jihad is jihad no matter how you package it, wake up America!

Posted by: AMartinez at March 29, 2007 9:22 PM

p.s. Is that a red dot on his forehead, in 308 cal. Wishful thinking...........

Posted by: AMartinez at March 29, 2007 9:24 PM

islam cannot be reformed, it needs to be banished from our Western society, and encouraged to be destroyed in all parts of the world with the help of free people. Democracy will destroy islam, its a matter of time.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at March 29, 2007 9:29 PM

The issue of Esposito, Armstrong, even Lewis is vexing. I'm not someone who tends to believe that folks say what they say simply to keep the money flowing from the Saudis. The phrase "the Saudi-funded Esposito" doesn't answer my question.

Are we to understand that some are trying to deceive but that others have been deceived? If so, why isn't it obvious to more people in the field? Isn't the common wisdom that Islamic studies is like the elephant and the wise men, and that someone's opinion about Islam tells more about the person than about the subject?

Hugh, Robert .... what is your understanding of the world in this matter? I am, naively yours, StillBreathing.

Posted by: StillBreathing at March 29, 2007 9:29 PM

Dualism=Islam. In their mind it is all right to say violent jihad here and civil jihad there. That is why you can not trust what they say!

Posted by: MadMom at March 29, 2007 9:33 PM

Ken Livingstoned has obviously been advising him on the finer points of public relations in Dar al-Harb.

Posted by: Charles Martel at March 29, 2007 10:01 PM

Strange. The man in the picture looks kind of like Phil Knight.

Posted by: feralcat9 at March 29, 2007 10:02 PM

Caption: "I Am So We Todd Ed!"

Posted by: champ at March 29, 2007 10:09 PM

Mr. Al-Qaradhawi is the original "Bob" to quote John Wayne in True Grit. A brilliant child who memorized the Koran and in his originals followed Hasan al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood who was enthralled by the German Nazi, hence the Banna Nazi of Egypt.

In realizing he is a fascist, he ties in to bin Laden and spews fatwas more than a German burping beer. His idea of moderate Islam is realism. By realism, it means the Koran is literal and the heart interprets what one thinks it says.

His idea of "democracy" appears it is fine as long as his people are selected and he follows the old Arab traditions of chivalry. Murder people, but don't mutilate them and murder people, but only do it in certain ways.

He is the true Muslim Brotherhood and needs to be understood is not al Qaeda. The MB is a political body which seeks domination via elections and judgements.....think of him as aborticide fascists changing law for women's rights in court judgements and homosexual fascists passing laws making their choices legal. We see how wonderful this type of jihad works in uniting peoples and this is what Al-Qaradhawi's followers advocate.

In reality, one can behold CAIR as this type of fascist (leftist liberal) organization as a working of the Muslim Brotherhood. They incite events, cause propaganda to be aired, seek laws to overthrow society and sue in court to intimidate citizens and change laws.

This is what he is speaking of in literal terms and in the octopus of Islam is but one arm of the attack on free peoples. Al-Qaradhawi just wants to use murder in certain places and conditions in chivalry and the rest of the time he wants Junior Ellison from Minnesota and Minnesota Federal Courts destroying American rights and giving rights to a Muslim minority. That is not a Republic, but democracy and is exactly the danger of it and the danger of Al-Qaradhawi and his followers spread across the globe.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 29, 2007 10:24 PM

amartinez-
"Is that a red dot on his forehead?"

When Muslims want to show off how much they pray they go around with a sore spot or bruise on their forehead from banging their heads on the ground. If you do it hard enough you get 'homemade Muslim stigmata' so other Muslims can see how 'holy' you are and how humble (gag!).

Matthew 6:5 "and they pray that they may be seen of men..." I'm Jewish but I can certainly agree with Jesus there.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at March 29, 2007 10:31 PM

Isn't the common wisdom that Islamic studies is like the elephant and the wise men, and that someone's opinion about Islam tells more about the person than about the subject?

6:70-8:12-10:4-14:16-22:19-37:67-40:72-44:46-47:15-55:44-56:42-56:93-78:25-88:5

What's this, a call to deconstruct Islam? Oh yeah, here we go again, there can be no reality about Islam cuz it just can't be real. It must be us, the imperfect perceptors who're making all these terrible misunderstandings and mistakes. I've always found professorial doggerel is a tough row to hoe.

Lookit, Islam is as real as a case of genital warts and as serious as a heart attack. Look at Moslems, not yourself or those around you.

That way you can see it for what it is.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at March 29, 2007 10:31 PM

Lame Cherry, re that is not a republic, but democracy. Hell even ole barrac say's we are a democracy, so will Americans swollow this bitter pill?

Posted by: AMartinez at March 29, 2007 10:33 PM

"We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad."
-- from Al-Qaradawi's statement

What could be clearer? Depending on who is in the audience, Al-Qaradawi tells us, he will vary his pitch. When he's at the sober gathering of the Al-Quds Institute, with too many non-Muslims possibly present, it's the presumed sweet reason of a merely "civil jihad." When he can let down his hair without any Infidels overhearing, then of course, he tells his Muslim audience, "I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations."

Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton, and said quite another to what he assumed were all-Muslim audiences, beginning with that one he addressed in September 1994, in Johannesburg, telling them not to worry about the Oslo Accords he had just signed, because they didn't commit him to anything; he was just following in the steps of the great Master, and then he proceeded to refer, as one might expect, to Muhammad's deviousness with the Meccans when he signed the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. That has been the model for all subsequent treaties between Muslims with Infidels -- always temporary, always to be broken, whatever promises of friendly relations and "peace" or even "permanent peace" may be solemnly undertaken, it means nothing -- Muslims are required to break such agreements the minute they feel strong enough to do so. They know, Al-Qaradawi knows, Arafat knew, Mubarak and the Saudi rulers, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, know this. Every single Muslim ruler or ordinary Muslim understands this, and understands that Muslims have a right to sign things and then never live up to them, or to break them with impunity whenver they feel like it. "War is deception," said Muhammad.

The only strange thing is: if this is such an obvious part of Islamic treaty-making (see Majid Khadduri, Law of War and Peace in Islam - say, do you think Dennis Ross, or Richard Haas, or anyone at all in the whole American State Department has ever looked at that book, or even read it, or bothered to inquire as to what, in Islam, the rule is on treaties with Infidels? No? You don't? Neither do I.), why don't the Israelis, even with their celebrated incompetence, begin to mention the little matter of how Muslims regard treaties. Hmmm? Might spoil Rose Garden ceremonies? Queer somebody's pitch for a Nobel? What, exactly?

Meanwhile, Al-Qaradawi is just doing what all Muslim leaders do but he, apparently unaware that everything is overheard these days, tells the truth: that is, tells the truth about the fact that he essentially lies. He calls here for "civil jihad" and makes the gullible think that's all he's calling for, but over here, with fellow Muslims only, he calls as well for the other kind, the kind with bomb belts and homicide bombers on busses, in cafes, in schools and at Passover celebrations. That's Al-Qaradawi: a nice blend of Mahmoud Abbas (the "civil jihad") and Haniya (the other kind), the Slow Jihad and the Fast Jihad, or rather, both the tactics of the Slow Jihad and the tactics of the Fast JIhad at the very same time.

And we are supposed to pretend we didn't hear this. Or if we heard it, it doesn't mean what of course any sensible person knows perfectly well what it means. It means what Muslims, speaking to other Muslims, know perfectly well it means.

For god's sake, la commedia e finita. Or ought to be. We can only stand so much wilful ignorance and stupidity exhibited by those pushing for that madness, the "two-state solution" (which must be a "solution," some will say, because otherwise why would they call it that).

How long, o Lord, how long?

Posted by: Hugh at March 29, 2007 11:31 PM

Che faccia.

Posted by: Hugh at March 29, 2007 11:35 PM

In laymen's terms:

"They're on to us in the West. Play possum for a while, then, after they unload a ton of infidel bucks and raw materials and arms, turn on them, cut off their heads, and rape their survivors, women and children alike, blow up their temples and churches, and force the dogs into servitude. Allah willing."

That wasn't that hard now was it?

Countesy of the universal KORANB.S.TRANSLATOR (reg.u.s.pat.off.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 29, 2007 11:36 PM

If he proposes war against us, the infidel, there should be consequences, he should be taken out

With extreme prejudice

Posted by: dgene at March 29, 2007 11:44 PM

I learned a new word today; ‘Bezonian’. Thanks Hugh.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Bezonian

If a bezonian is a low person or scoundrel; a beggar, what do you call a learned Imam like Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi?

I propose ‘Bozonian’.

Posted by: pez at March 29, 2007 11:53 PM

Qaradawi is a tacit supporter of terrorism. His fatwa has contributed to he death of Coalition Forces, Israeli civilians and moderate Muslims. His ruling on "intellectual apostates" has had a real chilling effect on dialgue and debate in Islam, especially in Egypt and the Persian Gulf.

He should be languishing in a prison cell.

Posted by: Haidon at March 30, 2007 12:00 AM

"Qaradawi...a tacit supporter of terrorism"
-- from a posting above

Nothing tacit about it. Clearly articulated -- for the right audience.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 12:14 AM

Two links:

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/30/professor-for-sale-western-definition-of-jihad-must-be-corrected-italian-expert/

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/03/30/pauline-hanson-and-the-islamo-christians/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at March 30, 2007 12:20 AM

"appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting"

So what would be the appropriate setting for our politicians to call our worst enemy an enemy?

"In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this."

Anytime!

We can ban political correctness now or wait until sharia courts do it!

Posted by: Excommie at March 30, 2007 2:43 AM

.....over and over again, the Muslim leaders and clerics openly say the death will continue....

...you do not want these people in your neighborhood...ban Muslim immigration now...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 30, 2007 6:05 AM

I can read his lips:

" I'd walk a mile for a camel!"

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 30, 2007 6:39 AM

Does murdering homosexuals and apostates (both of which he advocates) count as civil jihad or military jihad?

It's so confusing.

Posted by: Celsius at March 30, 2007 7:48 AM

Now this is the type of moderate Moslem American democrats should invite to Congress for their next convocation. This sheik guy is a typical Islamic moderate. He illustrates and tends to disprove two ignorant myths concerning Islam. First, he tends to prove false the first myth that Islam is a religion of peace. But more importantly he tends to prove the illusion of a second myth, the one that holds there are any Islamic moderates. Dr. Qaradhawi is a good illustration disproving the both myths. Where is the moderation in the following statements:

Dr. Yusouf Al-Qaradhawi: "They want us to teach the religion without Jihad. They want us to omit the raids from the Prophet's biography, to omit the Islamic conquests from history, to omit Jihad from religious jurisprudence, to omit Khaled Ibn Al-Walid, Saladin, Qutuz, Muhammad the Conqueror, to omit the Islamic heroes from our history…"

Sheikh Qaradhawi: "American Culture And Judaism Spread Violence In The World"

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi in Favor of Suicide Operations:
"Allah gives the weak a weapon for self-defense that the strong, despite his military and nuclear arsenals, can do nothing against."

Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi
"Even though Islam states that prisoners should be treated decently, there are those who allow killing a prisoner in certain circumstances. The atmosphere is what caused them to adopt this position"

An Islamic extemist is one who is trying to kill you here and now. A moderate Moslem is a Moslem who not trying to kill you at this moment. Islam and moderation are inconsistent.

Posted by: David England at March 30, 2007 7:49 AM

An extremist is somebody who is actively trying to kill you. A moderate is somebody who is content to watch others do the job. Somebody who would actively oppose violence against infidels is an apostate, not a "moderate".

Jihad includes a wide variety of acts, not just open warfare. Anything which tends to intimidate non-Muslims from opposing Muslims, or which makes it easier for Muslims to spread Islam without opposition, is part of jihad. Anything. Lawsuits against those who reported suspicious behavior by the "flying imams" is part of jihad, because it makes it easier for terrorism to occur later. Threatening emails against those who speak out against Islam is part of jihad, because it tends to persuade the vocal to shut up

Posted by: PapaBear at March 30, 2007 8:01 AM

I don't trust anyone with a mark in the middle of his/her forehead. A red dot between the eyebrows is fine. Bruises, callouses and marks on the middle of the forehead are right out.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 30, 2007 9:43 AM

"Allah gives the weak a weapon for self-defense that the strong, despite his military and nuclear arsenals, can do nothing against."

Yesuf you have seen nothin of our nuclear arsenals so far. Short of your wet dreams about having your own nukes, you have no idea what they can do to jihad.

Posted by: Excommie at March 30, 2007 10:54 AM

A_Plague_on_Both_Houses

I don't trust anyone with a mark in the middle of their forehead either. Here's why:

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

Revelation 14:8-10

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 30, 2007 11:18 AM

Most of the Muslim world can easily be led around by the nose.

Take out mo-foes like this one all over the Islamic world. Take out those leading and inciting and their support infrastructure. 'Take-out' doesn't necessarily mean 'kill'. Take them out Kemalistically if you must -- but they need to be knocked into the dirt and no longer followed.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 30, 2007 12:22 PM

Ynkedoodl2

I did look that Revelations passage up one time to confirm. I find the parallels interesting, but I don't like to rely on Revelations for much, as it traditionally lends itself to those who would twist it to suit their own ends. We have many examples of this.

Sacrifices to Moloch by the Phillistines and Canaanites of antiquity have strong parallels in what modern day residents of Gaza ( aka Philistina ) promote and even approve of for their own children !

I am a Roman Catholic, aka infidel crusader, who wears a Cross of Jerusalem fashioned for me in that city by a Jewish goldsmith. I have reached the conclusion that the earlier Crusades failed because they only tried to address the symptoms of the problem, not the root cause. The root cause is in Mecca, not behind the Damascus gate. If the Crusaders had attacked and occupied the correct cities and leveled them... we would see a different Islam today.

Mecca and Medina should have been the destinations of the original Crusaders. If we want to demonstrate the futility of worshipping Allah then the way to do it is the way of old --- the temples and gods of the enemy must be destroyed.

Now you may counter this idea with " the Jewish religion hasn't been destroyed... the jewish faith goes on despite a lack of temple... the jewish temple was captured many times, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans all desecrated the temple and destroyed it to one degree or another."

Okay - true. But now the focus of Judaism has changed. Judaism is no longer militantly nationalistic in the way of the Zealots from Jesus' day or in the way of Ezekial.... Judaism is about the relationship, not the cult of sacrifice. It's about study, introspection, questioning and so on... If the temple had never been destroyed I don't think we'd see the focus on rabbis, synagoges, law and deliberation.

Now, to qualify things vis a vis Islam: personally I don't see the necessary tools and traditions in place for Islam to follow the model of Judaism when it's forced into an existential crisis by the destruction of the Ka'baa, Mecca and Medinah. I don't think Islam can a serious blow like this, but if it could its future would be shaped by moderating forces, just the same as what happened to Judaism.

The temples and gods of the Islamic faith need to be destroyed physically. We need to learn from the wisdom of pagan empires of old. We need to force the Islamic world to reconsider their basic tenets. All heads bow towards Mecca.

Islam is the root cause and must be addressed physically.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 30, 2007 1:53 PM

"I don't trust anyone with a mark in the middle of their forehead either."
-- from a posting above

Surely the mark in the middle of some female Hindu foreheads, the bindi, is unobjectionable, and has nothing sinister about it, unlike the Muslim bump brought by too-much energetic prayerful prostration of self as proof that one is a humble "slave of Allah."

Besides, to mistrust all marks in the middle of foreheads would be anti-French. All French people are Cartesians. If you ask a French girl you've just met for her address and phone number and if she promptly complies by giving you what she calls her "coordinates," then you can turn those two dimensions into an unforgettable three, for you've been handed the X and the Y, and now it's up to you for whatever you manage to come up with, for the implied Z.

The boys from Port-Royal occasionally like to hint, with a modest rise in the middle of their foreheads, that pineal gland below, the very one that is not given quite as much attention as it used to receive, in those Introduction to Western Philosophy courses that were the bane, or bliss, of freshmen.

Posted by: Hugh at March 30, 2007 2:56 PM

This man has RADICAL,/b> stamped all over his forehead. And Qaradhawi is suppsoed to be moderate (no such thing, I know)?

I would Like to lean forward with a cigarette lighter and light his beard.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 30, 2007 3:28 PM

Of course I wasn't talking about Hindus and the bindi.

My guru Sri Aurobindo was a Hindu.

WHO?

In the blue of the sky, in the green of the forest,
Whose is the hand that has painted the glow?
When the winds were asleep in the womb of the ether,
Who was it roused them and bade them to blow?

He is lost in the heart, in the cavern of Nature,
He is found in the brain where He builds up the thought:
In the pattern and bloom of the flowers He is woven,
In the luminous net of the stars He is caught.

In the strength of a man, in the beauty of woman,
In the laugh of a boy, in the blush of a girl;
The hand that sent Jupiter spinning through heaven,
Spends all its cunning to fashion a curl.

There are His works and His veils and His shadows;
But where is He then? by what name is He known?
Is He Brahma or Vishnu? a man or a woman?
Bodies or bodiless? twin or alone?

We have love for a boy who is dark and resplendent,
A woman is lord of us, naked and fierce.
We have seen Him a-muse on the snow of the mountains,
We have watched Him at work in the heart of the spheres.

We will tell the whole world of His ways and His cunning;
He has rapture of torture and passion and pain;
He delights in our sorrow and drives us to weeping,
Then lures with His joy and His beauty again.

All music is only the sound of His laughter,
All beauty the smile of His passionate bliss;
Our lives are His heart-beats, our rapture the bridal
Of Radha and Krishna, our love is their kiss.

He is strength that is loud in the blare of the trumpets,
And He rides in the car and He strikes in the spears;
He slays without stint and is full of compassion;
He wars for the world and its ultimate years.

In the sweep of the worlds, in the surge of the ages,
Ineffable, mighty, majestic and pure,
Beyond the last pinnacle seized by the thinker
He is throned in His seats that for ever endure.

The Master of man and his infinite Lover,
He is close to our hearts, had we vision to see;
We are blind with our pride and the pomp of our passions,
We are bound in our thoughts where we hold ourselves free.

It is He in the sun who is ageless and deathless,
And into the midnight His shadow is thrown;
When darkness was blind and engulfed within darkness,
He was seated within it immense and alone.

http://www.sriaurobindosociety.org.in/sriauro/auropoet.htm

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 30, 2007 4:18 PM

When I do database queries I avoid Cartesian products, but if I was a young man and not married these long years I'd be rather enthusiastic for the French ladies and their Cartesian coordinates.

But I still don't trust Freshmen and their enlarged glands, pineal or otherwise.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 30, 2007 4:24 PM

Salami Crudhawi

vs.

Sri Aurobindo

From the lowest of the low to the highest of the high!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 30, 2007 4:54 PM

In plain english he said " i will tell you what you want to hear wherever you are ,but nothing will ever change."

Islam is islam eternal.....sir ,so are the crusades.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 30, 2007 6:20 PM

In plain english he said " i will tell you what you want to hear wherever you are ,but nothing will ever change."

Islam is islam eternal.....sir ,so are the crusades.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at March 30, 2007 6:21 PM

Democracy will destroy islam, its a matter of time.

Actually, there's a risk that Islam will destroy democracy... especially here in the West if we allow Islam to be present.

Posted by: anonymous at March 31, 2007 9:37 AM

He reminds me of Clarence, the cross-eyed lion.

Posted by: champ at March 31, 2007 9:38 PM

Reformist? Really!

Posted by: champ at April 1, 2007 12:47 PM