• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Chattanooga jihad murderer texted Islamic verse to friend before attack

Jul 18, 2015 5:16 pm By Robert Spencer

chattanoogashooting2“Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.” This is one of the Hadith Qudsi — the holy hadith, in which Muhammad quotes Allah saying something that is not in the Qur’an. They are considered on par with the Qur’an itself. In any case, clearly this verse refers to being an enemy to those who are supposedly fighting the Muslims — that is, U.S. military personnel.

“Tennessee suspect texted friend link to Islamic verse before attack,” by Richard Valdmanis, Reuters, July 18, 2015:

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (Reuters) – Hours before the Tennessee shooting that killed five U.S. servicemen, the suspected gunman texted his close friend a link to a long Islamic verse that included the line: “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.”

The friend, who requested anonymity, showed the text message to Reuters on Saturday. He said he thought nothing of the message at the time, but now wonders if it was a hint at Thursday’s attack in Chattanooga.

The suspect, Mohammod Youssuf Abdulazeez, a 24-year-old Kuwaiti-born naturalized U.S. citizen, was killed in a gunfight with police. The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism, but said it was premature to speculate on the gunman’s motive.

The rampage has re-ignited concerns about the radicalization of young Muslim men. Abdulazeez’s friends said he returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene.

After the trip, he purchased three assault rifles on an online marketplace and used them for target practice, the friends said.

“He expressed that he was upset about (the Middle East). But I can’t imagine it drove him to this,” said the friend who received the text message….

Abdulazeez’s friends, who asked not to be identified for fear of a backlash, said he was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza and the civil war in Syria.

“He felt Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia were not doing enough to help, and that they were heavily influenced by the United States,” said the friend who received the text message.

Another friend said, “He had always talked about it, but I’d say his level of understanding and awareness really rose after he came back.”

Abdulazeez, an engineer, had occasionally smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, and struggled to reconcile that with his faith in Islam, the friends said. At one point, in 2012 or 2013, he received therapy for his drugs and alcohol use, they said.

“He used it to de-stress, when things were difficult at home, or whatever,” the first friend said, adding that tensions between Abdulazeez and his Palestinian parents had upset him. His parents nearly got divorced in 2009, according to court records.

Abdulazeez also had problems with local youths that sometimes took on a religious and racial tone, the friend said.

“There were rednecks, ignorant people, who sometimes would cause problems. Mo never fought, but he used to get worked up and yell and stuff,” he said. “Afterwards he would calm down, and just say it doesn’t matter.”

Abdulazeez went to the Middle East in 2010 and visited several countries, according to the friend. He then went to Jordan in 2014 to work for his uncle, and lived with his uncle and his grandparents there, the friend said….

Abdulazeez had purchased three guns on armslist.com after returning from Jordan, including an AK-74, an AR-15, and a Saiga 12, his friends said. They said he also owned a 9mm and a .22 caliber hand guns….

“He was always interested in guns, since he was young. He started with a BB gun and paintball, and went on from there. We would go out shooting quite often,” said the friend who received the text message….

The night before the attack, just after 10 p.m., the friend received a text from Abdulazeez with this link to a Hadith, or Islamic teaching: http://sunnah.com/nawawi40/3.

For jihadists and ultraconservative Salafist Sunni Muslims, the Hadith “is usually understood within the context of al-wala wa-l-bara (or) love for Islam and hatred for its enemies,” said David Cook, an associate professor who specializes in Islam in the department of religion at Rice University in Texas….

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: American jihadis, Featured, Jihad in the U.S. Tagged With: Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Canto28 says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm

    Five good men lost so that some Islamic puke could look forward to his imaginary teenage virgins per the Koran. And he was supposed to be such a nice assimilated Muslim. Hence the obvious lesson to take away is that any apparently decent Muslim can suddenly turn jihadist. How can any Muslim, who Koran commands them not to make infidel friends, not to assimilate with the hell-bound “worst of creatures”, deserve our trust?

    Shouldn’t we start seriously restricting Muslim immigration?

    • Michael Copeland says

      Jul 18, 2015 at 5:52 pm

      As Raymond Ibrahim says, it obliges us all to play Islamic Russian Roulette.

    • Budvarakbar says

      Jul 18, 2015 at 7:00 pm

      Restrict — NO! — complete stoppage!

    • Shane says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 10:15 am

      Yes, it is a sensible policy not to let the enemy immigrate into your country during wartime. We are at war with the global Islamic jihad and every Muslim we allow into our country is a potential jihadist or a supporter of jihad. Just look at the example of the Tsarnaev boys, this killer, and dozens of other Muslim immigrants who have been arrested for committing terrorist acts or for planning them. Converts to Islam are just as bad as Muslim immigrants when it comes to committing violent acts in the name of Islam.

    • voegelinian says

      Jul 20, 2015 at 4:44 am

      “Shouldn’t we start seriously restricting Muslim immigration?”

      Well, of course we should. But it’s more likely you’ll win the Lotto tomorrow than that the West will get around to doing that in the near future. The West isn’t even ready to put the issue on the table for discussion yet. So a reasonable (and reasonably pessimistic) prediction would be something like 20-30 years from now, the West will be ready to seriously consider the issue. But that will only be — or mainly be — because Muslims will have continued to slaughter us in various terror attacks on our soil in the meanwhile.

      Meanwhile, the West will have a few more million Muslims (not to mention new ones being born through the “Jihad of the Womb”). If at that point, with wolves already inside the barn, we decide to put a padlock on the barn door, what will we do about the wolves inside the barn?

      • Angemon says

        Jul 20, 2015 at 7:57 am

        voegelinian posted:

        ““Shouldn’t we start seriously restricting Muslim immigration?”

        Well, of course we should.”

        Ah, finally you’re on board with that! Good to know the time I spent educating you on the subject was well spent 😀

        “But it’s more likely you’ll win the Lotto tomorrow than that the West will get around to doing that in the near future. The West isn’t even ready to put the issue on the table for discussion yet.”

        Oh, I’d say that a moratorium on muslim immigration is far more likely to come to pass than the blanket “total deportation” “meme” you’re trying to push. Voeg logic – screw the idea that’s likely to come into fruition, I’m all for the other one with no chances of materializing, even if the former could be a stepping stone for the latter.

  2. cs says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 5:38 pm

    What a nice Pallie. Typical Islamic Jihad member, or Hamas.

  3. Angemon says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 5:55 pm

    The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism, but said it was premature to speculate on the gunman’s motive.

    No need to speculate – the evidence laid out makes it perfectly clear. Unless you’ve been reading the post-Obama counter-terrorism manuals, who scrubbed mentions of islam and jihad at the request of CAIR…

    Abdulazeez’s friends said he returned from a trip to Jordan in 2014 concerned about conflicts in the Middle East and the reluctance of the United States and other countries to intervene.

    I, for one, would like to hear their opinion on the second Gulf war and on the invasion of Afghanistan – I bet they are not on the side of the US on those.

    Abdulazeez’s friends, who asked not to be identified for fear of a backlash

    Not a backlash from non-muslims, a backlash from muslims who will resent him speaking of the case with non-muslims

    said he was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza

    I’m going to go on a limb and say that he does not condemn Hamas or the PA and their attacks on Israel,

    and the civil war in Syria.

    Why the hell should the US intervene on that?

    “He felt Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia were not doing enough to help, and that they were heavily influenced by the United States,” said the friend who received the text message.

    Or maybe they just want nothing to do with a civil war taking place somewhere else.

    Abdulazeez, an engineer, had occasionally smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, and struggled to reconcile that with his faith in Islam, the friends said.

    And apparently, he did it – killing and dying for the sake of jihad guarantees him a spot in the heavenly brother that is the islamic paradise.

    Abdulazeez also had problems with local youths that sometimes took on a religious and racial tone, the friend said.

    “There were rednecks, ignorant people, who sometimes would cause problems.

    Those “redneck”, “ignorants” probably called him a terrorist. Boy, did he show them…

    For jihadists and ultraconservative Salafist Sunni Muslims, the Hadith “is usually understood within the context of al-wala wa-l-bara (or) love for Islam and hatred for its enemies,” said David Cook, an associate professor who specializes in Islam in the department of religion at Rice University in Texas….

    Huh, “for jihadists and ultraconservative Salafist Sunni Muslims”? Is there any sect that interprets it differently? I suspect not, since there was apologetic explanation thrown at our faces.

    • Alex says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 12:33 am

      Good post. However, I would like to point out that there is nothing islamic about being against the second Gulf War (your post made it sound that way). I am a proud infidel but the 2003 Iraq invasion was very costly and proved to be a failure. The removal of Saddam = the arrival of ultra radical Shiites & Sunnis.

      • Wellington says

        Jul 19, 2015 at 12:59 am

        Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. He was a megalomaniac out of control. He was the only dictator in the world that had WMDs AND had used them. Every major intelligence agency on the planet thought he had not come clean about his WMD cache.

        Moreover, SH was violating the truce terms of the 1991 war on a regular basis, such as firing daily on American and British jets patrolling the two no-fly zones. No President of the United States could afford to let such a man remain in power, especially after 9/11. Where Bush went wrong was in thinking that democracy could be implanted in that god-forsaken land. What Bush should have done was to have kept most of the Iraqi Army in tact and appoint an authoritarian type like a Mubarak to run Iraq who was pro-American or at the very least neutral. Bush’s great error lays here and not in his removal of SH.

        • epistemology says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 5:15 am

          Saddam Hussein needed to be removed, no doubt about that. He wasn’t as secular as many people in the West think. In his private life he didn’t give a damn about the Islamic commandments, but in politics and that counts he supported the families of suicide bombers in Israel.He was evil to the core.

          I totally agree with you dear Wellington, Bush tried to democratize Iraq and failed. It would have been better to appoint a pro-American dictator, as Islam as a totalitarian ideology will never be compatible with democracy. But Bush didn’t know enough about Islam to realise that.

          Take care my friend and all the best

        • Jan Aage Jeppersen says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 10:56 am

          I respectfully disagree with your assessment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

          The “need” arose from a changed US realpolitik executed with some success by the Regan administration strongly supporting Iraq during the Iraq Iran war from 1980 to 1988.

          Regan correctly identified Iran as the biggest and most dangerous enemy in the region to US interests and stability. Starting in 1982 with Iranian success on the battlefield, the United States made its backing of Iraq more pronounced, normalizing relations with the government, supplying it with economic aid, counter-insurgency training, operational intelligence on the battlefield, and weapons.

          President Ronald Reagan initiated a strategic opening to Iraq, signing National Security Study Directive (NSSD) 4-82 and selecting Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Hussein, whom he visited in December 1983 and March 1984. According to U.S. ambassador Peter W. Galbraith, far from winning the conflict, “the Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose.”

          In 1982, Iraq was removed from a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism to ease the transfer of dual-use technology to that country.

          It was simple realpolitik: my enemy’s enemy is my friend. Even if Iraq could not win both Muslim states would be weakened and posing a lesser threat to US interests and the region.

          I never understood the change in US policy after Reagan when Iraq became enemy of the US just because Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait and made it a part of Greater Iraq. The main reason seems to be pressure from the US alley Saudi Arabia fearing that they and their oil fields were next on the Iraqi dictator’s expansionist agenda to become the dominant nation in the Middle East.

          In my opinion it would have been far better to make a secret deal with Saddam Hussein that he could keep Kuwait but the US would intervene militarily if he went further. And at the same time guarantee the integrity and borders of Saudi Arabia and the smaller Golf States. Thus making the security of Saudi Arabia more dependent of US support than it already was and making the Kingdom more malleable in the future.

          Without the error of Golf War I against Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s rather secular regime could have been a strong alley to the US in the war against Islamism declared after 9/11. Instead it became a main objective for President Bush to have Saddam Hussein removed by force and implement some form of democracy.

          Everyone with knowledge about the shia-sunni divide could have predicted that making the Baath party a criminal organisation and dismantling the Iraqi army spelled chaos and ethnic conflicts when the shia majority came to power. I consider the attack on Iraq in 2003 among the most disastrous political decision ever made by the US. Apart from that the war was unnecessary, it fuelled radical Islamism and drove Iraq into an alliance with Iran. Instead of solving or diminishing a problem the war made it far, far worse.

        • Wellington says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 12:36 pm

          Jan Aage Jeppersen: I respectfully disagree. Yes, Reagan’s policy towards Iraq in the 1980s was the correct one because the US wanted a stalemate in the Iran-Iraq War, which it got, but letting Saddam Hussein keep Kuwait in violation of every international norm would have sent a signal of drastic weakness by the US to all the world (never mind horribly upsetting world markets for years to come). It would have changed balance of power elements even in Asia. As Dean Acheson, Truman’s Secretary of State from 1949-1953, said to an aide when asked by him why the US was going into Korea when Kim IL Sung invaded South Korea in June of 1950, “NATO,” Acheson icily replied. Just so. And so as well with Kuwait in 1991.

          Something else: it’s one thing to tolerate a brutal dictator but what can’t be tolerated is a brutal dictator who is a megalomaniac out of control. Even by 1990-1991 it was clear that SH was unstable and this is yet another reason why Bush 41 and then Bush 43 did what they did.

        • Champ says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 12:48 pm

          Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. He was a megalomaniac out of control.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

          150% agree, Wellington!

        • Wellington says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 2:08 pm

          Thank you both, Champ and epistemology. Hope both of your are doing well today.

        • Greyhound Fancier says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 2:22 pm

          I think that as usual the govt was fighting an earlier war…the pattern was the occupations of Germany and Japan, which were very successful in changing totalitarian/fascist regimes to decent governments that stopped threatening their neighbors.

          Well, we’ve given the Mohammadans a chance…Iraq refused to grow up, behave decently, and step into the 21st Century. Let’s remember this.

          Getting rid of Saddam was good. “Nation building” can’t be done in the ME due to Mohammadanism.

        • Jan Aage Jeppersen says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 2:57 pm

          To Wellington

          Thanks for reply.

          Your arguments for the necessity of war against Iraq boils down to that Saddam Hussein by attacking Kuwait was in violation of every international norm. But so was his unprovoked attack against Iran in September 1980, and that was with full US backing and support all the way. The Regan administration even downplayed Iraqi use of chemical weapons against the Iranian forces and refused to act against it in the UN.

          On the other hand the attack on Iraq in 2003 was not sanctioned by the UN Security Council, and consequently it was a war in violation of international law. The Council interpreted Resolution 1441 as not giving specific mandate to the use of force. A new Resolution for that purpose was required and never adopted.

          I don’t agree that the goal of the US in the Iraq Iran war was stalemate. The purpose of any war is to defeat the enemy even in a substitute war like this. The US should have done more to secure Iraqi victory on the battlefield even to the extent of supplying Saddams army with tactical nuclear weapons, under US control, to get rid of the Iranian theocratic regime. An Iraqi victory would also be seen as an US victory. Half measures are seen as a sign of indecision and lack of determination. Now a signal of US weakness was sent to the Arab world.

          Also, if Saddam Hussein had been victorious and acquired Iranian territory he would have had no need to attack Kuwait in order to regain some of the lost national pride and self-respect when Iraq was humiliated with a ceasefire imposed by the UN. I think the US administration did not understand the seriousness of this loss of face Saddam Hussein suffered.

          Three years into the Iraqi war, in 2006, it was evident that the war was a fiasco and spelled disaster. Here in the prophetic words of Thomas E. Ricks:

          “President George W. Bush`s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 ultimately may come to be seen as one of the most profligate actions of the history of American foreign policy. The consequences of his choice won’t be clear for decades, but it already is abundantly clear in mid-2006 that the U.S. Government went to war in Iraq with scant solid international support and on the basis of incorrect information – about weapons of mass destruction and a supposed nexus between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda`s terrorism – and then occupied the country negligently. Thousands of U.S. Troops and an untold number of Iraqis have died. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spend, many of them squandered. Democracy may still come to the region, but so too may civil war or a regional, which in turn could lead to spiralling oil prices and a global economic shock. …”

          All dictators are megalomaniac’s, which is why they became dictators with absolute power in the first place. Saddam was not out of control. He could be reasoned with and a deal made about Kuwait without costing the US anything. Saddam needed a small victory like Kuwait to keep him happy and our loyal bully in the region. By rejecting and threatening him he became somewhat irrational and had to prove himself by challenging the world’s only superpower. That is how the macho Arab mind works. That won him a lot of respect among the Arab masses.

        • Angemon says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 7:29 pm

          I concur, Wellington. After the first Gulf War, Saddam was supposed to be on a short leash and life-time parole, in a matter of speaking, but he arrogantly (islamicaly?) stepped on the boundaries over and over, in clear defiant and provocative fashion – testing and pushing his limits. Not only that, around 2002 an IISS report stated that Iraq could build a nuclear device in months time if they could buy (or steal) fissile material. And if they got their hands on fissile material, or if he could bluff well enough to fool his neighbours, there would be a full-scale war on the region – I don’t see Iran or Saudi Arabia sitting on their thumbs and hoping for the best.

          On that regard, Obama is a completely different beast since he seems hellbent on giving nuclear capabilities to a theocratic regime whose leaders have stated many, many times their hatred of America and Israel and their desire to wipe Israel off the map.

          Saddam, mad and power-hungry as he was, could be reasoned with, at least to a certain extent. The same can’t be said of Ahmadinejad or Rohani.

        • Wellington says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 10:08 pm

          Jan Aage Jeppersen:

          Thanks for your reply. I will answer briefly.

          1) The attack by SH on Iran in 1980 is quite different from that of his on Kuwait in 1990. Frist of all, Iran was not an ally of the US. Second, there were not near as many economic and geopolitical implications in 1980 as there were in 1990.

          2) Frankly, I don’t give a damn about the United Nations and its resolutions. The UN is pathetic and that’s why I regularly refer to it as the Useless Nations.

          3) It was the goal of the Reagan Administration once it came in in 1981 to have a stalemate. It did not want victory for either side but felt at the time (understandably) that Iraq needed to be supported to achieve a stalemate. Secretary of State George Schultz said as much. So, we disagree here too.

          4) I don’t care about loss of face for SH and, to my knowledge, right from the time he came into power in 1979 he referred to Kuwait as Iraq’s 19th province. This aside, SH went into Kuwait for its oil and even if he had been victorious against Iran I can discern no reason why this would not have emboldened him all the more to attack elsewhere——like Kuwait.

          5) The quote you provided was made in 2006, long after the Americans defeated Iraq’s pathetic forces, long after Bush should have installed an authoritarian (as I mentioned before) to run Iraq rather than trying to install democracy in a Muslim land, which is a fool’s errand.

          6) We also disagree about SH’s mental state and that of dictators in general. SH was unstable in a way most dictators, control-freaks though they be, are not. He was slaughtering his people by way of using WMDs at a time WHEN NO OTHER DICTATOR was. Oh yeah, unique situation.

          7) You put the cart before the horse by averring that SH only became irrational because the US wouldn’t let him keep Kuwait. C’mon.

          8) I don’t give a damn about Arab pride. The Arabs are the single most dysfunctional major people on the planet (if you disagree, who would be your choice?) and even many Arabs know this, for instance Fouad Ajami who wrote “The Dream Palace of the Arabs.” Time the world reads the Arab world in general the riot act. No more indulgence of this extremely effed up people who are a burden to themselves and to everyone else.

        • voegelinian says

          Jul 20, 2015 at 5:10 am

          What Jan Van Whatever ignores is that Saddam got worse and worse and more unstable with each passing decade. It’s simple. Our Western geopolitical policy vis-a-vis the Muslim world should have been (as it sort of was for decades before and during the Cold War) a ruthlessly pragmatic Realislamik — supporting whatever dictators got the job done of keeping a lid on the natural Muslim appetite for more Islam (which, as we know, or should know by now, is a volatile, ustable, internationally dangerous chemical) and didn’t otherwise cause too many problems with their neighbors (which Saddam did).

          With the protracted mess we have inherited by now after the disastrous Bernard Lewis Doctrine of Bush — amplified egregiously by Obama — it’s not clear that we can put the “Genie back in the bottle” and recapture and revamp the resemblance of a rational policy we had in the mid-20th century. At this point as we go careering into the middle of the 21st century, we’ll be lucky if we can merely figure out a way to minimize the horrendous damage this Runaway Train we’re on will indeed cause in a Global Train Wreck down the pike most certain to come.

      • Angemon says

        Jul 19, 2015 at 6:59 pm

        Alex posted:

        “However, I would like to point out that there is nothing islamic about being against the second Gulf War (your post made it sound that way).”

        I can assure you that was not what I meant. I suspect that the murderer’s friends, would be against it for the same reason brought up by muslims worldwide: troops from a Christian nation (or at least from a nation perceived as Christian) entered a muslim nation, fought and killed muslims, and deposed a muslim leader.

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:16 pm

      Even the “ignorant red-necks” spotted Abdulazeez as a terrorist. Naturally our “Homeland Security” had no clue about him, only his father.

  4. No Fear says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.”

    If I claimed that “God” spoke those words in my ear I would be put on Clozapine and locked up in a psychiatric ward.

  5. Cecilia Ellis says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    “The FBI is investigating the shooting as an act of terrorism, but said it was premature to speculate on the gunman’s motive.”

    – Still can’t make that leap of stunning insight that his actions might have something to do with Islam . . .

    “After the trip, he purchased three assault rifles on an online marketplace and used them for target practice, the friends said. . . . Abdulazeez had purchased three guns on armslist.com after returning from Jordan, including an AK-74, an AR-15, and a Saiga 12, his friends said. They said he also owned a 9mm and a .22 caliber hand guns….”

    – Yet, the devout Muslim family, who opposed Abdulazeez”s participation in a contact, fighting sport, were not concerned about the sudden arrival of shipments containing three assault rifles and two handguns. . . ? Did they not by chance notice his frequent of trips to shooting ranges, etc. . . .? Did they send him to the local Pakistani imam for devoutness training . . . ? The citizenship of the entire family should be revoked immediately and they all should be shipped back to Jordan or that pool of muddy water in Saudi Arabia so loved by Muhammad.

    “Abdulazeez’s friends, who asked not to be identified for fear of a backlash, said he was upset about the 2014 Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza and the civil war in Syria.”

    – Wonder if Abdulazeez told his friends that Israel took defensive action in response to HAMAS’s tunneling into Israel and kidnapping, torturing and killing three teenagers? Bet he didn’t mention that during that campaign, HAMAS indiscriminately fired some 4500 rockets from civilian residences and mosques, not to mention those fired from tunnels. Bet those pre-bombing, warning leaflets dropped by the Israeli Air Force were never a topic of Abdulazeez’s rantings. Sooner or later, it all had to be the fault of the Jews, a common denominator in the perceived victimization of Muslims . . .

    – There it is . . . the predictable, proverbial “fear of a backlash” syndrome. Shows up every time a devout Muslim slaughters unarmed, unprotected targets.

    ” . . . the Hadith “is usually understood within the context of al-wala wa-l-bara (or) love for Islam and hatred for its enemies” . . .

    – Still can’t make that leap of stunning insight into his motives . . . This just might be the clue the FBI is looking for . . .

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm

      I think they always fear a backlash because that’s what their hideous “religion” teaches them to do in case of an offense.

      Turning the other cheek is incompatible with Mohammedanism.

      • Cecilia Ellis says

        Jul 19, 2015 at 4:19 pm

        Greyhound, I really hate to do this, but if I don’t, someone will . . .

        “Turning the other cheek is incompatible with Mohammedanism.”

        There’s apparently a lot of cheek-turning in Mohammedanism . . . it’s just not the face cheek . . . 🙂

        • Tsitala says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 5:39 pm

          That is true. Not a lot of people know that, because they say they condemn it, and even use it as an excuse for more killing. The female counterpart is the only one they pretend is gay. They’re not against bleating with their goats either.

  6. Jack Diamond says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    There is no other interpretation of al wala wal baraa nor does it just apply to “jihadists” and “ultraconservatives.” It is another of those obligations on ALL Muslims according to all Muslim scholars, without exception.

    defined as “love for Islam and hatred for its enemies”…and who are it’s enemies?

    “Al-Walaa means loyalty and al-baraa means disownment…loyalty to Allah and whatever he is pleased with as well as friendship and closeness to the believers, whereas al-baraa is freeing oneself from that which is displeasing to Allah..both the requirement and the concept of al-walaa and al-baraa stems from the shahadah (profession that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is His Messenger).

    “Allaah obligates us to love Allaah and His Messenger and hate those who opposed Allaah and His Messenger. The Islamic Belief System obligates every Muslim to love the people of Tawheed and hate the people of shirk. This obligation comes from the creed of Ibrahim…”we are clear of you and whatever you worship besides Allaah. We have rejected you and between us and you is enmity and hatred forever.” (60:4).

    This obligation is from the religion (Deen) of Muhammad, Allaah the Exalted said ‘O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and Christians for friends (Awliya). They are awliya to each other. And the one among you that turns to them is one of them.” (5:51). This verse forbids Muslims from taking any of the People of the Book specifically and any of the disbelievers (kuffar) generally, as a friend (mawlaat).

    “the example of the Muslims is like a body, if one part of it gets hurt, then all the body shares that hurt.”
    —Shaykh Saalih bin Fawzan, Imam, Fatwa Council Saudi Arabia “Al Walaa’ wal-Baraa'”
    Abu Muntasir ibn Mohar Ali, President of Jam’iat Ihjaa Minhaaj Al-Sunnah, quoted
    Calgary Islamic Homepage and Islaamqa

    more:

    “Islamic faith is based on the separation of Muslim and kafir and that the kafir is an enemy of Allah forever until he embraces Islam discarding his kufar. Allah has forbidden the believers from pleading any allegiance to the kufar or showing them any affection even if they were their fathers, brothers, children, kinsmen or their spouses as stated in sura 58:22.”
    –Islamqa

    “the only business of a Muslim is to humiliate the kuffar and make him surrender or to Islamize him thus preventing a greater corruption by undertaking a lesser one For the reality and the root of the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is enmity and war (suras 8:39; 9:29).”
    –Sheikh Abdul Rahman bin Abdul Khaliq

    “Al-Wala simply means allegiance, loyalty, closeness, unity and affiliation with Muslims (49:10– the believers are nothing else than brothers) Baraa is to reject and condemn all non-Islamic customs, practices, traditions. It is to hold hate and enmity towards all non-Muslims generally, particularly towards Jews and Christians. This is mandatory on every Muslim.

    All Muslim scholars, without exception, state that Muslims have no choice in the necessity of enmity with the kuffar (nonbelievers) for it is part of their worship to Allah, it is required and obligated by Allah (just as prayer and fasting). 8:73 “those who disbelieve are allies to one another, if you (Muslims) do not do (the same…ally as one united bloc) there will be fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism) and oppression on earth, great mischief and corruption.”
    –as summarized by Sam Solomon & E Al Maqdisi, “The Common Word”

    Imagine that, it is to hold hate and enmity toward all non-Muslims, especially Jews & Christians, and this
    is mandatory on every Muslim, required by Allah as much as fasting and prayer are required. It is the religion itself, this hate and enmity: “We should know that both the requirement and the concept of al wala wal baraa stems from the shahadah. It is a matter of faith and thus of fundamental importance.”
    Where is the peace here, apologists?

    “the reality and the root of the relationship between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is enmity and war.”
    “the example of the Muslims is like a body, if one part of it gets hurt, then all the body shares that hurt.”
    But let’s continue to speculate on the gunman’s motives.

    • Ah Clem says

      Jul 18, 2015 at 7:06 pm

      Great analysis and references there. Thank you.

    • quotha raven says

      Jul 20, 2015 at 5:54 pm

      To Jack Diamond – Brilliant, clear, fundamental. Thank you. This is a good one for sharing, if you don’t mind, with some people I know whose heads are stuck in the sand. Cheers! quotha r

      p.s. but I can’t think why these people couldn’t qualify for a job with the FBI…non?

  7. Ah Clem says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 6:57 pm

    The linked Yahoo article has an incorrect link to the Hadith Qudsi. It should be:

    http://sunnah.com/qudsi40/25

    BTW Robert, I didn’t know about the significance of the Hadith Qudsi before. Thanks for the very useful info!

    • ECAW says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:27 am

      There is nothing about “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, then I have declared war against him.” in either:

      http://sunnah.com/nawawi40/3

      or

      http://sunnah.com/qudsi40/25

      The correct link is:

      http://sunnah.com/qudsi40/38

      “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Verily Allah ta’ala has said: ‘Whosoever shows enmity to a wali (friend) of Mine, then I have declared war against him. And My servant does not draw near to Me with anything more loved to Me than the religious duties I have obligated upon him. And My servant continues to draw near to me with nafil (supererogatory) deeds until I Love him. When I Love him, I am his hearing with which he hears, and his sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he strikes, and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him; and were he to seek refuge with Me, I would surely grant him refuge.”

      • ECAW says

        Jul 19, 2015 at 6:03 am

        These hadiths are clearly a moving target. Earlier this morning I found 45 of them rather than 40 with the relevant one in no. 38.

        It is now back in no. 25.

        • Ah Clem says

          Jul 19, 2015 at 11:36 am

          The Reuters version of the article (not the Yahoo version) shows number 38 as you say. I found number 25 by doing a search on “enmity”. Oddly, number 38 didn’t show up in that search. Number 38 has a link to Bukhari, so maybe they screen out matches that have a link to other Hadiths.

  8. Budvarakbar says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    “In any case, clearly this verse refers to being an enemy to those who are supposedly fighting the Muslims — that is, U.S. military personnel.”

    So why aren’t these “satanic verses” and the rest of the Koran and all Islamic Sh–t outlawed?

  9. Linde Barrera says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 8:37 pm

    This dead Islamist, and many living ones, get upset because the US isnt doing enough to intervene. Other dead Islamists, and many living ones, are upset because they think the US has intervened too much. Ya just can’t please any of ’em! So we really should cut diplomatic ties with all Muslim nations. That action would make millions very happy on both sides.

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      We can supply our own sources of oil, thank you. Let’s withdraw from the ME and stop enabling the damage these people cause all over the world.

      • Huck Folder says

        Jul 21, 2015 at 1:37 am

        Except your FLATUS* has sat on pipelines, for about seven years, which would have connected to non-ME Canadian oil.

        Qui Bono?

        * Foreign Layabout Abusing The US.

  10. mortimer says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 10:09 pm

    A ‘moderate’ friend of Abdulazeez’s, who asked not to be identified for fear of a backlash…lives IN FEAR OF OTHER MUSLIMS? Why? Because Muslims believe in vigilantism, because Sharia law teaches it.

  11. Peter Castle says

    Jul 18, 2015 at 11:40 pm

    “This is war” – three words Ann Coulter wrote in 2001. Now she is not concerned about jihadism. Coulter assures us that we have nothing to worry about Islamic jihad in America.

    See “Coulter Denies Islamist Threat” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-69.

    • Western Canadian says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 9:14 am

      Since ‘Coulter watch’ is right down there with loon watch….. would it even be worth the effort needed to hit that link??
      Let’s see….. how many Americans are raped and murdered every day, at this point in time, by illegal immigrants from mexico, and how does that number compare to the number of the same crimes committed by devout muslims??

  12. Davegreybeard says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 12:23 am

    Wow, a whole blog devoted to smearing Ann Coulter!

    Quite an obsession you got there Peter.

    I’ve got a T shirt with Ann Coulter’s likeness on it.

    It says “We should invade their lands, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Dated September 12, 2001.

    I like the shirt Peter, plan on wearing it too – perhaps soon, in honor of your post.

    • Western Canadian says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:05 pm

      How ’bout that!! We agree on more than just being down on jihad etc.!!!!

  13. Johnd says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 4:13 am

    I am Australian, but do I understand that a muslim called Mohammad bought 3 assault rifles after visiting mid east and was on no watch list? Sorry, I thought Europe was bad, but America ? HF!

  14. tgusa says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 4:42 am

    The day before he was a moderate muslim but the next day he murdered 5 unarmed servicemen. At this rate we will all be annihilated within a decade. What type of moron is issued a gun and pronounced a special agent in todays fbi? Evidently this type of moron rises to the top of the bottom. With this sort of institutional idiocy the moron in question should not be allowed to carry a gun, ever! The fool has proven that he is a security threat to all of us. I am tired of all of this baloney that is constantly spewing from the mouths of imbecile federal morons. Today, the US army is setting up a unit tasked with figuring out the motives and inspirations of the modern Islamic state and how to fight this 1400 year old new enemy. With the help of other federal institutions they will come up with a plan. I suggest history books, you know, the ones with words describing history. It really should not be that hard.

    • Jay Boo says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 11:39 am

      Islam is not religion.
      Islam is a veil to attempt to excuse Muhammad’s depravity.

  15. ECAW says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 5:12 am

    Here we go:

    “Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez’s family says in a statement that he was mentally unwell ‘for many years’ ”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11749152/Chattanooga-shooters-family-says-he-suffered-from-depression.html

    (“At this time, we have no indication that he was inspired by or directed by anyone other than himself,” FBI special agent Ed Clouseau said, “although we are trying to identify two associates known as Mo and Al”)

    • Western Canadian says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:33 pm

      ““Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez’s family says in a statement that he was mentally unwell ‘for many years’ ”
      Just another way of saying ‘devout muslim’. So what??

  16. James Fuscaldo says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 6:02 am

    The media will spin this as a youth with mental issues as evidenced by his behavior, abuse of alcohol and drugs. Included will be dialogue on the the availability of guns and lack of gun control as evidenced by his access and ability to purchase of a number of different guns. The idea he was influenced by Islamic Supremacism and the Islamic “sacrament” of Jihad will be diluted and eliminated from the discussion. Political correctness and fear based on ignorance about Islamic Supremacism are the catalysts for media reporting. You can’t defeat an enemy (Islamic Supremacism) until the enemy has been identified (Sun Tzu, Art of War).

    • Greyhound Fancier says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 2:42 pm

      Even if the lamestream media spin is all correct, Mohammedanism is still a problem. Abdulazeez steeped himself in Mohammedanism – suppose his “religion” told him that with his history of drug use and alcoholism, to appease “allah” he had to commit a splashy act of jihad?

      This isn’t difficult to imagine. Mohammedans can’t go to confession and receive absolution. All they can do is try to do what their “religion” considers a big good deed to rejigger the scales in their favor.

  17. kay says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 6:57 am

    backgrounder for Muslim Brotherhood backgrounder in Tennessee

    https://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/how-muslim-brotherhood-operates-in-tennessee-part-1-of-8/

    How Muslim Brotherhood Operates in Tennessee (Part 1 of 8)
    Posted on March 30, 2015 by creeping
    via Tennesse Council 4 Political Justice.

    Guest speakers known to be radical Islamists have been brought to Tennessee with messages like “Islam is better than democracy” and that under sharia law “the kafir [non-Muslims] won’t be equal with the Muslim.”

    Deeds to some Tennessee mosques list Muslim Brotherhood front groups. Imams preaching inside the mosques are trained in Saudi Arabia where the strictest form of sharia law is practiced or are trained at Al-Azhar University in Egypt, which is credited with starting the Islamic Muslim Brotherhood movement, promoting Islam and sharia as a complete way of life.

    Tennessee even has a mosque whose mortgage is held by an organization working on behalf of the Iranian government.

  18. Jaladhi says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 7:13 am

    What difference does it make whether he was inspired by foreign elements or self radicalized. This is a bunch of nonsense that the authorities use to fool people. Simply stated he was inspired by Quran and Mohammad. He was emulating Mohammad as he is an ideal man to follow for Muslims.

  19. Jack Holan says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 9:06 am

    Yes, Robert we still have an FBI and DHS agonizing how to connect the dots to terrorism (I surely don’t get the DomestIc idiocy to this) does anyone believe he was self taught, militarily or watched cartoons in Jordan for 10 months. His father was from Hevron and had Hamas connections. i saw that twice and like 1984 deleted and never mentioned again. This administration has brought on a trained a cadre of junior Agents believing profiling is dirty, Muslims are pristine and they will be nonfunctional except for dirty tricks they are ordered to go out and commit. This may turn out to be another Major Nidal story (also Palestinian but held up without an answer for months.
    The other interesting story I’d be remiss if I did no mention is the UK. Our cousins across the Sea allowed NAZIs from across Europe to enter the UK for some type of convention to espouse their venom.
    BUT ROBERT & PAMELA I GUESS THE UK CONSIDER YOU 2 MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE 1000S OF NAZIs THEY ALLOWED IN TO COMMISERATE SiNCE YOU WERE BANNED AND NAZIs ARE IN. Has this word gone completely insane? Then a PresIdent who acknowledges post deal yes Iran Chant Death to America and still plans to wipe Israel off the Map but we might be able to use them and tweak their attitude.4 Star Generals stone face saying nothing, Congress not starting Impeachment hearings for treason has everyone lost nerve to confront fools? If its the half black thing I’ve got news for you; he’s 1/2 whIte on the inside and was never raised by blacks.

    • sencit says

      Jul 19, 2015 at 11:45 am

      As a Briton, I must ask where this story came from. I have never heard this one before and I am sure it must be incorrect. Nazi convention in Britain? When and where is this supposed to have taken place?

  20. Mirren10 says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 11:11 am

    ”The friend, who requested anonymity, showed the text message to Reuters on Saturday. He said he thought nothing of the message at the time, but now wonders if it was a hint at Thursday’s attack in Chattanooga”

    Why did the ‘friend’ request anonymity, and more importantly, **why did he get it** ??!!

    This murdering little pos wouldn’t have sent such a text if he hadn’t been sure his ‘friend’ sympathised with its content.

    So here we have *another* potential jihad murderer wandering around loose, courtesy of law enforcement.

    And if/when *he* buys a gun, and murders more soldiers, the mosque will be shocked, his family will be shocked, and no-one will have any idea why he did it. Dear God.

  21. Jay Boo says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 11:34 am

    Whenever Muhammad SUPPOSEDLY quotes Allah the appeasement media tucks their tails between their legs and dares not question the vileness of such verse while simultaneously fawning over Muhammad as a prophet.

  22. David Wood says

    Jul 19, 2015 at 4:45 pm

    Here’s the full text of the hadith Abdulazeez sent out:

    http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2015/07/full-text-of-hadith-sent-by-mohammod.html

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • gravenimage on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Boycott Turkey on Iranian Kurdistan: Muslim brothers behead their sister in honor killing over her romantic relationship
  • gravenimage on India: Police make first arrest for ‘love jihad’ under new law
  • Mojdeh on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.