| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In his latest audio, or Whomever's latest audio, bin Laden (or Whomever) says that destroying Israel is "the most important issue for the Islamic nation." He also says, "Jihad is a duty to free Palestine."
So reports AKI in "Terrorism: 'Palestinian issue the most important' says Bin Laden message," May 16.
Now, this matters, because he is couching his appeal in religious terms designed to convince Muslims worldwide that his struggle is righteous. When he speaks of the Islamic nation, singular, he is working from the assumption that Islam creates a supranational unity that transcends nationality, and has a claim to the loyalties of Muslims beyond every other loyalty. And when he uses the word "jihad," he of course doesn't mean an interior spiritual struggle; when he says it is a duty, he is invoking the principle, affirmed by all the schools of Islamic law, that when an Islamic land is invaded, it becomes the duty of every Muslim to aid somehow in the armed conflict to rid the land of its infidel rulers.
Thus in this new audiotape he is appealing to all Muslims to wage war against Israel as as a compulsory religious obligation.
This is, I suggest, important to understand. It helps explain why his message does have resonance among many Muslims. But the new U.S. Government guidelines about word usage insist, without a shred of evidence, that from an Islamic standpoint bin Laden is misusing the concept of jihad -- and consequently they forbid American officials to use the term. This stance will also, of course, lead American officials to discount the religious aspects of Osama's appeal to Muslims. In causing this, the new guidelines have impeded our ability to understand, and hence to counter, the enemy we face.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media, of course, willingly abets this blinkered willful ignorance. The Reuters report on this, " Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow," by Lin Noueihed doesn't mention the word "jihad" at all. Neither does the AP story, " Osama bin Laden says Al Qaeda will continue its fight." CNN's story, " Bin Laden urges Muslims to liberate Palestine," mentions the word once, in the fourteenth paragraph of the story: "Bin Laden's last message came on March 20, when in an audiotape he called Iraq 'the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine.'"
Is it any wonder, with reporting like this, that so many years now after 9/11 most people still have absolutely no clue what we're dealing with?
(Thanks to Jeffrey Imm for all links.)
Posted by Robert at May 16, 2008 11:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
During the 1990s bin Laden said his goal was to remove American soldiers from the Arabian peninsula. After 9/11, the troops have left Saudi Arabia and bin Laden NOW says his goal is to liberate Israel. Just suppose Israel crumbles? Will that be enough for al Qaeda or will they search for a new cause, say al-Andalus, aka SPAIN?
Where does it end? When will our leaders understand that the Sudetenland wasn't enough for Hitler, and Israel (and even America) won't be enough for Islam?
Posted by: PMK![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 16, 2008 12:22 PM
from article: When he speaks of the Islamic nation, singular, he is working from the assumption that Islam creates a supranational unity that transcends nationality, and has a claim to the loyalties of Muslims beyond every other loyalty.
That's what I get out of that aspect of it. Islam has no borders. It exists wherever one or more muslims gather. This is the Ummah and it is nearly everywhere. The only difference between muslmis in the US and muslims in say Pakistan, is a body of water and some mountains. Obama is urging muslims everywhere to swim those oceans and climb those mountains, and join your brothers in the destruction of Israel and the liberation of 'Palestine'.
Watch out. This is a Mahdi like command.
Has anyone spoken to Beasty Boy Ahmadinijad about this? If anyone would know the real Mahdi, it would be him...
at May 16, 2008 12:26 PM
PMK
It doesn't end until Islamofacists rule the entire world. I know it was a rhetorical question ;o)
Next after Israel....hmmmm....Iraq, Pakistan, all the "stans", Europe, Scandinavia and then the march on North America. Guess this means more speeches to come ;o(
Posted by: gymgal at May 16, 2008 12:35 PM
You mean he has already defeated his ego and has moved on to the military jihad? Maybe Omer Subhani should write a 11 part series on why Osama must check his ego first before he can wack us kuffars.
at May 16, 2008 12:44 PM
If fellow infidels want a lesson on how NOT to tackle jihad, take a good hard look at the Indian sub-continent's past 70 years or so history. Pakistan hadn't been born before 1947: it was still a part of British India. The prominent Indian politicians were most of them either Dhimmis or jihadists. The national press was dhimmi too. The jihadis got Pakistan carved out in a bloody partition when the Brits left in 1947. That was just the trailer. The full-length movie is about to begin... They will now do in the West what they successfully did in India. Prepare for mini-Pakistans in Bedford, California, Paris, Germany, the Balkans... oh oh, they've already done that in the Balkans, in Kosovo, Bosnia. Koran lessons, anyone?
Posted by: Hedgehog at May 16, 2008 12:52 PM
Here they come...wait! Where are the protests I mean is this not what all those Muslims world wide protest about? I mean when FITNA came out there was all sorts of Mass protests but when this video comes out not a word MUM! Silence. Not a word from any democratic leaders, UN why are they not responding? I am confused I thought this is exactly what Islam is not about? Huh....!
Posted by: savsiv at May 16, 2008 1:11 PM
This is, I suggest, important to understand. It helps explain why his message does have resonance among many Muslims. But the new U.S. Government guidelines about word usage insist, without a shred of evidence, that from an Islamic standpoint bin Laden is misusing the concept of jihad -- and consequently they forbid American officials to use the term. This stance will also, of course, lead American officials to discount the religious aspects of Osama's appeal to Muslims. In causing this, the new guidelines have impeded our ability to understand, and hence to counter, the enemy we face.
The have adapted the EU mindset: "I say so, therefore it is."
Is the moon made of green cheese?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Does is mean is?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Is bin Laden dead?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Are jihad, islam, and terrorism distinct, separate, issues?
"I say so, therefore it is."
As long as the elites chant the same magic words over and over for a long enough time; and wish upon a start; just maybe their delusions will come true.
In the meantime, many more intelligentand pragmatic people will end up dead as Rome continues to burn.
at May 16, 2008 1:52 PM
This is, I suggest, important to understand. It helps explain why his message does have resonance among many Muslims. But the new U.S. Government guidelines about word usage insist, without a shred of evidence, that from an Islamic standpoint bin Laden is misusing the concept of jihad -- and consequently they forbid American officials to use the term. This stance will also, of course, lead American officials to discount the religious aspects of Osama's appeal to Muslims. In causing this, the new guidelines have impeded our ability to understand, and hence to counter, the enemy we face.
The have adapted the EU mindset: "I say so, therefore it is."
Is the moon made of green cheese?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Does is mean is?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Is bin Laden dead?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Are jihad, islam, and terrorism distinct, separate, issues?
"I say so, therefore it is."
As long as the elites chant the same magic words over and over for a long enough time; and wish upon a start; just maybe their delusions will come true.
In the meantime, many more intelligentand pragmatic people will end up dead as Rome continues to burn.
at May 16, 2008 1:52 PM
This is, I suggest, important to understand. It helps explain why his message does have resonance among many Muslims. But the new U.S. Government guidelines about word usage insist, without a shred of evidence, that from an Islamic standpoint bin Laden is misusing the concept of jihad -- and consequently they forbid American officials to use the term. This stance will also, of course, lead American officials to discount the religious aspects of Osama's appeal to Muslims. In causing this, the new guidelines have impeded our ability to understand, and hence to counter, the enemy we face.
The have adapted the EU mindset: "I say so, therefore it is."
Is the moon made of green cheese?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Does is mean is?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Is bin Laden dead?
"I say so, therefore it is."
Are jihad, islam, and terrorism distinct, separate, issues?
"I say so, therefore it is."
As long as the elites chant the same magic words over and over for a long enough time; and wish upon a start; just maybe their delusions will come true.
In the meantime, many more intelligent people will end up dead as Rome continues to burn.
at May 16, 2008 1:52 PM
This story reminded me of a debate that I came across between a Christian and a Muslim regarding what is meant by 'jihad'. My question is, doesn't the argument that Jesus Christ promoted jihad in Luke 19 actually make the case for jihad against Islam? It seems that if Jesus really argued for jihad, which this scripture does not promote, and if Islam rejects Jesus as the Messiah or Christ, effectively making it an enemy of Jesus, then quoting him as saying he wanted his enemies brought before him so they could be killed turns the whole argument against them.
1) Jesus supposedly preached jihad against his enemies
2) Islam rejects Jesus as the Messiah
3) Rejecting Jesus as the Messiah, using the Islamic extremists' logic, effectively makes one an 'enemy' of him and therefore those who believe in him.
Seems like this should go full circle. Here's the link to the debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYyDz6LYfKQ&fmt=18
at May 16, 2008 1:55 PM
...and so it continues, because this is the age of stoopid.
We here from are 'the tiny minority of extremists' who cause all this hatred: you see, if we would just shut up and look away everything would be sooo much better...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 16, 2008 1:55 PM
We here from are 'the tiny minority of extremists' who cause all this hatred:...
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
I have been trying figure out just how many is a tiny majority. A liberal referred to it a 'minute minority'. When I asked, of course he didn't know, but he is sure it's only a few. 'Well then how many is a few'? Then it was 'not many'. He did not know what 'not many' were either. With the next question he called me a racist and a bigot. And all I did was ask questions...He never was able to tell how many was a minute minority...
Posted by: duh_swami at May 16, 2008 2:41 PM
I can think of a few reasons Bin Laden has discovered "Palestine".
1) He is competing with the little Iranian dictator to be the Muslim hero who finally does the evil deed against Israel (in his dreams).
2) He wants to bolster the Israel-bashers in the West who claim Muslim animus is all because of Israel. This is supposed to put pressure on western governments to abandon the Jewish State.
3) Last, he wants to encourage the disaffected in Muslim society, and there are many, to take up arms against Israel.
Has Jimmy Carter been coaching Bin Laden the way he coaches Hezbollah to deal with the media?
Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at May 16, 2008 3:21 PM
As I recall, bin Laden discovered the Palestinian cause only after the initial reaction to 9/11 was one of revulsion even in the Muslim world. Al Qaeda's adoption of the Palestinian cause as its own made it politically acceptable post 9/11. It became one with Hamas and Hezbollah and the Palestinians: terrorists and murderers "with legitimate grievances".
Posted by: PMK at May 16, 2008 3:57 PM
"The al-Qaida leader said the Western media managed to brainwash people over the past 60 years by "portraying the Jewish invaders, the occupiers of our land, as the victims while it portrayed us as the terrorists."
Luckily for him, the "Western media" have been trying very hard the last 15 years to rectify that "brainwashing" and instead emulate the mahometan media.
Posted by: Infidel33 at May 16, 2008 5:22 PM
"The Reuters report on this, " Bin Laden marks Israel anniversary with combat vow," by Lin Noueihed doesn't mention the word "jihad" at all. Neither does the AP story, " Osama bin Laden says Al Qaeda will continue its fight." CNN's story, " Bin Laden urges Muslims to liberate Palestine," mentions the word once, in the fourteenth paragraph of the story: "Bin Laden's last message came on March 20, when in an audiotape he called Iraq 'the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine.'"
Well, look at it this way, Robert. In a month or two, when anyone googles "jihad," your blog will be the only thing that comes up.
Posted by: Connie at May 16, 2008 6:38 PM
Bin Laden is just one hydra-head sprouted from the vile dogmas of the hateful Koran.
Chop down one maniac, two more take his place
The Koran is the heart of this malevolent movement.
Its poisonous ideology must be struck and defeated, not just its noxious offshoots.
Bin Laden is a nuisance.
The Koran is the crime.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 18, 2008 2:57 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.)