| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Just recently, a high ranking Pakistani cleric, one Munib ur-Rehmen, asserted that “Islam does not allow anybody to take lives of innocent people by any means.” However, when he was grand mufti, two years earlier, he also said that “truly Islamic” states must kill the apostate from Islam. Considering his former statement, that Islam forbids the taking of “innocent” lives, has Munib been caught fibbing? Either way, this anecdote occasions the question: who is “innocent” in Islam?
Whereas other Muslims may shy away from this question, opting for the naďve Westerner to simply assume that “innocence” in Islam is akin to the liberal West’s notions of “innocence,” al-Qaeda—which seems to be supported by nearly half of the Muslim world—has been only to happy to clarify this matter.
Back in December, the terrorist organization’s primary media conduit, al-Sahab (the “clouds”) announced that al-Qaeda’s number two, Ayman Zawahiri, would be taking questions from the public and that he would “respond as soon as possible.”
Then, a few months later in April, according to the Associated Press, Zawahiri released a 90 minute audio tape, “billed as the first installment of answers to the more than 900 questions submitted on extremist Internet sites by al-Qaida supporters, critics and journalists.”
In response to a question that suggested al-Qaeda was responsible for the deaths of innocents in Baghdad, Morocco, and Algeria—Muslim areas where countless terrorist attacks in the name of al-Qaeda still occur daily—Zawahiri adamantly maintained that “We haven’t killed innocents,” not in any of those regions mentioned; “nor,” added Zawahari, “anywhere else”—which obviously includes 9/11, the London and Madrid bombings, and the rest.
Was Zawahiri being facetious, or does he truly deem all those killed in the aforementioned attacks as not “innocent”—that is, guilty?
As for Western infidels, Osama bin Laden himself has announced on various occasions that, since America is a democracy, and thus responsible for its government (which is always portrayed as one of the greatest enemies of Islam), “Every American man is an enemy—whether he fights us directly or pays his taxes,” (The Al Qaeda Reader, 281). Accordingly, al-Qaeda issued its famous fatwa in 1998 concluding that “The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian and military—is an individual obligation incumbent upon every Muslim who can do it and in any country” (AQR, 13).
What of women and children? What of fellow Muslims? Surely all these are innocent? In fact, Zawahiri, in one of his major treatises written for Muslim-eyes only, “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents” (see AQR,141-171), demonstrates the opposite. After quoting several anecdotes from authoritative hadith and sira sources documenting Muhammad legitimizing haphazard attacks against infidel strongholds—including by utilizing catapults (al-manjonil) and fire—even though women and children were known to be sheltered there, Zawahiri quotes the observations of a prominent exegete: “It is well known that whoever follows such a course, bombarding infidels, will inevitably hit their women and children, who are otherwise forbidden from being killed. Likewise, the same goes if Muslims are among them. It is compulsory that this [the possibility of hitting women, children, and Muslims] not dissuade the launching of an incursion against them… even if one dreads hitting another Muslim” (AQR,165).
As for “hitting another Muslim,” in Zawahiri’s April response, he concluded that “If there is any innocent [i.e., Muslim] who was killed in the mujahedeen’s operations, then it was either an unintentional error or out of necessity.” Again, this response accords perfectly with what he wrote in “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents”: after discussing the inevitability that faithful Muslims may be “accidentally” killed during the jihad, Zawahiri quoted the renowned Muslim jurist Ibn Taymiyya, who declared some 700 years ago that, “Based on the consensus of the ulema [Islamic scholars], those Muslims who are accidentally killed are martyrs; and the obligatory jihad should never be abandoned because it creates martyrs” (AQR,168). In other words, yes, Muslims who are slain “accidentally” are innocent; however, their recompense is to be deemed “martyrs,” that is, to attain the highest level of paradise, with all the sensual bliss that only Islam promises.
Also, the concept of “necessity” alluded to above—“any innocent who was killed…out of necessity”—seems to permeate Islam's worldview. Quoting yet another prominent sheikh, Zawahiri writes “If necessity compels one to fire at them [Muslims interspersed among infidels, e.g., the “apostate” governments of Algeria, Afghanistan, and Iraq], one should do so with impunity... For if we lay off them, they will emerge triumphant and cause even more harm…. It is better that one group [of Muslims] bear the burden and be destroyed in order to defend Islam and its territory and the welfare [of Muslims].” To this, Zawahiri concludes, “The evils produced by attacking impetuously [thereby accidentally killing Muslims] is forgiven due to the good of defending Islam” (AQR, 166).
Finally, as Zawahiri makes clear, the question of whether it is permissible to kill women, children, et. al. during the jihad was decided upon by the jurists (fuqaha) when Islam was on the ascendancy, and engaged in offensive warfare simply to conquer infidels and usurp their lands; in other words, the question of killing “innocents” was relevant only when Muslims were the aggressors, invading infidel territory. Writes Zawahiri: “But when Muslims are defending their religion and their sanctities, and the infidels are surrounding them from every corner, and instead they [infidels] are the ones seeking them out and pursuing them… —in these situations it becomes a binding obligation on every Muslim to fight them anyway he can… [even if] some Muslims might be killed mistakenly” (AQR, 168).
Indeed, this view is based on "ulemaic" consensus—which is often seen as binding on the umma. Ibn Taymiyya makes this clear: “As for defensive warfare, this is the greatest way to defend sanctity and religion.This is an obligation consensually agreed to [by the ulema]. After faith, there is nothing more sacred than repulsing the enemy who attacks religion and life” (AQR, 13).
In other words, in those Muslim countries where infidels and apostates are perceived as having the upper hand—such as Afghanistan, Algeria, and Iraq—far from worrying about whether infidel women and children are killed, Muslim women and children themselves are individually obligated to participate or at least support the jihad.
Most problematic of all is the fact that, neither Pakistani cleric Munib ur-Rehmen, nor Ayman Zawahiri, nor yet Osama bin Laden are responsible for these notions or what constitutes “innocence” in Islam. Rather, their views are grounded in the verdicts of Islam’s revered ulema and fuqaha, who, in their turn, came up with these conclusions after grappling (ijtihad) with Islam’s core texts—the way all of sharia law has been articulated. In short, though much of what was quoted here comes from the writings of al-Qaeda, such notions are not original to al-Qaeda but trace back to the ulema and sharia.
In closing, this somewhat idiosyncratic concept of “guilt” and “innocence” should better highlight the epistemic difficulties the Westerner may encounter when trying to understand Islam—a religion, it should be recalled, that deems even the Muslim who simply and peacefully wants to convert to another religion, “guilty” and worthy of execution.
As the Pakistani Munib indicated at the beginning of this discussion, only the “truly Islamic” state will execute the apostate, which itself is truly telling about Islam's notions of innocence and guilt and how radically different they are from Western ideals.
Posted by Raymond at October 5, 2008 3:15 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
This should be on the front page of every newspaper in the US.
And until we get some organized effort behind that goal, it won't be.
Posted by: joeblough![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 5, 2008 3:47 PM
"Either way, this anecdote occasions the question: who is “innocent” in Islam?"
Muslims.
at October 5, 2008 4:13 PM
Raymond,
Another great article. I am bookmarking this one. A great follow ,up by the way, to http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022932.php by the way. It is important for people to read the scripture that the enemies of our way of life use to justify violence against us.
at October 5, 2008 5:00 PM
Everytime a Muslim, or any of their useful idiots, tells clueless politicians and journalists that Islam prohibits the killing of innocents, I hope that just once one of those politicians and journalists might ask:
Who then, exactly, are the guilty; what are they guilty of; who decides?
I am left disappointed.
Posted by: PRCS at October 5, 2008 5:28 PM
“Every American man is an enemy—whether he fights us directly or pays his taxes,”
Coincidentally, I consider every Muslim man my enemy, whether he be a "moderate" Muslim or a "radical". Funny how that works when two irreconcilable worldviews clash. I can partially forgive those Muslims who don't know their *ss from their elbow about what their religion actually teaches about jihad against infidels. All 5 of them are OK in my book.
Posted by: venividivici at October 5, 2008 5:49 PM
All 5 of them are OK in my book.
Posted by: venividivici at October 5, 2008 5:49 PM
LOL
Posted by: darcy at October 5, 2008 6:11 PM
Funny how CAIR plays right from Al Qaeda's book. It's like they're from the same mother organization or something. They condemn the killing of 'innocents,' i.e., all the reasonable, decent, thinking, moral, ethical, civilized, evolved, outbred, hard-working people of the world just like they condemn 'terrorism' but not senseless acts of slaughter and rape carried out in the name of 'jihad.' And not even Muslims are innocent to them so long as they live in kafirstan. Zawahiri got his start blowing up civilians in Egypt, mind you, so that full-on Sharia hellhole wasn't sufficiently 'Muslim' for him. And of course enslaving black Muslims in Darfur is perfectly halal. Sick, sick people.
Posted by: jdamn at October 5, 2008 7:10 PM
In addition to the change of military policy in Iraq, the Iraqi population was tired of the slaughter of "innocent" Iraq civilians by Al-Qaeda thugs. Maybe Zawahiri's conclusion that “The evils produced by attacking impetuously [thereby accidentally killing Muslims] is forgiven due to the good of defending Islam” (AQR, 166), did not find much traction with the Iraqi civilian population.
Large groups of Sunni Iraqis decided that at least the Americans were not killing their women and children and that cooperating with them was preferable to be being butchered by Al-Qaeda.
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 5, 2008 7:15 PM
Islam and the Durban conference, from jpost.com:
Smokescreen of Durban II
Sir, - The way to neutralize the impact of Durban II is to view it as an Islamic propaganda stunt based on Durban I's performance ("US Congress joins fight on Durban II," Gerald Steinberg, October 5). The themes of Durban I may have ostensibly focused on "racism," but they really followed Shari'a, or Islamic legal, principles.
First, there was the demonization of Israel for alleged human rights abuses - in violation of the obligation of religious minorities to accept dhimmitude, or inferior status, under Islamic sovereignty. Then there was the denunciation of blasphemy, under the cloak of religious tolerance. Blasphemy is a capital offense under Shari'a, which does not tolerate religious dissent.
These are the benighted rules that have led to unrelenting warfare against
Israel and to riots and death threats against writers and cartoonists.
Once this ideological framework is understood, the conference's pretentious use of the language of human rights will be seen as a mere smokescreen for its reactionary agenda.
Posted by: jewdog at October 5, 2008 7:30 PM
Yet more word games from Muslims? I'm bored. Disgusted too. Why isn't everybody by now except the deluded Mohammedans themselves?
Posted by: Wellington at October 5, 2008 7:48 PM
It's high time someone created a 'Muslim Technical Terms Explained' mini-dictionary for the benefit of Infidels.
Raymond has given us a pretty good idea of how to read the term 'innocence' when used by a good many Muslims. In doing so, he's made a start on the dictionary entry for 'innocent [people]' and 'innocence'.
Analogous explanations need to be given for other terms.
For example, consider the use, within Islamspeak, of terms such as 'war', 'self-defence', 'aggression', 'terrorism', 'oppression', 'occupation', 'justice', 'peace', 'mercy', 'truth', 'nakedness' (ie a woman has her hair/ face/ arms uncovered), 'immorality', 'impurity', 'purity', 'corruption', and so on.
Perhaps Mr Spencer and Mr Ibrahim and a few others could collaborate on the definitions, giving chapter and verse from the canonical/ authoritative sources, and Mr Bosch Fawstin could provide suitable illustrations, employing the blackest of black humour.
Desktop publish it and circulate it as samizdat.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 5, 2008 7:48 PM
On a similar note, there has been many times when Muslims will say "Well, yes Jihad can sometimes mean fighting, but only defensive fighting"
The problem with this is: in defense of what. All too often, this is phrased as "in defense of Islam" or, "in defense of Muslims". Unfortunately, theres a big swath of the Muslim world that believes that Islam (not just Muslims, but Islam as an institution) is under siege. In this worldview, there is a worldwide conspiracy of bad, mean, evil people who want to destroy Islam and that every action that westerners take is pare of some nefarious conspiracy.
Also, the traditional view of 'defensive Jihad' stipulates that if Muslims are attacked anywhere (regardless of the circumstances), then it becomes an individual obligation of all Muslims to travel there and fight the non-muslims. This view is quite different from our notions of 'defense'.
Posted by: Monte Gardner at October 5, 2008 8:11 PM
They have even said this straight forward on British TV and yet the British PC establishment continues to aid them in over throwing the government.
Posted by: senor doeboy at October 5, 2008 8:16 PM
The number one rule of warfare: "Know thy enemy"
I just wish more people knew more about Islam. The more it is exposed, the better. A part of the problem here is that so many refuse to see. It is as if they really don't want to know.
at October 5, 2008 8:45 PM
Hey People - I just saw on Weasel Zippers "Rampaging Muslim Mob Watch -'Jewel of Medina' released tomorrow in New York by a small publisher.
Posted by: darcy at October 5, 2008 8:53 PM
Irony of Ironies:
"Jewel of Medina" is bundled with "The Truth About Muhammed" on amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Jewel-Medina-Sherry-Jones/dp/0825305187
at October 5, 2008 9:06 PM
Here is Beaufort Books press release for those interested. It says Sherry Jones even contacted the FBI to see if she'd been "targeted!"
Posted by: darcy at October 5, 2008 9:24 PM
It's a wonderful life.
Zuzu: "daddy, teacher says:
every time an infidel is murdered, a moslem earns his wings"
at October 5, 2008 9:48 PM
Dumbledoresarmy, don't forget my favorite: 'oppressed,' as in 'all the Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jainists, Confuscians, Animists, atheists, and apostates are still alive; Christians and Jews aren't dhimmis or slaves; we don't have our Sharia hellhole that extends all the way to Spain because we have never heard of Portugal due our excellent Islamic 'education;' there are still women who aren't sex slaves chained to stoves; feminists and (proud, non-closet) homosexuals are still alive; there are still unmutilated female genitalia over five years old; we actually have to work for a living and can't just parasitize the People of the Book for our jizya (non-applicable in Europe and Canada); children are still in school; dogs and pigs still walk the Earth; there's still toilet paper instead of rocks; tampons exist; things that didn't exist in 7th-century Arabia exist (everything not alive besides cloth and fire). But they'll keep our infidel weaponry for sure.
PS, Daniel Pipes was just on FOX News talking about Obama's Khalidi connection. He made a good case and he looked good too. I may apologize for calling him a dhimmi pretty soon here.
Posted by: jdamn at October 5, 2008 9:50 PM
From above: there's still toilet paper instead of rocks...
I wish someone had told me that earlier...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 5, 2008 10:36 PM
Monte Gardner, note also that in the later part of Muhammad's career, offensive warfare was permitted and obligatory to the Muslim community (though not to each and every individual Muslim).
The notion that Islam only permits defensive warfare is contradicted by several verses in the last (or almost the last) surah Muhammad produced, surah 9. It is also contradicted by the fact that in the first 100 years, Islam spread by force of arms over huge territories, all the way to Spain in the West and as far as India in the East.
Posted by: traeh at October 5, 2008 10:58 PM
Islam divides innocent and guilty, the same way it divides muslims and kuffar, and dar al-harb and dar al-Islam.
Dar al harb = guilty Kufirs...An absolute.
Kufrs are guilty because they are not Mohammad worshippers.
Dar al-Islam = Innocent Mohammadans...Not an absolute.
Muslims are innocent, because they are Mohammadans.
But some Mohammad worshippers are guilty, according to other Mohammad worshippers, and must pay the penalty.
All kuffars are guilty all the time while guilty muhammadans are only guilty once in a while.
So there is no question as to who is guilty or innocent...If I can figure it out, I'm sure Allah can...
Posted by: duh_swami at October 5, 2008 11:40 PM
WOW, with so much confusion in the West, maybe it's best to leave the tough questions for the invisible men in Space, GOD & Allah? Let's send all the male muslims to paradise where Allah can "sort" them out, & we in the West will take care of all of the women & children here on earth.
We can educate the young ones in our public schools & improve the breed with the women?
Of course, Allah willing.
Posted by: Kauaikit at October 6, 2008 1:05 AM
OT, but I want to remind everyone that the 10th October is the day that Charles Martel defeated the muslims at the battle of Tours (Poitiers).
Please remember and celebrate Charles Martel day, on this coming Friday 10th October.
Posted by: Voltaire at October 6, 2008 5:38 AM
Raymond,
Re: the above comment. Time for a "This Day in the History of Islam" ?
Posted by: USorThem at October 6, 2008 8:15 AM
"Charles Martel Day"! Hey, if can we celebrate Arbor Day, there seems to be no problem with celebrate "Charles Martel Day".
Wait, CAIR would probably claim that Charles Martel was a racist.
Posted by: tanstaafl at October 6, 2008 8:41 AM
Okay, so--innocents are innocent except when they're not, or when they're in the way. Does that cover it?
Posted by: Abscedere at October 6, 2008 8:59 AM
OT: Jewel of Medina. I just read the two comments offered, so far. One dweeb can't wait to buy the book. She's studying religions and history, and thinks this book will provide historical research material.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Posted by: Abscedere at October 6, 2008 9:41 AM
more on the assclown circus,, duban II,,
from front page mag,, today,,,
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9891BCBE-CA16-4BBC-9BA6-DB9FCBFEAE5E
>>>>>
The Pathology of Durban II
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, October 06, 2008
The planners of the 2009 United Nations Durban II Review Conference, which is purportedly aimed at combating racism, have been busy crafting their anti-Semitic and anti-Western agenda. Their latest manifesto is an intergovernmental working group report, issued by the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee on September 29, 2008. It includes regional annexes from Latin America, Africa, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The report and annex materials will all become part of the Durban II Conference’s final “outcome document.”
The new UN human rights chief, Navanethem Pillay, cannot understand why the United States, Canada, and Israel have already decided to withdraw their support for this hatefest, and why other Western countries are considering boycotting the conference, as well. She gives the benefit of the doubt to the conference planners, even though their documents in preparation for Durban II associate racism and xenophobia solely with Western democracies while they give a free pass to regimes who commit crimes against humanity in the planners’ backyard.
The American historian and author Dr. Richard Landes has coined the term “demopaths” to describe the characteristics we find in those who are responsible for the Durban II agenda.[1]
Dr. Landes points out the demopaths’ most salient traits:
Radical imbalance between their insistence on asserting their own rights, and their lack of interest in defending the rights of others.
Moral rhetoric expressing great indignation when appealing for personal rights.
Tendency to tell demonizing tales of whom they brand the enemies of “human rights.”
Tendency to think in conspiratorial terms (they are conspirators themselves), and to project ill will onto opponents/enemies.
Do minimal (required) work protecting the rights of others, especially opponents/enemies.
Dr. Landes goes on to say that “a demopathic organization would protest the media portraying its ethnic/religious affiliates as ‘terrorists’ (inadmissible negative stereotyping), but would not protest the terrorist acts perpetrated by members of their ethnic/religious group (permissible wanton murder of civilians)."
The planning documents coming out of the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee so far, including the latest working group report, are the product of such demopathic organizations, including the Organization of the Islamic Conference, authoritarian regimes in Africa and Latin America and radical leftist non-governmental organizations (NGOs) accredited by the United Nations to participate in Durban II.
Thus, it is no surprise that the symptoms of demopathology which Landes describes are manifested so clearly in the demonization of Israel and in the obsession with Islamophobia. They are the key organizing principles that will animate Durban II.
It is also no surprise that the Durban II planners talk abstractly about the virtues of cultural diversity but want to legislate against a fulsome diversity of ideas that come from anyone whom they perceive as their enemies. Their latest working group report states, for example, that “freedom of expression may be subject to restrictions provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, the promotion of national security or public order, or of public health and morals.”
The report lashes out in particular against what it calls the “ideologies” of “extremist right-wing groups.” Of course, nothing is said about the hateful “ideologies” of the extreme Left or of the Islamic fanatics since they are the driving force behind Durban II and are incapable of self-criticism or self-restraint. We see in action the radical imbalance between their insistence on asserting their own rights, and their lack of interest in defending the rights of others, which Dr. Landes so astutely observed to be a characteristic typical of demopaths.
Consequently, writing the truth about how self-described practitioners of Islam are responsible for the vast majority of terrorist killings around the world today is considered hate speech that must be banned, according to the demopaths running Durban II. Yet, these same demopaths believe that Muslim clerics are entitled to incite violence against ‘infidels’ and to make death threats against authors of materials critical of Islam with impunity. Cartoons like those published in the Danish press mocking Islamic fanatics’ exploitation of their prophet’s teachings are an abuse of free expression, which deserves death for their publishers. Yet a book published by members of Iran's Islamist Basij militia featuring dozens of cartoons cruelly mocking Jewish victims of the Holocaust and school books used in Saudi Arabian schools referring to Jews and Christians as apes and pigs are perfectly alright.
In addition to their assault on their enemies’ right of free expression, the planners of Durban II are calling for current and future generations of Westerners to bear the burden of the sins of long ago generations. The planners demand “formal apologies” and “collective compensation” for the “victims of historic injustices.” This continues on a path set during the Durban I Conference in 2001, where the final declaration stated that "Slavery and the slave trade were appalling tragedies...a crime against humanity, and should always have been so."
Now the Durban II planners intend to make sure that we pay reparations to people who may not even be descended from the victims of crimes that were committed by other people who profited from slavery more than 140 years ago -- and who may not be our ancestors. At the same time, the planners gloss over the enslavement of black Sudanese women and children occurring in Africa today. They also ignore the fact that slaves were used by Arabs for more than 1,000 years (far more than in the West) and that there is still slavery in the Arab world today. The demopaths are incapable of introspection, only demonization.
For good measure, the Durban II intergovernmental working group report makes a conspiratorial reference to the “victims of racism who are infected or presumably infected with pandemic diseases such as HIV/AIDS.” No doubt compensation for the victims of an imaginary racist conspiracy to spread these diseases to black Africans will be added to the reparations bill.
Reparations, of course, are nothing more than another crass attempt to bring about massive wealth redistribution from the prosperous democratic societies of the West to corrupt, anti-democratic regimes in the under-developed world, some of which enslave their own people today. Depending on how they would be calculated, the total of reparations due could be over 100 trillion dollars, according to one estimate published in Harpers’ Magazine.
The next president of the United States may be tempted to make some symbolic gestures of compromise in the United Nations in order to improve our country’s image in the eyes of the world. Deciding to participate in Durban II may turn out to be one of those symbolic gestures, which would be a tragic mistake.
We should not care about being popular so long as we are doing the right thing and living up to our best ideals. Participating in Durban II in order to curry some favor in the United Nations would symbolize surrender to the demopaths who want to destroy us because of our core beliefs in freedom.
ENDNOTES:
1. Richard Landes, The Augean Stables.com and The Second Draft.org weblog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph A. Klein is the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom.
at October 6, 2008 9:58 AM
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Posted by: Abscedere at October 6, 2008 9:41 AM
The comments you read are posted on the Christian Science Monitor.
I commented twice last night about the novel - and about RS, as he is mentioned in the first comment (and not in a positive way) - Guess what? I checked this morning and mine aren't on there.
Is the "CSM" stupid?
Oh, btw, Abscedere, I vote for "cry."
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2008 10:19 AM
Raymond,
Good article.
Although I think we in the US media exert too much effort pointing out the opinions of certain characters, and we have given them too much press too many times to speak of.
"only to happy"
I beleive we understand now, don't we?
: )
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
P.S. Why do you think it has taken so long to find a 51 year old man with kidney problems who needs dialysis, and his running buddy Zawhirir "The Not So Nice" Doctor? (Nephrologist perhaps?)
Posted by: Abdullah Mikail at October 6, 2008 2:20 PM
"Why do you think it has taken so long to find a 51 year old man with kidney problems who needs dialysis, and his running buddy Zawhirir "The Not So Nice" Doctor?"
Most likely because a vast network of thousands of ordinary Muslims as well as Muslims in the Pakistani military and other high positions in the south Afghanistan/north Pakistan regions are working together to do their small parts to protect their hero's hiding place. I bet that these thousands of Muslims, many of them dirt poor, would rather reject two million dollars than betray the great Lion of Islam.
at October 6, 2008 3:17 PM
DenverRodeo,
We can read a postage stamp from space, we have night vision, thermal vision, and technology out the wazoo that helped us nab key top level operatives in another active war zone, Iraq.
So, I suspect this is more of the "if you cure the disease you can't keep selling the medecine" sort of thing rather than the natives being so good at hiding him.
My two cents.
Peace
Abdullah Mikail
at October 6, 2008 4:47 PM
You can be sure that when the above Mohammedan flaunts his "Peace" sign-off, he really means "War."
Because Mohammedanism has nothing to do with peace, and everything to do with war. Bellicose since 622 AD.
Posted by: darcy at October 6, 2008 5:36 PM
You can be sure that when the above Mohammedan flaunts his "Peace" sign-off, he really means "War."
Well, at least we can confirm that this "Patriot" is clearly accusing his country of deliberate war-mongering for nefarious reasons unstated. Does anyone see anyone else on this thread accusing our country of treachery? Was Clinton "selling the medicine" when he didn't take out OBL?
By the way, Abdullah, I was wondering, when Mohammad
1) gouged out the eyes and amputated the limbs of two men and left them to die in the desert despite their screams, and
2) had Kinana bin al-Rabi of Khaybar tortured with fire on his chest (so Mohammad could loot the treasury of the Khaybar Jews), then beheaded him in front of his wife and then raped that same wife,
do you feel that Mohammad's conduct befitted a prophet of God, you know, as opposed to a simple sterile execution?
Wasn't the fire "Allah's punishment", the same for which Ali was rebuked by Ibn 'Abbas?
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"
Was Ibn 'Abbas misquoting Mohammad in Sahih Bukhari? Was the "prophet" inconsistent? Was Mohammad morally exceeded by his follower?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen at October 7, 2008 7:30 AM
A dictionary of inconsistent meanings would be a good thing -- but with a caveat such as the following, previously posted at JW in comments:
Fosco Maraini (from chapter 2 of his book on the Hindu Kush, Where Four Worlds Meet):
"The efforts of European scholars to frame a terminology capable of translating the fundamental concepts of shariah into Occidental values are doomed to failure in advance. Trying to introduce our basic juridical assumptions concerning public, private, constitutional or canon law into the fortified redoubt of the Islamic endocosm is rather like trying to grow fruit in a bookcase, or force steel cubes up one's nostrils. The converse process is, of course, equally difficult....for the simple reason that we are dealing with entities that never match exactly, but leave incompatible loose ends on both sides..."
Although the assumptions, "the world is a global vilage", and "we all want the same thing", are truly foolish, and the assumption of easy translation is not wise, it is worthwhile to consider: in what ways are the assumptions foolish, and how? An important way is the understanding or misunderstanding of word meanings and cultural concepts. Islam has cultural assumptions fundamentally different from the modern West. These differences need to be acknowledged.
A cross-cultural dictionary's entries on "truth" and "justice" might use the following, (from Lawrence Rosen, "The Anthropology of Justice law as culture in islamic society " Cambridge University Press 1989)
1) truth (pg. 22): "Consider first the issue of truth...Moroccans appear to make a clear distinction between statements made in the course of establishing a relationship and the truth or falseness that can be said to attach to any utterance. This distinction sounds peculiar to western ears since even if we do not believe someone who says he is our friend or who claims to know another person quite well we at least regard such statements as having some bearing on the the issue of truth, as capable of of being assessed at some level as true or false.. But when a Moroccan makes such a bare statement, it is well understood that this utterance functions not like a statement that is true or false but rather like a price mentioned in the market-place, a figure that cannot be said to be true or false until it is accepted, validated by some additional act performed by oneself or another, and thus brought from the realm of the proposed into the world of activities that affect the relationships among people...the things people say about relationships to one another really operate like bargaining positions...are not held to standards of truth or falseness before they have been solidified by some act that brings them into the world of truth, the world of human relationships."
2) justice (pg. 74) "Everywhere one encounters in Islamic life the idea of justice...The Muslim concept of justice is thus one of those domains in which a host of social, political, and ethical ideas come into uneasy coalescence, and the contrast between American ideas, diverse, fluctuating, often inchoate, and Islamic ideas, challenged, hesitating, yet deeply sensed, is actually quite subtle. For if it is true that the present idea of justice in America overlaps with and incorporates the ideas of equality (the law should be blind to social and biological differences) and ideas of autonomy (justice lies in the protection of my rights) then within the ambit of Islamic justice lie the central ideas of individuation (I must be seen as a a whole person whose social traits contribute to a distinctive pattern) and the fair regulation of permissible exchange (the presentation of men's bargained-for claims within the limits set down by God). It is not rights that are at the center of Islamic justice, for no one expects rights to be recognized that are not granted by God or forcefully ensured by networks of obligation. Rather, what is central is the process by which one's claims may be validated before the community in accord with local practice and the attestation of people who with their own eyes know what is so and will not risk their credibility as allies by refusing to say it."
Posted by: del at October 7, 2008 10:29 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)