Articles

Sunday, October 10, 2010

It's About the Jihad, Stupid

So at long last the case of the Times Square Bomber is over and we heard it straight from the camel's mouth, that Faisal Shahzad wasn't upset over his mortgage or angry over Obamacare-- he was what he had always been, a Muslim terrorist trying to kill infidels in the name of Islam.

After the attempted attack, the liberal media insisted on painting Faisal Shahzad as a tragic victim of the mortgage crisis, suggesting that the whole "car bomb near the Lion King" matter could have been averted with more government bailouts of borrowers who weren't paying their bills. That is how the axis of liberal media responds to every act of Muslim terrorism, by blaming Republicans and offering their own policies as the solution.


Worried about airplane hijackings? Elect us, and we'll make the Muslim world love us with hearty doses of appeasement and long deep bows. Afraid of shootings at army bases, vote the right way and we'll pull out all the troops so no more kindly Muslim psychiatrists come down with secondhand PTSD. Worried about car bombs, with more socialism no one will want to car bomb Times Square anymore.

But then Faisal Shahzad ruined everything by opening his mouth. “This is but one life,” he said. “If I am given a thousand lives, I will sacrifice them all for the sake of Allah, fighting this cause, defending our lands, making the word of Allah supreme over any religion or system.”

The Judge did her usual liberal shtick, foolishly lecturing Shahzad on how moderate Islam is. She suggested that Shahzad should "spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Koran wants you to kill lots of people".

But who knows better what Islam really represents, Faisal Shahzad or Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum? Clearly Miriam thinks she knows better, as Time Magazine and Newsweek and the New York Times insist that they know Islam, better than the Muslims who keep misunderstanding what Islam really is.

But Shahzad wasn't quoting some wacky preacher living in a cave somewhere, he was quoting the Koran. The same book that Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer suggested might be illegal to burn. The same book that Democrats and many Republicans insist is really a beautiful book that teaches tolerance. Unlike Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Faisal Shahzad didn't need to spend a whole lot of time thinking about whether the Koran really wants him to kill lots of people. He could just read it...

"He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." Koran 61:9

That is the source of Faisal Shahzad's justification for his Jihad.

But surely this lovely verse has nothing to do with violence, you might say. It just means that Muslims should go out and persuade people that Islam is the only true religion. That sounds convincing, doesn't it?

Except Koran 61 is titled, "Al-Saff" or "Ranks, Battle Array". That title comes from verse 61:4 which proclaims, "Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array". The next two verses go on to curse the Jews, like Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, for their unbelief.

Two verses down from Faisal Shahzad's quote, the Koran promises Muslims a way to save themselves from hell. What's their "Get Out of Hell" free card? "That ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons." The Arabic word used for "strive" is, "watujahidoona" or "You will make Jihad".

Yes. It's the Jihad, stupid.

Faisal Shahzad didn't lose his home to foreclosure because of the injustice of the American banking system. He gave up his home to foreclosure because he was using that money to build a bomb instead. This wasn't some sort of radicalization in response to failure, it was a plan all along.

He led the facade of a normal life. He got a good job and a mortgage. He had a line of credit. And he had Facebook. And then right after he got US citizenship, he quit his job, went to Pakistan for explosives training, and the Times Square Car bombing was set into motion. He didn't lose his home, he abandoned it. The home and the job, and the rest of the facade of the American Dream was a sham, a disguise. Just like the 9/11 hijackers.

Faisal Shahzad was carrying out the words of the Koran, to use his property and person to carry on the Jihad against the unbelievers. His property and money were assets in a religious war.

The media refuses to understand that. Even the judge sentencing him refuses to understand that. Instead Faisal Shahzad is being treated like some sort of stupid child who doesn't know his own religion, even though he has practiced it all his life and probably knows the entire Koran by heart.

Isn't presuming to know what Islam is about better than Muslims do, the same kind of arrogance toward the Muslim world that liberals routinely accuse America of? And doesn't that drive Muslims toward greater acts of terror just to define clearly what Islam really is? In the words of the Ayatollah Khomeni; "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!"

That is the great liberal farce, in which liberals begin by lecturing Americans on what Islam really is, and then conclude by lecturing Muslims on what Islam really is. And the Muslims laugh in their faces, when they aren't blowing them off. Liberals haven't convinced very many Americans that Islam is a religion of peace, and they certainly aren't going to convince very many Muslims.

Here is the ugly truth about Faisal Shahzad. He was practicing his religion. Just like a Catholic accepting communion or a Jew praying in the morning. Because his form of religious practice is illegal in America, Faisal Shahzad was obligated to practice it covertly. As countless other Muslims in America, Canada, Australia and Israel practice it covertly, giving money to terrorists or training as terrorists themselves.


To justify their policies, the left and much of the right presents a completely distorted image of Islam to the country. Distorted because it is missing its most basic ingredient, Jihad. Without Jihad there would be no Islam. The story of the Koran is the story of Jihad. It is the story of Mohammed's rise to power by making war on all non-Muslims.

Faisal Shahzad, like most Muslims, knew that. And practiced it. You can complain about that, but you are only complaining about his religion. And it is the religion that is the problem here, not Faisal Shahzad.

The media and the politicians can pretend that Faisal is some sort of aberration, but he's not. He was only a young Muslim man who wanted to practice his religion and get to heaven. The problem is that the Koran proclaims that to get to heaven, he has to step over the bodies of infidels. And we are a country of infidels. Which means that perhaps it's time we consider that it may not be in our interest to have people who practice this religion inside our borders. Because cleaning up after them is expensive and painful. And because it's not about the banking policies or our foreign policy-- it's about the Jihad, stupid.

22 comments:

foxmuldar said...

Another fine piece of writing by the Sultan. If Only the New York times gave you a weekly column to post your thoughts. But we know thats not going to happen. The Times and others like them don't want the real truth about Islam to be provided to the American Public. I'm glad I found your blog. Enjoy reading it when I can.

Thanks

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

thank you fox, the new york times is on its way out, we're moving beyond the old media, to a new frontier of information

Paul said...

Tell it like it is once again. And the Sultan is certainly bending to explain that " ... much of the right ... " along with the left present a completely distorted view of Islam. Yes, the "left" and the "right" have many things in common. It is all too frequently the best strategy to take them both on at the same time.

noboat1 said...

The 20/20 program "Should We Fear Isalm" sickened me to watch, Diane Sawyer defending these people even after she showed a clip of some immam in London stating that they would not stop until the Islamic flag was flying over the White House. How much clearer does it have to be? As far as I'm concerned we are at war with Islam and we definitely need to consider who's inside our borders.

eagle said...

Nothing so refreshing as hearing a spade get called a spade.

Anonymous said...

I read on Fox news this morning where Carl Paladino made "anti-gay" remarks during his speech to some orthodox Jewish leaders. His remarks were labeled inappropriate in light of the recent attacks on a gay man and a gay teen. His remarks were considered out of the mainstream. He said that he didn't believe that children should be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is a valid lifestyle choice. So to state that the gay lifestyle is wrong leads to violent attacks, right? Paladino also said he doesn't advocate attacking gays.

Bear with me I am going to make a point. You can probably see where I'm going with this.

A few years ago there was a bombing at an abortion clinic in Alabama. I happened to be living in Alabama at the time and so it was huge news. The news media fell all over themselves trying to establish a link between pro-life "rhetoric" and violence against abortion doctors and clinic bombings. The nurse who was severely injured made a statement to that affect and said that anti abortion bigotry would not stop her from continuing her important work.

But, whenever it comes to violence perpetrated by Islamists that is an entirely different story. We're supposed to believe that the violent rhetoric spouted by these maniacs is not a contributing factor in the attacks they carry out. This peaceful religion has been hijacked by people who don't understand how benign the Koran really is.

You remember the story about the guy in Colorado who displayed his artwork with Jesus in a compromising position with another man? A woman attempted to destroy the display. The artist then went on record saying that Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and a few others I can't remember, all preached peace and tolerance. So this woman who destroyed his artwork (who was a Christian by the way) wasn't following these great leaders' teachings. Muhammad? taught peace? Yeah, right. All of a sudden Christians are dangerous and violent because of this one act of vandalism. I, for one think she should be prosecuted for what she did.

Sorry to be so lengthy. For the record I agree with Carl Paladino but I don't know much more about him. I do think he's brave to take the stand he did and I hope he gets elected.

Thanks

Debra

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

well defying political correctness tends to be a political risk

Marc said...

It's all about sharia!

Download and read, "The Team B II Report, Shariah: The Threat to America"

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml

Anonymous said...

Okay it is about Jihad, so what should the West and Israel do?

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

see final paragraph...

"The media and the politicians can pretend that Faisal is some sort of aberration, but he's not. He was only a young Muslim man who wanted to practice his religion and get to heaven. The problem is that the Koran proclaims that to get to heaven, he has to step over the bodies of infidels. And we are a country of infidels. Which means that perhaps it's time we consider that it may not be in our interest to have people who practice this religion inside our borders"

Miriam said...

Anonymous said...
Okay it is about Jihad, so what should the West and Israel do?

1) Scrupulously uphold existing laws and parameters in all public places and government institutions. Absolutely NO special dispensations for Sharia law.

2) Enact laws that allow for protection against and prosecution of those who threaten and intimidate people because they 'insulted Islam'. There are laws like this for other threats (abortion clinics got a law passed to prosecute those that threaten them - even verbally).

3) This one is harder because it involves people and institutions in general: Start excercising free speech - put up generic pictures of Mohammed and refuse to take them down. Critique the religion in public, like other religions are critiqued.

4) Enforce law and order in areas where Sharia has taken hold, and ensure that it does not spread. This means cracking down on domestic violence, honor killings, forced marriages, FGM of girls, military training compounds of ex-felons, etc.

5) Stop the support of Muslim Brotherhood fronts like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, etc.

6) Expose the Saudi/Wahabi funding of Mosques and University departments. Expose the hate literature used in teaching at Islamic children's schools in the West.

7) Stop coddling fake moderates (Faisal Rauf, Tarik Ramadan, etc) and start supporting real moderates (Nonie Darwish, Zudhi Jasser, etc). Protect the moderates, so that more feel safe enough to speak out.

8) Promote awareness of 'stealth jihad' among those policy makers and military leaders, so that they see beyond al-Qaeda to other types of threats that are taking place under our noses and here in the West.

9) Start asking for reciprocity when Muslim institutions are built in the West with foreign funding - a mosque here, a church/interfaith NGO/human rights organization there.

10) Start passing congressional resolutions that stop the US Gov't from dealing with foreign entities that bar women, bar those who have visited Israel, bar those who aren't Muslim, etc.

Well, there's a start. I'm sure I'll think of more as soon as I press 'submit'.

.

Miriam said...

.
11) Don't give 'religious visas' to those who preach radicalism and intolerance, or anti-democratic statements. Flag and track radicals already here in the U.S., both citizens (like the ft Hood shooter and Faisal Shahzad) and non-citizens.
.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

all very good points and doable

Paul said...

Miriam,

I agree with all your ideas except,

7) Stop coddling fake moderates (Faisal Rauf, Tarik Ramadan, etc) and start supporting real moderates (Nonie Darwish, Zudhi Jasser, etc). Protect the moderates, so that more feel safe enough to speak out.

8) Promote awareness of 'stealth jihad' among those policy makers and military leaders, so that they see beyond al-Qaeda to other types of threats that are taking place under our noses and here in the West.

9) Start asking for reciprocity when Muslim institutions are built in the West with foreign funding - a mosque here, a church/interfaith NGO/human rights organization there.

Supporting "moderate" Muslims is a futile move. Such a move does nothing to speak to the broader Muslim population in Muslim countries. It does no good to preach to Muslims about their own religion. This only plays into the hands of Muslims who are more dedicated students of their own religion. The problem with Islam is not the suppression of "moderates" it is the Koran itself. Without the Koran, there is no Islam, and the Koran is the source of the violence. All Muslims are "stealth" Muslims, it is a vain hope to depend on "moderate" Muslims to protect us from the more passionate ones.

In the same spirit, it makes no sense to insist on reciprocity for mosques built in the US. Our seperation of church and state makes it legally impossible to do such a thing, else we could just as easily confront many other religions, not just Islam.

Keli Ata said...

Noboat1--the Islamic flag might not be flying over the White House but Islam is being practiced right in the Oval Office, sadly.

OT comment about the NYC bomber--Jihadist might have tried that in Israel but Israelis are far more terrorism conscious than Americans. I've read many Israeli blogs and they definitely are more alert and aware.

Even after 9/11 Americans are lax.

I have no idea why more people aren't enrolling in CERT courses.

Mo said...

Thank you so much for this article! The point about the arrogance of liberals constantly telling us they know what Islam teaches better than Muslims do was one I hadn't thought of before, at least not in this way. Excellent!


I will be passing this along.

Anonymous said...

Here are some interesting ideas of what to do about Islam in the west

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=12878

Miriam said...

Paul,

We can argue back and forth about specific policy proposals, but at some point we need to decide on a broad based approach and put it into action.

As an analogy: Doctors can and do make mistakes when trying to figure out how to treat a gravely ill patient. Medicine is not an exact science - alot of what we learn is through trial and error.

However, everyone would agree that the worst approach by far would be to stand by and let a sick person die, because doctors wanted to stand on the side and debate endlessly over specific points, while, in fact, doing nothing.

So, your critiques are taken respectfully, however, the larger point is - are we taking a coordinated policy approach to this critical issue (perhaps learning as we go along which approach works best), and if not - why?

.

noboat1 said...

Keli Ata- I know it is, you're exactly right we saw it at Ramadon, hopefully you know what I meant.

noboat1

Paul said...

Miriam,

I agree completely, something has to be done and debate is a leisurely activity. Taking the medical analogy further, part of the problem is that not everybody believes that the patient is sick at all and that those worrying about the patient are the ones needing treatment.

The Europeans frequently take the point of view that this is similar to the confrontation with Communism and Nazism. The problem there is that Islam has been around a lot longer than either Communism or Nazism. Europe has an old relationship with Islam and it is certainly a symptom of the problem that the Europeans can't take this history as evidence of the hazard of trusting Muslim communities to grow to dominance anywhere in Europe. But now it is obvious that this is no longer just a European problem and not just a problem for the US either. It is a global problem and the unwillingness of too many countries to come to terms with the foundations of the problem is also global. Before Islam can be successfully confronted, the reason for this must be determined.

Confronting Islam in the US must start with spreading the word about the truth of what Islam represents and this is easy enough by way of Muslim scripture. The Koran is the most compelling evidence of the threat of Islam. While we must respect the freedom of religion, we are not legally required to ignore such hard evidence of a potential threat of even a religious organization. We are constantly policing against cults that draw people in and rob them and drive them to suicide. Just recently we saw a group of immigrants who were off to the desert to commit suicide. We can legally restrict the movements of such religious organizations and have done so.

Anonymous said...

Here are a couple of articles that begin to look at what can be done.


http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2008/05/counterjihad-vienna-2008.html

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/recommendations-for-west.html

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/060813_disconnect.htm
http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2006/07/14/connecting_the_dots_on_islam

HermitLion said...

Worried about car bombs? with more socialism no one will be able to afford a car anymore.

That line was begging to be written :)

Post a Comment