us last year, when they wrote a six-page document they filed with the military commission at Guantanamo: an "Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations."
"With regards to these nine accusations that you are putting us on trial for," they explain, "to us, they are not accusations. To us they are badges of honor, which we carry with pride." Their pride is explicitly and proudly rooted in Islam: "Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims." With unusual forthrightness, they declare that "killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion. These actions are our offerings to God."
That said, however, they view the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is all the West's fault. This is a view that Barack Obama apparently shares. In his landmark June 2009 speech in Cairo he explained the conflict solely in terms of what the West had done to Muslim countries: "In addition, it is the imposed reality on Muslims in Palestine, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, in the land of the two holy sites [Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia], and in the rest of the world, where Muslims are suffering from your brutality, terrorism, killing of the innocent, and occupying their lands and their holy sites."
Answering charges that they violated the rules of warfare by killing civilians, they frame the question in terms of Islamic law, claiming that it is the U.S. that is the lawbreaker: "Who is breaking the law of war in this world? Is it us, or is it you? You have disobeyed all heaven and earth's laws of war, to include your own laws. You have violated the law of war by supporting the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and Lebanon, and for displacing five million Palestinians outside their land. You have supported the oppressor over the oppressed and the butcher over the victim."
The remedy for our ills, according to the plotters, is Islam: "So, you are the first class war criminals, and the whole world witnesses this. You have no values and ethics and no principles. You are a nation without a religion. On the other hand, we are a great nation, with a great religion, values, ethics, and principles, which we comply with and follow, and we invite people to following [sic] our ways."
However, the plotters stopped their blame game long enough to acknowledge that Islam mandates offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers, simply because they are unbelievers - a concept that policymakers and law enforcement officials have steadfastly ignored since 9/11: "Nevertheless, it would have been the greatest religious duty to fight you over your infidelity. However, today, we fight you over defending Muslims, their land, their holy sites, and their religion as a whole."
The plotters quote the Koran to justify their jihad war against the American Infidels. "In God's book," asserts the letter, "he ordered us to fight you everywhere we find you, even if you were inside the holiest of all holy cities, The Mosque in Mecca, and the holy city of Mecca, and even during sacred months. In God's book, verse 9 [actually verse 5], Al-Tawbah [the Koran's 9th chapter]: Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, and besiege them and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush."
We constantly hear that to speak about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism as rooted in Islamic texts and teachings is to "side with the extremists." All right -- then why doesn't a moderate Muslim go through this court filing and refute this use of the Koran? It would be most interesting to see Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR or some other vaunted moderate Muslim reply to the Islamic beliefs and assumptions manifest here. Now would be a perfect time to delineate in specific terms the differences that moderate Muslims have with this approach to Islam, wouldn't it?
It's only fair to give them equal time to defend what they did and show 'the other side'. After all we've had years of nothing but Americans saying that those who committed 9/11 are "bad".
when some one says they want to kill you, it's best that you believe them.
Quran 98:6 Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
The Holy are on trial by najis...
I don't think Mohammad and his gang of four will let us forget that...I don't think they will let waterboarding and claims of torture slide by either...They will claim that they falsely confessed to stop the torture. They will try to implicate Bush/Cheney/CIA, which will delight Holder who is fondly anticipating more charges and accusations.
This trial will be a long running screwball circus with a huge price of admission...But we spare no expense to throw Bush/Cheney under the bus...Justice must be done...even if you have to invent it...
Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has a degree in mechanical engineering and no Islamic qualifications (and his nephew, Ramzi Yusuf, also an engineer). He does not have the authority (ijaza) to issue fatwas or provide authoratative commentaries on the Qur'an. So why is his fatwas and tafsir accepted without recourse to an "authoratative" source which is exactly what Spencer does when a Muslim claims to be peaceful (usually umdat al-salik)? In other words, a lay Muslim who commits acts of violence does not require evidence from outside authority - his testimony that it has Islamic legitimacy is enough - but a lay Muslim who works for peace does require this external authority. The bias is clear.
"However, the plotters stopped their blame game long enough to acknowledge that Islam mandates offensive jihad warfare against unbelievers, simply because they are unbelievers"
This is not the view accepted by the majority of the ulama or the various madhhabs. As Zaid Shakir writes after providing classical commentaries on 9:5 "This position, the permissibility to fight in order to repulse aggression, is the view of the majority of the Sunni Muslim legal schools as has been explained in great detail by Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti in his valuable discussion of the rationale for Jihad" http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/notes/jihad_is_not_perpetual_warfare/ In fact, Ramadan al-Buti shows, it is only one strain from the Shafiite rite that considers "disbelief" itself to be a legitimate reason for fighting. The heretical Kharijites were pretty much alone in saying this. It is therefore no wonder al-Qaeda and their like are considered modern neo-Kharijites since not only are they extreme and fanatical puritans, they do not respect legitimate religious authority (in just the same way as the Kharijites).
But for Spencer, their anti-authoratarian, ignorant word is enough to prove Islamic legitimacy.
And don't forget how Bouyeri - Theo van Gogh's executioner - mocked van Gogh's grieving mother in open court. I'm sure we can expect some of the same here.
Another example of Spencer attempting to give these individuals Islamic legitimacy when they mention nothing of the sort:
Robert:- Answering charges that they violated the rules of warfare by killing civilians, they frame the question in terms of Islamic law, claiming that it is the U.S. that is the lawbreaker: "Who is breaking the law of war in this world? Is it us, or is it you? You have disobeyed all heaven and earth's laws of war, to include your own laws. You have violated the law of war by supporting the Israeli occupation of Arab land in Palestine and Lebanon, and for displacing five million Palestinians outside their land. You have supported the oppressor over the oppressed and the butcher over the victim." (end quote)
He writes "they frame the question in terms of Islamic law", when the quote says nothing of the sort. It simply says America is responsible for many war crimes we see today, which is true. Of course this does not justify their attacks on civilians, but nowhere do they explain this in terms of Islamic law. Spencer is indeed a liar.
Whether defensive or offensive warfare, it was a distinction without a difference to those victims in the WTC, Pentagon, or Flight 93.
These guys have already pled guilty, as their "Islamic Response" makes clear.
Hang 'em. The sooner the better.
"Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has a degree in mechanical engineering and no Islamic qualifications"
What? He's a Mohammedan. That's his "qualification."
He's read the Jihad "verses of the sword" in the Q and that's his "qualification."
Anyone can read the Q and then decide to go on a murderous rampage and take out a few Infidels to be rewarded later by allah with the 72-virgin fictional male paradise. You know, after "slaying and being slain."
The Q is not complicated as it's written by a Warlord who only wanted to kill people. Oh, and have his way with 9-year-old girls.
KSM is 100% qualified to be an Islamic Jihadist. End of story.
I managed to read the whole thing without blinking!...
May be, Mr. Spenser wrote this assay using his famous sense of humor to replace the master of horror story teller, the legendary Mr. Alfred Hitchcock !...
"Soften it a bit", you can't go on telling this stuff to kids! Not even to your adult devoted readers!...
IT IS TOO REALISTIC !
======================
I hope and pray (literally pray) that these demons get their day in court. I hope they are permitted to spill every ounce of their venom before the infidels of the world.
I hope they are heard, noted, and widely quoted. I hope every third word out of their mouths is "Allah", and every fourth is "Muhammed".
I hope the jury and the judge are horrified by what they hear, and I hope their attorneys will ask to be excused and replaced.
I don't care much about their sentences, if they are found guilty. I want only that the "infidel" world will come to feel the proper degree of revulsion for Islam, its tenets, and as Hugh might add, its atmospherics.
What happens to these sick madmen isn't nearly as important as having the sickness noticed, recognized, and reviled. To have it all come to us, straight from the source, will be a beautiful thing.
At the very least, it's going to be interesting to hear how the victims of 9/11 were a threat to Dar-al-Islam. I don't believe, personally, that hijacking airplanes and using them as suicide bomb vehicles, is conducive to Dawa, but that's just me.
The Q is not complicated as it's written by a Warlord who only wanted to kill people. Oh, and have his way with 9-year-old girls...
The reason that Islam appears complicated, is because the scholars can never agree or quite figure out how to make all this information fit into Sharia...This Islamic scholar says this, and some other Islamic scholar says that...The literature is loaded with scholars trying to make straight lines out of curves, how to make sense out of non sense...It is all done to try and justify Islam, and their own existence within it...In my view, the entire bag is full of garbage, and needs to be taken out...It's a little amusing reading Mahoundians like Muzzamil, and Abdullah trying to defend a bag of trash...
`
From above...I hope and pray (literally pray) that these demons get their day in court. I hope they are permitted to spill every ounce of their venom before the infidels of the world.
I don't think they will disappoint you...They have lots of venum to spill...But they will probably spew rather than spill...
Whilst it is true that the 1947-48 war created 800,000 Arab refugees, it is surely an anomaly that their 4 million descendents are classified as refugees. This is quite unique, a status which is afforded to no other group of refugees in the world. For instance, Hindus fled Pakistan when India was partitioned when it gained independence. How much do we hear about the “right-to-return” of Hindus to their ancestral homelands in Pakistan? And if they did would they not be treated as second-class citizens because of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy laws against Islam? The Indian Republic has no such blasphemy laws favouring one religious group. Whilst we are on the subject of refugees, what about the 200,000 Greek Cypriots turned into refugees by the Turkish invasion of 1974? And the 1600 people detained by the Turkish Forces who are still unaccounted for? And the fact that Turkey introduced three times as many settlers into Northern Cyprus as Israel placed on the West bank? What about the 500,000 Iraqi Christians who fled Iraq to escape persecution by Muslim fanatics i.e. their imposition of Jizya, the religiously-sanctioned tax which Christians must pay to non-Muslims?
And, of course, it should be remembered that Palestine was part of a Byzantine-Christian Civilization until it was invaded by Arab-Muslims in the 7th Century, people who were engaged in occupying land that did not belong to them and turning other people into refugees in their own country.
Muslims are always on stage, trying to show off to score brownie points with Allah. "Watch me Allah! I'm killing for you! I'm raping for you! I'm looting for you! I'm lying for you! See how I make the blood spurt! See how I confuse and terrorize my victims! Aren't you proud of me, Allah? Allahu Akbar!"
Whenever I see Muslims in action, I always think of a particular scene in one of the Damien (anti-Christ) movies. Damien, a young child, is having a garden party for his school friends on the front lawn of the chateau where he lives. In the middle of that gathering of children, his private nurse steps out onto a third floor ledge and shouts "Look, Damien, I'm doing this for you!" She steps off the ledge and hangs herself.
And just like dhimmis of today reacting confusedly to endless Muslim terror and mayhem, afterwards the clueless parents can't seem to figure out why she would do that.
Just to refresh everyone's memories about what Islamic clerics, those high on Islam and , in their crazed conspiracy theories, crazy distortions even, when they need to, with the facts of early Islam (see the way the speaker linked to below, one Hazen Shuman, an Egyptian cleric, misremembers the reasons for the attack on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of Khaybar, returning from their fields -- why, he simply ignores the story as it appears in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira), for Islam discourages free and skeptical inquiry, encourages the habit of mental submission, of being an unquestioning "slave of Allah" -- and this has consequences in every aspect of life). Look at those who grow up, not in the West where they may come to be so affected by their non-Muslim surroundings that some -- a few, but some -- actually do begin to think as we understand the meaning of that verb -- but in states or societies or communities suffused with Islam. )
At MEMRI one can find this just-posted television program, one allowed on the airwaves of "our ally" and police-state Egypt, in which a Muslim cleric offers us one more glimpse into the crazed world, the conspiracy-and-fantasy world, in which even the history of Islam can be rewritten. It's not the most astonishing of the videos one can see being helpfully preserved in the archives of MEMRI, but it must surely be among the top fifty:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2274.htm.
If you spent a little more time examining the evil life of mohammad (prison be upon him), and less time examining the truth being presented by Robert, then you wouldn't be making a fool of yourself with your comments.
That said, however, they view the conflict between the West and the Islamic world is all the West's fault. This is a view that Barack Obama apparently shares.
...................
And he is not the only one. Did anyone catch Bill O'Reilly's interview with one of the Jihadist's lawyers last week?
Scott Fenstermaker engaged in a great deal of obfuscation and weasely phrasing, but, in essence, asserted that the Jihad terrorists were going to engage in a *justification defense*—in other words, they did it, and *were right to do so*.
This is stunning—and, if true, shows that terrorists are becoming more and more nakedly brazen in their waging of Jihad.
When asked by O'Reilly if we would be hearing a lot of "Al-Qaida propaganda" from the defendants, Fenstermaker asserted that we would indeed be hearing a lot of propaganda—from the US government!
Fenstermaker himself would not even commit himself to the idea that the victims of 9/11 were murdered. And this was no passing omission—he was asked this question three times by Bill O'Reilly, the last time quite pointedly.
It looks as though Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow terrorists are going to present a full apologia of violent Jihad—at full taxpayer expense.
Allah Akbar, Infidels.
Here's the YouTube video:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/23/oreilly-to-911-defense-lawyer-you-know-people-hate-you-right/
Hugh, thanks for the link. "High on Islam" - that would describe this Muslim cleric. What's with the nose picking, finger licking and hand waving? Even the wacky mullah is not this crazy.
Excellent point Champ.
Muhammad is one of the best places to start in explaining/understanding Islam.
First establish the bedrock, Muslim tenet that Muhammad is uswa hasana “The Model of Conduct” and al-insan al-kamil “The Perfect Man”. Then proceed to describe Muhammad’s life, the murders, robberies, rapes and lies as transcribed in the Qur’an, hadith and “Sirat Rasul Allah”.
There can be no claims of “misinterpreting” or “taken out of context”. From the most sacred and holy Islamic texts, Muhammad was a brutal, murderous, warlord and by definition the prime example to all Muslims on how to conduct themselves – it’s as simple as that.
Note the ravings of the hate-spewing cleric, Hazen Shuman, aired on Egyptian television, which means that the content was found to be suitable for broadcast by government censors. Shuman, so consumed with Jew-hatred, cannot speak without saliva pouring from his mouth during his hysterical, paranoid rant. Apart from his insane assertion that Ariel Sharon made a necklace from Muslim body parts, his delusional recounting of what allegedly occurred at Khaybar is completely at odds with canonical Muslim accounts of same. I will not use this space to rebut the nonsense that Shuman has uttered - anyone can google "Khaybar Jews" or the like and do so on one's own. What is most salient is the manifestly intense, pathological Jew-hatred that these Muslim clerics so typically display, with the intent to kindle the same degree of hatred in their audiences. Note, also, that all Jews are considered the Enemy of Muslims - and will remain so in perpetuity. There are no exceptions - never were, never will be. (If there were any "good" Jews, they abandoned the fold and became Muslims). Do the clerics in any other mainstream religion, at least in modern times, show such unbridled hatred toward Jews, or toward any other group? What one witnesses, when one watches the despicable Hazen Shuman, is the result of the consumption of the poisonous fruit of the rank and ugly tree that is Islam, the tree of the Muslims.
Agreed, Davegreybeard! :)
Don't we want these thugs to make a public, Islamic justification for their acts? One, I think they're fools if they believe an American jury will be sympathetic, although if but a single Muslim (whether they admitted it is another question) is on that jury they'll hang it. Second, such a public display of what Islam really means and Muslims really believe should go a long way to making the general public sympathetic to the anti-Jihad movement. "Now I get what you've been saying!"
The Muslim poster above uses the authority of Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti to attack Robert Spencer concerning Jihad and Islamic supremacism. Here is what Dr. al-Buti actually has to say:
"Holy War, as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them...thus the Apostle of God said 'I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message."
--"Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography", Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti (page 134, 7th edition).
Offensive war.
"The verse 9:5 does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war because it could legitimately be called an offensive war. This is the apex and most honorable of all Holy Wars." (p.323-324)
"Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission which the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the People of the Book except conversion to Islam or being subjugated to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight anyone who attempts to stand in its way...until the day of resurrection!" (p.242)
And so the poster is hoisted on his own petard.
Dr. al-Buti effectively makes Robert Spencer's argument for him.