They're Winning

Editor's Note: This article orginally appeared on the web site The Daily Beast. Click here to see the original.

Terrorism expert Steve Emerson says there's no hope of victory in the war on terrorism until we call it what it really is.

This past Saturday, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece entitled "What They Hate about Mumbai," focusing specifically on the free market sins of that great city. With contrived evenhandedness, the op-ed managed to blame both Hindus and Muslim extremists—without blaming either party in particular for the murderous attacks.

Without realizing it, the Grey Lady had hit upon a great travel series. In the best spirit of jihad for dummies, why not a year's worth of op-eds focusing on "Why They Hate____" filled in, mad-libs style, with the U.S., Britain, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Kenya, and the other 74 countries where radical Islam has reared its violent head? With only the moral blindness that the New York Times could capture, each op-ed would portray the attacks in a contrived even-handed way, without blaming, or even naming, the perpetrators of the attacks—Muslim jihadists.

Watching and reading the last 5 days of reports of the Mumbai attacks was an Alice in Wonderland experience. Even after an Islamic terrorist group took credit, TV anchors and reporters assiduously avoided the term Islamic terrorist. They must have consulted with the Thesaurus for the Politically Correct to determine that the word "gunmen" would not offend any jihadist.

The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists.

On Wednesday, even though everyone knew by then that the perpetrators were jihadists, CNN constantly referred to the terrorists as "extremists"—with no modifier. Hell, they could have been the Basque ETA or the ultra right wing U.S. militia. Then a CNN anchor asked his guest with totally innocence, "Now why would an extremist group target a Jewish house of worship?" Because, my dear politically correct anchor, it was an Islamist terrorist group.

The most that government officials, in cahoots with mainstream media, could utter were names like Al Qaeda (AQ) or Laskar-e-Taiba (LeT) as potential suspects. Yet even here, the discussions were mindless. One talking head said it could not be AQ since AQ behavior is to have massive simultaneous explosions (as if Al Qaeda follows a pre-programmed script). Another expert said LeT did not have the resources to carry it out, forgetting ever so slightly that all Islamic terrorist groups share resources, recruit from other terrorist groups, train each other, provide each other with equipment and, most importantly of all, want to destroy their "enemies."

In the United States, after 9/11, a group of American men (mostly converts) pleaded guilty or were found to be guilty of training with LeT and of trying to "wage war" against the United States. Evidence produced in the trial showed that LeT's website—before being taken down—focused disproportionately on two enemies: Americans and Jews. In 2004, Ismail Royer, an official with the Council on Islamic Relations (CAIR) who had trained with the Taliban, pled guilty to weapons and explosives charges. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison. In later grand jury testimony, Royer admitted that the cell's primary goal was to fight with the Taliban against United States forces in Afghanistan.

Our politically craven governments, followed in part by the media, have now started to ban the use of the term "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamic militants," insisting that they simply be called "extremists" or militants. The government's rationale was a page picked right out of the playbook of western radical Islamic strategy: Portray the use of the term "Islamic terrorist" as "racist" and as allegedly stigmatizing all Muslims.

Last year, the Departments of State and Homeland Security issued an internal memorandum that henceforth no one could use the term "Islamic terrorists" and could only use the generic term "militant" or "extremist." Even President Bush, who once invoked the term "Islamofacism," now refuses to use the term Islamic terrorist. In Canada, the author Mark Steyn was the subject of three human rights complaints and subsequent trials for calling radical Muslims terrorists and other such "slurs." He won all three tribunals.

It is time to stop caving in to the PC crowd. If we refuse to use the term Islamic terrorist, we conveniently take away any onus of responsibility for Islamic groups to halt the murderous ideology they propagate. In fact, in nearly EVERY claim of responsibility, which I studied, for hundreds of violent Islamic attacks which took place since 9/11, the common justification by the Muslim terrorist perpetrator was that there was a "war against Muslims" by the West and the Jews that had to be avenged. The real truth is that there is war against the West and the Jews by Islamic jihadists. And no amount of territorial withdrawal or peace negotiations will assuage them.

But thankfully, there remains a glimmer of hope, and not from the condescending columnists of the New York Times or the State Department know-it-alls, but from courageous Muslim moderates in this country like Zuhdi Jasser or brutally honest Muslim columnists in the Middle East. While the West refuses to utter the term Islamic extremists and as a corollary holds no one responsible, at least one Muslim columnist has the guts to tell the truth of where the responsibility lies.

Aijaz Zaka Syed, a Muslim columnist who wrote a column for Sunday's Khaleej Times Online:\

"It's all very well for us to say Islam has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We can go on deluding ourselves these psychopaths do not represent us..."

"The great religion that preaches and celebrates universal brotherhood, equality of men and peace and justice for all has been hijacked by a demented, miniscule minority. And, as my friend says, only Muslims can solve this problem. Only Muslims can confront these anarchists in their midst..."

"Only they can get their faith freed from the clutches of extremism. This is no time to hide. It's time to stand up and speak out. For the terrorists will continue to speak on our behalf, until we do not speak up. This is no time for silence. Enough is enough!"

Indeed, enough is enough. It is time to start listening to folks like Mr Syed or the courageous Zuhdi Jasser, rather than cave in to the PC crowd. Reporters seem incapable of reporting Islamic radicalism at home unless there is a conviction. And even then, as The New York Times has so dishonestly but consistently demonstrated, there are only good sheiks and good Islamic groups, not bad ones that preach jihad.

Even after the conviction of the defendants of all 108 counts in the Holy Land Foundation (Hamas) trial this past week, The New York Times poignantly focused its reporting not on the convictions for abetting terrorism and contributing to countless deaths of civilians, but on the tear jerking sobs of the wives and daughters of the convicted defendants who (surprise) claim their fathers were innocent. Now can you imagine the New York Times focusing its coverage sympathetically on the families of the convicted members of the KKK or neo-Nazis? Now further imagine reporters from the top newspapers getting their exclusive information for stories from un-indicted co-conspirators in the Hamas case.

It all comes together. After more than 7 years since 9/11, we can now issue a verdict: Islamic terrorists have won our hearts and minds. Let's thank those who made it happen: the U.S. government, European governments and the mainstream media. It's time to stop placating or being intimidated by Islamic front groups who masquerade as civil rights groups. In 2007, the perversity of was demonstrated when the FBI released its annual 2007 hate crime reports. Of the total 1,628 victims of anti-religious hate crimes, 69.2% were Jewish and 8.7% were Muslim. Yet by my still unfinished account, there were at least 40 times more stories last year about Islamophobia than about anti-Semitism.

The Mumbai massacre was a heavily planned plot carried out by Islamic terrorists. Period. Memo to Obama: Until the onus of responsibility is put on Islamic "civil rights" groups that want to ban free speech and claim that anyone who uses the term Islamic terrorist is a racist, there is no hope of winning the battle.

Steve Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and author of 5 books and countless articles on terrorism. His most recent book is Jihad Incorporated: A Guide to Militant Islam in the U.S.

Reader comments on this item

The Jihad that shall not be named!

Submitted by Jason Orlich, Dec 4, 2008 00:46

Western media often omit the motive and intent of the Islamic terrorists out of fear of "offending" Muslims around the world. As a member of the U.S. military, we have captured / killed jihadists from more than 70 countries around the world who are all walking, talking and preaching the same vile hatred of the West and the non-Islamic world. They have stated their goals and objectives while defining themselves and their cause in Islamic terms. Despite all that, we continue to call primary state sponsors of terror (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) our "allies" or "partners" in War on Terror.

We continue to target proxies (al-Qaeda, Taliban, Laskar-e-Tayyba, etc) while ignoring their sponsors! It's time we called a spade a spade!

Keep up the great work Steve! You're a great American and the U.S. military appreciates your undying efforts to expose and identify the nature of the enemy we face today at home and abroad!

V/r,

Jason B. Orlich
MAJ, MI, USA

Clueless, the fallout from Mumbai

Submitted by Robert J. Fuller, Dec 3, 2008 17:01

"Every villain is followed by a sophist with a sponge." Lord Acton

The coverage of the atrocity in Mumbai was disheartening but thoroughly predictable. Rather than discuss what attacked the city, the entire focus was on who, which group or other could it be and whatever could they want? Not the fact they called themselves "mujahideen" and what that could tell us about the what. Not any discussion about the meaning of Jihad, even though that is what "Allah's soldiers"--mujahideen--fight. That would have meant using words like "Islam" and "Muslim" which in turn might have invited criminal legal action from the United Nations for inciting Islamophobia! It might have meant spelling out what a mujahideen fighting in the cause of Allah (jihad fi sabil Allah) actually believes in and how he justifies violence in the name of religion. But that would imply there was more going on than the usual politics among nations or that Islamic terrorism was something more than a reaction to American policies (our fault, even if in India!). As in Deepak Chopra on CNN:

"What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that 'our policies, our foreign policies' had alienated the Muslim population, that we had 'gone after the wrong people' and inflamed moderates. And 'that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.'"

Indeed, it is terrible the way we force Muslims to have to kill us! But isn't it amazing how easily so many peaceful moderates become "inflamed" into murderous fanatics? Is it possible Deepak Chopra does not know what he is talking about? Is it possible that in rendering ourselves unable to discuss these matters forthrightly, unable to name our enemy or discuss his motivations, we politically correct ourselves into the graveyard?

Someone, in all this coverage, could have provided historical perspective, perhaps mentioned the history of the Islamic Jihad against India dating back to the 8th Century. The very same religious war to spread Islam and subjugate Infidels which historian Will Durant wrote about: " The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying from within."

It is a tale which involves cities burnt to ashes, whole populations massacred, temples destroyed, and according to Professor K.S. Lal, a loss of life of perhaps 80 million between 1000-1525 CE. This is how Amir Khusrau wrote about it: "the whole country by means of the sword from our holy warriors, has become like a forest denuded of thorns by fire...Islam is triumphant, idolatry is subdued. Had not the law granted exemption from death by payment of poll tax, the very name of Hind, root and branch would have been extinguished."

Western commentators take note, Islamists don't simply hate the West! Hindus have been the greatest victims of Islam. Those promoting the notion Jihad started the day before yesterday and just concerns the West or Israel must explain what beheaded teachers and farmers in Thailand, killed in the name of Islam by self-proclaimed jihadists, have to do with the West? Or Christian schoolgirls beheaded in Indonesia. Or the 150,000 Algerians killed by jihadists. Or the millions of Christian and animist Africans killed in the Sudan in an attempt to impose Shari'a law. They are only about Islam. Unthinkable as it may seem, Islamists may just have their own agenda, their own reasons for doing things, quite independent of us and regardless of our policies.

It might have been worthy of discussion that these religious murderers targeted a miniscule group of Jews in Mumbai and reserved for them the most sadistic torture before killing them, men and women. What did these Jews have to do with the politics of Pakistan or Kashmir or India? Nothing. We're told now the terrorists were "avenging" Palestine, which tells us two things. That jihadists everywhere consider themselves fighting in the same cause and the degree to which Jew-hatred is inculcated within Islam, preached by clerics across the globe and sanctified by verses of the Qur'an and Sunnah. For your consideration,

Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudayyis, Imam of the primary mosque in Mecca: "Jews are the scum of the earth, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs."
(This was in a sermon!)

Sheikh Muhammad Tantawi, Grand Imam of Al Azhar in his learned book on the Jews:
"The Koran describes the Jews with their own particular degenerate characteristics, i.e.killing the prophets of Allah [Koran 2:61/ 3:112], corrupting His words by putting them in the wrong places, consuming the people's wealth frivolously, refusal to distance themselves from the evil they do, and other ugly characteristics caused by their deep-rooted lasciviousness…only a minority of the Jews keep their word {Koranic citations here]….All Jews are not the same. The good ones become Muslims {Koran 3:113], the bad ones do not."

This incitement to hate and even murder, for Jews, as well as for kaffirs (unbelievers) of all stripes, goes on unabated. Of course, this is not a useful line of inquiry for our media types being way too troublesome and likely to make the wrong people angry. So would viewing this attack in the global context of more than 12,000 acts of Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

So let's look at one of the who. Lashkar-e-Taiba (Army of the Pure) is currently being named the most likely culprit. Now, going by the name of Jamaat-u-Da'wa, they are the terror wing of Pakistan's Islamic Religious Party (MDI) and have been backed with Saudi money and the assistance of the Pakistani ISI, Intelligence Service. They are officially allied with Al Qaeda (signatory to the same International Islamic Front). They have been very involved in killings in Kashmir and implicated in suicide homicide terror in India. What do they want? In a pamphlet entitled "Why Are We Waging Jihad?" they go way beyond the conflict over Kashmir and declare America, Israel and India to be existential enemies of Islam. In case you miss the point, they promise to plant "the flag of Islam" over Washington D.C., Tel Aviv and New Delhi.

Listing "reasons for jihad" they ensure no lack of reasons will ever be found--
"--to eliminate evil and facilitate conversion to the practice of Islam; to ensure the ascendancy of Islam; to force non Muslims to pay the jizya poll tax (make them subjugated peoples); to liberate Muslim territories from a non-Muslim occupation..." and so on and so forth.
It also poses these questions to Muslims:
"Have all the obstacles to observing the faith (Islam) in the world been removed?"
"Is the current world order that of kaffirs (unbelievers) or of Muslims?"

Since the answer is no to both questions, the jihad must continue.

The document also links their jihad movement with the others Muslims are waging (or contemplate)
"Christians now rule Spain, (once Muslim Andalusia) and we must wrest it back from them. All of India…. were part of the Muslim empire that was lost because Muslims gave up jihad. Palestine is occupied by the Jews. Countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary, Cyprus, Sicily, Ethiopia, Russian & Chinese Turkistan...were Muslim lands and it is our duty to get these back from unbelievers. Even parts of France...were home to Muslim mujahideen but are now under the occupation of unbelievers." Shari'a law mandates any territory once belonging to Islam, forever belongs to Islam and if lost must be reclaimed. And for Lashkar as well as for Jamaat-e-Islami, that includes India itself.

The idea that these jihadis do not see their struggles as separate from the greater Ummah is amplified in comments such as these:

"Yes we all need to fight the jihad locally yes there is Shia Hezbollah and Sunni Hamas. My goal for now is to liberate Palestine. In Iraq the mujahideen must rid the region of American occupation. There is the fight against traitor governments like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but it's the same fight. The defeat of the anti Muslim world. We are in World War Three. The Americans are doing everything to prevent Islam to emerge as the world superpower...there is one basic fact and that is all groups have the same goal and we know that Allah will bring victory to the believers and I am telling you that you are fighting Allah, not Islam. And Allah is invincible." --Abu Mosaab of Islamic Jihad, as told to Aaron Klein

"There is one fight for all Islamic resistance and that is the fight for Islamic rule." --Ramada Adassi, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to Aaron Klein

"We dream of an entire Islamic world and we will achieve it." --Khadaffy Janjalani, Abu Sayyaf beheader.

"Tomorrow our nation (the Muslim Nation) will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination, but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world, Allah willing. Apologize today before remorse will do you no good." --Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al

"Hizballah is not waging the battle of Hizballah or of Lebanon. We are waging the battle of the nation (the Muslim Ummah)." --Hassan Nasrallah, Hizballah

The reason America remains public enemy number one has less to do with its foreign policies than the fact America is the lead Infidel power and is seen as the chief obstacle in the way of Islam dominating the 21st Century. That is made explicit in an Al Qaeda Manifesto of 2002: "No project for the liberation of the Islamic nation could succeed as long as the US was there, defeating the US means the defeat of the West, which would lead to the shift of the international center of gravity back to the Islamic world."

Does this not go beyond the ‘jihad is a reaction to American policies' theory (and thus will go away if we change policies, abandon Israel etc)? Maybe India thinks giving up Kashmir will make these problems go away? Clearly, that would be wishful thinking. Here is a revealing interview with Maulana Khan, confidant of Jamaat-e-Islami Amir, Qazi Hussain Ahmed (Jamhooria Islamia magazine May 2007):

"Our motto is 'Constant Jihad.' Qazi's vision is that Pakistan will be the center of the new Islamic Empire that stretches from Burma to Afghanistan, from Sri Lanka to Tajikistan. Jamaat will use all tactics from terrorism in the kafir controlled areas to negotiations in the Muslim…for India, Kashmir is like a keystone that sits on top of the arch--if you can remove the keystone then the whole arch falls down. Kashmir is the keystone for India. Once Kashmir is taken out, these militancy movements will break India…Qazi's vision is to make the entire India a 100% Muslim nation...each time a riot breaks out in India we had used that pretext to strike terror among the Hindus, Christians and Ahmaddiahs. The similar terror will be at the heart of every non-Muslim, both Hindu and Christians, in the coming years in the entire of India. Prophet succeeded with terror, so can we...Qazi is an analytical genius who knows every strategy that was used by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)."

That's what India can expect. And after giving a vision of the new Empire, complete with slavery and executions for apostasy and the banning of photos, cinema and songs he says this, ""Whatever man needs to know is in the Quran & Hadiths...we will prove everything we say is from Quran & Hadiths. Let them prove what we say as wrong from the Quranic angle, they cannot."

And that remains the challenge to moderate Muslims from the fundamentalists.

There have been condemnations of this horror from the Muslim world, some sincere some perhaps not. Aijaz Zaka Syed, a Muslim columnist wrote a column for Sunday's Khaleej Times Online: "It's all very well for us to say Islam has nothing to do with extremism and terrorism. We can go on deluding ourselves these psychopaths do not represent us...The great religion that preaches and celebrates universal brotherhood, equality of men and peace and justice for all has been hijacked by a demented, miniscule minority. And, as my friend says, only Muslims can solve this problem. Only Muslims can confront these anarchists in their midst...Only they can get their faith freed from the clutches of extremism. This is no time to hide. It's time to stand up and speak out. For the terrorists will continue to speak on our behalf, until we do not speak up. This is no time for silence. Enough is enough!"

These are fine words, finer still and courageous if acted upon. Yet the exoneration of Islam and of teachings central to Islam in the same sentence gives me pause. How can there be any confrontation with fundamentalists by moderates without confronting those verses of the Qur'an and Sunnah and those elements in Islamic law (Shari'a) which jihadists use to justify violence and Islamic supremacism? Are they "anarchists" when all they want is full Shari'a? Are they a "miniscule minority" and if so why are they, the fundamentalists, in the driver's seat, with most of Islam's leading clerics seemingly behind them? Why can't they be marginalized and silenced if their argument is not convincing to very many Muslims? Finally, where in the Qur'an are brotherhood and equality ever applied towards non-Muslims? I can't find it. I celebrate those things, most civilized Muslims do as well, but how much of the Qur'an and Sunnah do you have to discard to only keep the peaceful, tolerant verses?

What is the difference between what the Jihadists want and what the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the 57 member Islamic bloc, is pushing at the United Nations? Shari'a. Islamic supremacism. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam of 1990 which the Muslim nations embraced, repudiates the very foundations of the UN, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and redefines human rights according to Islamic Shari'a law. Which is to say no human rights as we understand them.

The new agenda of the OIC, besides demonizing and delegitimizing Israel, now includes imposing Islamic blasphemy laws upon the non-Muslim world, which the good dhimmis seem quite willing to accept judging from the voting of the General Assembly. There will be no "defaming religion", meaning giving offense to Islam or Muslims. Even though curbing freedom of expression violates Article 19 of the Universal Declaration, hurting the feelings of Muslims and defaming the religion of truth takes precedence. After all, Muslims have proven they will kill over such things. Likewise, we must put a stop to counter terrorism and national security measures because they target Muslims, oppress them, discriminate against them, and are Islamophobic. These are the priorities of majority Muslims, represented by the Islamic bloc of nations at the UN. Not fighting radical Islam and its teachings and its violence and how that might defame Islam! Fighting non-Muslims trying to protect themselves, or trying to critically examine the teachings and tenets of Islam in order to understand the threat against them. The OIC would criminalize free speech regarding Islam.

The UN could not even agree on an international definition of terrorism--it was blocked by an OIC insisting the definition had to exclude "armed struggle for liberation & self-determination" "the legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation" --meaning that the blowing up certain civilians, say Israeli, or even American, would be out of the reach of the definition "terrorism" The Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) created by the Security Council after 9/11, since Sept 28, 2001, has never named a single terrorist, terrorist organization or state sponsor of terrorism. And this, of course, was the OIC intention. The question is, what is moderate about this? Discussing Shari'a is now off-limits at the UN, since it might constitute "defaming" religion, even though it is to be the measure of human rights and is embedded in the constitutions of most Muslim States, the laws of these countries must also be off-limits!

But we can discuss it here. ‘Umdat al-Salik, the classic manual of Islamic law certified by Al Azhar says this about Jihad:
"Jihad means going to war against non-Muslims & is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahada' signifying warfare to establish the religion...the duty of Jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not be attained... 'until the end of the world' …the Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax…moreover, the Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim...if there is no Caliph, Jihad must still be carried out."

That is the controlling definition of Jihad according to Islamic law and the consensus of scholars.

What else is the OIC upholding by upholding Shari'a?
08.0 Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst. 08.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. 08.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the Caliph to ask him to repent & return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed. 08.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)

08.7 Acts that entail leaving Islam (and would invite the death penalty) --just a few of them---1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of some contrariness, or in actual conviction. 2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future, and like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not 3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as "Allah is the third of three" or "I am Allah" (unless one is intoxicated spiritually or insane) 4) to revile Allah or his Messenger 6) to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise or His threat 7) to deny any verse of the Qur'an of anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it or to add a verse that doesn't belong to it.

Did you catch that? To intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future.

The basis for this penalty is Muhammad saying "whoever changed his Islamic religion, kill him." (Bukhari v9b88n6922) This view of Apostasy was the basis for the Ridda (Apostate) War after the death of Muhammad, when so many Muslims left the faith and refused to pay zakat, charity tax. 80,000 were killed for trying to leave Islam. As the medieval scholar Ibn Taymiyah wrote: "Whoever deviates from the Book is to be brought back with iron, i.e. by force. Hence the soundness of the religion is based on the Qur'an and the Sword." Let's go on,

"Retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. the following are not subject to retaliation 0.1.0 pg 582 --a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim --the killing of an apostate from Islam --a father or mother (or their father or mothers) for killing their offspring or their offspring's offspring.

Absorb that.

Do human rights as understood by Islam include the barbaric punishments in Shari'a for theft (cutting off of limbs) for adultery (death) for homosexuality (death)? Like we've seen recently in Iran or Somalia? But wait, Islamic law does more than punish behavior. Islamic law considers doing wrong: thought crimes, crimes of speech, crimes of belief. In fact, it calls them the worst crimes, worse than killing. Which explains what is going on now at the UN.

Qur'an 9:12-13 "if they attack your religion with disapproval and criticism..." Ibn Kathir (Islam's most venerated scholar) "disapproval and criticism, it is because of this that one who curses the Messenger, peace be upon him, or attacks the religion of Islam by way of criticism and disapproval, they are to be fought." -Tasfir Ibn Kathir

The Qur'an says disbelievers are the worst of creatures. 98:6-7. That those who deny Muhammad's revelations are evil (7:177) That disbelief itself is the worst crime (10:17; 61:7) and worse than killing (2:191). "Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of man, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in worship) and hindering His path, and that is a much Greater Evil and more disastrous than killing. Abu Malik commented about what Allah said (and al-fitnah is worse than killing() meaning what you (disbelievers) are committing is much worse than killing." Tasfir Ibn Kathir.

What is there that is moderate about Shari'a? Jihad against infidels until the world is subjugated to Allah (and His Messenger). Dhimmitude-- legal, social and moral apartheid against non-Muslims. Violence and intolerance toward non-Muslims. Oppression of women. Death for apostasy, leaving Islam--this alone makes Islam a religion of fear, not of peace. Not to mention the amputations, the stonings to death. How do any modern nations endorse this Shari'a as defining "human rights" and the ordering of societies? How does this make them moderate? Shari'a encapsulates the ideology derived from the Qur'an and Sunnah by scholarly opinion and there is no area of life it leaves untouched, that includes political life. Islamic scholars say again and again the whole world must be governed by Shari'a because it is the will of Allah for all mankind and everything else is disobedience, unbelief and corruption (and those things are worse than killing, according to the Qur'an, 2:191).

What does Osama bin Laden call for?
"Muslims and especially the learned among them, should spread Sharia law to the world, that and nothing else...(Muhammad said) "I have been commanded to battle mankind until they declare there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah..he also said, per Berida "Call them to Islam, if they respond (convert) accept this..if they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya..if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them. Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority, corporeally if not spiritually? Yes."

"In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the Shari'a from being publicly voiced among the people as was the case at the dawn of Islam....divine foundations (are) built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya with willing submission and humility. The Prophet was sent in the final hours with the sword so that none is worshipped but Allah, alone, partnerless." --Osama Bin Laden "Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West"; Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader

This foundation for jihad is a far cry from the explanations put forth by the likes of the New York Times.

Where is the Muslim world speaking forthrightly against Shari'a, against religious warfare, against any killing in the name of God, ever? Condemning Muslim terrorists by name and pronouncing them outside Islam (wouldn't "hijacking" the religion call for that much?). Condemning the teaching of Jihad ideology and Islamic supremacism in mosques and schoolbooks, refuting them Islamically, calling on Muslims to live peacefully as equals with non Muslims on a permanent basis--not as a tactical respite before resuming the war when circumstances favor Muslims again. Where is the forthright confronting of Qur'anic verses such as found in Surah Nine and other Medinan revelations concerning war against and the subjugation of Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims?

And where is the free world uniting to reject these doctrines and their encroachments and the threat they represent to life and liberty? Mumbai demonstrates we are still, clueless.

I think this is what liberals like to call "speaking truth to power"

Submitted by number 6, Dec 1, 2008 21:19

It's about time someone said something. I know you Mr. Emerson have been shouting this for years now and it seems like no one is listening. But in the back of their minds, people know who these (censored) are. They know a spade is a spade is a spade is a (censored) spade.

Number 6-Anonymous Warrior
http://number6enturb.wordpress.com

Comment on this item