Put a sock in it Abu.

Posted by: fireangel at June 15, 2006 9:51 AM

Bashir said to convert to islam.."it's the only way to save their souls."

In Indonesia and in many other places, it seems the only way to save your life.

Posted by: pismopal at June 15, 2006 9:58 AM

I saw Bashir on tv. Never mind his invitation to convert.
He had the gall to say the Bali victims died because it "was God's will".
The bombers are not guilty - they were only doing God's work.

This is beyond the realm of sanity.
It is offensive and disgusting.

Everything about him is,,and so is his early release.

Indonesia deserves no help .
They jail a girl on "drug smuggling" for 20 years and this creep who has blood, not only on his hands, but all over his disgusting person gets out after a few months.

I am speechless.

Posted by: Gramfan at June 15, 2006 10:05 AM

Islam is a mental illness.

Posted by: dennisw at June 15, 2006 10:09 AM

I know there are Jihadists monitoring this site, so, brave warriors of Allah, get a message to Bashir for me:

Take your Jihads, your Fatwas, and your Jizya, wrap it in a burka, and stick it up a pig's rear end!! Courtesy of Balrog

Posted by: Balrog at June 15, 2006 10:14 AM

I thought GW Bush had already reverted to the Religion Of Peace?

Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 15, 2006 10:14 AM

Yeh. Having Bush on their side might be to our advantage.

Posted by: Shy Guy at June 15, 2006 10:29 AM

I would consider converting it islam, except for the fact that muslims slaughter their own just as often as they do the infidel. I dont think I would gain much. Ill pass...not to mention I would really miss having little pigs in a blanket at Perkins.

Posted by: Bacon-I Will Miss Thee at June 15, 2006 10:30 AM

Islam makes one so defiled in thinking, pigs would recoil. Pigs are clean when compared to this beast's ideology.

Posted by: William the Sinner at June 15, 2006 10:40 AM

This mad mullah is delirious from his new found freedom. Man, is he on a spree. Invitations here and there, interviews about will of allah, et al. Freedom has crazed his already diseased mind.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:02 AM

I saw Bashir on tv.
He had the gall to say the Bali victims died because it "was God's will".
The bombers are not guilty - they were only doing God's work.
Posted by: Gramfan at June 15, 2006 10:05 AM
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

The religion of peace scores another coup and releases another murderer.

The mos have the the ultimate excuse for "allah commnanded it.".

it is either convert or wage war and defeat islam for there will never be peace between islam and any other belief.

Posted by: Texican at June 15, 2006 11:06 AM

Play Allah - The Get Out of Jail Free Card.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 15, 2006 11:18 AM

This arrogant bastard is in dire need of attitude adjustment via two five hundred pounders. If Zarq and this scum are this awful, how awfully evil was Muhammad? Who the Koran commands them to emulate

Posted by: dennisw at June 15, 2006 11:29 AM

Pure "spiritual" rape.

Posted by: DesertDawgN29 at June 15, 2006 11:31 AM

Texican writes: I saw Bashir on tv.
He had the gall to say the Bali victims died because it "was God's will".

I suggest that we bomb Bashir like we did Mr. Zarqawi... and then tell his followers that it was all God's will.

Posted by: Razdan at June 15, 2006 11:34 AM

Koran[8.17] So you did not slay them, but it was Allah Who slew them, and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote, and that He might confer upon the believers a good gift from Himself; surely Allah is Hearing, Knowing

Posted by: Silvester at June 15, 2006 11:34 AM

You all, of course, realize, that the Koran (or one of the hadiths?) says to first offer your enemy the option to convert to Islam prior to attacking him, don't you?

To me, my first thought when I hear the offer for Bush to convert (this time from Bashir but last month from Ahmedinajad) is that we're about to get hit ...

Posted by: 75273 at June 15, 2006 11:37 AM

75273: so Muslims are going to try and kill us. And the Pope is Catholic, bears shit in the wood, and water is wet. We all (except for a few demented people in Canada, the British upper classes, Norway and sundry other brain-depleted spots) have known it for quite a while. They have been doing it for quite a while. The only thing to be said now is the Duke of Wellington's "Hard pounding, this, gentlemen. Let us see who can pound longest."

Posted by: Paolo at June 15, 2006 11:44 AM

Paolo: Yes, yes, of course they have been threatening, attacking, converting and murdering infidels for 1500 years.. we know this, though I think your analogies miss my point. I'm not ignorant or surprised by the realities of the jihad.

However, these types of "offers to convert" as I understand them, are usually a definitive step before a specific action, as specifically stated in the Koran. So I don't think it is necessarily as run of the mill as you may suggest, but a specific precursor to a specific action.

I'd recommend you go look up the verse in the Koran that talks of this (as will I, b/c now I'm curious again about the specific verbage).

Maybe Robert can chime in if he sees this.. much of my knowledge on this particular point is from his books.

Posted by: 75273 at June 15, 2006 11:50 AM

June 15, 2006
Fitzgerald: Obey those Infidel laws
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the slippery Sistani fatwa:

In the various Muslim websites of the "Ask Mr. Fatwa" or www.islam-online type, one of the Most Frequently Asked Questions from Muslims living in the Lands of the Infidels is: "Do I have to obey the laws of these Infidels"?
The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."

The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in which you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict Islam.

And this, of course, is how those Muslim websites, in English, give advice now, after having become well aware that Infidels are monitoring them. Since all Muslim groups are keenly aware of the need to watch out for those pesky prying Infidels, they do not go on to spell out all the ways in which Infidel laws -- manmade laws, laws that are made without reference to Allah, the sole source of authority, of legal and political and every other kind of legitimacy for a Believer -- are flatly contradicted by the Shari'a.
Nor is it only a question of laws, of the kind that regulate some areas of behavior through norms and sanctions. Islam offers a Complete Regulation of Life. It goes far beyond what any non-Muslim legal system does.

Furthermore, outside the hearing and viewing of those Infidels, another attitude and other kinds of advice are given by at least some clerics. The hukm (not fatwa, I was recently reminded) against Rushdie is a clear call to commit murder, as a righteous and rewardable act, by a Muslim or Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels. That has the full weight of Muslim (Shi'a) authority.

Many Muslims appear to regard the Lands of the Infidels as, by right, theirs -- they need only wait, and wait, for the right demographic changes. Bruce Bawer describes a Muslim cleric in Norway telling his followers that they could steal as they wished from the Infidels, for this was not theft -- it was helping themselves to the Jizyah that they had every right to demand. That attitude, that it is licit, even admirable, to take the property, or have one's way with the women, of the Infidels, is certainly reflected in the criminal statistics in every single European country, where Muslim crime kicks the beam. If 70% of the rapes in Scandinavian countries are committed by Muslims who make up 2-3% of the population, is one not entitled to draw certain conclusions? If 50% or more of the prisoners in France are Muslim when they make up 10% of the population, yet Islam supposedly offers them those family values and stability that Muslim groups like to talk about when pretending they have something, anything, in common with "conservatives" (see the sly appeal, for example, by the young Turk -- not Young Turk-- Mustafa Akyol), are we supposed not to notice?

What is most telling, what is most amazing, what must never be forgotten, about the Sistani fatwa is that Muslims living in the West are being told, in the view of uncomprehending and misreporting Infidels, by a cleric living in Iraq, that they may, that they should, obey the laws of Canada if they live in Canada, but only insofar as Muslim values are "not ridiculed." This is really a milder, clever version of the statement to be found every day at Muslim websites in answer to queries from Muslims Who Want to Know: "You may obey the laws of the Infidel land in which you happen to live [seldom is the particular country specified -- why should it be? What does that distinction matter to Muslims?] as long as those laws do not contradict Islam in any way." Al-Sistani's formulation -- you should obey the local laws of the local Infidels [in this case those of Canada] "insofar as Islamic values are not ridiculed" is softer in expression, with possibly just a little leeway in that phrase "Islamic values" rather than the flat-out appeal to the Shari'a.

But here we are. 2006, and in Canada, some are pleased that a cleric who lists as "unclean" or "najis" at his official website "blood, spit, excrement, semen and Infidels" should be hailed for his "moderation" and his generous concession. How nice of him to tell Canadian Muslims who follow his views that they should, whenever "Islamic values are not ridiculed," take the trouble to obey those Infidel laws, of that Infidel state of Canada.

No doubt Canadians should be grateful to Al-Sistani. How nice of him, and how nice of those Muslims in Canada who will heed him, and try to obey those laws -- just so long, of course, "Islamic values are not ridiculed." And that formulation, of course, depends on just how thin-skinned and quick to take offense Muslims are -- we saw the mass riots and boycotts and threats of murdering every single Dane, the reaction to the publication of twelve largely anodyne cartoons. What else might be taken to offend or violate or "ridicule" Islamic values?

At least Sistani did not say, as Muslim clerics and individual Muslims have said (in Norway as mentioned above and elsewhere), that they are entitled to take property from the Infidels as Jizyah due them. At least he did not say they could do what they wished with those Western women, whose dress apparently makes some Muslims conclude that they deserve what they get (see the "Lebanese" -- i.e. Lebanese Muslim -- gang rapes in Sydney a few years ago).

Worse and still worse.

Posted by Robert at June 15, 2006 09:27 AM | Print this entry | Email this entry

Comments
(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.)
There's special exemption clauses for Mujahedin "travellers" - provided a jihadi is only temporarilly visiting infidel lands and intends to return home at some later date, they're excused from salaat and halal obligations... I couldn't cite scripture, but if this is correct certain "secularised" Moslems might not be as innocuous as they seem.

And was it Khomeini who wrote that livestock feces only become najis if the hapless creature is molested... how generous. After reading that I stick to the falafel kebabs.

Posted by: Animus at June 15, 2006 10:27 AM
Could someone reference a few of these FAQ answers?

Thanks.

Posted by: loler at June 15, 2006 10:52 AM
Animus,
One more reason for sticking to falafel kebabs.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/a_rape_murder_trial_hits_the_bbc_headlines/

The story of Charlene Downes is not carried by majority of the media. Her trial came up in March this year, but the media is ignoring it. This 14 year old was raped, killed, was made into burgers and kebabs, and served to infidels by muslims.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:07 AM
Here is a manmade law worth considiring and applying in all societies:

1) No person shall be permitted to enter the United States from any nation or country that does not accord full and equal rights, including the free and public practice and teaching of religious beliefs, as well as freedom of conscience to those persons who have no religious belief. Federal, state and local authorities shall have appropriate power and funding to enforce this legislation.

Why tolerate Muslim intolerance in Saudia Arabia and other Muslim countries? It's time to close the door to these nurseries of intolerance. We must make the necessary sacrifices of oil to protect our freedom. As Lincoln said, "Necessity tells us what the right thing to do."

Public opinion is ready to move in this direction. Muslims don't seem realize how many people are offended by their intolerance, the absence of full equality of religious rights in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries, the Muslim demands for rights which they will not accord others, and the charge that they are victims of discrimination.

Posted by: Frank at June 15, 2006 11:13 AM
As a Muslim I see the obey civic laws drafted by "non-Muslims" so long as they don't oppose the teachings of Islam like Christians in the Civil Rights Movement who broke laws in a tradition we now call "civil disobedience". It has nothing to do with doing harm to the society you live it, but it has to do with upholding higher moral values sometimes ignored by unjust civic laws.

Peace!

Posted by: enlightner at June 15, 2006 11:14 AM
Did someone get the hang of what this enlightened is trying to put across ? The voltage must be way down, cos I can't see no light. Somebody enlighten me.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:27 AM
Arjun, moral equivalence ping.

You see, Christians peacefully disobeyed laws that they thought were immoral during the Civil Rights Movement (on the order of Ghandi, nonviolent resistence).

He is implying that Muslims will only (1) disobey laws that are immoral and that should be changed, and (2) that they will do it peacefully.

Of course, number one means the institution of sharia law and the destruction of our entire immoral infidel constitutional republic, and number two is a baldfaced lie.

Posted by: treehugger at June 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Treehugger,
Thanks. From your explaination, No. 2 seems to be 'peaceful da'wa' that naseem rants about.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 15, 2006 11:47 AM
The answer given, very gingerly, is: "You may obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."
The clear implication is that you have no duty to obey the laws of the Infidel nation-state in which you have been allowed to settle or in which you live, none at all, if those laws somehow are seen to contradict Islam.

Actually, it seems there is no duty to obey those laws even if they don't. Sistani doesn't say:

"You should obey any laws of the Infidels that do not contradict Islam."
He says:

"You may ...
This is as much as to say that there is no harm in obeying laws that don't "contradict Islam" but that the Muslim is not positively enjoined to.

This is as much as to say refrain from jumping a red light if you please, but be sure to murder an "apostate", contrary to the laws of Canada, if you are able to.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 15, 2006 11:47 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,

Should infedel laws be obeyed?

In an infedel country , should you choose to live in that country...the answer is an implicit YES.

And I know that many muslims and wuslims have a grudging respect for laws that are fair to all.

What would not be so acceptable are the unwritten laws....like having christian assembly in schools...like learning RE at schools which only asks you sing to "while shepards wash their socks by night" etc.

Laws are there for justice and public safety and the continued support and expansion of the teachings of Allah.

I would welcome laws that support this expansion ...such as muslims allowed to marry more than one woman.

Posted by: Naseem at June 15, 2006 12:00 PM
What would not be so acceptable are the unwritten laws....like having christian assembly in schools...like learning RE at schools which only asks you sing to "while shepards wash their socks by night" etc.

just what schools would these be naseem?How many wives does hubby have,you need to let his smart wives talk from now on.

Posted by: patriot4 at June 15, 2006 12:06 PM
I believe we must clarify what Mr. Enlightner means by "immoral" and "oppose" (as in "so long as they don't oppose the teachings of Islam"). Semantic renderings are a useful arrow in the taqqiya quiver.

So, Mr. Enlightner,

Is an infidel law "immoral" at any point it does not parallel Sharia? Is this what you mean by "oppose"? Do you differentiate the morality of infidel laws that
1) limit Sharia "freedoms" (e.g. polygamy; thanks, Naseem) from those that
2) exclude a Sharia freedom (e.g. domestic abuse), or do you speak only of those that
3) dictate practices not allowed by or contradict Sharia? And what about those those "immoral" infidel laws which
4) limit the expansion of Islam (separation of powers) or guarantee the rights of infidels to continue violating Sharia.

That is, if Islam says you may have four wives, will you self-limited to one, just because jahiliya says so? Will you refrain from beating your wife, even with a toothbrush, because the kafir says it is haram? I'm straining for an example of (3), but how about if you are required to keep yourself at your desk working instead of going to raise your rump to the sky?

Do you feel BOUND by our laws, or are you merely acquiesing, deferring, humoring us, feigning assent?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at June 15, 2006 12:08 PM
Laws are there for justice and public safety and the continued support and expansion of the teachings of Allah.

We have no laws for the pedefile mo mo,tell allah to kiss our freedom loveing @ss.

Posted by: patriot4 at June 15, 2006 12:09 PM
Every creation is needy for Allah and depends on Allah while Allah is the one who is not needy; he has no partner in his kingdom and has no assistant, and needs no support. Therefore we should know that Allah does not need any of his creation to intercede through anybody else because he is the only one who can grant that Shafa’ah. Unless he gave permission, nobody can intercede.

The Shafa’ah is the means and the request; it is Waseelah. The Shafa’ah also means customarily,

"To ask for good things for others
(SO WHAT GOOD IS MOHAMMAD...WHY DO YOU KILL OVER CARTOONS OF A MAN?)
http://www.alghurabaa.co.uk/Deen/tawheed1/shafaah.htm

Posted by: storagemanager at June 15, 2006 12:12 PM

We all remember that some of the 911 killers went to inappropriate places, such as strip bars. I suppose Abu Bakar Bashir must have gone to the bar he bombed in Bali and made sure that there were no Muslims in attendence or working in the bar that night. If not, then those Muslims got no benefit from being muslim, and their souls were saved and they found "salvation and peace." sooner than they should have. So why convert, they are just going to kill you anyway.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at June 15, 2006 12:22 PM

Islamisbad: It's not that someone would want to convert to Islam if so offered to by a Muslim terrorist. It's in the Koran that they must first make this offer prior to proceeding to the next step.. offering dhimminutude ("protection" - ha, their best joke!) and the jiyza. After that, boom.. I just see these offers as part of the necessary steps before an attack. Maybe each terrorist planning an attack must first make this offer, I don't know. It wouldn't surprise me, however, as Islam is such a closed dogma that cannot be questioned by its practitioners, that they may each make these steps individually... though you would think a single fatwa by a respected cleric within one area of Islamic jurisprudence would be a green light for all to skip step 1...

Posted by: 75273 at June 15, 2006 12:22 PM

Sell hate and people queue several blocks to buy. Sell love and you will be mostly by your lonely self. Is this a cynical view? No, it is a realistic one. It describes human's lower and primitive nature which must be painstakingly overcome through persistent education and awakening of man's higher nature.
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_16169.shtml

Posted by: storagemanager at June 15, 2006 12:38 PM

Texican,

"The religion of peace scores another coup and releases another murderer.

The mos have the the ultimate excuse for "allah commnanded it.".

it is either convert or wage war and defeat islam for there will never be peace between islam and any other belief."

When I saw the article on Abu Bakar Bashir's offer to President Bush and this country to convert to Islam, the second in about a month or two, after the leader of Iran did the same thing I just about had shaken my head. This man is completly "NUTS". He knows that with more good things coming from out of Iraq these jihadits are in a panic. Also it could also be a warning for another possible attack. The sad truth is that Islam with be at war with the non-Muslim world until the Lord comes back. We must aways be on guard.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at June 15, 2006 12:39 PM

This is a formal Da'wah request ... it is required before you can initiate hostilities against the infidel.

Posted by: Kristopher at June 15, 2006 1:16 PM

Bashir, allah says put your hands around your throat and choke yourself to death!

Posted by: David England at June 15, 2006 1:18 PM

Allah says to the world in the NEW Kuran (c.2006 AD): "Blow up Abu Bakar Bashir!NOW!!!!"

Posted by: pythagoras at June 15, 2006 1:44 PM

Obviously, Muslims don't always invite their enemy to convert before they attack them: there was no invitation prior to the 1993 World Trade Center attack, prior to 911, prior to the London bombings, prior to Madrid, prior to both Bali attacks, prior to the many attacks in Russia (including not only Beslan but also several suicide bombing attacks and at least two crashed airliners)... etc.

Posted by: Television at June 15, 2006 1:57 PM

Ever notice how it's "allah's will" when infidels are killed, but muslims throw a hissy fit when muslims are killed, example "palestine". Is allah in control of deaths? If not, is he all powerfull?
Well, why isn't he?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 15, 2006 2:05 PM

'scuse the typos

Posted by: Carolyn2 at June 15, 2006 2:07 PM

Hmmmm..... "Submit or DIE!" Where have I heard that before??????

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at June 15, 2006 2:17 PM

This is not the first time Bashir "called Bush to accept Islam"- Even long before he went to gaol for the Bali bombings he was recorded by Aussie film crews spouting this very same line... which of course went unnoticed in the western media and not commented on by anyone at the time it was aired.

You may think that Bashir is insane to call on Bush to "accept Islam" but he is not: Beshir is convinced that he is right and that Islam will prevail, it worked for Mohammed, and Bashir believes that Allah is on his side.
All the world will, and must, inevitably become islamic, resistance is futile...

Bashir, like OBL & Al Zawahiri, is a "good muslim", he understand what the Koran commands and they all are faithful "slaves of Allah" who execute its orders.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 15, 2006 2:22 PM

"I only wish I knew what to do about it."

Posted by: americaningermany

No need to find a answer, Islam will soon fill the hearts of us with the answer, and it will be very clear then.

Islam will see it's end.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at June 15, 2006 2:41 PM

'Militant cleric Abu Bakar Bashir also called on Bush and Howard to convert to Islam, saying it was "the only way to save their souls." '

Maybe Cleric Abu Bakar Bahsir is right about the president. Converting may be the only way to save his soul. This U.S. president has sent Karen Hughes and others to improve America's image in the Islamic world. Hughes and Mr. Bush equate irrational fear of Muslims with terrorism itself, in order to accommodate Muslim terrorists. Is this dhimmitude at its best? Or worst?

Posted by: monk at June 15, 2006 2:47 PM

television:

You posted that "Muslims don't always invite their enemies to convert before attacking them." You cite 9-11 as an example. However--

In the late 1990s Ousamah bin Laden wrote a letter to the Clinton Administration in which he 'commanded' the American people to "embrace Islam." Therefore prior to 9-11 Americans WERE invited to convert by their Muslim enemy.

I read bin Laden's letter. You missed on that one.

Posted by: pythagoras at June 15, 2006 2:50 PM

americaningermany,

Islam is not going anywhere. However, we can start by calling on the leaders of Muslim nations to convert to Christianity. One thing Muslims have that seems to be generally lacking in the West (and Christianity in particular) is, for lack of a better term, "cajones." Lack of the aforementioned is what has gotten Eurabia where it is today, and we're on the same track here in the US. If they are brazen enough to actually call for the conversion of the leader of the free world to Islam, then let's fire back with our own call to conversion of their leaders to Christianity. Why the hell not?

Those of us who are Christians believe that "though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of this world," to quote St. Paul. With weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left, let us show them where real salvation and peace can be found, as many former Muslims have found themselves. Let us call on them to honestly engage the claims of the Church regarding who Jesus Christ is and the Resurrection.

This thing isn't going away. And when it all goes down, in the words of that great singer/songwriter from Arkansas, Johnny Cash, "the hairs on your arm will stand up. At the terror in each sip and in each sup. Will you partake of that last offered cup, or disappear into the potter's ground, when the man comes around."

We might as well get on with what really needs to be done, and show Muslims who the Man is.

Posted by: Matt at June 15, 2006 3:15 PM

Matt,
You said a lot, but what is your point?

Posted by: ssa at June 15, 2006 3:28 PM

ssa,

Fair question. Let me clarify. My point is:

1) The West has become emasculated, largely because Christianity has become emasculated

2) Muslims, sensing this lack of cajones on our part, make war against the West and all non-Muslims states in the name of Islam (i.e. "religious" war)

3) Religious wars require religious solutions and not solely democratic, military, or even American ones (i.e. the Iraq experiment is utterly doomed to failure if all we export is "democracy")

4) Christians (on all levels of society in the West) must live up to our namesake, rediscover our collective cajones, and call for the conversion of Muslims to Jesus Christ as the only hope of mankind

Then let the chips fall where they may.

Posted by: Matt at June 15, 2006 3:49 PM

I'm certain among his followers that appeals such as this pass for good a stand-up schtick. Nobody knows better than Muslims that you can't have laughter without slaughter.

I still vividly remember the trials of Samudra and Hambali and Bashir -- look at these pictures at militantislammonitor.org:

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/474

I'm looking for the videos online -- the courtrooms repeated busted out laughing during these 'trials' and sentencing hearings. The press showed the videos, but to my disappointment I never found accounts of what all the laughing was about.

Islam is a societal cancer.

Posted by: jsla at June 15, 2006 4:32 PM

"Obviously, Muslims don't always invite their enemy to convert before they attack them ..."

Well ... I guess he's just trying to stick to sharia. Possibly a slight improvement, compared to just committing an atrocity without a formal warning.

I'd consider that maybe we should be giving him half a point, just before turning the city he lives in into radioactive glass for declaring war on us.

Posted by: Kristopher at June 15, 2006 4:54 PM

"This is a formal Da'wah request ... it is required before you can initiate hostilities against the infidel."

- posted above

Australian Prime Minister John Howard will shortly visit Indonesia soon...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060605/wl_asia_afp/australiaindonesiadiplomacy

Is Bashir's staement a threat and will one of his followers attempt an assassination?

Posted by: Mike_W at June 15, 2006 5:21 PM

Why all the griping? This idiot has done great harm to his beloved philosophy of Islam. More people will see the ridiculousness in Islam, but more disturbingly, some will even heed his call of conversion to Islam. Many years ago in University I learned that a percentage of persons will always go against the norms of society. If the norms of society are this blend of secular-Christianity, we can expect a reaction against it. This opposition appears to be such a static number that it is in itself almost part of humanity. Note that I am not defending it, but instead, seeking to understand the psychosis. Given this, it would surprise me in the least that a few would actually convert following the request to do so. If Bush (or Howard) did actually convert, well then, it’s time to take the second amendment of the US seriously.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 15, 2006 6:02 PM

Conversion to the dark side, heh? Not that crazy about the health plan.(spiritual or physical)
Most naive Western converts see it as some kind of viable method for purging a personal guilty conscience. They know so little about the true Islam, but assume because it is so alien to our Western ways, that it must be superior.(which ironically flies in the face of their own cultual relativism)

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at June 15, 2006 6:56 PM

This was an article by Amir Taheri in the Jerusalem Post giving a bit of historical context to this invitation following Ahmadinejad's invitation to Bush:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961337713&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Skald - I don't know the answer to your question about the Shia's but the Taheri article does mention:

"Some three centuries later it was the turn of Muhammad Ibn Hassan, the last of the 12 imams of Shi'ism, known as the "Hidden Imam," to use letter writing as a means of communicating with the outside world. The Hidden Imam, whose return Ahmadinejad regards as imminent, addressed most of his letters to Muslims in general and his most ardent partisans in particular. But, as tradition demanded, he was not prepared to settle for anything less than a full and unconditional conversion of the entirety of humanity to his version of the faith."

Also, Spencer addressed the precedents for this move in a previous post:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011363.php

Sounds like the precedent comes more from a hadith than from the Koran itself??.

Posted by: Caroline at June 15, 2006 8:02 PM

http://www.antipsykopat.org/bilder/Bush.jpg

Posted by: Zebo at June 15, 2006 8:29 PM

thanks pythagoras for that info; it could be that every major attack has been preceded by an "invitation", but sometimes it has not been sufficiently reported or even noticed by the news.

Posted by: Television at June 15, 2006 11:42 PM

http://www.antipsykopat.org/bilder/Bush.jpg
Posted by: Zebo at June 15, 2006 08:29 PM

poor taste, but funny. Had a good laugh.

Posted by: Texican at June 15, 2006 11:47 PM

I agree with Matt when he states this thing is a religious war and that:

3) Religious wars require religious solutions and not solely democratic, military, or even American ones (i.e. the Iraq experiment is utterly doomed to failure if all we export is "democracy")

I don't think we necessary have to replace the Islamic agenda with Christianity or anything else.

We are at war with Islam.

Take a lesson from Pagan Rome, which in terms of reach and power projection, could be used as a model for the United States at this point in history. Look at the Punic Wars. Look at how Rome dealt with the the Carthagenians. After the Punic Wars, the world had the era of 'Pax Romana'.

Rome destroyed Carthage and it's ability to project sea power. It destroyed the temples of Carthage and mixed salt with the soil. Then it left.

The new 'pagan Rome' i.e; the Great Shaitan, Amrika needs to destroy its enemies and their based of operation without regret. We need to mix salt with the soil. We need to pull down the temple of Islam by its six pillars.

We need to keep at it until the enemy ( true believers hiding among the ummah ) can no longer project attacks on any scale.

We need to defeat the enemy and destroy their will to launch future attacks.

We do it from every direction, using all manner of tactics. Military projection is just one of the many things to do.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at June 16, 2006 10:19 AM

Why should Bush have to convert? He's already guaranteed that Afghanistan remained officially a Muslim Shari'a state and transformed Iraq from, at least officially, a secular dictatorship into an Islamic Republic. He, like Clinton before him, have facilitated the advance of Islam far more than any Muslim leader alive.

Posted by: Provoslavni at June 16, 2006 12:55 PM