| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"I think this is just criminality, fair and square. We should just call them criminals. You want to call them terrorist criminals, fine," he said. "But adding the word 'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do." -- from this article
Criminality is the work of individuals, who break the law because they feel like it. It is prompted not by ideology, but rather by what has prompted criminal activity since the beginning of time.
Terrorism by Muslims is quite different. It can be the act of a collective, of Muslims acting in concert, and supported financially and morally by other Muslims who may prefer to participate in violent Jihad indirectly -- the better, for example, to participate in other, non-violent, but just as dangerous and possibly more effective methods of Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam. Where an individual Muslim may be acting, he is doing so not on his own behalf, not to enrich himself, but to further what he has learned -- and learned from the texts, not mistranslated and not misunderstood, of Islam itself: Quran, Hadith, and Sira.
Furthermore, it is important that Infidels understand that they are having war made upon them, and that the war is not limited to what non-Muslims correctly identify as "terrorism." Rather, many or most Muslims are easily persuaded that it is not terrorism at all, but rather a form of qitaal, or combat, simply updated to meet modern conditions, where the Infidels have military superiority -- so unfair! -- and bombs in restaurants and on busses and planes smashed into buildings is merely a form of "equalizing," of leveling the grimmest of playing-fields.
It is important to use the phrase "Islamic terrorism," if the only alternative is "terrorism." But it would be most helpful to speak and write of Jihad, to explain what Jihad means -- what it means and has meant to Muslims over the past 1350 years, and to quickly get over the ludicrous business of those who pretend the word's main meaning is something about an interior struggle to maintain a virtuous life, or somesuch variant.
Why is it important to use the word "Jihad"? Because emphasis, exaggerated emphasis, on "terrorism" makes people pay no attention to much more effective and dangerous instruments of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa aimed at the psychically and economically marginal, and demographic conquest. The latter is especially worrisome. Consider the Netherlands, where there were 1,500 Muslims in 1960, 15,000 in 1970, 800,000 in 2004, and over a million today.
It is unfortunate that none of the political leaders in the West, and few in the press, radio, television, feel they have a responsibility to learn the contents of Islam, or to learn something of the history of Islamic conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims, over the past 1350 years. A great deal could be learned. It requires some effort and some time, and nowadays how many, in the class of people whose responsibility it is to protect and instruct us, would take that time, and make that effort?
The answer is: very few.
And we will all pay. We have already paid in the countries of Western Europe -- in Great Britain and France, in Germany and Spain, in Belgium and Italy and the Netherlands and Denmark and Norway and Sweden. We have all paid and will be grimly paying for the fact that the political and media elites were so criminally negligent over the past 35 years as Muslim immigrants by the millions were allowed in and given every conceivable benefit, and allowed to build mosques and madrasas. They were allowed to settle in without anyone questioning what this meant, what Islam was all about, and whether or not the "problems" -- as they are demurely called -- with Muslim migrants were merely, as some continue to pretend, the same problems that all immigrants experience or present, or whether there was something about that "problem" that had to do with the nature of Islam as a Total Belief-System. That Total Belief-System is inculcated with a brainwashing, and reinforced at every level, in states, societies, communities, even families suffused with Islam. That explains why, in every Infidel land, no matter what its makeup or what its politics or what the attitude of its citizens, the same problems are posed by one particular group of immigrants and by no other group -- not by Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists, not by Caribbean blacks, nor by non-Muslim blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, not by Mexicans, not by Central Americans, not by Andean Indians, not by any group at all. But they are posed by Muslims, to the extent that they take their Islam seriously, wherever they come from.
And that is the fix that Western Europe, and therefore the historic West, is now in. It was a problem that, had the handful of cassandras -- see for example the writings of Jacques Ellul -- been heeded, could have been avoided. Entirely manageable once, it is manageable -- with great difficulty – today.
But it is manageable only if Muslim migration is halted, and funds from Saudi Arabia and other rich Arab states are prevented from being used to build up a fifth column within the Infidel lands through mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and armies of Western hirelings, some of them merely venal, some of them something worse, all of them traitors to the West, who deserve to be seen, and to be treated, as we would have treated those who were in the pay of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
Posted by Hugh at April 26, 2008 6:05 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In making the transition to a post-Christian culture, the West has in the process slowly detached itself from all those essential features, and from the rich history, of the West.
We are in an era where many, probably most, think they know far more than they actually know. A colored ribbon suffices. Their lack of curiosity is both a function and a cause of their ignorance.
Those who purport to lead us, are profoundly disinterested in how we got here. And by got here, I mean from the pre-Socratic philosophers on up. The West was far more than Christianity.
A most striking feature of this ignorance is the arrogant lack of gratitude for what we have, and what we have been given, by the many centuries of thought and activity.
We have it now, and shallow imbeciles are throwing it away.
Posted by: Moonzoo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 26, 2008 8:50 AM
"...to explain what Jihad means -- what it means and has meant to Muslims over the past 1350 years, and to quickly get over the ludicrous business of those who pretend the word's main meaning is something about an interior struggle to maintain a virtuous life, or somesuch variant."
The main meaning of "Jihad" is: Islamic Holy War.
That's what my dictionary says, and provides no other meanings. (Merriam-Webster)
at April 26, 2008 9:08 AM
Islam should be added to the DSM-IV.
Posted by: Connie at April 26, 2008 9:09 AM
"...to explain what Jihad means -- what it means and has meant to Muslims over the past 1350 years, and to quickly get over the ludicrous business of those who pretend the word's main meaning is something about an interior struggle to maintain a virtuous life, or somesuch variant."
The main meaning of "Jihad" is: Islamic Holy War.
That's what my dictionary says, and provides no other meanings. (Merriam-Webster)
at April 26, 2008 9:14 AM
"A most striking feature of this ignorance is the arrogant lack of gratitude for what we have, and what we have been given, by the many centuries of thought and activity."
-by Moonzoo
The West may be about more than Christianity but it was Christianity that united many warring nations. Kings and princes swore allegiance to the pope, at least until Martin Luther came along. Even as they battled one another for supremacy, all were aware of the Muslim threat, having experienced it themselves in the Muslim invasions of Europe and the destruction of Christian and Jewish communities throughout the Middle East. They seemed to believe the threat died with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Europe's own colonization of Islamdom.
The lack of gratitude is incredible, given what our ancestors fought for and achieved. Everything we have we owe to them.
The refusal to understand jihad is even more confusing, given that every other separatist struggle has been documented and that a primary piece of evidence was the goals of the group. Why were they fighting? What were they seeking? This current group is about more than blowing up planes. It's about more than doing away with Israel. They want to impose their laws on us and do away with our Constitution. That's a lot more than criminal. It's high treason.
at April 26, 2008 9:20 AM
Islam is simple. It's "Kill everybody not Islamic if they don't convert, until the world is "all for Allah" (Qur'an).
That's the bottom line. Simple.
Posted by: darcy at April 26, 2008 9:28 AM
one wonders if the trial lawyers are determined to defend the country from the courtrooms, thereby increasing their revenues--
Posted by: clapner at April 26, 2008 10:02 AM
The new lexicon--the whitewash of Islam--is much like that European phrase "anti-Islamic activity."
Islamophiles and/or cowards will go to any lengths to avoid naming the enemy and to avoid offending Muslims.
Where are all those moderates, anyway?
Posted by: Always On Watch at April 26, 2008 10:23 AM
"That explains why, in every Infidel land, no matter what its makeup or what its politics or what the attitude of its citizens, the same problems are posed by one particular group of immigrants and by no other group -- not by Chinese, Hindus, Vietnamese Buddhists, not by Caribbean blacks, nor by non-Muslim blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, not by Mexicans, not by Central Americans, not by Andean Indians, not by any group at all. But they are posed by Muslims, to the extent that they take their Islam seriously, wherever they come from."
It is true that Muslim immigrants pose a problem that is unique. However consider that in the case of the US we are no longer dealing with the manageable influx of a few hundred thousand immigrants annually we had 40 years ago, but of at least 1.5 million legal and illegal. Furthermore, in the conditions of the modern world, there is no imperative for these to assimilate as there was early in the last century. Thus, unless this influx is curbed national cohesion will unravel leaving us with a jumble of squabbling nationalities and ethnicities. I submit that under those circumstances we will no longer be in any condition to confront the Islamic threat.
In addition consider the attitude that these new immigrants will inevitably take toward curbing future immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular. And remember as they settle here they will form large voting blocks and even those who are non-citizens are still swelling the number of "rotten borough" congressional districts. In other words they will attain considerable political influence. Lets focus on the largest of these immigrant cohorts - Mexicans. Its true that most Mexicans are unlikely to convert to Islam, but they have their own grievances against the US. Are they likely to support curbing Muslim immigration? They will regard that as problem for the "Anglos" and not for themselves. Also, would they wish to raise the issue of curbing the immigration of any group since that might draw attention to immigration in general? Therefore, we can forget about implementing any limits on mass Muslim immigration. Sorry, that is political reality.
And what applies to the US also applies with variations to every other Western nation. So for anyone who can't bring themselves to see that a change in immigration policy is a necessity for the struggle with Islam, I suggest that they set up an office in Beijing to educate and lobby the Chinese with respect to the Islamic threat because there will be no other power on Earth able to counter it.
Posted by: RBLA at April 26, 2008 10:30 AM
I fear Mr. Fitzgerald's piece here has quite of bit of entanglements that don't make for a very clear or compelling picture.
To start with, one of the key problems here, and it seems to be on this site in general, is an apparent lack of any meaningful demarcation between an Islamic crime and a crime that happens to be committed by an Islamic adherent. Without that distinction clearly defined, refined, and delineated, then one would appear to simply fall into an incessant pattern of bashing over most any incident that occurs, and fails to make a consistent, principled argument over what valid merits one has in one's case as it gets swamped with ad hominem tangential matters that can be seen as lacking relevancy.
From there, we have the apparent issue of a black-and-white dichotomy between criminality and jihadism. But does that really encompass everything? Am I to believe that the Jewish terrorism in Palestine of the 1930s/1940s, the Mansion family in the 1960s, the Symbionese Liberation Army of the 1970s, and the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka today are mere criminals, since they obviously don't qualify as jihadists? I would think not.
And then there's the nexus between terrorism and jihadism. As I understand it, jihad can be a form of self-defense. Is that properly addressed? Also, I would say, that all terrorism is wrong and inexcusable. So am I to believe that terrorism committed by a Muslim is more heinous than terrorism committed by a non-Muslim? And then we have the issue as to what terrorism really is or isn't. It's not uncommon to see media references to 'terrorists' who attack Israeli or American military forces. But how can that be terrorism, when any reasonable definition that is not being used as an unprincipled propaganda tool would have to hold that terrorism intrinscally entails the targeting of civilians?
On the immigrant front, the US is indeed in peril, I believe, not by Muslim immigrants in general, but by a horde of Mexican/Hispanic entrants, legal and illegal, who have vastly reshaped our culture, and who can be held responsible for some signficant problems facing our society. If Mr. Fitzgerald does not believe this poses a real threat to a recognizable and viable America prevailing through this century, then I would respectfully submit he has not been paying very close attention to the issue and its ramifications.
Finally, I would say that those who want to use peaceful means to significant modify our constitutional form of governance do not automatically qualify as treasonous criminals. After WWI, we had a constitutional amendment passed that forbid the possession or use of alcohol. Was that a threat to our civiliazation? If not, then why is that measure, soley in and of itself, not when pursued by Christians, but would be if pursued by Muslims?
As for myself, I am a traditionalist Latin Catholic who still holds to the teaching that a Catholic confessional state is the ideal form of governance. And, yes, that would be my ideal for my United States as well, and I support using proper, peaceful, legal methods to pursue it. Feel free to report me to the FBI, if you wish.
Posted by: fairuzfan at April 26, 2008 11:57 AM
Referring to jihadists as criminals, is an insult to them, The Quran and Allah. How can a 'Holy war' be criminal? How can the sons of Allah' be criminals?
Refusing to call jihad, Islamic jihad, to try and erase any connection with Islam, is a huge insult to Allah and his Quran by the west. He who is acting in accordance to Allah's cause, and Allah's laws, cannot be a criminal, even if he is misunderstanding these laws. But we see how Islam deals with it's misunderstanders, who in reality are misunderstanders of little. They are hero's, jihadists, fighting for Allah's cause, willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah, the Ummah and 72 virgins. They are not criminals, they are jihadists, Islamic jihadists. To call them something else is a farce, and an insult to Islam...it is also not very bright of the infidels who think they can 'word manage' Islam...
at April 26, 2008 12:14 PM
"one of the key problems here, and it seems to be on this site in general, is an apparent lack of any meaningful demarcation between an Islamic crime and a crime that happens to be committed by an Islamic adherent."
-- from a posting above
It's not a "key problem" nor a "problem" at all. If you go through the news of the past five years, beginning with the gang-rapes of Australian girls by Muslims in Sydney , and the statistics about Muslim rapists -- something like 70% of the rapists in Norway and Scandinavia are Muslims, though they make up at this point still 2-3% of the population, if one further notes how many imams have been found telling their followers that pillage of Infidels should be regarded as a kind of proleptic Jizyah payment, exacted (through criminal activity) even before a Muslim state can come into existence -- then it is clear that Muslims believe that what we call "crime" is for many of them not "crime" at all, but their rightfully taking what, in an Islamic society, they could take, or at least would certainly not be punished for. After all, to make a rape charge stick requires the testimony, according to the Shari'a, of four male witnesses -- which effectively means that Muslim men are hardly ever charged, in Muslim societies, with rape. If Infidel states think they can continue to judge Muslims according to the Infidel laws -- the laws made by mere mortals -- Muslims should feel no compunction about breaking laws that contradict the spirit and letter of the Shari'a. And both the spirit and letter of the Shari'a allow for the Jizyah -- the exacted transfer of wealth from Infidels to Muslims. It all makes sense. Why would not many Muslims feel that Islam justifies the kind of behavior toward Infidels that the criminal statistics, in
Western Europe, fully support. In the United States, because of the far smaller number of Muslims, and a non-Muslim population that is less indulgent, less afraid, and more willing to impose harsher punishments, the situation is not quite the same. But if it is not the same, it is only because of the response and attitudes of non-Muslims, not because Muslims do not harbor attitudes of hostility (however camouflaged by smiles and wiles) -- the kind of thing that apostates so usefuly report on (even today a number of apostates can attend mosques, or speak to Muslims who, in what they think is privacy, reveal their real attitudes about Infidels -- attitudes that can be picked up and recorded on tape. This is something that inhibits Muslims in this country, and will, thank god, continue to do so. For they will never know if that fellow Muslim to whom they feel like revealing their true feelings is, or is not, an informant.
at April 26, 2008 12:57 PM
There is a case for calling Jihad criminal behavior. If violent Jihad is criminal behavior then teaching it and assisting those who are engaged in it is also criminal behavior. We can deny visas, expel from the country, incarcerate and even sanction countries that are, in any way, involved in these criminal acts. We can monitor locations (mosques, chat rooms etc) where this activity is taking place. Banning the religion is not possible in our secular society but negating large portions of the religious texts by criminalizing those who take the texts literally is possible. In the long run this may be the best way to stop the growth of fundamental Islam.
Nevertheless, I don't agree with the state department's decision to no longer use terms like Jihad. They are probably taking this action in part due to lobbying from our Middle East allies. We have to attack the problem of religious extremism on all fronts at the same time. This means treating those who engage in Jihad as criminals and also identifying them as Islamic whenever they are. If religion is used to justify the acts then the religion must be named. Those who deny the connection of violent Jihad and Islam are part of the problem. By protesting they are easily identified as supporters of extremism.
at April 26, 2008 1:19 PM
"After WWI, we had a constitutional amendment passed that forbid the possession or use of alcohol. Was that a threat to our civiliazation? If not, then why is that measure, soley in and of itself, not when pursued by Christians, but would be if pursued by Muslims?"
- by fairuzfan
In short, context, context, context.
The 18th Amendment was passed by a democratically-elected Congress and ratified by democratically-elected state legislatures. It wasn't a religious decree. When it proved unworkable it was repealed. Can Muslims do that? I think not, if alcohol is banned by THEIR RELIGION. They are perfectly free to practice their religion. They are not free to impose it on me. There is nothing remotely democratic about sharia law.
at April 26, 2008 2:19 PM
I follow Muslim immigration issues every day at Refugee Resettlement Watch and I want to scream sometimes because all the focus is on Muslim immigration in Europe. It is happening here!
Right now we admit thousands of Muslim refugees every year. They come from some of the most virulent strains of Islam, like the Somalis. Over 70,000 Somalis have arrived in recent years and clashes with them have occured in Shelbyville, TN, Emporia, KS, Lewiston, ME and now Roanoke, VA. Not to mention the more visible Muslim cabbie issue in Minneapolis, or special schools for them there.
We have admitted over 100,000 Bosnian Muslims in less than 10 years, they are building mosques in St. Louis. So while we sit around saying poor poor Europe, the same thing is happening here.
Imam Hendi of Georgetown University told a Saudi audience last summer he expected that the US would have 30 Muslim mayors by 2015---optimistic, maybe?
Posted by: Ann at April 26, 2008 4:46 PM
I agree, Hugh, but Islam, unlike Communism, has not antagonized the business community as much; business is either neutral or friendly. That leaves the task to a smaller group: People with firm identities of their own who mistrust Islam, countries and ethnic groups directly involved in confrontations with Islam, and intellectuals who are morally centered and thorough in their research.
Posted by: jewdog at April 26, 2008 5:37 PM
A nation is an organization composed of people of similar ethnicity, language, religion, culture. The cohesion is derived from those commonalities, the shared experience and the understanding of belonging and safety derived from being a part of the larger group.
An empire consists of people of many ethnicities, languages, religions and cultures, the cohesion is derived more from the emperor setting those groups against one another, to favor one or to punish another.
The empires of the 19th century fell apart from the pressures of ethnicity and nationalism, and the venal policies required in the identity politics that are empires natural milieu.
Empires are usually more prosperous than nation states, since trade is broader based, and there are efficiencies to be gained that are denied to the traditional nation-state.
Think of the story of Esau, selling his birthright for a mess of pottage.
Posted by: stickman at April 26, 2008 7:23 PM
They call themselves Jihadists, they say that they are waging Jihad for the cause of Allah,
they all reference the same Qur'an and Hadith, the same historical episodes, they all view themselves as fighting in the same cause whether they are in Pakistan or Palestine. If this were not true how would you explain these Palestinian jihadists? "There is one fight for all Islamic resistance & that is the fight for Islamic rule...this is a world war." Ramada Adassi, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades; "we all need to fight the jihad locally...my goal for now is to liberate Palestine...we are in World War Three. The Americans are doing everything they can to prevent Islam to emerge as the world superpower...there is one basic fact & that is all groups have the same goal & we know that Allah will bring victory to the believers." Abu Mosaab, Islamic Jihad (Quoted in Schmoozing With Terrorists). I'm for calling them criminals only if Jihad itself is criminalized, which of course it should be. As Shari'a should be "outlawed" by all civilized peoples as the antithesis of freedom.
at April 26, 2008 9:47 PM
'Muslim' or 'Islamic' certainly doesn't help our cause as Americans. It's counterproductive. It paints an entire community of believers, 1.2 billion in total, in a very negative way. And certainly that's not something that we want to do." -- from
I assume that most people in America and everywhere else know who commits 99% of all heinous terrorist atrocities that occur on a daily basis around the world---MUSLIMS! Why are MUSLIMS committing these dastardly deeds from Palestine to Pakistan, Indoneisa to Afghanistan, Europe to the USA---everywhere in the world! Do you suppose these global incidents of terrorism might somehow be related since all the culprits are MUSLIMS?! The guilty MUSLIMS are from many different countries, cultures, and etnicities and the one commonality they share is ISLAM. Just because every last muslim on earth hasn't yet committed a violent act doesn't mean a damn thing; many support jihad and terrorism in more subtle ways. Some muslims are lazy cowards and prefer to finance the jihad while others die for allah, but they're just as guilty of mass murder as the "martyrs".
In my humble opinion, it is ludicrous and redundant to call terrorists "criminals" because terrorism is not the average crime, like robbing a bank, imbezzlement, armed robbery, or whatever. Terrorism is always related to a cause of some sort and today's terrorism is clearly one facet of islamic holy war or jihad. Crap like this is an insult not to muslims, but to the citizens of the West, who have been the victims of a massive propaganda campaign designed to obfuscate, confuse, and mislead. I would expect this from muslims but not from our own governments. It utterly enrages me when I hear government spokesmen defending muslims and islam when they are clearly responsible for the conflicts, turmoil, and discord in the world.
Sure, plenty of MUSLIMS are also criminals as well as jihadists, but most of their crimes are related to jihad and borne of islamic ideology and they are criminals only from a Western perspective. From the islamic perspective, they are merely exercising their allah-given rights to torment and subjugate the inferior kaffirs. I hope they rot in prison.
MUSLIMS are like a deadly plague, ISLAM is a predatory death cult, and the leaders of the West are willfully ignorant, despicable cowards, or both. They couldn't all be incurably stupid.
Posted by: Susanp at April 26, 2008 11:28 PM
fairuzfan said
"
On the immigrant front, the US is indeed in peril, I believe, not by Muslim immigrants in general, but by a horde of Mexican/Hispanic entrants, legal and illegal, who have vastly reshaped our culture, and who can be held responsible for some signficant problems facing our society. If Mr. Fitzgerald does not believe this poses a real threat to a recognizable and viable America prevailing through this century, then I would respectfully submit he has not been paying very close attention to the issue and its ramifications."
I am also Catholic but if the Us have to be reshaped , I rather be reshaped by the Mexicans and be able to drink a margharita and "farniente" in the sun than to be reshaped by the Muslims and be stoned to death because I spoke or sit next to somebody of the opposite sex
Come on . wake up. the Mexicans are not reshaping the country ,but the Muslims are building an underground railroad and they already have proven their intentions.... Remember Sept 11.
It was just the appetizer, the main course is on his way ,
at April 27, 2008 11:25 AM
Why not? If they can call the good Christians and Jews as pigs and apes then why can't we call Muslim rats and Muslim cocroaches what they are or whatever we wish to call them? This is a double standards allowing them to call us what they wish and not allowing us to call them what they really are - Muslim terrorist rats and cocroaches.
Posted by: Lebanese at April 28, 2008 11:26 AM
Criminality is the work of individuals, who break the law because they feel like it. It is prompted not by ideology, but rather by what has prompted criminal activity since the beginning of time.
So I guess Bobbie Sands and the other IRA prisoners in Long Kesh were right when they said they were not criminals but prisoners of war. And Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, and others who were motivated to betray their country because of ideology--not criminals either. Who knew?
Posted by: Seamus at April 29, 2008 11:06 AM
Let's compromise and call them:
"Criminal Jihadists"
not as in Jihadists who commit crimes
but as in Jihad should be criminalized.
at April 29, 2008 2:13 PM
"So I guess Bobbie Sands and the other IRA prisoners in Long Kesh were right when they said they were not criminals but prisoners of war. And Alger Hiss, the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, and others who were motivated to betray their country because of ideology--not criminals either. Who knew?"
-- from a posting above
No, of course none of those are examples of common criminals, simply trying to get something -- money, sex, something -- for the taking. Every example you have given is of someone motivated by ideology. You seem to think you undercut my point. In fact, you reinforce it.
Posted by: Hugh at April 29, 2008 2:17 PM
No, of course none of those are examples of common criminals, simply trying to get something -- money, sex, something -- for the taking. Every example you have given is of someone motivated by ideology. You seem to think you undercut my point. In fact, you reinforce it.
Those examples would only have reinforced your point if Sands, Hiss, etc. had *not* been regarded as criminals. But they *were* regarded as criminals. And why? Because they *were* criminals, notwithstanding the fact that they were motivated by ideology. They fact that they were not "simply trying to get something -- money, sex, something -- for the taking" was irrelevant to that characterization.
You have a funny definition of "criminality," which differs from the ones in my dictionary: "the quality or state of being criminal," or "criminal activity." Notice that the definitions have nothing to do with what the motivation of the criminal is, just that he be a criminal, or that his activity be criminal activity.
So the suggestion that criminality has nothing to do with jihad is ridiculous. There's no reason why certain acts can't fall into both categories. (Perhaps Muneer Fareed draws the same illegitimate distinction, though the article portrays him as more concerned about the use of the "Islamic" and "terrorist" in the same breath. But if were to claim that there is no overlap between criminality and acts of jihad, he'd be wrong too.)
Posted by: Seamus at May 1, 2008 2:02 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)