| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
What was that again about Islam forbidding the murder of innocent civilians? "Bombing is a Great Victory for Al-Qa'ida, Which 'Rubbed the Noses of the World's 8 Most Powerful Countries in the Mud,'" from MEMRI, with thanks to Andrew Bostom:
The following are excerpts from interviews with the director of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies, Dr. Hani Al-Siba'i. The first aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 8, 2005; in it, Al-Siba'i discussed the London bombings.
The London BombingsAl-Siba'i: "I think that British Prime Minister Tony Blair made a grave error when he spoke before the investigation and claimed that the perpetrators of these acts were acting in the name of Islam. I think that he will pay the price for this grave error in the future. No possibility should be ruled out. We do not rule out the possibility that it was done by the intelligence agency of another Western country hostile to Britain. We do not rule out countries... or some Zionist Americans who wanted to overshadow the G-8 summit. But at the same time, we do not rule out the Al-Qa'ida organization. It's been claimed that Al-Qa'ida died in Afghanistan, and was buried in the caves there. And behold: it was resurrected after the American occupation of Iraq. Moreover, Al-Qa'ida controls the war agenda in Iraq. It is the Al-Qa'ida organization in the Land of the Two Rivers [Iraq], headed by Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, that imposes its policies, to the extent that the Egyptian government was forced to... It was forced to recall [its ambassador], and other countries are afraid to send ambassadors there."...
Host: "Mr. Hani, make no mistake. The same assembly ruled that Jihad in Iraq is allowed against soldiers. Even Sheik Osama [sic.] Al-Makdisi, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi's mentor... Okay. Abu Hani, okay... He asked Al-Zarqawi not to kill civilians and to attack only the Americans... I mean, only soldiers..."
Al-Siba'i: "The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law. Dr. Karmi is sitting here, and I am sitting here, and I'm familiar with religious law. There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not...
Host: "Excuse me, who do you want to promote? Those who want the banner of 'There is no god but Allah' over the Queen of England and Buckingham Palace? Those who want to establish a caliphate and turn the Queen of England into a captive? Those who say [England] is Dar Al-Harb and property there can be plundered? Are those the kind of people you want?"
Al-Siba'i: "These associations do not represent the Muslim public. They collaborate with the British police for certain interests. They want an 'English Islam,' and not the Islam that was sent to the Prophet Muhammad. If Al-Qa'ida indeed carried out this act, it is a great victory for it. It rubbed the noses of the world's eight most powerful countries in the mud. This victory is a blow to the economy..."
Read it all.
Posted by Robert at July 12, 2005 1:17 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Kind of OT, but I would like to know if anyone has info on how to reach Mr. Bostom. I would be very interested. He is very resourcefull and would like to congrat him on his new book.
Posted by: Ibn Rushd![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 12, 2005 1:47 PM
The interview is a litany of rambling logic so typical of Islamists.
But it comes to this: you say anything bad (read "the truth") about Islam then "Allah will punish you". Code word for some Islamic fanatic individual or cell to get activated and prove that Islam can butcher some one, anyone - they'll think of a good reason later.
Reason? Well, try this one: some loony claiming to be Osama wants to debate with someone in the west. No, not the leaders, for he does not recognise them, someone else... but no one came forth. So the historic inferiority complex kicks in and turns into bloody vengeance. Of course all this is justifiable by Islamic law. Who says? Well, any islamic scholar can throw in their opinion for they are all part of the Islamic Nation.
Good grief
Posted by: raven_ at July 12, 2005 2:19 PM
Are any of our (US) think tanks reading this stuff ? Are our politicians taking any notice of this ? Doesn't Daniel Pipes have input to these homeland security committees?
Posted by: TooBad at July 12, 2005 2:31 PM
This is what you get when you open your borders to evil pigs, hey people, "see it for what it is".
To,Toobad, no one inside our government's care's, in fact many want us dead for the ideals of the one world. once more, "see it for what it is".
Think, act or die, its all about you!
Posted by: Fred Dawes at July 12, 2005 2:44 PM
Doesn't the idiot realize that this can be turned around AGAINST Muslims?
No innocents on our side, can be translated into no innocents on YOUR side, you jerk.
Posted by: treehugger at July 12, 2005 2:45 PM
treehugger,
"No innocents on our side, can be translated into no innocents on YOUR side, you jerk."
Not as long as our sociopolitical culture is dominated by PC Leftism.
In today's climate, a Curtis LeMay would be impossible -- even after several major attacks on several American cities.
at July 12, 2005 3:51 PM
The Muslim being interviewed in this piece, Dr. Al-Siba'i, at one point in the interview does what I like to call the "Leftist Two-Step" (I call this type of logic Leftist because so many Leftists practice it):
The Leftist/Muslim Two-Step in response to the murder of Margaret Hassan in terms of decrying the murder of an innocent person is raised --
1) Dr. Al-Siba'i first implies that we mustn't believe everything we read and then goes on to say that Zarqawi himself "issued a communiqué... that appeared on all TV channels, in which he called upon the group that kidnapped Margaret Hassan to release her, and said she was innocent. She was slaughtered by [Iyad] Allawi's gang... They don't even acknowledge the term 'civilians.'"
2) Dr. Al-Siba'i when pressed about who is to define what "civilian" means, goes on to argue that according to Islamic law, there is no such term as a "civilian", that anyone can be considered an enemy combatant, and that "People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not."
Posted by: metaxy at July 12, 2005 3:59 PM
Andrew Bostom:
Looks like you saw my posting of that article
about 8 hours earlier on JW.
Islamic spokeperson in London declares on video interview that there are NO innocent civilian according to islam.
NO ISLAM - KNOW PEACE
here's the video on MEMRI's website.
http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=748
Posted by: ala-sux at July 12, 2005 05:16 AM
at July 12, 2005 4:08 PM
WHAT IS THAT SAYING???
DO UNTO OTHERS AND YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO DO UNTO YOU??
THINK THAT IS RIGHT??
SO THE MULSUMS WANT US TO DO WHAT TO THEM??
WELL YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT HOW WE ALWAYS OVER DO THINGS??
ANOTHER SAYING IS BECAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR!!!
AGAIN THE MULSUMS SHOW WHAT MONSTERS THEY ARE BY KILLING PEOPLE IN A SHOPPING MALL IN ISRAEL.
WELL THIS MEANS THE MULSUMS BROKE THE DEAL AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM A PENNY!!!!
NO THIS JUST PROVES THAT THEY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED LIKE A RABBIT DOG MUST BE??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, SIGHT, WISDOM, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
at July 12, 2005 4:15 PM
The US and UK gov's seem to think that if they acknowledge the obvious, thier respective publics will turn into a bunch of raving lunitics (read; jidahi's). I doubt this is true, but I do think they would demand more from thier leaders. This would mean the end to the era of appeasemant.
Posted by: kevin at July 12, 2005 4:27 PM
Al-Siba'i: "You expect me to criticize them for using a knife to slaughter some American?!"
Ali Al-Saraf, Iraqi Journalist: "Dr. Hani said the Prophet gouged out a man's eye, killed another, and threw."
Al-Siba'i: "This is a true tradition in the collection of Al-Bukhari."
Al-Saraf: "Excuse me, the Prophet did not do this to innocent people, like this riffraff in Iraq. They kill people who have nothing to do with."
Al-Siba'i: "Do you mean the Americans?"
Al-Saraf: "I mean the riffraff - American or not - who kill innocent people."
Al-Siba'i: "The only riffraff I know are the Americans."
Al-Saraf: "If the Americans kill innocent people, they are riffraff, and if your guys, the Islamists, kill innocent people they are riffraff too."
Al-Siba'i: "Excuse me, don't say 'your guys.'"
This is not a sitcom, although I wish it was.
Posted by: Bar at July 12, 2005 4:34 PM
Of course. In Islam there is no seperation of Church and State as there is in the West. Such an idea is anathema to Muslims and any Muslim who thinks otherwise is in danger of being branded an unbeliever and punished accordingly. Quranic law dominates every aspect of Islamic life. Every Muslim male is commanded to be a "warrior" for Islam. (Women don't count.) There is the Islamic world (dar al Islam) and the world of the unbeliever (dar al harb), which Islam _continually_ makes war upon. After Islam has destroyed or conquered the apostate world it will wage war against itself to see if Sunni, Suffi or Shiite is the correct interpretation of Islam. It was never claimed that Al Queda died in the caves of Afghanistan. They were simply run out of power with the Taliban. Al Queda had 2 training camps in Northern Iraq. They were not "reborn". Read what Al-Siba'i says very carefully. This is the enemy.
Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 12, 2005 5:55 PM
That mindset is what we allow to emigate to the US everyday. You cannot negotiate with Islamists, they consider you and me a subhuman Infidel. They have the blackest of hearts.
Posted by: reset at July 12, 2005 5:58 PM
ITV News has named the bomber on the No 30 bus as Shahzan Tanweer aged 22 from Yorkshire. I have just watched an interview with his neighbour.
Interviewer, "Didn't you ask him what he was doing for those 6 months in Afghanistan last year?"
Neighbour " No, he was just traveling. He was a nice boy, he used to play cricket. I saw him 2 days ago in his Dad's chip shop"
I knew they would be British. I said they would be commended for their cricket and niceness.
at July 12, 2005 6:00 PM
I have that slightly wrong. Shahzan Tanweer is believed to be responsible for the Aldgate bomb. The No 30 bus bomb was the work of an as yet un-named 19 year old. 3 men came from Beeston in Leeds, they met with a 4th from Luton and were filmed leaving Kings Cross station together Thursday morning.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 12, 2005 6:15 PM
Where is KingOfTalkingCr@p these days ?
Posted by: TooBad at July 12, 2005 6:16 PM
Granny, Are you saying this guy went to Afghanistan for 6 months and no red flags were raied by ANYBODY?!! FFS, surely this would be some kind of indication that something is amiss.
Posted by: TooBad at July 12, 2005 6:36 PM
TooBad
The speed with which the police got to their families in Yorkshire once the bodies were identified suggests that these boys were under some kind of scrutiny. But its a community of Pakistanis, who are always traveling home to visit their Grandfathers (ahem) and then some of them slip over the border. But how the neighbour (who was filmed in silhouette) thought the public would believe that he didn't realise that 6 months in Afghanistan was significant is beyond me.
at July 12, 2005 6:55 PM
Granny
I remember the prescience of that post when you predicted what the response would be to the first suicide bombers from our country.
I am struggling to contain my feelings about todays news.
at July 12, 2005 7:01 PM
I was wrong about one of them being a woman.
Suicide attacks are so un-British that I think they will have the effect of waking public opinion up much more quickly than would have been the case had conventional methods been used. This is going to be a very steep learning curve.
at July 12, 2005 7:22 PM
Now it's gone midnight, I'm going to bed, you do the same. We need clear heads for the morning.
Good night.
at July 12, 2005 7:24 PM
These bastards and their community knew what they were up to and nobody said a thing. I honestly try not to tar all muslims with the same brush but I think this indicates where we stand with the muslim community. They live in their fantasy world of umma and we cannot be part of it. The UK government had better get a handle on this and get measures lined up that will halt the saudie influence in mosques, stop their funding and just start locking up the call to jihad radicals. And that is just a start.
Posted by: TooBad at July 12, 2005 7:25 PM
This is sort of OT, but this guy made me wonder about why they have all that ugly facial hair. I am not a scholar of the qur'an but I haven't found a proclamation stating that a muslim must have a beard in the qur'an. This article offers some information.
http://www.islam.tc/beard/beard.html
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 12, 2005 8:08 PM
From another source,
“Ibn `Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, quoted the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as saying: “Be distinguished from disbelievers, grow your beards, and shave your mustaches.” In the Hadith, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) related the reason for growing a beard to the necessity of distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims. The non-Muslims referred to here are the Persians –fire worshipers - who used to shave their beards. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to teach Muslims how to be distinguished in their appearance, and their behavior.
at July 12, 2005 8:14 PM
Metaxy,
I believe that at some point when there are enough bodies, there will be nothing that the government can do to hold back the victim's families.
When someone's loved ones are killed by Muslims, they have nothing to lose by instituting personal justice.
Posted by: treehugger at July 12, 2005 8:32 PM
Beards and the abstention of shaving that leads to beards may also have to do with the Muslim obsession with the two closely related values of
1) purity
2) men not adorning or beautifying themselves like women (it's also against Sharia for men to wear gold and silver, perhaps jewelry in general).
Posted by: metaxy at July 12, 2005 8:35 PM
treehugger,
In certain isolated instances I'm sure that will happen, treehugger, but Michael Savage is correct: Liberalism (i.e., Leftism) is a mental disease, and it controls our sociopolitical culture. And this means that our own military & police will spend more time and effort and laws and bullets trying to stop vigilantes (which so far have not materialized at all, contrary to the hand-wringing paranoia of Leftists and Muslims) than it will in trying to rationally stop Jihadists.
at July 12, 2005 8:38 PM
A trimmed beard is attractive but "one fist's length" is required.
Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 12, 2005 8:41 PM
When I was a kid growing up in the deep south I heard all the old hateful bromides about Jews. One of the bromides was a concession to the truth and that was..." Jews are smart "( As 3rdtimelucky mightsay " no shit Sherlock "). Well, the proof of the pudding is, the Jews have figured out who is responsible for terrorism in Israel and the rest of the world. We brilliant westerners however are still blaming it on ourselves or Jews. Allahu Fubar!
Posted by: pismopal at July 12, 2005 8:48 PM
PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm not some vigilante nut with a stockpile of weapons waiting for Armageddon. I'm just pointing out that our representatives who have the power of self-defense are breathing in the gas of PC Leftism and can't take rational measures, like Blair immediately deporting the thousands of "radical" Muslims his government has announced live in London.
And further, all Western governments immediately instituting profiling of Muslims by apportioning 99% of all police, intelligence & military surveillance, detection, prevention measures against people who fit a Muslim profile which will obviously include racial profiling.
We can't do these rational things because our society is mentally diseased and worries about extremely implausible "slippery slopes" (based in large degree on a complete psychological loss of confidence in the goodness and rightness of our modern Western society) into Hitlerian fascism while Jihadists have too much freedom of movement for our own safety.
at July 12, 2005 8:54 PM
Metaxy-
In the case of a dirty nuke attack on a major US city or cities....you don't see the majority of police and military on the side of the citizenry? I know that happened after 9-11, but if it is apparent that this a continuing risk, people (liberals included) are going to become less and less worried about the civil rights of a group of folks who may be involved in turning your Great Aunt Velma, your kids, or yourself into radioactive toast.
I know MY survival instinct works just fine...
Posted by: treehugger at July 12, 2005 11:15 PM
In the case of a massive attack on the US, my theory is this...and it's only a theory...In the US there are large numbers of street gangs...ordinarilly they are your basic dangerous scumbags... If America is attacked to a large extent, this will kill off a lot of them and their relatives...The rest of them are going to be as pzzed off as the rest of us survivors. Most of these gangs are armed and play by no rules. Once they percieve who the enemy is, that did that to "them", they will seek revenge and no American based muslims will be exempt from their wrath. The police will not be able to prevent most of it...if that got bad enough, martial law could be declared and troops brought in...Tanks on American streets has happened before and can happen again...They will be protecting muslims, and trying to restore order.
In the meantime, lots of people, mostly muslims are killed or hurt...just a theory...one possibility out of many...not a pretty one either...Wonder if I can sell this to Geo Lucas...
at July 13, 2005 10:13 AM
George Lucas (and every other major director for that matter) would love a script where American vigilante gangs are killing innocent Muslims -- but don't expect him to do justice to the reasonable spin you presented.
Posted by: metaxy at July 13, 2005 11:31 AM
Part of the reason that interviews like these are not paid much attention to is that they are internally contradictory. First Al-Siba'i criticizes Tony Blair for assuming the culprits to be Muslim. Then, by the end of the interview, he is commending Alquaida for its actions, if it was indeed an act committed by them. Huh? These guys lack rationality. It's like arguing with the village idiot.
Posted by: former liberal WF at July 15, 2005 5:50 PM
In the case of suicide bombings occurring in the US, thousands (or tens of thousands) of the US's Muslims would become candidates for martyrdom. We have so many redneck armed forces rejects that anyone with middle eastern features would be at risk. It would be very unfortunate for our law enforcement community. I would be losing my beard very quickly.
Posted by: braveword at July 17, 2005 9:45 PM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)