[Unless otherwise noted, all emphasis in quotes is mine.]
The proposal aims to give the American people and small business owners more control over their health care choices by building on the progress Congress has already made, and including new ideas from both parties and the President himself.
With the exception of that one idiotic statement, the walk through page lacks substance. It has only a few links:
- the President’s proposal in a new section of WhiteHouse.gov.
- what the President’s proposal means to you in plain English
- Read specifically about the President’s proposal,
- the Republican ideas included the President’s proposal.
- more background on the meeting itself
The White House press release begins with this exemplar of demagoguery:
President Barack Obama used his weekly address to call on Democratic and Republican leaders to attend next week’s health care meeting in good faith to find reforms that work for American families and small businesses.
At no point in this process has the President or the congressional leaders of his party spoken or acted in good faith. Does anyone remember the promise to broadcast the deliberations on CSpan? The promise was made but not kept. Republicans were excluded from the committee markup process. They were not allowed to offer substantial amendments. Parliamentary rules and procedures were stretched and violated with abandon. A provision was inserted to prevent future congresses from repealing or amending critical parts of the legislation. The whole process has been an exercise in tyrannical arrogance and deception.
Planning to circumvent the Senate’s deliberative process is not a sign of good faith. Releasing the President’s proposal four days prior to his so called bipartisan meeting so that the CBO will not have time to analyze its costs is not a sign of good faith. These are signs of the arrogance of absolute power gone mad.
Consumers can neither retain nor increase their control over their health care options by allowing bureaucrats to decide what tests, procedures and drugs will be available. Nor can consumer options be increased by allowing bureaucrats to set prices or allocate resources. Consumer options can only be increased by removing artificial barriers to the free market.
Costs can not be reduced or limited by price controls and restricting entry into medical professions, those policies can only lead to rationing; reduced and delayed access to care.
Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing inflation. Irresponsible fiscal policies can only result in increased inflation and stagflation, such as we experienced under the Carter regime.
Costs can not be reduced or limited by increasing demand for medical services. By moving new demand into the market, from uninsured and indigent consumers, seeking care for increasingly minor conditions, can only increase over time costs and require construction of new infrastructure and increased staffing, resulting in increased, not decreased costs.
There is no free lunch, there is no magic wand. The fixed and variable costs of clinics and hospitals must be met or they won’t be able to remain open in the long term. If average premiums do not exceed average benefits in the long term, insurance companies will not be able to stay in business.
Cost controls requires increased supply & competition and tort reform. The high cost of malpractice insurance can not be reduced without curbing excessive and unreasonable malpractice litigation & settlements. That is not going to happen because the majority party is firmly ensconced in the tort lawyer’s pockets.
Costs can not be reduced or limited by doubling energy costs. Hospitals and clinics need lights and HVAC. Cap & Tax will double those costs, which can only be passed on to consumers.
With several health insurance companies announcing steep hikes in their rates – from 10 to over 30 percent – it is clear that the status quo, while good for the insurance industry, is bad for the American people. After a year of exhaustive debate, it is time to move forward on reform.
Insurance premiums must exceed payouts for benefits, otherwise the insurers will go out of business. We live in the real world, not fantasy land. To the extend that insurers are profitable, premium reduction can only result from increased competition. That means making the insurance market national instead of limiting it to the 50 states.
Now, after their announcement stirred public outcry, Anthem agreed to delay their rate hike until May 1st while the situation is reviewed by the state of California. But it’s not just Californians who are being hit by rate hikes. In Kansas, one insurance company raised premiums by 10 to 20 percent only after asking to raise them by 20 to 30 percent. Last year, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield raised rates by 22 percent after asking to raise them by up to 56 percent. And in Maine, Anthem is asking to raise rates for some folks by about 23 percent.
What do you expect, Moron? Insurers make money by charging more than they pay out, investing their reserve funds in stocks and bonds for income and growth of principal. Your party facilitated the creation of a real estate inflation bubble. When the bubble burst, the stock and bond markets plummeted, drastically reducing the income of the insurers. They must make up the difference through premiums or go out of business.
The bottom line is that the status quo is good for the insurance industry and bad for America. Over the past year, as families and small business owners have struggled to pay soaring health care costs, and as millions of Americans lost their coverage, the five largest insurers made record profits of over $12 billion.
President Obama is setting up a straw man to be burnt. The name of this game is anti-corporatism; a form of class warfare. It is an old Communist tactic.
Visit the Aug. 5 ’09 Wall Street Journal for a reality check.
“For every premium dollar that they take in, about 83 cents goes out in medical costs — doctors, hospitals, and drugs,” says Carl McDonald, health insurance analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The rest is spent on overhead. Net income comes to just a few cents per dollar of premiums.
Consider WellPoint, the biggest private health insurer on Wall Street, which has about 35 million customers nationwide. Last year, it paid out 83.6% of revenues in expenses. Net, after-tax income as a percentage of total revenue came to a princely 4.1%.
According to analysis by FactSet, WellPoint’s ROA has averaged 5.8% over the past five years, Aetna‘s, 4.2%.
Brett Arends compares that modest ROA to 9.2% for Wal-Mart and 12.4% for Dell.
Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do. I think both of these are good ideas – so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people.
It would be better to substitute those Republican suggestions for the whole damn package rather than adding them to the worst legislation ever. When you add a pint of ice cream to a gallon of manure, its still going to taste like manure.
To members of Congress, I would simply say this. We know the American people want us to reform our health insurance system.
Last month, the electorate of Massachusetts sent a different message, but the President was not listening. They elected a Republican to a Senate seat that has been in Liberal Democrat possession for nearly 50 years. Opposition to Health Care Destruction was the main issue in that election.
It’s our chance to finally give Americans the peace of mind of knowing that they’ll be able to have affordable coverage when they need it most.
The promise is false, because it is impossible to fulfill, and anyone who passed Econ. 101 should be able to figure out why. In Britain & Canada, there are long waiting periods to get care and the systems are starved for money. That should tell us something.
What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem. Right now, Americans are understandably despairing about whether partisanship and the undue influence of special interests in Washington will make it impossible for us to deal with the big challenges that face our country. They want to see us focus not on scoring points, but on solving problems; not on the next election but on the next generation. That is what we can do, and that is what we must do when we come together for this bipartisan health care meeting next week. Thank you, and have a great weekend.
President Obama is demanding that the Republicans abandon their principles and allow the LeftTard majority to ruin our health care system, bankrupt the treasury, enslave the population in a state of permanent dependency on government and abandon the Constitution all to give him the privilege of saying that he “solved” a problem. In reality, his solution is no solution, but will make matters far worse. His ‘cure’ will kill the patient. It must be stopped!
Throughout the debate, President Obama has spewed a litany of lies which have been frequently refuted. He has tried to rush legislation through so fast that the opposition can not read and comprehend what they are voting on. Those behaviors should be red flags in the eyes of a skeptical electorate. The time has come to make a final push to resist tyranny.
We must impress the depth and intensity of our revulsion and outrage upon our elected representatives. We must tell the Democrat Congressmen that they will be replaced in the next election if they continue to push their flawed packages. We must tell the Republican Congressmen that they will have well financed primary opponents in their election cycle. The spineless, neutered Republican ‘leaders’ who were reluctant to use every possible parliamentary tactic to stop the demagoguery must be told that they can and will be replaced.
http://www.congress.org/ makes it easy to send a single email to President Obama, your Representative & Senators. You don’t need to know their names or district numbers, you only need to know your Zip Code. You enter your Zip Code, and the web site looks up your elected officials. You click the Federal Officials link, and it presents a simple form
Tell them that you see through their lies. Tell them that you want to keep your own insurance and care providers. Tell them that you do not want any bureaucrats between you and your doctor. Tell them that you do not want artificial restrictions on medical services, you don’t want price controls, you don’t want to be put on a waiting list and you don’t want to be told to go home and die quietly. If you don’t want escalating costs coupled with delays and denials of care, then act now, before they jam their irrational, counterproductive and unconstitutional plans down our throats.
As soon as I get this posted, I will go to congress.org, and I will insert the following link into my email:
<a href=”https://snooper.wordpress.com/hell-no/”>Gd’d HELL NO!!! </a>
If the recipient or a staffer clicks on that link, they will see a brief explanation of my objections to their plans, followed by the biggest, brightest, boldest flaming execration the blog format will bear.
Our lives, liberty and prosperity are on the line. We must spare no effort in their defense. Please join me in cursing our Congressmen!!! We have no other recourse.
Recent reports1 indicate that Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer suggested at the Davos Economic Forum that licensure should be required for access to the internet.
What Mundie is proposing is to impose authentication. He draws an analogy to automobile use. If you want to drive a car, you have to have a license (not to mention an inspection, insurance, etc). If you do something bad with that car, like break a law, there is the chance that you will lose your license and be prevented from driving in the future.[Barbara Kiviat, Time]
Most cars are operated on public streets, roads & highways, giving the government a hook for the legal requirements related to safety. But the internet is not public property. The phone lines, micro wave relays, servers and routers involved are privately owned and operated. Our internet traffic is no more the government’s business than our telephone conversations.
Intoxicated or distracted drivers can cause death, injury and property damage. Drunk, drugged or multi-tasking bloggers and forum participants can’t harm you. A malevolent chat room participant may be able to hack into your computer and do some damage, but not if you take proper security precautions.
No system of identification can protect us from those who maliciously spread false information or attempt to steal identifying information. Caveat emptor is the watch word. Paranoid web users can turn off browser cookies and Java Script interpreters. Every internet user is identified by a unique ISP number. When my email address was spoofed, I looked up the sender’s ISP:#, and sent an email to the service provider, who notified the sender that his computer had been hijacked.
The hackers who release malicious code are likely to hide behind multiple proxies to frustrate tracing. License requirements won’t alter that behavior nor will they overcome it.
Legal requirements intended to prevent anonymity present a threat to bloggers who write about controversial subject matter. The content of many of my blog posts is highly offensive to Muslims, some of whom are willing and able to kill anyone who offends them. For that reason, I avoid posting identifying information that would allow them to find me. My real name would neither increase nor decrease the authenticity or accuracy of the content I post. No license law will prevent foolish or dishonest people from posting or repeating false or malicious content.
Authority is a false god. Possession of a Phd. does not guarantee accuracy or objectivity. Interposition of an editor and publisher between the writer and reader is no guarantee either. This fact becomes clear when we reflect on the main stream media’s biased reporting in the ’08 Presidential campaign.
So, why should anyone want to impose licensing on bloggers? Why did King George want to limit the Colonist’s access to printing presses and their output? Why do the Chinese, Iranian & Egyptian regimes imprison and torture bloggers? Censorship is the tyrant’s way of preserving his grip on power. In a relatively free society, censorship is the first rung on the ladder to tyranny.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added.]
Two centuries ago, speech and press were the most efficient means of communication. The founding fathers enshrined freedom of speech and press in the Constitution as a safeguard against establishment of tyranny. We remain free to criticize candidates for elective office as well as sitting officers. In modern times we have new technologies, the use of which should be protected by the same organic law for the same reason. While the technology has changed, the basic concept remains unchanged. We need to be free to communicate facts and opinions about issues related to our liberty and prosperity.
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. [Emphasis added.]
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
- abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press
- Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
Censoring Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues would impair our right to listen as well as their right to speak. Censoring our web sites would impair right of our audience to seek and receive information as much as it would impair our right to impart it. Because both media involve a one to many relationship, censorship has a greater impact on the receiving end.
Even if Mundie is not motivated by political considerations, the Democrat Party is, as evidenced by several Senators who advocate the restoration of the “Fairness Doctrine”. His suggestion, along with the “Net Neutrality” movement, can only increase the urge to censor.
When CBS News published a false and malicious story about Shrub’s military career, based on forged documents, it was an unlicensed blogger whose expert consultants exposed the documents as forgeries. Because the forgeries fit their template, the main stream media resisted the truth for an extended period of time. That incident, more than any other that comes to mind, illustrates the need to maintain freedom of communication.
One of my Google Alerts led me to a post at Islam In Europe which disclosed the existence of an open letter from a group of Islam experts to the court In Amsterdam which is persecuting Geert Wilders.
De Volkskrant, the Dutch newspaper used by the prosecutors to document what Geert Wilders allegedly said in violation of Dutch hate speech law, published a letter from a group of six Islam experts. It appears that this is the first of four “fact sheets” they intend to issue on the subject.
Unfortunately, the experts have engaged in the Islamic art of al-taqeyya & kitman. This blog post exposes their lies.
- Dr. Fred Leemhuis, Arabist, professor emeritus University of Groningen, vertaler De Koran, Unieboek 2007 The Koran translator, Union Book 2007
- Published Dutch translation of the Qur’an in 1989. http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2008/opinie20_08?lang=en
- Dr. Jan Michiel Otto, Recht en bestuur 3e wereld, Sharia, Directeur van Vollenhove Instituut, Faculteit der Rechtsgeleerdheid, Universiteit Leiden
- Dr. Gerard Wiegers, hoogleraar Religiestudies aan de Faculteit der -Professor Gerard Wiegers, Professor of Religious Studies at the Faculty of Geesteswetenschappen van de Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) Humanities of the University of Amsterdam (UvA)
- Dr. Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus hoogleraar islamologie Univ.Leiden Pieter Sjoerd van Koningsveld, emeritus professor of Islamic studies Univ.Leiden
- Dr. Ruud Peters, Arabische Taal en Cultuur, Sharia expert, UVA -Professor Dr. Mr. Ruud Peters, Arabic Language and Culture, Sharia expert, UVA
- Dr. Marlies ter Borg, auteur Koran en Bijbel in Verhalen, Unieboek 2007, redacteur Marlies ter Borg, author Koran and Bible Stories, Book Union in 2007, editor
Islam is a violent religion.
Mr Wilders refers, in support of its truths, often to the Koran. Please bring our professional knowledge of the Koran, to review his statements and method of quoting. We rely on taking the authoritative view of Professor F. Leemhuis, (Union Book 2007, http://www.bijbelenkoran.nl).
- Wilders said: “Islam means submission and conversion of non-Muslims.” “A religion that seeks to eliminate others.” Dv 14
- But in the Qur’an: “No compulsion in religion.” K. 2:256
The experts like Pickthall’s translation, so I will quote it, with a link to a table of ten parallel translations.
2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
To discover the circumstances behind the revelation of this ayeh, read Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: No Compulsion in Religion. Some of the Ansar had sworn to raise their children as Jews. When those Ansar converted, Muhammad did not force them to convert their children. Despite this specificity, Ibn Kathir says that the ayeh has general applicability. Another ayeh bears directly on this issue.
10:99. And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are believers?
10:100. It is not for any soul to believe save by the permission of Allah. He hath set uncleanness upon those who have no sense.
Unfortunately for the experts, other ayat contradict those three cited above. At first glance, Surah Al-Imran 110 appears to be irrelevant. But there is a hadith which clearly explains the meaning of the clause I have highlighted.
3:110. Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.
The wording varies slightly because Khan prefers his own translation of the Koran. It is obvious that bringing disbelievers to Islam in chains is not congruent with “no compulsion”. It is also obvious that hadith which contradict the Koran can not be authentic. How then do you explain its inclusion in the most authentic of the six canonical collections? Is there something more? Of course there is.
8:39. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do.
This ayeh answers two questions:
- Is Islam violent?
- Is Islam compulsive?
The verb is clear and obvious: fight. Al-Anfal 39 is in the form of a fight until loop, with a compound terminal condition.
- persecution is no more
- religion is all for Allah.
Persecution is a reference to the Meccan habit of hassling Muslims, who were viewed as a threat to their livelihood. The second part of the compound terminal condition is absolutely clear: only Allah is worshiped. Click through to the parallel translations and observe the wording of the other translations. The obvious meaning is confirmed by confirmed by Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr.
One hadith confirms the meaning of this ayeh with extreme clarity. I have added emphasis to make the critical sentence stand out.
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
Besides several variants of that hadith, there are two others which remove all doubt. I will quote excerpts, linking them to the hadith at USC-MSA for those who wish to read the context.
…Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:– “Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master.” …
Reliance of the Traveller, the handbook of Islamic law, provides the ultimate confirmation. The clause I emphasized says it all.
The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi’ (y21), 6.48-49) ).
The six eminent professors claimed to refute Wilders with a single ayeh. Is it possible that those scholars with doctoral degrees in the field are unaware of the conflicting ayat, hadith and Shari’ah, or were they practicing the art of kitman, lying by obfuscation?
- Wilders says: “And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of a religion that seeks to eliminate others …”
- Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war. The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
- “You will not shed each other’s blood.” K.2: 84-
- “God calls for the house of peace.” K.10: 25
- “Does God not an obstacle … to … peace among the people. “K.2: 224
- “Think of God’s mercy to you when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and by His grace you became brethren;” K.3: 103
- Mein Kampf (My struggle) calls for no more war. The Koran is sometimes called for violence, in other cases to peace and reconciliation, for example:
It seems that Hitler was intent on imposing his racist system by force, invading much of Europe. History shows us that Muhammad and his rightly guided caliphs acted the same way in Arabia, Africa, Asia & Eastern Europe.
Take a good close look at the expert’s citation to 2:84. What does it mean? Perhaps we should examine the full ayeh.
2:84. And when We made with you a covenant (saying): Shed not the blood of your people nor turn (a party of) your people out of your dwellings. Then ye ratified (Our covenant) and ye were witnesses (thereto).
This ayeh is about infighting among the nation, it is not about attacking other nations. Lets give the next citation the same treatment.
10:25. And Allah summoneth to the abode of peace, and leadeth whom He will to a straight path.
This ayeh is explained in Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: Invitation to the Everlasting Gifts that do not vanish.
…(And Allah calls to the Abode of Peace) When Allah mentioned the swiftness of this world and its termination, He invited people to Paradise and encouraged them to seek it. He called it the Abode of Peace.…
See how passive Islam is? Allah invites people to Paradise, the house of peace. Do the experts understand what a Muslim must do to gain admission to Paradise? He must fight in Allah’s cause, participating in Jihad, killing and being killed to gain one of the best seats. See At-Taubah 111 & As-Saff 10-13 for the gritty details. Would they try to fool us again? Examine their next citation to find out.
2:224. And make not Allah, by your oaths, a hindrance to your being righteous and observing your duty unto Him and making peace among mankind. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
Ordinarily, I would quote the context to show you the egregious nature of the expert’s deception, in this case I will not, because of the sexually explicit nature of the ayeh which proceeds 224. Instead, I will provide a link to three parallel translations hosted by USC-MSA, which you can easily scroll to view the context without clicking extra links. 2:223. Once again, Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir gives us a vital clue to the meaning of the ayeh in question: The Prohibition of swearing to abandon a Good Deed.
…Allah commands, `You should not implement your vows in Allah’s Name to refrain from pious acts and severing the relations with the relatives, if you swear to abandon such causes.’… (And make not Allah’s (Name) an excuse in your oaths) means, “Do not vow to refrain from doing good works. (If you make such vow then) break it, pay the Kaffarah and do the good work.”…
Click the link to the tafsir, click the previous button, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the ayeh which is explained on the page I linked to. If you did not read the full context earlier, click the next button in the tafsir, scroll down to the bottom and read 2:226. It will then become clear to you that the experts misquoted an ayeh out of context for the purpose of deceiving the court by perverting the meaning of the verse. Lets check the next citation.
3:103. And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate. And remember Allah’s favour unto you: How ye were enemies and He made friendship between your hearts so that ye became as brothers by His grace; and (how) ye were upon the brink of an abyss of fire, and He did save you from it. Thus Allah maketh clear His revelations unto you, that haply ye may be guided,
To discover the context, begin at 3:98 and keep reading through 3:198. Ibn Kathir explains this ayeh in his tafsir: The Necessity of Holding to the Path of Allah and the Community of the Believers. I have removed the Arabic script and emphasized the key part of this excerpt.
(And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves.) It was said that, (to the Rope of Allah) refers to Allah’s covenant, just as Allah said in the following Ayah, (Indignity is put over them wherever they may be, except when under a covenant (of protection) from Allah, and from men;) ﴿3:112﴾, in reference to pledges and peace treaties. … (and remember Allah’s favor on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His grace, you became brethren) ﴿3:103 ﴾.This was revealed about the Aws and Khazraj. During the time of Jahiliyyah, the Aws and Khazraj were at war and had great hatred, enmity and ill feelings towards each other, causing long conflicts and battles to occur between them. When Allah brought Islam, those among them who embraced it became brothers who loved each other by Allah’s grace, having good ties for Allah’s sake and helping each other in righteousness and piety.
This ayeh is about Muslims being united in warfare against disbelievers, not about making peace with disbelievers. Another ayeh, which Muslims will not quote to us, exposes the reality of Islam’s attitude toward peace.
47:35.So do not falter and cry out for peace when ye (will be) the uppermost, and Allah is with you, and He will not grudge (the reward of) your actions.
The meaning should be obvious to you. If it is not, refer to Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir: Nullifying the Disbelievers’ Deeds and the Command to chase Them.
(So do not lose heart and beg for peace while you are superior.) meaning, in the condition of your superiority over your enemy. If, on the other hand, the disbelievers are considered more powerful and numerous than the Muslims, then the Imam (general commander) may decide to hold a treaty if he judges that it entails a benefit for the Muslims. This is like what Allah’s Messenger did when the disbelievers obstructed him from entering Makkah and offered him treaty in which all fighting would stop between them for ten years. Consequently, he agreed to that.
The experts advance to charges related to the short documentary created and published by Geert Wilders.
- In the film Fitna quotes below were presented, together with “images of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York (11/9/2001), and the attacks by Muslim extremists in Madrid and London, accompanied by images of victims.” DV7
- Wilders cites a half sentence from Surah 47 verse 4
“If you have an encounter with those who disbelieve than hew the necks of them and when ye have caused a bloodbath bind them in chains.” (Translation unknown, Theo van Gogh in focus)
- Wilders suggests that this called for a Muslim in peacetime ‘infidels’ to kill. This suggestion is reinforced by the images of bombings of civilians in peacetime. With this half quoting of the Quran verse, he in trouble: the enemy is apparently slain first and then be bound in irons. Why corpses seem to be put in chains is not clear.
The same verse, is now complete:
“And when you have those who disbelieve [in battle] meet, turn them dead, but if you then prevail over them have obtained fascinates them firmly,
later as a favor to them or release them or to buy them separately, when the burden of the war are made. “Sura 47 verse 4 Leemhuis:
The full quote shows:
- that this is a war is to kill enemy troops on the battlefield, and not to attack civilians in peacetime,
- according to the Koran quote must stop killing one soldier when once more prevails. There is no elimination of the enemy.
- the enemy from that moment must be captured to him after the war to be released.
This is in line with modern international law on war prisoner of war.
Lets take a close look at the cited ayeh.
47:4. Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.
Did the experts quote the full verse? Is the translation accurate? Several translators use different expressions:
- when you have killed and wounded many of them
- made wide slaughter among them
- until ye have massacred them
- till ye have made a great slaughter among them
- until ye have made a great slaughter among them
http://www.openburhan.net/ displays a break down of the Arabic text: اثخنتموهم – you (p) exceeded in killing them/you weakened them; the dictionary they link to defines the Arabic word as subdued. Note the phrase I highlighted; how does it compare to the variant expressions in the other translations?
Ibn Kathir has something important to tell us about this ayeh. The Command to strike the Enemies’ Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
…It appears that this Ayah was revealed after the battle of Badr. At that time, Allah reproached the believers for sparing many of the enemy’s soldiers, and holding too many captives in order to take ransom from them.… (It is not for a Prophet to have captives of war until he had made a great slaughter (among the enemies) in the land. You desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. Allah is Mighty and Wise. Were it not for a prior decree from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took.) (8:67-68)…
The experts have played fast and loose with the facts. They cited page 7 of the indictment as linking the images of the devastation in London, Madrid & New York to 47:4. The Koran references on that page, associated with those images, are: 8:60 and 4:56, associated with the next frame.
47:4 is not displayed until three frames later. The learned expert professors took the Koran out of context, but were not satisfied with that trick, they also took the indictment out of context!
8:60, which is associated with the images of devastation, commands Muslims to accrue weapons and war horses to strike terror into the hearts of enemies, both known and unknown. 8:57, not cited in the documentary, commands Muslims to punish their victims severely to serve as an example for others they wish to threaten.
If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember.
- Wilders Sura 8 verse 60: “Make preparations against them with what you can to force people to take this horse and to terrorize, terrorize Allah’s enemy and your enemy.” Dv7
- Surah 8: 60-61 Pickthall: “And to make them as good as you can and deployable armaments horses ready for God’s enemy and your enemy so intimidating and apart from those others that you do not know, but God knows . And what you also helping to give God’s way, you will be reimbursed and you will not be wronged. And if they are inclined to peace, make this tendency and also put your trust in God; “
- The translation of Wilders appears without a source, wherein ‘terrorize’ ie “the systematic instill terror by violence, by terrifying violence and control.” Leemhuis translates ‘instill fear’ “This is equal to scare away someone: a proven military strategy by means of war drums, production of weapons-without actually use – to persuade the enemy to refrain from violence. The deterrence strategy shown to prevent weapons of war. Compare the NATO strategy against the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The slogan of the NATO armed to the teeth at the time was “Peace is our Profession”. It worked.
Lets compare translations.
Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.[Pickthall]
- to strike terror into . [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
- frighten thereby the enemy [Shakir]
- terrify thereby [Arberry]
- strike terror into [Rodwell]
- strike a terror into [Sale]
Lets see what Muhammad had to say about terrorism.
What is the practical application of this tactic?
33:26. And He brought those of the People of the Scripture who supported them down from their strongholds, and cast panic into their hearts. Some ye slew, and ye made captive some.
- “Destroy the infidels and polytheists, your (Allah’s) enemies and the enemies of the religion. Allah, count them and kill them until the very end. And let no one about. “Dv 7
This sentence, with no source, is contrary to the Koran above quotes in their entirety in that direction, rather than a controlled ‘total war’ pages, and contrary to the Koran quote “no compulsion in religion. 2:256
- The comparisons between the texts as presented by Mr Wilders and the existing scientific knowledge of the contents of the Koran, we conclude first that the conclusion of Mr Wilders is not based on facts, but only on improperly constructed “facts”.
Scientific knowledge? Being Muslim makes them scientists, no reference to tafsir, hadith or jurisprudence is required, just scientific expertise.
- Second, a more general question arises about the statement of Mr Wilders that Islam is a violent religion. Could it actually be true that a religion is violent?
So Islam is peaceful, not violent? How then do you explain the title of the 8:th surah: “The Spoils” ? Why does the “religion of peace” need rules for allocation and division of spoils of war? Why does it need terms such as fei & ganimah to describe spoils of war? Why did Allah give Muhammad special dispensation to accrue spoils? Why did Allah say “Ye desire the lure of this world” to Muhammad in 8:67? Why did Allah promise “abundant spoils that you will capture“. Why does Shari’ah say :”the caliph makes war on Jews and Christians” and “the caliph fights all other peoples”?
- Religion is a set of values, norms, and writings. Religion is preached and adhered to by people. Violence is an action committed by people and groups of people, not a religion. Religion itself is not violent or peaceful.
How do you explain the existence of Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah, which are entirely dedicated and devoted to warmongering? How do you explain the existence of books of jihad or expedition in four of the six canonical hadith collections? How do you explain the communal obligation to attack disbelievers at least once in every year? Doubt this? Click the link above to Reliance of the Traveller, Search for Book O, Search for Chapter 9 and start reading.
- Claiming a religion as violent is a suggestive way to accuse a group of people, some believers, as being violent.
How did Hindu Kush get its name? What does it mean? Why are Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran and Egypt Islamic? Was violence involved?
- Scientific research indicates that in the Quran, as in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible, both incitements to violence and peace are to be found. This can be verified by anyone.
Show me the New Testament book, chapter and verse in which Jesus Christ issues open ended, outcome oriented commands to engage in conquest without geographic or temporal limits; the equivalent of 8:39 & 9:29. The ancient Hebraic conquest/genocide imperatives were limited to particular places and people, once they were completed, they expired. Islamic jihad continues from 610 to Judgment Day.
The lesson learned: Islam is not more violent than Christianity.
- Christianization and Islamization have been globally accepted voluntary and partly by force, if .., because fair to say that much about that history is not known.
- It is known that many more victims died in internal conflicts among Christians, than the relatively few wars between Christians and Muslims. Conflicts such as the Thirty Years War or the war between Turkey and Persia dragged on longer and cost more casualties than the war against the Turks eg culminating in the Battle of Vienna.
- The time when it was generally accepted that one faith is spread by the sword has passed. This applies to both Islam and Christianity. Extremists are an exception to the general consensus.
Christianity was co-opted by the Roman Empire. Unlike Islam, it has no intrinsic war imperative. Islam has a 1400 year record of rapine, accruing an estimated total of 270*106 victims.
Those are not extremists, they are salafists, emulators of Muhammad. Muslims are commanded to obey Allah and his Messenger. “Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow” . What did he do?
Narrated Abu Ishaq:
Once, while I was sitting beside Zaid bin Al-Arqam, he was asked, “How many Ghazwat did the Prophet undertake?” Zaid replied, “Nineteen.” They said, “In how many Ghazwat did you join him?” He replied, “Seventeen.” I asked, “Which of these was the first?” He replied, “Al-‘Ashira or Al-‘Ashiru.”
- Terrorists are not representative of Islam
Radical Islamists committing attacks and now regularly seek to acquire state power in Muslim-majority countries. The latter, however, they very rarely succeed, what makes them resentful, and leads to new attacks. Most of the terrorist attacks by Islamists, have Muslim victims. Logically, the vast majority of Muslims disapproves of this violence.
Islam is not logical, it is a way of life imposed on people by force. 3:151 & 8:12 sanctify and mandate terrorism. 33:26 & 59:2 exemplify it. Islam’s founder declared that he was made victorious by terror.
- There are also peaceful sounds within Islamic circles.
Every Muslim knows that the word “Islam” comes from the same root as the word ‘salaam’ (Hebrew: “Shalom”), in both languages it means ‘peace’. With this knowledge, 138 (grown to 307) authoritative Muslims, political and spiritual leaders and intellectuals, have sent in 2007 an open letter to their Christian counterparts.
“The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians. The basis for peace and understanding already exists … the love of God and neighbor in both religions and preached in both the Bible and the Koran can be found. “
Wikiislam has an etymology chart which makes the matter clear:
The Ulema’s missive “A Common Word between Us and You”. is an obvious deception, it is an extortion letter cleverly disguised as an overture of peace. One blog: Go Burn With Muhammad is entirely devoted to pointing out the malignant malarkey in that missive.
Arabist Hans Jansen wrote a brief rebuttal, this is a Google translation. .
The letter of retired professors, Wilders on the process, about the peacefulness of Islam, a trifle late to be desired. There are no references to sermons in the mosque, to manuals of Sharia, or Koranic commentaries. Also, the letter was not by Muslim religious leaders meeondertekend. The most important Muslim theologian is Tofiq Dibi agrees. The letter is a dream: if only that Islam is like the letter writers make.
In sermons in the mosque, in the manuals of the sharia and the Koran commentaries calling for the harassment, murder and make war on dissent. It is very easy to control. The Koran itself can very easily be interpreted as an instruction to intimidation, assassination, murder, and war – but when the Amsterdam court says that the true meaning of the Qur’anic text is just very peaceful, then all the problems with Islam course solved in one stroke. It is inconceivable for Muslims the Koran as a license to kill would dare conceive as the Amsterdam court maintains that the Koran is not actually a license to kill is.
Bare Naked Islam posted a video of Pat Condell letting fly at those responsible for the trial of Geert Wilders. The fast talking Mr. Condell has a a way with words & wit that endears him to a loyal band of fans.
I have transcribed the video because Condell’s pace makes contemplation difficult. Some of the concepts involved need a little time to be absorbed properly. The title is “The Crooked Judges of Amsterdam“. I wonder if they can reach across the channel to haul him up on charges of contempt of court? His words leave no doubt about his attitude toward political correctness, multiculturalism, Islam, the Dutch law under which Wilders is charged and the legal process involved.
Condell is attributing two murders to p.c. and multiculturalism, implying that they set the stage for the murders. He attributes the trial to immorality and cowardice, accusing European governments of selling the citizen’s birthright: free speech, out from under them. By his lights, a cowardly regime is persecuting a heroic parliamentarian for defending his civilization against an invading parasitic predator. They are pandering to Islam out of intimidation.
As you watch the video and read the transcript, bear in mind that the process taking place in Amsterdam is one the OIC wants to see duplicated in every Western nation where free speech once prevailed. They are demanding that criticism of Islam be outlawed nationally and internationally.
We have no lever of power with which to affect the travesty unfolding in Amsterdam. We can observe and criticize, venting as Condell has done, but we need to do more. We need to be vigilant to prevent or reverse the enactment by our own legislatures, of legislation patterned after that of the Netherlands or modeled on the resolutions passed by the UN and Human Rights Council in recent years.
We need to turn Islam’s own weapon against it in a legal counter attack by pointing out the fact that orthodox Islamic doctrines and practices violate provisions of ICERD,. ICCPR & CPPCG which require that it be proscribed by law. The International Qur’an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam. We must exploit it to the hilt. Sign it, copy it, paste it into an email to everyone you can hope to influence and exhort the recipients to sign and forward it.
This week in an Amsterdam courtroom, we saw the beginning of what could be both the trial of the century and the crime of the century. What an honor for the Netherlands so early in the century. Well this determined statement of dhimmitude we’ve yet seen in Europe, and thats saying something, the Dutch Authorities are pushing ahead with the prosecution of an elected parliamentarian for the crime of embarrassing them with the truth.
There’s an ideological fervor about this prosecution thats almost religious in its intensity. because lets be clear that this is a heresy trial by any other name. They can’t refute Mr. Wilders’ statements since they’ve resorted to the kind of cheap legal stunt that we’d expect from the likes of Mugabe to shut their opponent up.
They’ve accused him of being divisive and inflammatory and yes, sometimes the truth can be divisive and inflammatory but its been suppressed for long enough and its become sufficiently taboo as it clearly has in the Netherlands because, according to the prosecution, it doesn’t even matter that what he says is true, what matters is that its illegal.
Well, when the truth is against the law, then there’s something seriously wrong with the law. Because when the truth is no defense, there is no defense. and the law has no anchor, so it may drift wherever the wind of political expedience blows. And this week it blew straight into a crooked courtroom in Amsterdam, where Justice will now be made to fight for its life, starved of the oxygen of truth that gives it life.
These are desperate tactics from desperate people who’ve tied themselves up in such knots of relativist guilt they’re incapable of acknowledging the truth let alone dealing with it. They’re like somebody whose prepared to chop off their own hand to avoid being seen scratching their ass in public. What makes it worse is that clinging to something that doesn’t even exist–the multicultural bubble burst a long time ago when Pim Fortuyn: was murdered, when Theo van Gogh. was murdered, both for the crime of expressing an opinion in what’s supposed to be one of the world’s leading liberal democracies. It was then that the Dutch people, better than anybody else in Europe, came face to face with multiculturalism–what it really is and what it really means.
On the surface, it sounds like a pleasant word , invoking a kind of rainbow society of mutually enriching cultural perspectives, and what could be better than that? But that’s not what it is at all and that was never the intention. If they’d been honest from the start about what it really is: Islamization, they know that they’d never have been allowed to get away with it. But people are beginning to realize that now Islam is in fact what they’re getting and and its all they’re getting and that’s why the Freedom Party is leading the opinion polls in the Netherlands from nowhere in just a few short years.
And its also why the ruling class is so desperate to destroy Mr. Wilders before the next election, because they know that his views are popular enough to change things, to put an end to the multicultural lie and give the Dutch people back their country and that’s why he is facing trial. Can I say that?
Maybe we shouldn’t be too surprised its come to this, after all they do have a history of ganging up on their popular politicians in the Netherlands. Isn’t that how Pim Fortuyn: was murdered? Some leftist lunatic took the establishment and the press at their word that he was a public menace for opposing Islamization and killed him for it. The next day, all the people who’d been vilifying him were suddenly his best friends, they were shocked — how could this have happened? But they all know how it happened, the whole world knows how it happened and if it hadn’t happened this trial wouldn’t be taking place today.because Islam wouldn’t be the problem it is today and maybe Amsterdam would still be the one of the world’s favorite cities and not the kind of place where gay people are afraid to go out for fear of being beaten up by gangs of Muslim youths. .
The Dutch ruling class has shown that its prepared to stoop to anything, even as far as undermining the very cornerstone of Western Civilization, freedom of speech to prop up a rotten ideology that is not only dead but whose corpse is now beginning to smell. and you know that smell, its that pungent mix of authoritarianism and cowardice that we’ve all become depressingly familiar with.
Certainly, here in Britain, we know all about it, we’ve had twelve years of it and we haven’t forgotten the shameful events of this time last year when Mr. Wilders was refused entry to Britain because our government allowed itself to be bullied and threatened by a handful of Muslim loud mouths who took it upon themselves to suppress free speech in a free country and and were allowed to get away with it because otherwise they might have been offended oh, perish the thought!
Why the Hell shouldn’t Muslims be offended, what are they anyway, babies? Nobody gives a damn how offended the rest of us are at having our culture squatted on by an aggressive religious totalitarianism and being told to shut up about it. And that’s why this trial is not just about the Netherlands, it affects all of us. Now the Dutch people have got a well deserved reputation for tolerance and open mindedness, the very qualities many argue have gotten us into this mess in the first place so they’re a bit further down the road of multicultural dhimmitude than most countries, but its a road that we’re all traveling in the West and if we stay on it, we’ll all arrive at the same unhappy cross roads in another court room in another country; its only a matter of time.
Fear of free speech is a symptom of a profoundly neurotic and dishonest society which is what we’ve got on our hands now. All over the Western world its the same sorry story. We have governments and police forces who cringe before Islam while fiddling away our civil liberties because of Islam. We have a media that can’t even use the word Islam in connection with terrorism when the two things couldn’t be more intimately connected if they were Siamese twins yet they’re quite happy to label Mr. Wilders as a “far right politician” in the kind of casual slander that passes for journalism these days. especially at the wretched BBC who have been too politically correct even to acknowledge that this trial is taking place.
Anyone who isn’t angry and ashamed that it is taking place doesn’t deserve to live in a free society. The trial has already left as dark a stain on Dutch history as McCarthyism left on American history and its only going to get worse because not only have the crooked judges denied Mr. Wilders the witnesses he needs to defend himself, but they’ve also made sure that the trial will coincide with the election campaign making it as difficult as possible for him to put his case to the people.
This man is a hero, not a criminal and its time the rest of stood up and said so loud and clear because there is too much at stake to be polite anymore. And there’s too much at stake to be afraid anymore. This intellectual terrorism has got to stop. Our birthright is being deliberately sold from under us by people who don’t have the right of ownership.and we are now on the verge of bequeathing our children and grandchildren the kind of society that we wouldn’t want to be born into; it doesn’t get any more immoral or cowardly than that. You know, in the English Language we have an expression “Dutch courage”, its not really courage at all, its the kind of courage you get when you’ve had a bit too much alcohol to drink– well there is this new expression: “Dutch justice” its not really justice at all, its the kind of justice you get when you’ve overdosed on cultural relativism and your spine has completely disappeared.
Shame on the Netherlands; shame on the Western media for not raising a howl of protest against this outrageous attack on our basic freedom and shame upon shame on the crooked judges of Amsterdam. Was there something else? Oh yeah, peace, would be nice, wouldn’t it?
At the annual prayer breakfast, President Obama tried to exploit religion for political purposes, in the process exposing his arrogance and contempt for the American people. I heard Conservative radio commentators playing sound bytes of one mispronounced word and asserting that the mainstream media who would have ridiculed Shrub for making the same error are ignoring it when made by their favorite politician.
I don’t care about the mispronounced word or the media’s attitude. I am disgusted by the sheer arrogance evidenced by the President’s statement. I am concerned with substance, not delivery and style. This speech stinks, like something you might find sticking to your shoes after a visit to a barnyard.
Remarks by the President at the National Prayer Breakfast quoted out of context, with emphasis added, interspersed with commentary.
I’m privileged to join you once again, as my predecessors have for over half a century. Like them, I come here to speak about the ways my faith informs who I am — as a President, and as a person. But I’m also here for the same reason that all of you are, for we all share a recognition — one as old as time — that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives.
In ’04, a few days after his nomination to run for the Senate, Obama sat for interview with Cathleen Falsani. These out of context snippets from that interview may help us to understand how his faith informs him. [Emphasis added.]
So that, one of the churches I met, or one of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ. And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.
Yeah, although I don’t, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.
I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
Its’ not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I’m constantly asking myself questions about what I’m doing, why am I doing it.
When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.
Obama has an ongoing conversation with God and is constantly asking himself questions about his actions. Does he think he is God or can he carry on two conversations at once? Judging by how he speaks without a teleprompter, I suspect that he can’t handle simultaneous conversations.
He is suspicious of dogma and takes religion with a big dose of doubt; how does that comport with having faith? The last quote from the interview seems to reveal a little too much. He admitted that he is not consistently truthful in his public remarks.
It’s inspiring. This is what we do, as Americans, in times of trouble. We unite, recognizing that such crises call on all of us to act, recognizing that there but for the grace of God go I, recognizing that life’s most sacred responsibility — one affirmed, as Hillary said, by all of the world’s great religions — is to sacrifice something of ourselves for a person in need.
There is a tendency to confuse personal and communal responsibilities. That confusion contributes greatly to the pursuit of the Socialist agenda. President Obama is contributing to that tendency.
Sadly, though, that spirit is too often absent when tackling the long-term, but no less profound issues facing our country and the world. Too often, that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy, the 9/11 or the Katrina, the earthquake or the tsunami, that can shake us out of complacency. We become numb to the day-to-day crises, the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God’s voice.
Note the bold faced clauses; are these Freudian slips or a demagogue mocking us by implicitly exposing himself ? At a spiritual retreat, a prayer breakfast, the President raises one of the most divisive issues, framing it in the context of religious obligation so as to imply guilt on the part of those who oppose his contest for power, which is founded on false premises. President Obama falsely asserts that his program will increase availability and decrease costs while its effects will be the exact opposite. Clearly, he is obsessed with the contest for power and employing a false argument in that contest.
Now, for those of us here in Washington, let’s acknowledge that democracy has always been messy. Let’s not be overly nostalgic. (Laughter.) Divisions are hardly new in this country. Arguments about the proper role of government, the relationship between liberty and equality, our obligations to our fellow citizens — these things have been with us since our founding. And I’m profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy work.
The men who founded our representative republic had personally experienced and observed the evils attendant to tyranny. They wanted truth and reason to prevail over arbitrary authority, prejudice & passion. Rigorous debate is part of the process, so that competing ideas and arguments can be tested against each other. In the present case, the P:resident’s partisans have declared our way or no way, and sought to prevent the opposition from having any input to the process. They have abused rules and procedures to limit debate and prevent scrutiny of the content of their legislation.
And we’ve seen actually some improvement in some circumstances. We haven’t seen any canings on the floor of the Senate any time recently. (Laughter.) So we shouldn’t over-romanticize the past. But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should. At times, it seems like we’re unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate. And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion. It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other. It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth. And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care.
The seeds of division and distrust are sown with campaign speeches and advertisements full of lies and half truths. They are fertilized by the habit of ignoring vox populi and a Hellbent determination to impose injurious policies contrary to common sense, experience and the popular will. Their fruits are harvested and a new crop sown with shibboleths such as “families without health care”.
Politics becomes an “all-or-nothing sport” when the stakes are raised, when the policies proposed are self-perpetuating, irreversible and threaten economic devastation. The limited powers assigned to the federal government by the Constitution were designed to prevent politics from becoming a threat to life, liberty and prosperity. The erosion of those limits, set in motion by F.D.R., resulted in the current political climate.
Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in an effort to bridge divisions. We see that in many conservative pastors who are helping lead the way to fix our broken immigration system. It’s not what would be expected from them, and yet they recognize, in those immigrant families, the face of God. We see that in the evangelical leaders who are rallying their congregations to protect our planet. We see it in the increasing recognition among progressives that government can’t solve all of our problems, and that talking about values like responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage are integral to any anti-poverty agenda. Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility.
Our immigration system is not broken, it is abandoned, jacked up on blocks in the back yard. Illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border with no substantial interference. They carry drugs & disease over the border. They are accompanied by Muslims from the Mid East who may not have our welfare at heart.
The last sentence of the quote immediately above is an appeal to “bipartisanship” & “compromise”. The real meaning of which is “Conservatives, surrender your principles and vote for whatever crap Liberals put forth.”. When your friend suggests a suicide pact and hands you a poison pill, do you reject the pact and the pill or do you agree to swallow half of it as a compromise? Why should we abandon our principles and agree to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, making them citizens who can cement the Democrat party in power for the long term? The proposed amnesty will not solve the problem, it will serve as an incentive for even more illegal immigrants to cross the border.
So why should our side abandon our principles and accept legislation that will destroy jobs, ruin the economy, increase the federal debt and make health care less available & affordable? Its about our lives, health, prosperity and liberty, not about civility
Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that “civility is not a sign of weakness.” Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. (Laughter.) But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship. (Laughter and applause.)
In one of your books, you told about kneeling at the altar of Rev. Wright’s church to rededicate your life to God. You did not identify your deity. In a later interview, you claimed that you rededicated your life to Jesus Christ. In another interview, you said that the Adhan was the sweetest sound at sunset and recited it to the interviewer. We have plenty of reason to suspect that your Christianity is a political veneer.
The Constitution specifies that the President must be a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. British law makes your father a citizen of Great Britain. You were registered in an Indonesian school as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim. Where were you really born? If you were not born on American soil, your mother was too young to convey citizenship. We can’t know for certain without seeing the birth certificate which declares the time and place of your birth. Why did you spend more than one million dollars to keep it out of our sight? Your Constitutional eligibility is not a function of your policies, it is a function of the circumstances of your birth.
Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams — even when we don’t share the same plans on how to fulfill them.
One side seeks to preserve the fruits of the grandest dream ever, which were temporarily secured by a miraculous victory in a war of revolution. The other side seeks to tear down the restrictions on government power. Those restrictions are the last line of defense for our liberties. We do not want to let you strangle the golden goose. Nor do we want to allow you to endanger our hard won liberties. The preservation of prosperity and liberty depends on frustrating your entire Socialist agenda.
We do not seek to deny anyone shelter, food, clothing or medical goods & services. We seek to prevent you from permanently destroying the Constitution and the economy.
We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth. We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
There is only one way to reform our health care system, and it is not your proposal! Reducing costs and increasing supply can only be accomplished by removing artificial barriers to competition. That means allowing an open market in insurance policies across state lines. It does not include restrictions on hospital construction & expansion and reductions in the training of new physicians. Reducing costs requires better control of Medicare fraud and the elimination of excessive liability settlements. Your party won’t allow tort reform because you are in the lawyer’s pockets.
Affordability is ultimately a function of income and living expenses. When you raise taxes, you push every good and service we want and need further out of reach. When you create inflation, you push everything out of reach. You could allow people to set up medical savings plans backed up with catastrophic care policies, but, since that would not cement you in power, you won’t consider it.
Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary. But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith, and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm; while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle — and I assure you I’m praying a lot these days — (laughter) — prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a spirit of brotherhood. It can remind us that each of us are children of a awesome and loving God.
Here we have another classic example of the over confident, narcissistic demagogue waving his arrogance like a red flag before a bull. There is no common ground between Socialism Capitalism, nor between tyranny and liberty. He assumes the content of faith as well as the efficacy of prayer, ignoring the fact that Communism is officially atheistic.
How many times did we rise up and reject alien amnesty schemes when Shrub was trying to shove them down our throats? How many times did we reject Socialized medicine when LBJ & Clinton tried to shove it down our throats? But Obama is deaf to our shouts, he can not hear the protests at the town meetings, tea parties and recent special elections. He has a stiff neck and a stiff middle finger for us, at minimum.
Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good. And that’s why my Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has been working so hard since I announced it here last year. We’ve slashed red tape and built effective partnerships on a range of uses, from promoting fatherhood here at home to spearheading interfaith cooperation abroad. And through that office we’ve turned the faith-based initiative around to find common ground among people of all beliefs, allowing them to make an impact in a way that’s civil and respectful of difference and focused on what matters most.
“The common good” is an undefined and immeasurable concept, entirely too abstract to allow a useful debate. Likewise “common ground” between faiths. There is no common ground between Islam and any genuine religion. Invitations to “interfaith dialog” are actually demands for submission.
It is this spirit of civility that we are called to take up when we leave here today. That’s what I’m praying for. I know in difficult times like these — when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names — it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint — civility.
Yes, there are crimes of conscience that call us to action. Yes, there are causes that move our hearts and offenses that stir our souls. But progress doesn’t come when we demonize opponents. It’s not born in righteous spite. Progress comes when we open our hearts, when we extend our hands, when we recognize our common humanity. Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God. That we might do so — that we will do so all the time, not just some of the time — is my fervent prayer for our nation and the world.
We are supposed to gaze into Obama’s eyes and see God. We are supposed to submit to his will. The difference between God and Obama is that God does not think he is Obama.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
There is one thing we can agree on: God bless the United States of America.
The court rejected fifteen proposed defense witnesses. They also ruled that the testimony of the three witnesses they allowed will be heard in camera, greatly reducing the potential educational value of the proceeding.
Only Hans Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan were allowed to be heard as expert-witnesses. Their testimony will be heard in a session behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must remain a secret.
This information comes from one of two new Geert Wilders web sites, one in Dutch and this one in English for the international audience.
The site includes these features.
- the summons in pdf format
- summary of the proceedings
- Wilders’ statement (video)
- links to press coverage
It appears that mainstream media coverage of the trial may be rather light. So far I have not heard anything about it on ABC radio news, BBC’s The World or NPR’s Morning Edition. The Wilders defense web site may be our best way of keeping up with the progress of the trial.
Radio Netherlands Worldwide had what may be the most important quote.
Reacting to the rulings later, Mr Wilders told journalists outside the courtroom, “This court doesn’t seem to be interested in the truth. I can only conclude that the court is not going to let me have a fair trial. I have no respect for this.”
In this quote, Wilders restated the obvious. The prosecutor had decided that the charges were not worth holding a trial over before being overruled by a court under pressure.
Sky News reports that Chancellor Alistair Darling is expected to announce a plan to issue sukuk in the next U.K. budget. To be Shari’ah compliant, the gain in the bond transaction must be framed in terms other than interest and Zakat of 2.5% must be paid.
The dirty secret concealed by this story is that 1/8 of the Zakat must be paid to fund Jihad. England will sell bonds to Muslims and finance terrorism in the process. The Jihad factor is .3125% . That is a small multiplier, but on a $1,000,000 transaction, it will yield $3,125.00 to terrorism.
There are eight categories of Zakat recipients. The seventh category is key to this issue. The quote below is from the handbook of Shari’ah: Reliance of the Traveller, Book H, Chapter 8.
H8.17: Those Fighting for Allah
The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster (O: but who are volunteers for jihad without remuneration). They are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if affluent; of weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses (O: for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Though nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people’s families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given it).
As the trial of Geert Wilders resumes, we should carefully examine its substance and procedures. Writing on the Editorial Page of the Wall Street Journal, Leon De Winter says “Stop the Trial of Geert Wilders”
On trial is not so much Geert Wilders, but the Holy Book of Islam. … So it is quite conceivable that the court will judge that Geert Wilders was within his right to compare the Quran to “Mein Kampf.”
The three judges hearing the case—no doubt decent, modest, postmodern Dutchmen with a minimum knowledge of Islam and its culture and traditions—will now be forced to debate the nature of a religious text, something that should have never been heard in the court of an enlightened society. In front of the judges and television cameras, the ancient founding text of an entire civilization will be criticized and weighed against one of the most inhumane texts written in the 20th century—without any doubt a deep insult to Muslims, radical or not.
In the view of one Dutch journalist, the trial has been inverted, exchanging the defendant and complainant, resulting in an insult to Muslims over and above the alleged insults issued by the defendant. He wants the trial stopped.
Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt the chances of an inverted trial. While it is obvious that Wilders is planning a defense based on necessity and veracity, it is not certain that the court will consent to allow those defenses to be presented. An article by Arthur Legger, published by Tidsskriftet Sappho, reveals some details about he trial of Geert Wilders. A surprising statement from the Public Prosecution attacks Wilders’ truth defense.
“It is irrelevant whether Wilder’s witnesses might prove Wilders’ observations to be correct”, the ‘Openbaar Ministerie’ stated, “what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal”.
The indictment was amended to include accusations of racism. I suspect that was done as an end run around this precedent.
For in a comparable case the Dutch High Court acquitted a Dutchman of his earlier conviction of ‘Group-insult’ of Muslims. He had been sentenced to jail for hanging a poster in front of his window that stated: “Stop the cancerous growth named Islam”. The High Court ruled that “if one insults a religion, one doesn’t automatically insult its believers”.
Fokko Oldenhuis, Groningen University professor Religion and Law, is quoted as saying:
“He discriminates Moroccans because of their race and causes hate against them”; “His desire to ban the Koran brings fear and terror into peoples homes”.
Does the banning of Nazi literature bring “fear and terror” into the homes of neo-Nazis? Did Wilders call for assaults, murders and pogroms? Did he urge his audience to riot and burn Korans? What then is terrifying about his statements?
Take a clear eyed look at the laws Wilders is accused of violating. The International Free Press Society posted this link to an English translation of the summons. Jihad Watch reproduced it in this article. [Bold face emphasis added to critical clause for clarity.]
Article 137c Dutch Penal Code
- o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in an way insulting of a group of people because of their race, their religion or belief, or their hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
- o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
- o 1. He who publicly, verbally or in writing or in an image, incites hatred against or discrimination of people or violent behaviour against person or property of people because of their race, their religion or belief, their gender or hetero- or homosexual nature or their physical, mental, or intellectual disabilities, will be punished with a prison sentence of at the most one year or a fine of third category.
- o 2. If the offence is committed by a person who makes it his profession or habit, or by two or more people in association, a prison sentence of at the most two years or a fine of fourth category will be imposed.
· Article 137d Dutch Penal Code
Insulting and inciting are undefined, thus they are highly subjective. In effect, guilt is presumed arbitrarily; no defense is possible against these charges. If Geert Wilders is found guilty and the law is upheld, the code reproduced above will become boilerplate for national and international legislation demanded by the OIC & UN.
Geert Wilders perceives Islam as an existential threat to his society. The threat arises from Islam’s Jihad doctrine which mandates world conquest. The conquest is not limited to military and terror attacks, it also takes the form of demographic conquest, which Europe is now experiencing.
The threat is real, proximate and persisting. Pim Fortune and Theo Van Gogh were assassinated by Muslims. Aayan Hirsi Ali & Geert Wilders have needed 24 hour security because of death threats. French Muslims have done millions of dollars in property damage by rioting.
Wilders documented the threat by quoting Qur’anic violence imperatives and displaying video of Imams ranting about killing disbelievers. He also displayed video of a hostage being decapitated.
Wilders spoke out about a threat to his nation, documented that threat and called on the government to mount a defense. For that he is being persecuted.
The summons includes a frame by frame analysis of Fitna and out of context quotes from newspaper interviews. The pdf file is more than 20 pages long.
Geert Wilders spoke in New York City September 25 ’08. Sheik Yermami provided a transcript.
The Quran calls for hatred, violence, submission, murder, and terrorism. The Quran calls for Muslims to kill non-Muslims, to terrorize non-Muslims and to fulfil their duty to wage war: violent jihad. Jihad is a duty for every Muslim, Islam is to rule the world – by the sword. The Quran is clearly anti-Semitic, describing Jews as monkeys and pigs.
The second thing you need to know is the importance of Mohammed the prophet. His behaviour is an example to all Muslims and cannot be criticized. Now, if Mohammed had been a man of peace, let us say like Ghandi and Mother Theresa wrapped in one, there would be no problem. But Mohammed was a warlord, a mass murderer, a pedophile, and had several marriages – at the same time. Islamic tradition tells us how he fought in battles, how he had his enemies murdered and even had prisoners of war executed. Mohammed himself slaughtered the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza.
In April of ’09, Wilders spoke at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Iranic Surrealism has the transcript.
Allow me to give you a brief introduction to Islam, an Islam 101. The first thing everyone needs to know about Islam is the importance of the Koran. As you probably know the Koran calls for submission, hatred, violence, murder, terrorism and war. The Koran calls upon Muslims to kill non-Muslims. The Koran describes Jews as monkeys and pigs. The biggest problem is that the Koran is to be considered as Allah’s personal word, with orders that need to be fulfilled regardless of place or time. That’s the reason why the Koran is not open to discussion or interpretation. It is valid for every Muslim and for all times. Therefore, there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Sure, there are a lot of moderate Muslims, but a moderate Islam does not exist. As the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan once said: “There is no moderate Islam, Islam is Islam”. For once I have to agree with this islamist Turkish Prime Minister.
October 22 ’09, Wilders spoke at Columbia. Answering Muslims has video of the speech. Is the content of those speeches factually true? The answer is contained in Islam’s canon. https://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ documents the Qur’an quotes contained in Fitna. and Wilders’ address to the Dutch Parliament.
When the trial resumes, the judges could dismiss the case. More likely, they will rule on Wilders’ proposed defense and witness list. If they severely restrict the latter and/or close the trial to the press, we can assume that the outcome is preordained and that our precious liberty has suffered a vital blow.
The enemy seeks to suppress our right to identify, name and shame them so that, in the words of George Washington,
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
Let us make good use of our precious freedom while we still have it. Let us echo and amplify the warning call issued by Geert Wilders. Let us summon our fellow citizens to join us in disrespectfully demanding the preservation of the right of free expression without which we stand defenseless against impending tyranny. In this step, they squelch our criticism of Islam; in the next, they squelch our criticism of Socialism. One will follow the other as surely as rain and wind follow storm clouds.
I have furnished links to Wilder’s documentary and speeches. I also furnished a link to another blog post which documents the most essential facts presented in those warning calls. What you do with them is up to you. Will you read the speeches and documentation, watch the video and share them or will you go back to sleep, ignoring the dangers that face us?
The article reproduced below was written by a fluent speaker of Arabic who translated some of the original materials used as a basis for his research. His footnotes are linked to internal anchors in the original article. clicking them will open the original in your browser, replacing this blog post until you hit the back button.
While the article is long and detailed, it is very much worth reading. I recommend bookmarking it so that you can skim it immediately and return later for a more careful reading.
The article highlights the difference between the Islamic and Western mindsets. The author took great care to demonstrate the difference between what Muslims say to the Western media in English and what they say to their brethren in Arabic.
Speaking to the West, Usama bin Ladin emphasizes reciprocity which is based on this scripture.
5:45. And We ordained therein for them: “Life for life , eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.” But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allâh has revealed, such are the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrongdoers – of a lesser degree).
Speaking to his brethren, he emphasizes the religious obligation of Jihad, which is founded primarily on two ayat and one hadith which confirms them. The author quotes 9:29. which enjoins waging war against people with scriptural religions. The ayeh which commands waging war against polytheists and atheists is 8:39.
8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.
The confirming hadith has several variants, this form makes the issue extremely clear: Allah ordered Muhammad to fight us until we become Muslim, until we do, we have no rights and our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims. In other words, he opened a season on us. Islam is a predator, we are the prey. [Emphasis added for clarity.]
Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 8, Number 387:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally and their reckoning will be with Allah.” Narrated Maimun ibn Siyah that he asked Anas bin Malik, “O Abu Hamza! What makes the life and property of a person sacred?” He replied, “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.”
For a more complete appreciation of the legal application of those verses and the saying which confirms them, see Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller.
- Jihad defined.
- The communal obligation.
- Jihad against people of the book.
- Jihad against polytheists.
Two quotations from the writings of Usama bin Ladin are cited, regarding the justice and kindness of attacking disbelievers and how failure to attack us would be oppression.
21:107. And We have sent you (O Muhammad ) not but as a mercy for the ‘Alamîn (mankind, jinns and all that exists).
21:109. But if they (disbelievers, idolaters, Jews, Christians, polytheists, etc.) turn away (from Islâmic Monotheism) say (to them O Muhammad ): “I give you a notice (of war as) to be known to us all alike. And I know not whether that which you are promised (i.e. the torment or the Day of Resurrection) is near or far.”
Muhammad was sent as a mercy, if we reject his message, then he makes war on us. Refraining from forcing us to embrace Islam would be oppression.
If you are still curious about the “religious obligation of Jihad” try these sources.
Research and Writing
Reciprocal Treatment or Religious Obligation?
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Review of International Affairs
By analyzing what al-Qa’ida preaches to Muslims regarding Islam’s relationship to the non-Muslim world at large, and what it states to the West are its reasons for battling it, this essay seeks to highlight the many disparities behind al-Qa’ida’s words. Juxtaposed in themes, the following excerpts are all derived from Usama bin Ladin’s and Ayman al-Zawahiri’s writings and speeches as found in The Al Qa’ida Reader.
Is al-Qa’ida waging war on the United States–issuing a fatwa to “kill the Americans and seize their money” (p. 13)in retaliation to U.S. oppression, or is this animosity founded on something else? Is it mere reciprocity or is it a religion-based ideology? Talking to the West, al-Qa’ida insists it is reciprocal treatment; talking to fellow Muslims it insists that Islam demands this animosity. Consider the following discrepancies:
When addressing the United States, bin Ladin writes in response to the rhetorical question “Why we [al-Qa’ida] are fighting you,” “[b]ecause you attacked us and continue to attack us.” (p. 197) In fact, reciprocal treatment has been al-Qa’ida’s sole justification for all the terrorist acts it has perpetrated against the West. The West attacks Muslims—-for oil, Israel, land, or “Crusader” hatred—-and al-Qa’ida retaliates on behalf of Muslims.
Even the September 11 strikes are rationalized as mere acts of reciprocity. After describing the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, where a massive bombing campaign leveled several high-rise apartment buildings and left thousands of Arabs dead, bin Ladin said, “[A]s I looked upon those crumbling towers in Lebanon, I was struck by the idea of punishing the oppressor in kind by destroying towers in America—-giving them a taste of their own medicine and deterring them from murdering our women and children.” (p. 215)
After September 11, when several more terrorist acts were committed around the world, targeting mostly Europeans, bin Ladin declared:
The events that have taken place since the attacks on Washington and New York [September 11]—-such as the killing of Germans in Tunisia, the French in Karachi, the bombing of the giant French tanker in Yemen, the killing of marines in Failaka, of British and Australians in the Bali explosions, the recent operation in Moscow, and various other sporadic operations–are all reactions of reciprocity, carried out by the zealous sons of Islam in defense of their faith and in response to the order of their Lord and Prophet. [p. 231]
After the bombings in Madrid, where 191 people were killed and 1460 injured, bin Ladin again addressed the Europeans:
There is a lesson [to be learned] regarding what happens in occupied Palestine and what happened on September 11 and March 11 [Madrid train bombings, killing 191 and injuring 1,460]: These are your goods returned to you. It is well understood that security is a vital necessity for all of mankind–though we do not agree that you should monopolize it for yourself. [p. 234]
After the July 2004 London bombings, Zawahiri addressed the citizens of the United Kingdom thus: “I speak to you today about the blessed raid on London that… made it take a sip from the same glass from which it had long made the Muslims drink…. So taste some of what you have made us taste.” (p. 238)
There is no question, then, that al-Qa’ida’s defense for committing all these acts of terrorism is that it is merely, as bin Ladin puts it, returning the West’s “goods”–that is, “terrorism”–back to itself. Such a defense is plausible–provided, of course, that the West is guilty of initiating the terror. Under this interpretation, al-Qa’ida gouges the West’s eye since the West first gouged Islam’s eye.
Moreover, this defense is ultimately rooted in the “universal” concept of justice. Most people around the world, irrespective of religion or race, understand the concept of crime and punishment. And the Torah’s “eye for an eye” injunction has been the standard for many people–no doubt due to its primordial, and thus universal, sensibilities. Yet even though al-Qa’ida implies that it is acting under some sort of “universal law” that both Muslims and non-Muslims can appreciate, that is not fully true. For Muslims there is only one particular set of laws that are to be adhered to–Shari’a –and even if Shari’a contradicts something that non-Muslims consider a “universal right”–such as equality–still, Shari’a must have the final word.
When a group of Muslim scholars wrote to the Americans saying that there should be equality, justice, and freedom, between the West and Islam, bin Ladin had this to say about it:
[The Muslims’ declaration] came supporting the United Nations and their humanistic articles, which revolve around three principles: equality, freedom, and justice. Nor do they mean equality, freedom, and justice as was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad [Shari’a]. No, they mean the West’s despicable notions, which we see today in America and Europe, and which have made the people like cattle. [p. 26]
Islam, or “submission” to Allah, is the ultimate form of justice, the Islamists argue; everything else, depending on how far it deviates from Shari’a is oppression, injustice, and corruption. To be sure, under Shari’a, Muslims are to defend themselves against infidel aggression–to wage a “Defensive Jihad” as al-Qa’ida claims to be doing. Indeed, most of Shari’a’s divine guidelines concerning jihad have to do with the legitimacy and obligation of waging Offensive Jihad, simply to gain territory and lord over infidels; how necessary is Defensive Jihad, then, when there is a need to repulse the infidel from Islamic lands?
However, Shari’a has other notions–equally binding according to Islamists like those who make up its leadership–that do not comport so well with al-Qa’ida’s claim that all this terrorism is simply due to Western aggression and Muslim retaliation. In other words, under Shari’a law, even if the West completely ceased all its hostilities, real or imagined, against the Islamic world, total peace would still not commence. Under Shari’a, permanent peace can only commence when the entire world either embraces or at the very least is governed by Islam.
Discussing the need to overthrow those Muslim “apostate” governments that do not rule in accordance to Shari’a, bin Ladin, addressing Americans, says: “The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Islamic umma [community], make Shari’a law supreme, and regain Palestine. Our fight against these governments is one with our fight against you.” (p. 199)
Ayman al-Zawahiri similarly exhorts Muslims:
We also extend our hands to every Muslim zealous over making Islam triumph till they join us in a course of action to save the umma from its painful reality. [This course of action] consists of staying clear of idolatrous tyrants, warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihadin the path of Allah. Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world. [p. 113]
That last sentence–“making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world”–raises questions regarding al-Qa’ida’s statements to the West, the fundamental one being: Even if all of the West’s perceived or real hostilities vis-à-vis the Islamic world were to cease, would Islam then be at peace with the outside world?
Concerning this question, bin Ladin has been forthright–though only when speaking to fellow Muslims. “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West” (p. 17-61)–the most revealing and straightforward document produced by al-Qa’ida–puts its vision of Islam’s relationship with the rest of the world in clear context.
In this essay, Muslims (in the guise of Saudi intellectuals who, in response to a letter of cooperation written by Americans, responded with their own letter) are chastised for even daring to want to coexist with the infidel West. Bin Ladin makes clear that the animosity between the Muslim and the infidel–which should always be “directed from the Muslim to the infidel” (p. 43)–far transcends any talk of grievances.
UNIVERSAL JUSTICE VS. SHARI’A JUSTICE
Here, the concept of “universal justice,” which al-Qa’ida constantly makes appeals to in its messages to the West, is ridiculed with contempt. For example, when writing to the Europeans bin Ladin said: “I call upon just men–especially ulama [scholars], media, and businessmen–to form a permanent commission to enlighten the European peoples of the justice of our causes, particularly Palestine.” (p. 235)
Yet when the Saudi intellectuals wrote, “the heart of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is justice, kindness, and charity–this is the equity that Allah loves and has commanded us with [p. 42],” bin Ladin was quick to clarify what true justice is:
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: “You have a good example in Abraham and those with him. They said to their people: ‘We disown you and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us–till you believe in Allah alone’ ” [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility, and an internal hate from the heart. And this fierce hostility–that is, battle–ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi], or if the Muslims are [at that point in time] weak and incapable [of spreading Shari’alaw to the world]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the hearts, this is great apostasy; the one who does this [extinguishes the hate from his heart] will stand excuseless before Allah. Allah Almighty’s Word to His Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: “O Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell–an evil fate!” [Koran 9:73]. Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred–directed from the Muslim to the infidel–is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right–our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs? [p. 43]
The Saudi intellectuals had tried to clarify to the West that all peoples–irrespective of religion–were entitled to justice and should never be oppressed: “Justice between people is their right, while oppression between them is forbidden–no matter what their religion, color, or nationality is” [p. 44]. When addressing and accusing the West, al-Qa’ida has relied on similar language. Writing to the Americans bin Ladin, implying that he shares universal notions of justice and injustice, sarcastically asked, “How many acts of oppression, tyranny and injustice have you carried out, O you ‘callers to freedom?'” (p. 204)
Yet writing to the Saudis, bin Ladin clarifies al-Qa’ida’s true notions of oppression and injustice:
As for the word “oppression,” those addressed [Americans] take it to mean being placed under the authority of Islam by the sword, as the Prophet did with the infidels. They think that something that denies them [the freedom] to pursue obscenities, atheism and blasphemy, and idolatry is an “oppression.” They think that an attack launched against their ground, as in an Offensive Jihad, is an “injustice.” And so forth. Then come the [intellectuals] declaring that justice is a right while oppression is forbidden. If they mean justice and oppression, as understood by those addressed… then this is a great calamity, and a blasphemous conversation…. As for oppression, the only oppression is to forsake them in their infidelity, and not use jihad as a means to make them enter into the faith–as the Prophet did with them. [pp. 45-46]
UNIVERSAL COMMONALITIES VS. OFFENSIVE JIHAD
In fact, Offensive Jihad, something about which al-Qa’ida dissembles vis-à-vis the West, figures prominently in bin Ladin’s diatribe to the Saudi intellectuals. In 1997, a direct question was asked of bin Ladin by a Westerner: “Mr. bin Ladin, will the end of the United States’ presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States?” Bin Ladin responded:
The cause of the reaction must be sought and the act that has triggered this reaction must be eliminated. The reaction came as a result of the U.S.’ aggressive policy towards the entire Muslim world and not just towards the Arabian Peninsula. So if the cause that has called for this act comes to an end, this act, in turn, will come to an end. So, the Defensive Jihad against the U.S. does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian Peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.
However, bin Ladin’s ultimate motives became apparent after the Saudi intellectuals wrote: “Thus we say in all earnestness and plainly that we can open a mature dialogue around every issue that the West submits, ever cognizant that we share a number of understandings, moral values, rights, and ideas with the West, which, if fostered, can create a better [world] for all concerned” (p. 37)
To this “blasphemy,” bin Ladin wrote extensively:
Regarding which shared understandings, exactly, is it possible that we agree with the immoral West?… What commonalities, if our foundations contradict, rendering useless the shared extremities–if they even exist? For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law…. [T]he issues most prominent in the West revolve around secularism, homosexuality, sexuality, and atheism [p. 37]…. As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihadagainst the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover “shared understandings” between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread–in such a satanic manner as this? The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world [p. 31].
Moreover, when the Saudi intellectuals dared write: “It’s imperative that we bid all to legitimate talks, presented to the world, under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights, ushering in legislations creating peace and prosperity for the world,” [p. 31] bin Ladin lamented:
Surely there is no power save through Allah alone! We never thought that such words would ever appear from those who consider themselves adherents of this religion. Such expressions, and more like them, would lead the reader to believe that those who wrote them are Western intellectuals, not Muslims! Those previous expressions are true only by tearing down the wall of enmity from the infidels. They are also expressions true only by rejecting jihad–especially Offensive Jihad. The problem, however, is that Offensive Jihadis an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. So how can they call off this religious obligation [Offensive Jihad], while imploring the West to understandings and talks “under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights”? The essence of all this comes from right inside the halls of the United Nations, instead of the Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and humility…. Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world–that and nothing else. Not laws under the “umbrella of justice, morality, and rights” as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation. [pp. 32-33]
FREEDOM VS. TERRORISM
Al-Qa’ida has maintained that its hostilities to the West have absolutely nothing to do with the latter’s freedoms. Speaking to the Americans, bin Ladin asserted, “From the start, I tell you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life; free men do not underestimate their security–contrary to [President George W.] Bush’s claim that we hate freedom.  If so, let him explain to us why we have not attacked Sweden, for instance.” [p. 214].
Speaking to the Europeans, bin Ladin tries to define terrorism: “[W]e inform you that your description of us as ‘terrorists’ and our actions as ‘terrorism’ necessarily means that you and your actions must be defined likewise. Our actions are merely reactions to yours….” (p. 234)
Finally, bin Ladin makes it quite clear that terrorism is used only in reciprocity since al-Qa’ida has no other choice: “Shall a man be blamed for protecting his own? Self-defense and punishing the wicked in kind–are these shameful [acts of] ‘terrorism’? And even if it is, we have no other option.” (p. 216)
Taken together, all these messages assert that the terror al-Qa’ida inflicts upon the West has nothing to do with Western freedoms and everything to do with reciprocal treatment. Moreover, by stating “we have no other option” than to engage in acts of terrorism, bin Ladin clearly implies that terrorism is being relied upon as a last resort out of desperation. Thus al-Qa’ida maintains that there is no correlation between Western freedoms and Islamic terrorism–that the latter is never used simply to suppress the former.
This is not the case when addressing the Saudis. After they wrote to the Americans saying that Islam does not allow coercion in matters of religion, bin Ladin, once again, revealed his true beliefs and ultimate goals. The Saudi intellectuals had declared, “It is not permitted to coerce anyone regarding his religion. Allah Most High said: ‘There is no compulsion in religion’ [Koran 2:256]. Thus Islam itself does not comport with coercion.” (p. 40) After explaining that this verse has to do with matters of the heart and not Islam’s destiny to rule the whole world, bin Ladin quotes the Hadith:
Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: “Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!… If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them.  Call them to Islam: If they respond [i.e., convert], accept this and cease fighting them…..  If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them.  But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them.” Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue–one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice–and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword–for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live. The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42]
When the Saudi intellectuals wrote: “Man, from his very make-up, is a sacred creation. Thus it is impermissible to transgress against him, no matter what his color, race, or religion.” Bin Ladin, after mocking their language for its “UN” tone, wrote extensively:
Now, then, how can you speak about Allah without knowledge? Who told you that transgression against man is impermissible–if he is an infidel? What about Offensive Jihad? Allah Exalted, the Most High, said: “Fight them! Allah will torment them with your hands”…. [Koran 9:14] Indeed, these expressions of yours are built upon the principle of equality, as found in the charters of the United Nations, which do not distinguish [among] people, neither by way of religion nor race nor sex. Islam improves; it is not improved…. [p. 38] Furthermore, how can they [intellectuals] claim that we have no right to force a people to change its particular values, when they transgress the bounds of nature? Such are lies. 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 sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam….[p. 50] Thus they make claims and speak about Allah without understanding. They say that our sharia does not impose our particular beliefs upon others; this is a false assertion. For it is, in fact, part of our religion to impose our particular beliefs upon others. Whoever doubts this, let him turn to the deeds of the Companions when they raided the lands of the Christians and Omar imposed upon them the conditions of dhimmi[tude]. These conditions involve clothing attire, specific situations, and class distinctions known to ulamaas the pact of Omar, and they are notoriously famous. Let the signatories review them so they know that we are to force people by the power of the sword to [our] particular understandings, customs, and conditions, all in order to induce debasement and humility, just like Allah commanded when he said: “[…]until they pay the jizya by hand, in complete submission and humility.” [Koran 9:29] Now, if you are incapable of jihad and placing people into the religion, like the Companions did, your impotence does not mean that it is not a legitimate aspect of the religion. [p. 51]
As for direct support for terrorism, bin Ladin again refers to the Koran:
“Muster against them [infidels] what fighting-men and steeds of war you can, in order to strike terror in the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them whom you do not know, but Allah knows well.” [Koran 8:60] Thus whoever refuses the principle of terror[ism] against the enemy also refuses the commandment of Allah the Exalted, the Most High, and His sharia. The West prepares to defend itself in face of this extremist verse. [p. 54]
The Saudi intellectuals wrote: “Terrorism, according to the universally agreed meaning being used today, is but one of many manifestations of unjust aggression against life and property.” Bin Ladin, outraged, responds:
Behold! Today they are agreed to the meaning and definition of “terrorism” as acknowledged and agreed to by the Americans, that is, “unjust aggression against life and property.” And such acknowledgment by necessity must apply to and include the Prophet who assaulted the lives, properties, and women of the infidels, who were living in secure and settled cities. As did his Companions after him. Such aggression, as understood by the West, is not justified; nor does such hostility agree with the Western notion of “freedom of religion.” Thus our Prophet and his Companions and the righteous forefathers have all now become “terrorists.” [p. 58]
Taken together, the above three sections all demonstrate that for al-Qa’ida, hostility and violence towards the West is not merely “reciprocal treatment”–that is, “an eye for an eye”–but rather religious obligation that far transcends any and all notions of “universal justice” and claims to grievances. However, there are two more notable contradictions between what they say to the West and what they affirm to Muslims. Consider the following disparities:
TRUCE VS. TAQIYYA
On two separate occasions, al-Qa’ida, in the person of bin Ladin, has offered the West a truce. In April of 2002, bin Ladin offered European nations an apparently long-lasting truce: “I therefore offer them this peace treaty [mudabarat sulh], which essentially is a commitment to cease operations against every country that pledges not to attack Muslims or interfere in their business–including the American conspiracy against the greater Islamic world…. Stop shedding our blood and thereby save your own.” [p. 235]
In late January 2006, bin Ladin, who had not been heard from for over a year, resurfaced by way of an audio-tape and offered the Americans a truce: “So we have no qualms in offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. For we are the umma that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying.” [p. 224]
However, while Islam does permit the making of truces with infidels, it only allows this under certain conditions–namely, when Muslims are in a weakened position and unable to wage an Offensive Jihad effectively. In “Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents,” Ayman Zawahiri declares:
Whenever they are able… believers are to enjoin good and forbid evil [i.e. enforce Shari’a law]–which, by nature, is [waging Offensive] Jihad in the path of Allah and spreading the call to [conversion to the religion of] the Most High: “Those whom we have given mastery over the earth uphold prayers, render alms, enjoin good and forbid evil; Allah controls the destiny of all things” [Koran 22:41]…. Therefore if believers are weak, they are to wage jihad with their hearts and tongues; if they are able, they are to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil, fight the infidels, and spread the call of Tawhid. [pp. 150-51]
In this same treatise, Zawahiri stresses the need for deception in warfare. Based on Muhammad’s assertion–“War [is] deceit”–Zawahiri goes on to say:
Deception in warfare requires that the mujahid bide his time and wait for an opportunity against his enemy, while avoiding confrontation at all possible costs. For triumph, in almost every case, is [achieved] through deception: triumph achieved through confrontation possesses many dangers…. And in the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage. [p. 142]
More importantly, however, in Ayman al-Zawahiri’s treatise “Loyalty and Enmity,” Muslims are flat-out told that lying and dissembling in front of infidels is permitted. This is the doctrine of taqiyya (religiously sanctioned lies for purposes of self-preservation), which has plenty of Koranic but especially Hadith support. The Koran states: “Let Believers not take for friends and allies infidels rather than Believers: and who so does this shall have no relationship left with Allah–unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.” (Koran 3:28) Two of the more famous Hadiths evoked by al-Qa’ida say, “Truly, we grin to the faces of some peoples, while our hearts curse them”; and “Protection is not secured by deeds but with the tongue.” (p. 73)
Finally, there are also several Hadiths of Muhammad that justify oath-breaking. For instance, “Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] said, ‘He who takes an oath but eventually finds a better way should do that which is better and break his oath.'” (Sahih Muslim 15: 4057)
Considering that al-Qa’ida subscribes to the view that Islam must war with the non-Muslim world till the former subsumes the latter, and that they also subscribe to these doctrines of deceit, what is to be made of al-Qa’ida’s truce-offers?
WHY THE WEST IS HOSTILE TO ISLAM
As aforementioned, in their messages to the West, al-Qa’ida maintains that the former is unjust towards Islam for a plethora of reasons–Israeli interests, oil, land, and Crusader hatred being prominent among them. A quick perusal of The Al Qaeda Reader’s “Propaganda” section will clearly confirm this. Even in most of their messages to Muslims, al-Qa’ida is quick to stress these reasons in order to incite Muslims, gain their sympathy, and grow in recruits. However, in “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West,” bin Ladin changes his tune. He repeatedly states that the West is ultimately hostile to Islam because it knows that Islam is hostile to it–that “the West avenges itself against Islam for giving infidels but three options: Islam, jizya, or the sword.” (p. 42)
The West is hostile to us on account of Loyalty and Enmity, and [Offensive] Jihad…. What the West desires is that we abandon [the doctrine of] Loyalty and Enmity, and abandon [Offensive] Jihad. This is the very essence of their request and desire of us. Do the intellectuals, then, think it’s actually possible for Muslims to abandon these two commandments simply to coexist with the West? [p. 30] In fact, the West did not treat Islam in this atrocious manner until after it [first] understood the truth about Islam–comprehended its essence and soul. And the West is knowledgeable of all religions, but it would never confront any of them, nor persecute their people. But it is bent on pulverizing the Muslims, since first learning of their enterprise [Offensive Jihad and the “three choices”]. [p. 55]
RECIPROCITY OR RELIGION?
All of the above clearly demonstrates that, for al-Qa’ida, the war with the West is not finite but eternal. The current battles may ostensibly revolve around U.S. presence in Islamic lands, or support for Israel, or support for secular though dictatorial regimes, or even oil. Even so, the ultimate war does not end with a cessation of these real or perceived injustices, but rather with the West’s–indeed, the rest of the non-Islamic world’s–submission to Islam. As the words of Usama bin Ladin and Ayman al-Zawahiri–all grounded in the traditional sources of Islam–make clear, the war with the West revolves around something more transcendent than temporal grievances. It revolves around “eternal truths.”
How, then, should al-Qa’ida’s messages to the West–wholly crafted to vindicate al-Qa’ida, weaken Western resolve, and incite the umma–be taken? Should one conclude that all those grievances that al-Qa’ida cite are wholly unfounded? Not necessarily. In fact, it is precisely because the vast majority of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, not to mention a considerable number of non-Muslims, believe these grievances to be true that al-Qa’ida enjoys the apparent widespread–sympathetic if not actual–support that they receive.
All that said, Westerners should also be cognizant of what al-Qa’ida and like-minded Islamists ultimately want as the former consider the long list of alleged wrongs the Islamic world has suffered at the hands of the West. In other words, if al-Qa’ida’s arguably “just” demands are met–if the United States evacuates Iraq and Afghanistan, if the West keeps its nose out of the Islamic world’s affairs, even if Israel were to disappear–would all that be enough to satisfy al-Qa’ida and their supporters? Certainly, it would be a start. Yet based on their words and convictions that all injunctions of the Koran must be fulfilled, it is clear that, when the time is ripe, the jihad would merely shift from being Defensive to being Offensive–the latter being the true and historic manifestation of jihad.
Nor should Westerners believe that al-Qa’ida is the root of the problem. The “problem” between the West–in fact, the world–and Islam is the “radical” version of the latter articulated by al-Qa’ida but also other Islamists–past, present, and no doubt future. This is even historically demonstrable: When Hasan al-Bana and Sayyid Qutb (respectively, founder and ideologue of Egypt’s famous Muslim Brotherhood) were assassinated, that organization did not fall apart but continued thriving underground for decades until to international dismay it won a fair number of seats in Egypt’s recent elections; the Iranian Islamic Revolution did not die with its spiritual leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, but is as strong now as it was then–with the exception that its nuclear aspirations are nearly realized; after the spiritual leader of Hamas, Ahmad Yassin was assassinated, far from losing influence, Hamas won the majority of house seats in Palestine’s recent elections. Ayman al-Zawahiri summarizes this phenomenon well:
Jihad in the path of Allah is greater than any individual or organization. It is a struggle between Truth and Falsehood, until Allah Almighty inherits the earth and those who live in it. Mullah Muhammad Omar and Sheikh Osama bin Ladin–may Allah protect them from all evil–are merely two soldiers of Islam in the journey of jihad, while the struggle between Truth and Falsehood transcends time. [p. 182]
The bottom line is, perceived Western injustices–as propagated by bin Ladin’s mantras–have nothing to do with the ultimate source of hostilities between Islam and the West (Infidelity). The doctrine of Offensive Jihad, spreading the laws of Allah to every corner of the world by the sword and enforcing the practice of dhimmitude (that is, discriminating and humiliating those who, having been conquered and living under Islamic suzerainty, still do not embrace Islam officially), was and remains a basic tenant of Islam–well before it ever encountered the West:
Fight those amongst the People of the Book [Christians and Jews] who do not believe in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden [i.e. enforce Shari’a law], and who do not embrace the religion of truth [Islam], until they pay the Jizya with willing submissiveness and feel themselves utterly subdued. [Koran 9:29]
The word “until” (hata) highlights the perpetual nature of this command. Enmity for non-Muslims, irrespective of whether or not they harm the Muslim is also a basic tenant of the faith, established before Islam and the West met:
“O you who have believed! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are but friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them [i.e., he apostasies from Islam].” [Koran 5:51]
You have a good example in Abraham and those who followed him, for they said to their people, “We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.” [Koran 60:4]
It is important to keep in mind that these verses have nothing to do with reciprocity; instead they express the standard relationship between Muslims and infidels–even when the latter do not interfere in Muslims’ affairs, militarily, economically, politically, or culturally, and completely mind their own business. Moreover, such hostility is perceived as altruistic, as bin Ladin concludes: “As for oppression, the only oppression is to forsake them in their unbelief, and not launch an [Offensive] Jihad against them till they submit to the faith–as the Prophet did with them.” (p. 46)
At this point many will proclaim that al-Qa’ida is misusing, misinterpreting, or taking these otherwise straightforward verses out of context. That is hardly the point here: Even if this were true, that does not change the fact that many men before al-Qa’ida, going back to the first jihads of the seventh century, have also “misused” them, or that many today who have nothing to do with al-Qa’ida, “misinterpret them,” or ultimately that many after al-Qa’ida will also be taking them “out of context.” In other words, even if those verses really do not mean what they seem to be saying, they certainly led themselves to the sort of hostile interpretation that al-Qa’ida and other Islamists, past, present and future, give to them. This is all the more troubling since it took only 19 men who follow such “interpretations” to cause September 11.
Irrespective of real or imagined Western injustices, the real question of permanent peace revolves around the above Islamic doctrines. In this sense, then, real peace ultimately depends on Islam and how it defines itself: Either Islam will dominate the whole world fulfilling its destiny, or else Muslims themselves will reject the doctrines of jihad, dhimmitude, and general enmity for non-Muslims. The problem, however, is that even if all these divisive doctrines are formally repudiated–will that be merely a show of taqiyya, a stratagem of war?
Based purely on al-Qa’ida’s, that is, radical Islam’s, worldview, it is readily apparent that the West is given no choice but to fight–to gain the upper-hand and strive to keep it, even at the risk of being oppressive. What good are al-Qa’idist appeals to justice in face of its belief that every person has but three choices (convert to Islam, live the life of a dhimmi, or die)? What good is it telling the West that they have “choices” in face of an immutable Shari’a? What good is a truce in face of doctrines of deception?
This is unfortunate for Muslims, and in this sense al-Qa’ida’s “version” of Islam brings them more harm then good. If Islam is perceived as being intrinsically hostile to the infidel world at large–as al-Qa’ida and many other Muslim insist–all of the possibly legitimate grievances that many Muslims believe they are suffering become moot, since the West is doing what it must to stay dominant against a potentially hostile force. Thus even if Muslims are being oppressed, as long as these grievances are being articulated through an Islamic paradigm that perceives justice solely through Shari’a and not through anything universal or innate to the human condition, the West–in the interest of self-preservation as well as the preservation of freedoms–has no choice but to reject all accusations, offers, and threats from Islamists, and fight.
Indeed, according to this worldview, upheld by al-Qa’ida, where the Abode of Peace (Islam) and the Abode of War (the rest) are forever in a struggle of life and death, the West can hardly be blamed for behaving oppressively, if in fact it does, towards the Islamic world. In this context, such oppression can be understood as a sort of “preemptive” reciprocal treatment, as the argument can be made that if the West does not keep Islam suppressed, Islam will suppress it. A survival of the fittest mentality–“get them before they get us”–is the only mentality that can withstand radical Islam, as so well represented by al-Qa’ida.
In fact, bin Ladin’s many statements of reciprocity work both ways: “Shall a man be blamed for protecting his own?” “The road to safety begins by eliminating the aggression.” “Reciprocal treatment is part of justice.” “He who initiates aggression is the unjust one.” “We believe that this right to defend oneself is the right of all human beings.” “We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security.
This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live.” Ironically, every single one of these statements actually justifies Western aggression against radical Islam.
Thus, the West is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t. If the West voluntarily concedes to the demands and grievances of al-Qa’ida, it will be perceived as a weakness or an admission of defeat, and will eventually only encourage an Offensive Jihad, when the time is right. If the West actually loses the current war, that too will provoke an offensive response, one seen as the natural next stage in the struggle toward the total victory of Islam. This is an important reminder to those many who, while condemning al-Qa’ida’s methods, agree or sympathize with their grievances. The current battle at hand may ostensibly revolve around those grievances; but the forthcoming war will ultimately be about militarily establishing Islamic supremacy over the entire globe.
Some will discount this possibility as implausible since it seems so distant; but the wild vicissitudes of history are constantly proving otherwise.
Raymond Ibrahim is Associate Director of the Middle East Forum. He writes regularly about radical Islamism and is the author of The Al Qaeda Reader (Broadway, 2007), translations of religious texts and propaganda.
 Though they are representative of the entire book, many of the more revealing remarks come from “Moderate Islam is a Prostration to the West,” where Saudi bin Ladin, writing to fellow Saudis and “pouring out his heart,” unrestrainedly discusses many topics related to Islam that are otherwise taboo, especially here in the West.
 Raymond Ibrahim, The Al Qaeda Reader (New York: Broadway, 2007). Excerpts from the book are followed by the page number in the text.
 Germans in Tunisia: On April 11, 2002, a 24-year-old Tunisian man, who is suspected of spending some time in Afghanistan between 2000 and 2001, carried out a suicide operation in the Tunisian island and popular tourist destination Djerba: Fourteen German tourists, one Frenchman, and six Tunisians were killed, and 30 were wounded. French in Karachi: On May 8, 2002, a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb alongside a crowded bus in Karachi, killing 11 Frenchmen and two Pakistanis. Fifty others were wounded. French tanker in Yemen: On October 6, 2002, the Limburg, a French oil tanker carrying 397,000 gallons of crude oil stationed in the Gulf of Amen off the Yemeni coast, was rammed by an explosive-laden boat. One Bulgarian crewman died, 12 were injured, and nearly 100,000 barrels of oil leaked out. Marines in Failaka: On October 8, 2002, while U.S. marines were conducting war games on the Kuwaiti island of Failaka, two Kuwaiti nationals walked up to the troops and opened fire, killing one American and wounding two. British and Australians in Bali: On October 12, 2002, three bombs were detonated in the town of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali, killing 202 people and injuring a further 209. It is considered the deadliest act of terrorism in Indonesian history. The majority of the dead were foreign tourists, including some 88 Australians, 26 British, and 38 Indonesians. Operation in Moscow: On October 23, 2002, 40 armed Chechen rebels seized a crowded Moscow theater, taking over 700 hostages and demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces from Chechnya. After a siege of two and a half days, Russian special forces stormed the building after firing in some sort of anesthetic gas. All of the Chechen rebels were killed, along with 130 of the hostages.
 The “blessed raid” on London occurred on July 7, 2005, during rush hour and consisted of a series of coordinated suicide bombings that struck the city’s public transport system. The bombings killed 52 civilians and injured over 700.
 As far as the thirteenth century jurist Ibn Taymiyya–known as the Shaykh of Islam–is concerned, Defensive Jihad is second only after belief itself. Al-Qa’ida often quotes the following passage from Taymiyya’s fatwas to demonstrate the obligation for Muslims to join the Defensive Jihad against the United States and its allies: “Defensive warfare is the most critical form of warfare, [since we are] warding off an invader from [our] sanctities and religion. It is a unanimously accepted duty. After belief, there is no greater duty than to repulse the invading enemy who corrupts faith and the world. There are no rules or conditions for this; he must be expelled by all possible means. Our learned ulama and others have all agreed to this. It is imperative to distinguish between repulsing the invading, oppressive infidel [Defensive Jihad] and pursuing him in his own lands [Offensive Jihad].”
 This is the standard view adopted by, for instance, the Four Schools (madhahbs) of Sunni jurisprudence, and is attested by many standard works of Islamic law. For example, the Encyclopedia of Islam‘s entry on jihad simply states, “The duty of the djihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained.”
 Non-Muslims, Jews and Christians, who are “protected” in exchange for sociopolitical submission and the payment of special taxes.
 In several public addresses, the American president has often referred to al-Qa’ida and its affiliates as “enemies of freedom” and “people who hate freedom.” In his address to a joint session of Congress and the American people delivered nine days after the September 11 attacks, the president remarked, “Americans are asking, why do they [perpetrators of September 11] hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber–a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms–our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
 Bin Ladin’s position towards this verse is simply that, either it has been abrogated by the “sword verse” (Koran 9:5)–which, in fact, most ulama agree has abrogated some 120 Meccan (peaceful) verses–or else that it has nothing to do with Islam’s command to rule the world, but rather deals with freedom of conscience.
 The “pact of Umar” is the treaty that was made between the People of the Book and the second Caliph, Umar. In order to continue practicing their faiths, Christians and Jews had to agree to several social conditions enumerated in the pact that, among other things, were meant to induce humiliation and debasement in accordance with the verse cited (Koran 9:29). For instance, they were to rise from their seats if a Muslim wanted it; they were forbidden from riding on saddles or bearing any arms; they were forbidden from publicly showing their crosses or worshipping too loudly, lest Muslim eyes or ears be offended; they were forbidden from building new churches, or even repairing old ones. Some apologists maintain that these conditions were not strictly enforced at all times. However, what is important here is that “dhimmitude,” like bin Ladin asserts, is in fact a basic tenant of Islam and thus should be enforced under Shari’a law.
 In fact, Shaykh Abdallah Azzam (1941-1989), the highly influential Islamic scholar, mujahid, and bin Ladin’s onetime mentor and hero, often boastfully referred to Muhammad as, not only a terrorist, but the first terrorist: “We are terrorists. Every Muslim must be a terrorist. Terrorism is an obligation as demonstrated in the Koran and Sunna. Allah Most High said: ‘Muster against them [infidels] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the heart of your enemy and Allah’s enemy’ [Koran 8:60]. Thus terrorism is a [religious] obligation. And the Messenger of Allah is the first terrorist and the first menace” (al-Hijra wa al-I’dad). Some have accused bin Ladin of falling out and assassinating Azzam in order to assume control of the then nascent base (“al-Qa’ida”).
 Most jurists are agreed that, theoretically, ten years is the maximum amount of time for peace between Islam and infidels, based on Muhammad’s treaty of Hudaybiyya. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam, “Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.”
 For more on the topic of taqiyya, see Raymond Ibrahim, “Islam’s Doctrines of Deception,” Jane’s Islamic Affairs Analyst, September 26, 2008.
 That a bounty combined to amount nearly 100 million dollars placed on bin Ladin and Zawahiri’s heads has not been collected in one of the most impoverished regions in the world is telling enough.
 All the original Islamic texts, from Hadiths to books on Islamic law, that discuss the term “jihad,” explain it as war to simply spread Islamic authority. It was only after the Crusades and Mongol invasions that the ulama began delineating the concept of “defensive” jihad which, according to premiere jurists such as Ibn Taymiyya, is second only to faith, and obligatory on the entire Muslim umma, as opposed to offensive jihad, which is deemed a “communal duty,” or fard kifiya.
Related Topics: Radical Islam, Terrorism | Raymond Ibrahim receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free mef mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.