http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=8ytztvdt6sy6x5p550p2m258myk1c1nm

This is what OBL wrote:

"As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High's Word: "We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us — till you believe in Allah alone." So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility — that is, battle — ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed, or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Allah Almighty's Word to his Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: "O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell — an evil fate!" Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them."

Posted by: pr126 at October 4, 2007 6:43 AM

...OBL is just practicing Islam....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at October 4, 2007 6:52 AM

Abu Bakar Bashir blows up Bali Restaurants and discotheques because of poverty.

No doubt. I believe everything a Muhammedan tells me...

Because they are not allowed to lie, right?

Scroll down to "Bali bombers get more time off'

http://sheikyermami.com/2007/10/01/some-of-todays-offerings-by-the-religion-of-peace/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 4, 2007 7:22 AM

You can blame the miserly Dutch Dhimmi government:

Ayaan Ali Hirsi: ‘We Are Making Fools of Ourselves in the Eyes of the World’

Ayaan Ali Hirsi: ‘We Are Making Fools of Ourselves in the Eyes of the World’

By Leon de Winter/Spiegel Online

By Leon de Winter/Spiegel Online

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 4, 2007 7:28 AM

This is another example why Raymond Ibriham's "Al Quaeda Reader" is such an important book: it disproves the propaganda the moslems are using to "explain" the reasons for their jihad against everyone-but-the-right-kind-of-moslem.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 4, 2007 7:28 AM

The level of apologia among Muslims - even those who are not clerics or experts, has become quite sophisticated.

In my travails of Left-wing, European blogs, I find the following methods of dissimulation:

1) Any Hadith in which the Prophet is depicted in a way that is unflattering by contemporary standards is somehow "weak," no matter how many narrators and no matter the chain-of-transmission.

2) In terms of Quranic verse 4.34, in reference to the prescribing of physical punishment for women, the Arabic words for "beat her," "scourge her" or "chastise her" - which are contained in all major translations - are somehow mistranslated.

3) The Sirat Rasul of Ibn Ishaq - which portrays the Prophet in less than a flattering light (he is downright bloodthirsty) was apparently discredited by Muslim scholars centuries ago and has never had a bearing on the formulation of the Sunnah and hence, no influence on Muslim jurisprudence.

4) All the commands to fight the unbelievers in Quran Surah 9 are contextual, relating to circumstances in 7th century Arabia and have no subsequent application.

I find it amazing. These people are obviously embarrassed about facets of their scripture, so they've engaged in a well-orchestrated campaign of white-washing. One needs to be quite informed to effectively debate them.

I'm interested in how Robert and/or Hugh would respond to the points raised above, particularly 3 & 4.

Posted by: Cornelius at October 4, 2007 8:10 AM

"The United States invading a number of Muslim countries was believed to have created radical behavior in the Muslim world, the speakers said."
-- from the article above

"Radical behavior in the Muslim world" -- i.e., the conduct of Jihad through violent combat, qitaal, or its (for Muslims) perfectly acceptable variant, terrorism (that is, indiscriminate killing of Infidels, especially of civilians) -- was not "created" by the United States. The Jihad through violence predates -- as a doctrine, and as a doctrine put immediately into practice by the earliest Muslims -- the existence of the United States by more than a millennium. It has been conducted in the Middle East, in North Africa, in the Iberian peninsula, in sub-Saharan Africa, in Sassanian Iran, in Hindustan, in parts of East Asia. For a time, when Muslims were defeated in conventional combat (as near Poitiers by Charles Martel), the Jihad then took the form of raiding parties by sea, the destruction of Christian coastal villages, killing and looting and the seizing of Christians in Western Europe, with 1-2 million being taken, back to be enslaved by their Muslim masters. And in Eastern Europe, millions of Slavs were taken, and women from Circassia and Georgia, for the slave-markets and then the harems.

Jihad does not end. There is no, pace the thrusting young academic entrepreneur Noah Feldman, an "After Jihad." Jihad never ended as a doctrine; it merely fell, for a while, into desuetude when the non-Muslim powers -- the Christian powers -- proved too strong, too strong to be fought militarily. But the texts of the Qur'an and Hadith underwent no change. The details of the life of Muhammad, in the Sira, were not changed. No, the only thing that changed was that Muslims could not successfully conduct Jihad against the European powers.

But then, after World War II, things changed for the Camp of Islam. Where, however briefly, European powers had had their writ run, that writ came to an end. Parts of former British-ruled India became Pakistan and Bangladesh. The Dutch East Indies became Indonesia. The French-controlled lands of Morocco and Tunisia (which had French rule for less than a half-century), and finally Algeria (the only Arab country that can be said to have had full-fledged colonial rule for a long period, 130 years), all became independent.

And then came the oil wealth, discovered by Westerners, produced by Westerners, and paid for by Westerners, which since 1973 alone has given the Arab and Muslim states of OPEC ten trillion dollars. They have wasted much of it, in yachts and private 7747s and every imaginable vice, and have failed to create -- how can they, given inshallah-fatalism? -- modern economies, but have managed to build palaces and fantasy-lands (including that grotesque hyper-Las-Vegas known as Dubai, where both Iranian and Arab money compete), and of course have become by far the biggest arms-buyers on the planet, spending hundreds of billions over the past three decades, and then doing one other little thing: spreading Islam, pushing Islam, paying for mosques, madrasas, campaigns of Da'wa, armies of Western hirelings (diplomats, journalists, former intelligence agents, lawyers to bring suits or defend Muslim clients, academics to make sure that in colleges and universities the Muslim view of Islam is the only view allowed, throttling all attempts to discuss the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam soberly, without fear or sentimentality) to protect and promote Islam or the image of Saudi Arabia and other countries doing Allah's work. Saudi Arabia alone has been estimated to have spent $100 billion on these efforts. Add in the Emirates, Kuwait, Libya, Iran, Qatar (home of Al-Jazeera, spreading its anti-American, anti-Infidel venom, as well as to an American base that is there only because Qatar, like Kuwait, wants American protection from local bullies such as Iran, a revived Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia itself).

Islamic terrorism and other forms of "radical behavior" come from Islam itself. They come from the texts and the tenets and the attitudes. They come from the rage against Infidels, who are responsible for everything bad in the world, and above all, everything that is not right with Muslims anywhere. Are the leaders of Egypt and Saudi Arabia corrupt? Yes. Blame the Infidels, who "support them." Are the Muslims in Western lands not being allowed, quite at the pace they would wish, to have their every demand for Islam-friendly sites, for prayer rooms in schools and footbaths in public places, for changes in the way people are allowed to dress, for an end to mixed-sex public pools or special Muslim-women-only and Muslim-men-only days, for this and for that, and for that and for this, in order that the Infidels will by degrees, thinking this or that accommodation is of no great significance, when it is the accommodation itself to Muslim demands, that is the achievement, that is changing the face, and weakening the resolve, it is felt, of Infidel nation-states and their peoples to remain what they are, and not to yield. It is all thought out, not spontaneous.

It has all been planned, all been premeditated. These demands, including those that seem so innocuous (that Congressional resolution to "commend" Muslims for Ramadan -- well, Congressmen thought to themselves, "why not?" What's the harm in that? Why shouldn't Muslims be "commended" for Ramadan? But why should they? Is any group "commended" for such an observance? This was a deliberate attempt to inveigle Congressmen into a vote that then, minds being what they are, Congressmen would find themselves, if challenged on it, becoming defensive, finding reasons to convince themselves why the resolution was a good thing, why they were not wrong to vote for it, and they have then moved just a bit, just a bit toward the Muslim point of view, even if they didn't give a damn about, and paid no never mind to, that Resolution when it first came up, but merely cast that automatic, timid, and not-quite-innnocuous "Yes").'

The Jihad - those "radical attitudes" -- is back because it can be. Those OPEC trillions, those millions of Muslims allowed to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves are taught to regard as enemy lines, those Western technologies that have made possible, as never before, the spread, to both Muslim and non-Muslim populations, of propaganda on behalf of Islam and the Jihad -- those are the three elements that explain why "radical attitudes" -- as they are demurely called, are back, though if the West had been paying attention, not merely to Israel, but also to Muslim behavior toward non-Muslims in every land dominated by Muslims, they would have realized, long before now, long before 9/11/2001, that Islamic attitudes never were modified, and the limited improvements in the treatment of non-Muslims that obtained under European rule were, often, reversed, s-l-o-w-l-y or rapidly, it hardly matters. It was happening.

Posted by: Hugh at October 4, 2007 8:26 AM

19 secular panhandling bums flew the planes on 9/11?

Amazing!

Posted by: profitsbeard at October 4, 2007 10:03 AM

Because of poverty?

I thought it was because they were bored!

Posted by: atheling at October 4, 2007 10:57 AM

"Terror attacks are not always linked to religious fanaticism and can be triggered by issues including poverty, discrimination and marginalization, a Muslim organization said Friday."

1) I'm sure the impoverished are more likely to be purveyors of terror attacks, in order to "achieve martyrdom" and receive compensation paid to their family. It's a double bonus for those who are easily manipulated by fanatics with cash.

2) Weren't "terror attacks" in the form of piracy in vogue long before the creation of the USA and Israel?

Posted by: desert dweller at October 4, 2007 12:13 PM

So these doctors in Scotland were poor? I'm not sure given the socialized medicine there, but I would think even at that, a doctor wouldmake quite a bit more money than the average rock throwing palestinian.

And since the Goose Creek two were so poverty stricken that they had to leave college and drive up the coast to find some place to set off thier fire works without harassment from the wealthy Americans.

Yes, I can see thier point.

/sarc

Posted by: walterc at October 4, 2007 12:36 PM

Well, I am upset by poverty in the Appalachian mountains and in East Germany.

Alla............!!!!!!

Now whom do I attack?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at October 4, 2007 12:40 PM

I didn't win the lottery
Jihad!!
Something didn't go right for me
Alla snackba!

Posted by: Allahfanculo at October 4, 2007 12:47 PM

"....unjust conditions"...as cause for terrorism.

Unjust conditions are a possible cause for terrorism? What bunk. If you are living in "unjust conditions", then how is violence going to solve that problem? How dysfunctional are these people? It's like the ultimate temper tantrum to go on a killing spree in the hopes to make things right and "just". You don't solve injustice with violence.

Lets be clear on why they kill. They kill because their evil prophet Muhammad instructs them to kill, not because of "unjust conditions". More lies!

Posted by: champ at October 4, 2007 1:46 PM

lmao@ topic

Now why am I not surprised by such a *ahem* statement?

(PS- hey, allafan...ya need another shovel over that way? I got an extra! ^5s lol)

Posted by: jcom972 at October 4, 2007 2:46 PM

"All speakers said world superpower hegemony was one factor that contributed largely to the increase of both radicalism and terrorism.

The United States invading a number of Muslim countries was believed to have created radical behavior in the Muslim world, the speakers said."
-------------------------------------------

So our actions AFTER being attacked by Muslims on 9/11/2001 are the CAUSE of our being attacked by Muslims on 9/11/2001 and thereafter? Somebody hasn't been taking his meds... or their turbans are all wrapped too tight again.

How can we get the answer back to them that "The constraints of the space-time continuum refute your argument"?

I'd like to see a "Voice of America" or "Radio Free SE Asia" created to broadcast logical, reasoned arguments against nonsense like this. It would give the people a chance to hear something other than hive-mind mumbo-jumbo.

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at October 4, 2007 8:16 PM

What "religion"???
http://www.davidstuff.com/historical/mecca.htm

Posted by: jcom972 at October 9, 2007 12:39 AM