Little Rock shooter: Attack was "justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."

Here yet again is an Islamic jihadist explaining and justifying his murderous acts by reference to Islamic teachings. Here yet again the jihadist character of these murderous acts was systematically ignored and/or downplayed by the mainstream media and law enforcement. The resolution to deny what is happening to us is near-universal, and those who dare to point out that the Emperor has no clothes are marginalized, vilified, and now -- in Geert Wilders' case -- put on trial. But Abdulhakim Muhammad knows what he did and why he did it, and has made these things as clear as Nidal Hasan did in his Power Point, and as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters did in their letter to the judge. How long will the denial continue? Your guess is as good as mine. But as long as it continues, every American is more vulnerable and less safe than we could be and should be.

"Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting," by James Dao in the New York Times, January 21 (thanks to all who sent this in):

MEMPHIS -- A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda.
In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting "a Jihadi Attack" in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops.

"I wasn't insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act," Mr. Muhammad said in a two-page, hand-printed note in pencil. The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was "justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad -- to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims."...

« Previous Entry | Home Page | Next Entry »

27 Comments

| Leave a comment

Yankel | January 22, 2010 9:21 AM | Reply

"The attack...was 'justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion."

So there we have it in black and white. And the only question left unanswered is "how many Muslims here can be expected to similiarly heed the call."

Khushi | January 22, 2010 9:22 AM | Reply

'The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was "justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion....'

How much more proof will the politically correct people of the West require before they admit that the problem is with islam itself and not individual persons?

Yankel | January 22, 2010 9:26 AM | Reply

"...those who dare to point out that the Emperor has no clothes are marginalized, vilified, and now -- in Geert Wilders' case -- put on trial."

--Robert Spencer

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

"If it is the truth what does it matter who says it."

--Anonymous

http://www.quotationpark.com/topics/truth.html

undaunted | January 22, 2010 9:27 AM | Reply

Shoot back.

NextVoiceUHear | January 22, 2010 9:35 AM | Reply

Pig him and all the others.

NVUH

savsiv | January 22, 2010 9:36 AM | Reply

He is interpreting the Koran wrong, you know that! Oh not to forget you will MSM show placards of Muslims rallying "Not in the name of Islam," BS. Wow it is amazing to see the obfuscation and putting the risk of non Muslims at the hands of blood thirsty Mohammedan killers by whitewashing and not reporting the facts. It has become selective information-fascism.

Ernie Banks | January 22, 2010 9:42 AM | Reply

Waiting for Honest Ibe to denounce this fellow as a misunderstander of Islam... Still waiting... Still waiting...

canasia_us | January 22, 2010 9:55 AM | Reply

So there you go. This cuts through the bull that came out of the Fort Hood investigation in which no mention is made of ISLAMIC radicalization; only condemning radicalization of any type. Islam IS radicalization. Question is, what does Obama now plan on doing about it?

Civilus Defendus | January 22, 2010 9:57 AM | Reply

Too bad according to their book our breathing is justification to wage jihad against us.

Question_Everything! replied to comment from NextVoiceUHear | January 22, 2010 10:20 AM | Reply

NVUH, that was actually Colonel Alexander Rodgers, who was Governor of Jolowho.

Abu Sayyaf - Philippines

Other practices--reportedly yielding short-term results but likely generating longer-term negative consequences--were implemented by U.S. military officials unable to find other effective countermeasures. One such approach was said to have carried out by Colonel Alexander Rodgers, Governor of Jolo:

All Moros who ran juramentado were killed and laid out in the market place with slaughtered pigs placed above them. The Mohammedan abhors all contact with pork and the resulting contact of the dead juramentado with the pig neutralized the beneficial effects of the rite itself. Colonel Rodgers became known to the Moros as "The Pig," and juramentados took themselves hurriedly to other districts.12

Good to note also that the jihad against the U.S. is nothing new.

Eastview | January 22, 2010 10:22 AM | Reply

"...change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda."

This shows that he is under the full sway of Islamic programming and obviously cares more about the good opinion of, and kudos he'll receive from, his Islamic brethren than for either the life that he took or showing respect for the kuffar legal system. Since he is so up front about the Islamic motives for murder, Maybe Geert Wilders should invite him to testify at his trial.

Canasia_us, I won't be holding my breath that either Obama will do anything about this "man-made disaster" or the MSM will make much of a fuss. It'll be up to us to do that.

Annie Oakley | January 22, 2010 10:47 AM | Reply

The attack didn't go as planned, eh?

I wonder what he had in mind?

BTW Undaunted, I love your comment!

Truthsake | January 22, 2010 10:52 AM | Reply

Who says PC stands for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS? What is so correct about it?
It should be called: POLITICAL CORRUPTNESS instead!

joe | January 22, 2010 11:14 AM | Reply

Khushi

"'The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was "justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion....'

How much more proof will the politically correct people of the West require before they admit that the problem is with islam itself and not individual persons?"

khushi, i liked your post. i put it on my facebook page,with a link to this thread of course. i hope you dont mind.

joeblough | January 22, 2010 12:22 PM | Reply

Has anybody tabulated and taken a count of the number of jihaddis who have both attacked and quoted their scriptures in justification?

Similarly do we have tabulated data on how many preachers of various levels of authority have announced that one or another form of murder is justified by scripture?

It would be a useful body of data to quote from and make reference to.

No doubt the process of collecting and organizing the data would be tedious. The count is probably in the thousands by now.

But it would be nice to be able to say X thousand mohammedans have attacked outsiders and quoted scripture when asked why.

People like and are intimidated by statistics. It would make a handy conversation stopper when confronted with fools that push the islam is peaceful rap.

It would be convenient to say "well maybe you think so, but here are X thousand documented cases of people who think otherwise".

Just a thought.

unbeliever1 | January 22, 2010 1:09 PM | Reply

How would Muhammad have pleaded-with explanation?

Question_Everything! replied to comment from joeblough | January 22, 2010 1:25 PM | Reply

Hey Joeblough,

Joeblough :Has anybody tabulated and taken a count of the number of jihaddis who have both attacked and quoted their scriptures in justification?

Why bother? we just the same old, tired 'no True Scotsman' argument from the 'good' moslems.

It's far safer, easier and more pragmatic to label all moslems as anti-social until they prove otherwise.

Kuffar_England | January 22, 2010 2:05 PM | Reply

As I do not reside in the US, please forgive my ignorance of the US legal system.

As the accused has pleaded guilty, presumably this means that he will not be questioned in detail by prosecution and defence lawyers and will simply proceed to sentencing?

As he has cited that, "The attack...was 'justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims" I am sure that it would be illuminating for all if he were given the opportunity to be questioned in court and explain which particular parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah he relied upon for his motivation and justification.

In this case there is a real live jihadist to question. So often they go for the martyrdom option which then renders them unavailable for questioning.

If he quotes the usual Qur'anic suras with which JW readers or so familiar it will afford the opportunity for the definitions of what "wage war on Islam and Muslims" actually means to a Muslim jihadist.

Basically, that "waging war on Islam" is anything and anyone that constrains Islam and Muslims in their objectives of achieving world domination. It would be good to have these as matters of public legal record and reported accordingly by the MSM.

If he is given the opportunity to do so, I should imagine that Geert Wilders will seek to do likewise with the Muslim jihadist he is seeking to call as a witness in his own trial.

Question_Everything! replied to comment from Kuffar_England | January 22, 2010 2:16 PM | Reply

Hey Kuffar_England, I like your thinking!

Islamsuxx replied to comment from NextVoiceUHear | January 22, 2010 7:28 PM | Reply

Awesome!!!

smithers | January 22, 2010 11:02 PM | Reply

Abdulhakim Muhammad 24, took the name "One who serves a wise man"

He said he was retaliating on the U.S. military for the sake of Allah, when he was first arrested. Now he says he's part of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and it didn't go as planned.
I wouldn't want to upset the court proceedings but shouldn't this info be handled by warfighters instead of lawyers.

Kuffar_England replied to comment from smithers | January 23, 2010 12:50 AM | Reply

Absolutely, but warfighters are ultimately controlled by politicians and few, if any, politicians in the US or Europe appear prepared to acknowledge the true source of the threat.

Abdulhakim Muhammad might be one of that scarce commodity, an "Understander of Islam" that's actually prepared to admit it. A failed Muslim Jihadist stating very clearly that he did what he did because that's what the Qur'an tells him to do might actually penetrate the apparently impenetrable minds of politicians.

Then the politicians might tell the warfighters exctly who/what to fight the war with.

joeblough replied to comment from Question_Everything! | January 23, 2010 1:27 AM | Reply

I don't know for sure, but I expect that you are a fellow in the resistance, and so I hope you take my comment in the spirit in which it is meant, one of respect and, one hopes, fellowship.

I am myself an unbeliever, with respect to the various faiths of the world.

That said, I saw an exchange of yours with Champ on another thread here today (I forget which one) and felt that you were unduly harsh and flippant with her on the subject of faith.

I would not make any such comment as this, but for the fact that I think that it is extremely important to maintain civility within the ranks of the resistance to the greatest extent possible. There is simply too much variety of belief within our number and too much at stake to act otherwise.

Apart from which it seems faintly absurd to come onto a site hosted by and intellectually led by a Christian -- and one who is a major intellectual leader of the resistance -- and there to sneer at people of faith.

It just seems ungraceful, indelicate.

We who do not believe at all have got to recognize that we are a tiny tiny minority of the world, and in point of fact, the body of the resistance to mohammedan theocracy will be (numerically speaking) predominantly made up of Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, and almost entirely of people who have some faith or other.

I will add that all faiths are very clearly NOT created equal. And that fact has to be realistically grappled with.

I myself think that there are in fact, intellectual and psychological costs associated with belief in even the best and most humane of the world's religions. But that is a fly spec compared to the world scale tsunami of savage horror, suffering and poverty that is threatened by the mohammedan jihaddi resurgence.

And I think that that is a fact that atheists of every stripe had better wrap their teeth around and bite down on ... hard and fast, right now!

Every atheist I ever read or hear (other than my sainted and obviously flawless self ....... please laugh on dotted line) is busy repeating every excess, idiocy and crime ever perpetrated in the name of religion, or God or the Gods or what have you.

The truth about reality is that there is a vast gap -- morally, psychologically, legally, culturally, emotionally, socially and politically -- between committing an atrocity in the name of a faith that explicitly condemns such an act and forbids it, and one that commands you and compels you to that act.

And that is the great divide that the cultures of the globe are facing today. Right now. As we write these words online.

It is critical that the world understand that ASAP.

And we, of the resistance, absolutely MUST stay focused.

And we must, to the extent to which we are able, deal with each other fully awake ... mindfully and respectfully.

Annie Oakley replied to comment from Kuffar_England | January 23, 2010 5:08 AM | Reply

Kuffar_England,
It took me a while to find out more info on the court procedings, but here's a link from The Religion Of Peace website. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22littlerock.html?th&emc=th

It looks like they are trying him in state court, not federal court. Each US state has their own court system, and the rules/penalties can vary.

When someone has done something particularly heinous, a bench trial (the case is heard only by the judge) or a guilty plea is probably the best option. Judges are used to hearing the worst of human behavior and are probably not as likely to impose the death penalty as a group of average citizens on a jury would be. It doesn't always succeed, though.

My state requires a judge to wait at least 24 hours before imposing the death penalty on a prisoner who is having a bench trial or entering a guilty plea. This is intended to give the judge a chance to calm down and reflect whether execution is truly appropriate. Based on the linked article, it seems that Arkansas law differs and the judge is not allowed to sentence someone to death without the recommendation of a jury. It also seems that the Arkansas prosecutor must agree to the guilty plea, and it doesn't look like that is going to happen in this case.

John Byrnes | January 23, 2010 12:26 PM | Reply

Profiling has failed us; we don’t need profiling to identify Individuals like the Christmas-Day Bomber or the Fort Hood Shooter! There is a better solution!

Virtually all media outlets are discussing whether we should be profiling all Arab Muslims; I will in the one-page explain why we don’t need profiling. Over 15 years ago, we at the Center for Aggression Management developed an easily-applied, measurable and culturally-neutral body language and behavior indicators exhibited by people who intend to perpetrate a terrorist act. This unique methodology utilizes proven research from the fields of psychology, medicine and law enforcement which, when joined together, identify clear, easily-used physiologically-based characteristics of individuals who are about to engage in terrorist activities in time to prevent their Moment of Commitment.

The Problem
Since the foiled terrorist attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian national on Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit, the President has repeatedly stated that there has been a systemic failure as he reiterates his commitment to fill this gap in our security. This incident, like the Fort Hood shooting, exemplifies why our government must apply every valid preventative approach to identify a potential terrorist.

The myriad methods to identify a terrorist, whether “no-fly list,” “explosive and weapons detection,” mental illness based approaches, “profiling” or “deception detection” - all continue to fail us. Furthermore, the development of deception detection training at Boston Logan Airport demonstrated that the Israeli methods of interrogation will not work in the United States.

All media outlets are discussing the need for profiling of Muslim Arabs, but profiling does not work for the following three reasons:

1. In practice, ethnic profiling tells us that within a certain group of people there is a higher probability for a terrorist; it does not tell us who the next terrorist is!

2. Ethnic profiling is contrary to the value our society places on diversity and freedom from discrimination based on racial, ethnic, religious, age and/or gender based criteria. If we use profiling it will diminish our position among the majority of affected citizens who support us as a beacon of freedom and liberty.

3. By narrowing our field of vision, profiling can lead to the consequence of letting terrorists go undetected, because the terrorist may not be part of any known “profile worthy” group – e.g., the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh

The Solution
Our unique methodology for screening passengers can easily discern (independently of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and gender) the defining characteristics of human beings who are about to engage in terrorist acts.

The question is when will our government use true “hostile intent” through the “continuum of aggressive behavior” to identify potential terrorists? Only when observers focus specifically on “aggressive behavior” do the objective and culturally neutral signs of “aggression” clearly stand out, providing the opportunity to prevent these violent encounters. This method will not only make all citizens safer, but will also pass the inevitable test of legal defensibility given probable action by the ACLU.

As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?

Visit our blog at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com where we discuss the shooting at Fort Hood and the attempted terrorist act on Flight 253.

Kuffar_England replied to comment from Annie Oakley | January 23, 2010 1:54 PM | Reply

Thank you for your reply.

As you undoubtedly know, here in Europe we do not have the death penalty and have not done so for many years, so we have no similar examples.

In my earlier post I was hoping that the nature of the US legal proceedings of the trial would afford the opportunity for the prosecution and/or defence to explore the shooter's motivation and justification of the offence to which he has now pleaded guilty.

He has already said that, "The attack...was 'justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims".

As has been discussed in numerous JW documents and previous posts, the term "waging war on Islam and Muslims" is usually construed fairly widely by many Muslims as meaning anything and anyone that can be conconsidered to be constraining Islam and Muslims in their objectives of achieving world domination for Islam and Sharia law. For example: The presence of any non-Muslim troops or civilians in Muslim lands; Objecting to requests by Muslims for the implementation of Sharia law; Failure to accede to any requests by Muslims for special concessions; The mere existence of Israel; Any trivial "offence"; etc, etc, ad nauseam.

In my opinion, it would be good if the shooter were questioned in court on these aspects and given the opportunity to:

1) Confirm that, as a Muslim, he shares these broad interpretations.

2) Explain which particular parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah he relied upon for his motivation and justification for the shooting.

If such matters are discussed in open court and reported in the media, there is just a possibility that the media and politicians might possibly take notice. They might then understand that, for Muslims:

1) Islam's objectives are world domination and that this is explicitly stated in the Qur'an.

2) Terrorism by Muslims is viewed as an entirely appropriate action in pursuit of these objectives.

3) No specific action is required by non-Muslims in order to provoke Muslim terrorism. Simply being non-Muslim or not submitting to Islam are more than sufficient justification.

If the shooter just pleads guilty, says nothing in court, takes the martyrdom option and gets executed than this won't happen.

In Europe, in my experience, the politicians and media are, in general, nowhere near this level of undersanding. Terrorist incidents are described as the work of a tiny minority of Muslim "extremists" or "radicals" who are considered exceptions to the "religion of peace" variety of Muslims who are considered, of course, to be the "vast majority".

There are, however, some notable exceptions. Some readers' letters in the better-quality newspapers are regularly identifying Islam and the Qur'an and the desire for worlwide domination as the source of the Muslim terrorism being suffered by the non-Muslim world. The term "Islam is a religion of peace" is also frequently ridiculed.

dumbledoresarmy replied to comment from joeblough | January 23, 2010 2:21 PM | Reply

Joeblough

well put, and thank you very much for writing that. A gentle reminder, really, to all of us, religious as well as non-religious, of the need for basic civility.

I should add that although I got involved in the ding-dong spat with Q.E. in the other thread, I often enjoy his comments - I particularly appreciated some of his replies to the late unlamented Mohammedtroll, 'loveverybody/ 45ch' (and other aliases), which were solidly sensible.

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.

FrontPageMag.com

Books by Robert Spencer

The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert Spencer

Islamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian Future

Muslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer

The Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks

“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
— Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
— Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
— Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
— Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
— Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
— Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
— Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
— Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
— Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
— Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
— Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
— Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
— Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
— Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
— Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
— Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
— New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
— Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
— New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
— Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
— Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
— Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
— Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
— Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
— Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
— Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
— Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”