‘There was no Muslim terrorism in the UK until Iraq’ – Oxford imam
May 23, 2013
A police forensics officer investigates a car at a crime scene where one man was killed in Woolwich, southeast London May 22, 2013.(Reuters / Stefan Wermuth)
British Muslims “disown” the Woolwich murderers, and such extremists should be “totally demolished” in UK society – but in order to do that, the UK must change its “illegal” foreign policy, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation Dr. Taj Hargey told RT.
The beheading of a UK soldier near the Woolwich army barracks in southeast London on Wednesday has shocked the country, and was condemned as “horrific” and “sickening” by UK officials. “Strong indications” the murder was connected to terrorism and Islamic extremism were also noted by UK Prime Minister David Cameron.
But the Muslim community in the UK had never known such brutal terrorist attacks until the UK’s previous government drew Britain into overseas conflicts in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, and started “slavishly following” US policies, Dr. Hargey explained.
RT:Do you agree with the allegations that the attackers’ actions were inspired by radical Islam?
Dr. Taj Hargey: We need firstly to condemn this murder in the strongest possible terms, and to send condolences to the victim’s family and the loved ones. Yes, I think there is an element of that… But it’s not just Islamic fundamentalism, there is also a linkage, I believe, between what Tony Blair did with his illegal war in Iraq and subsequent slavish following of US policy. I mean, there was no Muslim terrorism in the United Kingdom until Blair went illegally into Iraq. And I think we need to admit and to acknowledge that fact… not just to blame it on Islamic fundamentalism.
RT:One witness report is saying one of the meat cleaver killers was seen in the local community days before “preaching hatred.” From what you see and hear around you – how widespread are radical sentiments among Muslims in Britain?
TH: I think, they are most probably recent, or new Muslim converts, they are fundamentalists, this brand of Islam is attractive to them. I don’t think they were born Muslims, these two people, I would be very surprised if they were. But what is important to remember is that they are being breast-fed on this… Islamic extremism and radicalism – that the only way to deal with the situation is by violence. All integrated British Muslims know that, although we are against British foreign policy, we can protest legitimately and through democratic means – you do not have to slaughter someone in the streets of London.
RT:When it comes to the Muslim community in the United Kingdom, some refer to an ‘outspoken minority but a silent majority.’ Isn’t there a responsibility for the majority to step up and do something about this?
A woman looks at floral tributes placed near the scene of the killing of a British soldier in Woolwich, southeast London May 23, 2013.(Reuters / Luke MacGregor)
TH: Absolutely, and I think it’s high time that the majority came out of the woodwork, so to speak. They have to put their heads above the parapet, we need to confront these radicals and extremists. Now, where is this extremism coming from? It is coming from the philosophies, like the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the Salafis in Syria.
We need to tackle this – this type of imported virus is coming from the Muslim heartland, it’s got no place in a Western society, or in the United Kingdom. So yes, it is up to the majority to take on this minority. The minority is very few – I wouldn’t put them more than 1 or 2 percent of the population, and their ideology and philosophy must be totally demolished. It must be shown not have anything to do with Islam.
RT:What can the UK authorities do to protect the people and to prevent such attacks from happening in the future?
TH: The United Kingdom must look at the causes of this. I think that for us just to deal with the aftereffects of this slaughter in Woolwich is nonsense – we need to look at what is causing this. It is clearly UK forces in places like Afghanistan, and the UK’s blind support for US policy with the Somalia, or Yemen, or Syria, or wherever else. We need to take stock of that, we can’t just expect that we are blameless. And I think once the United Kingdom takes stock of this and sees how to be an impartial actor on the world’s stage, that would be a big step forward.
RT:We’ve already seen anti-Muslim protests in London in the aftermath of the attack, do you think there’s a danger of a significant growth in anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment?
TH: Absolutely. Last week, as you know, we had this issue of Muslim pedophile gangs… in Oxford – they were convicted, thankfully. So, last week it’s pedophilia, this week it’s terrorism – so there is an escalating tendency to label all Muslims either as terrorists or pedophiles. So the right-wing British national party, and English Defence League, and other fascist groups are obviously taking advantage of this.
So it’s incumbent on the mainstream majority Muslims to tackle this, and say, firstly, we disassociate ourselves totally from all forms of pedophilia, and, secondly, terrorism is not part of Islam. And whatever is engaging in violent bloodshed and terrorist activities – we disown you, and you can’t do that in our name… You don’t kill someone in the name of God, Islam condemns that… it’s pure blasphemy.
From Kinana of Khaybar --five postings on a thread at another site, on the Matter of England, or rather, On What's The Matter With England, and Why Is Mehdi Hasan and his ilk allowed to disseminate his nonsense and lies?
#1.
Mehdi Hasan is a relentless and vigorous propaganda jihadist in the U.K., whose every word is directed to one purpose, and that is the promotion and defense of Islam, requiring the "struggle" against disbelief and disbelievers, whilst presenting as though he were a "moderate".
Mehdi Hasan is the liar who was caught on a recording citing the Quran and referring to disbelievers--atheists and others--as "cattle," then tried to wriggle out of it with deceptive gymnastics, smoke and mirrors, etc.
No surprises that this con artist would remove important parts of verse 5:32 about "mischief/corruption," just like all the liars do. They want you to believe it is peaceful, when they know it is not, as proved by the parts they intentionally hide. They know the vast majority of the public doesn't have the time or interest to check the original sources. They are doing their duty to Allah (and to themselves and their ummah) in presenting a pleasant face to the infidels, all the while intending--like the majority of Muslims as polled--to impose sharia.
_____________________________________________
#2.
British mainstream media:
"Uh oh! A British soldier has been killed by an Islamic extremist who has nothing to do with Islam. Quick--we must save Islam! Let's get as many Muslim apologists as we can to come on and deluge the general public with Islamic propaganda."
_____________________________________________
#3
The Western mainstream media are mostly the propaganda megaphones of the mainstream political parties. In the U.K. (and elsewhere in the West), they are attempting to prevent non-Muslims from doing anything to contain and remove the large-scale (and growing) dangerous and costly Muslim presence in their country. In this case, the pro-Islam, pro-Islamic immigration Telegraph is using Mehdi Hasan to convey pacifying, soothing deceptions about Islam in order to prevent non-Muslims from perceiving the full scope of the Muslim population problem in the U.K. (And Mehdi Hasan, of course, as someone who wants to defend and promote Islam in the U.K., is using them too).
This latest barbaric jihadist attack is merely one of the side effects of having a sufficiently large Muslim population in the midst of a host non-Muslim population--you get increased violent crimes, systematic rape of non-Muslim girls, gangs, no-go zones for non-Muslims, enormous strain on the welfare system, exploitation of family reunification immigration to transfer foreign Muslim communities into Britain, separate Islamic schools, astronomical (and unsustainable) costs in security/policing/intelligence to defend against all possible terrorist plots, and so on.
Doubly insane is maintaining and increasing that Muslim population in one's midst whilst waging warfare against Muslims in a Muslim country. Imagine if, during WW II, Britain maintained within itself a large population of Nazis, subsidized them, and allowed huge numbers of them to flow into the country every year.
This evil, lying Mehdi Hasan, in his article praising Islam and attacking and mocking the British people, writes:
"Some cut and paste verses from the Koran out of context;"
Right after this liar took a verse (5:32) inappropriately out of context, and deceptively removed the most important part of the verse in order to change the meaning perceived by his naive readers.
"...others unthinkingly demand “reform” of Islam."
Sure, why would anyone need to reform Islam? It's perfect as it is, right Mehdi? Of course, non-Muslims cannot realistically wait around for Muslims to reform Islam. But the acknowledgement on the part of Muslims that Islam is in need of reform would at least show a recognition that there is a problem.
"Few want to discuss the role of British foreign policy in helping to radicalise these young, disaffected individuals."
The two, of the one-two punch. Yesterday we get jihadists hacking apart an unsuspecting off-duty British soldier, today we get Mehdi Hasan relaying their propaganda that the British are not allowed to defend themselves militarily from the Muslims who attacked them and initiated the conflict in the first place.
I investigated this "corruption/mischief" (fasad) business [in 5.33] several years ago. There is no definitive, clear answer to what exactly mischief/corruption refers to, if we try for ourselves to derive answers from the Quran, Hadith, and Sira. The Qur'an is what it is, and usually it is vague...which is why Muslim scholars turn to the Hadith and Sira. As you note Ibn Kathir (and others) sums it up in general terms, i.e., it is opposition to Islam and expression of disbelief, in one form or another. Specifically, in 5:32-33, it is referring to the spreading of this fasad in the land, i.e., spreading it in the society. What's the worst thing you can do, according to the Qur'an? Disbelief of, and expression of disbelief of, Islam. Hence, it would be reasonable to infer from this that the worst forms of spreading fasad would be promoting blasphemy and publicly expressing blasphemy, promoting apostasy or publicly declaring apostasy, and proselytizing to Muslims to convert them out of Islam or to promote other religions in a Muslim society. In short, any public expressions against Islam would be major forms (though not the only forms) of fasad. That is probably why all Muslim-majority countries have some laws restricting critical or "insulting" expressions about Islam and Muhammad.
The underlying question here is What according to Islam is a "just cause" (see below) for killing someone?
To cut to the chase here, the (practical) answer to that, for us today, lies in Islamic law and what Muslims actually believe and practice today. In various Islamic countries, there are legal punishments, up to and including death, for the following persons:
-Sane adult male who leaves Islam publicly and does not repent.
-Someone who blasphemes Islam or Muhammad.
-Gays and lesbians.
-Adulterers.
-"Sorcerers"/"witches"/"charlatans".
-Any able-bodied adult non-Muslim male of sound mind in a non-Muslim population who refuses the formal invitation to embrace Islam when it is offered to that non-Muslim population, prior to jihad warfare being declared on that non-Muslim population.
-a dhimmi who breaks certain critical aspects of the dhimma pact (e.g., insults Muhammad, married a Muslim woman, etc.).
-Someone who intentionally kills a Muslim.
This is not a complete list, and not all Islamic countries today have punishments for every "crime" listed above, but all have some punishments for insulting/ criticizing Islam, and most have some punishments for the other items on the list.
5:33 actually gives a range of punishments, and the least of the punishments is banishment (which can also mean banishment from the society, i.e., prison).
Once we take the Quran, hadith, Islamic law, and mainstream Muslim opinion into account, we can infer what mainstream Muslims tend to think fasad (mischief/corruption) is, based on the punishments. For example, 5:32 implies it's wrong to kill someone except as punishment for killing or for mischief/corruption. Mischief/corruption (fasad) then must be, at minimum, whatever Muslims think is justifiably punishable by death. The Quran with the Hadith (emphasis on the Hadith, because the Quran is often not clear) gives the death penalty for the above things I listed. Hence, a Muslim who thinks public apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, homosexuality, etc., are each worthy of the death penalty, to maintain a logically consistent view, would have to view these as fitting in the category of "mischief/corruption" (fasad) of 5:32. According to 5:32, only killing or fasad are justifications for killing. Hence, fasad must include the other death penalty offenses including apostasy, blasphemy, adultery, etc.
The Qur'an also says killing is forbidden, except for a "just cause" (e.g., 17:33). From the rest of the Qur'an, we can begin to glean what is considered by its authors to be a just cause. For example, killing people in religiously-motivated warfare is obviously a "just cause," otherwise Allah wouldn't be ordering Muslims to do it (as in 9:29). Killing people who kill Muslims (4:92-93, 9:13, 4:75, 3:140-145) is also considered justified killing (as the verse cited by the jihadist yesterday, 9:36, indicates, also 2:190-195). Eye for an eye, life for a life, is justified killing (5:45). 22:39-45 says it is permissible to kill those who have "wronged" and killed or persecuted Muslims. Ergo, fasad must include all these other behaviours and expressions deemed by Muslims to be worthy of the death penalty of deadly warfare.
It is difficult to see how all of this would not be applicable, at least in principle, to yesterday's slaughter, by Muslims who take the verses of warfare seriously today. It's pretty basic: We are killing Muslims in Muslim countries, thus violating any Islamic notion of treaty, thus making us, collectively, as far as Muslims are concerned, liable to be attacked by Muslims at any time, wherever they find us. Other Muslims choose to deny this or engage in propaganda jihad thinking that that is more prudent.
I don't know anything about this Uri Savir save that he was an Israeli negotiator of the disastrous Oslo Accords, and is president of the Peres Center for Peace. That's all I need to know. That explains everything. Instead of wanting to see Syria sink into a long-term morass, instead of seeing what profit can be derived from world-without-end conflict in Syria, this Uri Savir wants the West (and of course Israel) to end the conflcit, and what's more, to "reconstruct" Syria. He's mad. How are such people created? What gives them their mental makeup?
No Syrian regime can be worse than this one, with the biggest chemical and non-conventional arms arsenals in the Arab world.
A fighter from the Islamist Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra Photo: REUTERS
Yemen produces coffee, Egypt cotton... Palestine oranges, and Syria trouble.
This understatement comes from John Gunther, the American author of the popular series Inside Asia. Since its independence in 1946, Syria has been a theater of confrontation between ethnic and religious groups and a battlefield for outside Arab powers to gain influence in the socalled “mother of Arab nationalism.”
Syria has been governed since 1971 by the Alawite minority that constitutes only 10 percent of its population. The Assads – father and son – while propagating a blend of Arab socialism (the Ba’ath) and nationalism, enforced one of the most brutal dictatorial regimes, not only abusing human rights, but committing massive atrocities and massacres against their own population.
In February 1982, Hafez Assad had more than 20,000 of his countrymen killed, supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, in Hama, in a period of one month. Few would have predicted that his Western-educated son, Bashar, would become an even more horrendous murderer – close to 100,000 Syrians have lost their lives in the current civil war, many if not most at the hands of Assad’s military.
The opposition to Assad, which first expressed itself in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring but was then confronted by the Syrian Army, has not been able to bring down this dictator, unlike in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. Today we are witnessing a bloody battle without a winner or an end in sight, with a world community standing by in paralysis.
Syria is indeed too fragmented a society to look for a clear-cut solution. Yet this bloodletting must stop, and this dictatorship must go. The endgame to this war is of great importance to the future of Syria and the region.
The West, led by the United States, must look for a sustainable solution for the day after, taking into consideration the complexity of Syrian society. The Syrian battlefield is clearly not a “Western” bad guy/good guy story, but a Byzantine Middle Eastern gambit. On this Levantine field of confrontation, the Alawite ruling minority is still backed by most of the army (although hundreds of officers have defected), most of the army leadership is Alawite and most will not jump ship for fear of revenge. Although Assad’s regime is relatively secular, its main backing comes from fundamentalist Islamic forces, led by Iran (Hezbollah) and the Shi’ites of Iraq. Iran sees in Syria its principal ally in its aspiration for regional dominance also vis-à-vis Lebanon and the Gulf.
Assad is still backed by Russia and China, which veto Security Council resolutions against Damascus and refuse to join in the international community’s sanctions. The Russians even continue to supply sophisticated missiles to Assad.
Most of the Arab world rejects Assad and has expelled his government from the Arab League. The opposition to Assad is mostly Sunni (70% of Syrians with 10% of Kurds) and is today organized as the Syrian National Coalition, which was already recognized by the Gulf states as the legitimate government.
Its military wing is the Free Syrian Army, formed by various opposition factions and many defecting army officers. Its military activity is decentralized, yet has headquarters in Turkey. Many civilians have joined its ranks in order to defeat Assad and his army.
The opposition is also joined by radical Islamist forces, such as the Iraqi-linked Jabhat al-Nusra, among the most aggressive and violent fighters. The Syrian National Coalition and the Free Syrian Army are backed by most Arab countries, including Islamic Egypt, and by the international community.
While Assad’s army is armed by Iran and Russia, and helped by Hezbollah, the Free Syrian Army lacks arms and support. The West, led by the United States, is horrified by the humanitarian tragedy, bewildered by the complexity of civil war and paralyzed by a lack of clear strategy. There also seems to be no easy way, if at all, to intervene militarily, as was done in Libya, to overthrow the regime. Assad has proven more resilient and ruthless than predicted and threatens to use chemical weapons. His hold on Syria is shrinking but his coalition is more united than the opposition.
The onus is on the Obama administration.
It must forge a strategy, not only for “victory,” but for a sustainable solution for Syria’s future. For that it must look at the economy of the country, without which there can be no long-term stability.
Syria is completely devastated and its bigger cities are destroyed. All infrastructure has been severely damaged – roads and bridges, water pipes, the oil industry, hospitals and schools, etc. This has brought the economy to a standstill with over 50% unemployment, galloping inflation and a sharp depreciation of the Syrian pound.
The biggest cost is the human one – almost 100,000 killed, millions injured and maimed, approximately 1.5 million have become refugees in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan. Much of the magnificent cultural heritage has been destroyed; mosques and churches have not been spared. The GDP of Syria decreases every year by 18%, the net foreign assets in Syria are down from $18 billion in 2010 to $2b. in 2012, also a result of the international sanctions. Today’s Syria is the Somalia of the Middle East.
If stability is to be restored in Syria, then, beyond the necessary regime change, there must be an international effort for the reconstruction of the country, with a new and appropriate governance structure.
This requires a long-term strategic outlook and policy by the West, led by the United States, to be agreed upon by the Syrian National Coalition. It should be composed of the following elements: • An internal pact by the Syrian National Coalition, bridging internal differences and reaching out to all ethnic groups and minorities in the country. Internal unity within the main opposition group is key. It must be based on a new commitment to a free Syria, with pluralistic governance, respect for women, religious minorities, economic transparency and accountability.
It should include a Syrian plan for the social and economic reconstruction of the country (the existing generic economic plan of the Syrian National Coalition is insufficient).
The Alawites should be included once Assad is out of power, and vengeance should not be tolerated. Syrian nationalism can and will coexist with Islam, but not the Iranian-exported fundamentalism. Simultaneously, terrorism and its perpetrators must be outlawed, Hezbollah and al-Qaida alike.
In favor of stability, government institutions must be planned, which should include professionals with economic and international know-how, of which Syria has plenty. This is particularly true for the establishment of a reconstruction agency and internal reconciliation body, learning from the South African model.
• On the basis of such a program for a new Syria, by Syrians, the international community has to plan its reconstruction program according to some basic guidelines: – Secret negotiations to be conducted with the Syrian National Coalition as to a plan of governance, with pluralism, transparency and accountability. Turkey should be involved as the Turkish model of more pragmatic Islam is the appropriate one. The Syrians must make a strategic chose between Turkey and Iran.
– Given an agreement on governance, the Syrian Free Army should be armed by NATO to assist in the downfall of Assad.
– In parallel, a donor mechanism should be established for the socioeconomic reconstruction of Syria. It should include the Friends of Syria framework together with Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing cannot be left out of the planning of Syria, despite current support for Assad.
– In parallel to the governments, the international private sector should be involved as an important partner to donor institutions.
Infrastructure and consultancy companies can assist in the planning of reconstruction efforts.
– The areas of reconstruction should include: a) Infrastructure repair and development, including energy, transportation and water; b) Rehabilitation of the education and health systems; c) Absorption and rehabilitation of refugees; d) Reconstruction of the tourism industry around Syria’s special archeological and coastal sites; e) The establishment of a Syrian investment agency that will be able to work with the international private sectors; f) Establishment of a chamber of commerce to reinvigorate international trade; g) Creation of professional training programs, especially to retrain fighters for civilian jobs and for the training of young women; and h) Establishment of more effective local government.
Such a plan and process that includes new governance and reconstruction should be presented publicly and in detail. The Syrian people should know the alternatives before them – either the continuation of dictatorial brutality by the minority regime, backed and infiltrated by fundamentalist radical Islamists, or an inclusive government, more modern, effective and open, with good relations with the West. There is little doubt what they will opt for. That will be the basis for a new program and partnership between the international community and Syria.
As for Israel, we can make no difference in the civil war, and should coordinate policies with the United States and Turkey. No Syrian regime can be worse than this one, with the biggest chemical and nonconventional arms arsenals in the Arab world, the arming of Hezbollah, the hosting of other terror groups, the alliance with Tehran and the mass murder of its own people.
The writer is president of the Peres Center for Peace and served as Israel’s chief negotiator for the Oslo Accords. Barbara Hurwitz edited this column.
In The Telegraph, that good old reliable apologist, the meretricious and oleaginous Mehdi Hasan (who has managed to make himself into that appetizing thing, the "political director of the Huffington Post UK) trots out the same verse from the Qur'an - (there are really less than a half-dozen deceptively soothing verses in the Qur'an , with the one about "there is no compulsion in religion" and 5.32 being the favorites)f) -- that is, 5.32, which appears to be a denunciation of killing. Now I won't bother to list all the verses, the more than 100 verses, in the sections of the Qur'an that are later, and hence not to be abrogated (that is, subject to "naskh" or abrogation, as the most peaceful verses, which appear in earlier suras, so often are), that are all about killing Infidels and seizing their property and women. I will stick here to the most obvious remark, which is that 5.32 can only be read with the verse that immediately follows, 5.33, which gives 5.32 a completely different significance.
Mehjdi Hasan in his Telegraph article does exactly what all the Muslim apologists do when they speak or write, for an audience of non-Muslims whom they hope are still uninformed about Islam -- the apologists who appear after every atrocity committed by Muslims. Apparently there may still be some non-Muslims who are still taken in. Why, the same invocation of 5.32 without 5.33 occurred just a few weeks ago, in Boston, after the Marathon atrocity, with the carefully-vetted for his "moderation" Muslim representative at an "Interfaith Service" quoting 5.32 and leaving out the key modifying clause of 5.33.
This has happened so many times, in the last decade or so, that one can hardly stand having to make the point yet again. But again it will have to be made.
Here's the re-posted article:
Qur'an 5.32 But Not 5.33, Or, Kitman At The Cathedral
The same text,but a different title. I'm trying to be Google's Little Helper, just in case someone uses "5.32 But Not 5.33." And though I think Taqiyya is perhaps more widely known, Kitman also characterizes the Muslim speaker's performance, and besides, it alliterates with "cathedral."
At That Interfaith Service In Boston, The Muslim Representative Clutches At His Deceptive Straw And His Taqiyya Should Be The Talk Of The Town
The Muslim representative who showed up at the Cathedral in South Boston -- I remember it well from when a friend of mine became a Deacon, and Sean O'Malley was the presiding bishop -- for the "Interfaith Service" -- had a hard row to hoe. How could he, after all, quote much from the Qur'an, or tell a tale from the Hadith, when so much of both are full of hatred toward non-Muslims, violence, and aggression? So he did what Muslims who are slyly defending the faith do when they want to pretend that Islam is "just like all other faiths." But Islam is not. It is an aggressive and warlike doctrine, and its hero worthy of emulation, its Perfect Man, was a warrior who took women and made them his sex slaves (and allowed his men to take their share), and attacked innocent farmers (the Khaybar Oasis) in order to seize their property (and allowed his men to take their share), and took part in military campaigns in order to subdue all those who refused willingly to be subdued.
So what's a sly Muslim to do?
Only this: repeat, over and over, Qur'an 5.32, a passage lifted entirely from the Mishnah of the Jews.
Had that been all, had 5.32 stood, unmodified, that at least would have been something, a straw to clutch at.
But the Qur'an, the Muslims, have a verse that immediately follows 5.32, which clearly modifies it. And that verse, 5.33, is the passage that gives all the exceptions to what has just been declared in 5.32.
Obama, and Bush, too, have in their time discussed or alluded to 5.32, without the slightest sign that they know -- do they know? -- about 5.33. Now either they were, and are, ignorant of 5.33, in which case they need to learn, at this point, with a world permanently convulsed by Islam, what exactly is in that Qur'an (and a good reader will have to understand both that 20% of the Qur'an is incomprehensible even to native speakers of Arabic, and that the Arabic version is far more violent than any of the translations into English or French, and very likely into other languages as well).
In 2009 Obama spoke about 5.32, and I commented on June 5, 2009:
Fitzgerald: When Obama Channels Bush, Or, Qur'an 5.32 Without 5.33
“The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” -- from the speech by Barack Obama
Is that really what the “Holy Koran” teaches? It’s true, there is a verse in the Qur’an, taken verbatim from an earlier Jewish text, that says “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind,” etc.
But that verse, verse 5.32, in the Qur’an is followed by another verse, one that Barack Obama carefully or carelessly -- it hardly matters which -- chose to overlook, and by overlooking, mislead not his Muslim audience (who were no doubt pleased he left out, just as any Muslim apologist for Islam would have left out, the following verse 5.33) but rather, all of the world’s Infidels, which includes 99% of the American people, whose welfare he is supposed to keep foremost in mind, for the right instruction and the protection of the American people is his solemn duty.
We’ve been here before, of course. When Barack Obama quotes 5.32 and leaves out 5.33, he is merely channeling George Bush. For Bush, in his deep respect for the “religion” of Islam, liked to quote the same Qur’anic passage, that is, 5.32. The passage, of course, one of the more appealing ones in the Qur’an, was lifted wholesale from the Jewish text of the Mishnah. Barack Obama might have recognized that, but he didn’t dare -- for if he had said it, it would have infuriated Muslims. They don’t want to have the Qur’an’s sources in other, prior monotheisms, revealed, and they don’t even want the elements, such as the djinn, borrowed wholesale from pre-Islamic Arab pagan lore, connected to their original sources. For the Qur’an is for Muslims never to be subjected to the kind of historical analysis that was done for both Judaism and Christianity by the practitioners of what is called the Higher Criticism, beginning with Julius Wellhausen and other German and English Protestant scholars of the mid-to-late 19th century.
What Bush always left out, and what Obama left out today, was the following passage, 5.33, that was added by the composers of the Qur’an and that they did not lift from any Jewish text. This is 5.33:
"The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land" (Qur'an 5:33).
And who do those who take their Islam most feelingly to heart and most thoughtfully to mind think are the people who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land”? Why, it’s non-Muslims, it’s the Infidels, the ones who do not submit to Islam but for some strange reason hew to their own non-Muslim beliefs, and their own legal and political institutions and founding documents (such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man in France, and the Constitution of the United States in this country). Those institutions and which founding documents are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Shari’a, the Holy Law of Islam, and thus those who continue to support them are people who, in the Muslim view, are not acting defensively but offensively. Anyone who resists Islam is making offensive war on Islam, and thus they are those who “make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land” -- so that, according to 5.33, that follows the appropriated Jewish text of 5.32, they should be “killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.”
Here is just one example, this one from the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the charge of “corruption” -- as in “spreading corruption in the land” -- is fleshed out in a real-life case:
Tehran, 28 Nov. 2005(AKI) - Iranian parliamentarian Kurosh Niknam, a member of Iran's Zoroastrian religious minority has been summoned to appear before the country's Revolutionary Tribunal after being accused of spreading false news and showing lack of respect for the authorities. The charges stem from comments Niknam made to protest against derogatory remarks against non-Muslims uttered by a close aide to Iran's Supreme Leader, Seyyed Ali Khamenei.
Non-Muslims "cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption." said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the 'martyrs' of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88).
Nikam described the remarks as "an unprecedented slur against religious minorities."...
The Zoroastrian community in Iran is estimated to number some 22,000 - half the size of that in existence before the 1979 Islamic revolution.
One more time: Non-Muslims “cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.” Who said that? A simpleton, untrained in Islam? Not at all. A full-fledged Ayatollah, that is, a learned Shi’a cleric, with a thorough knowledge of Islam.
Now, getting back to that so-often-unquoted 5.33, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if, in being told about 5.32, we were also told at the same time about the very next verse, 5.33, since that might make a difference in our understanding of 5.32? And don’t you think that George Bush, in quoting 5.32 but not 5.33, clearly misled us, his audience, and perhaps was also misled himself? Perhaps he was never told about 5.33 and didn’t think to ask.
There are two possible explanations for what Bush, and now Obama, have done in their highly selective, and indeed utterly misleading, quotation from the Qur’an. (They have, by the way, stayed well away from the Hadith and the Sira. Perhaps they don’t even know what the Hadith and Sira are. Perhaps they have failed to read even a few dozen of the former. Perhaps they do not know what the Banu Qurayza, and the Khaybar Oasis, and Asma bint Marwan, and Abu Afak, and little Aisha were all about, and the meaning that present-day Muslims give to those important events in the life of the Perfect Man, al-inan al-kamil, Muhammad.
The first explanation, for both Bush and Obama, is that neither is a great or a serious reader. At this point, too, their days are so overfilled with the hectic vacancy of office that they have lost the habit, if they ever had it, of studying for themselves, and so are easily manipulated by those who control what information they see, and what they even consider finding out about. If “everyone knows” or “everyone thinks” a certain way, why then, who is George Bush, and who even is Barack Obama, to seek knowledge elsewhere, to suspect that something might be deeply wrong with what “everyone knows” about the sources of Muslim hostility and aggression, not just toward Americans (the entire focus of Obama’s speech), but against all Infidels, everywhere?
It is hard, after all, to read the opaque, sometimes downright incomprehensible Qur’an. Christoph Luxenberg, Ibn Warraq, and other scholars of the Qur’an and early Islam insist that 20% of the Qur’an cannot be understood by anyone. And it is also difficult, if you are unwilling to put in the time, to quite grasp what the study of the isnad-chain is all about, and how it helps determine the rankings of “authenticity” assigned by the muhaddithin, such as Bukhari and Muslim, to the tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of Hadith that they winnowed down to a manageable number. And then there are the early Muslim biographies of Muhammad, the Sira, with the first one being composed some 150 years after his death. All of this is unlikely to have been quite understood by Obama, just as it was never quite explained to Bush.
And so both are creatures of, captives of, their advisers, their advisers “on Islam” (that sweetly-smiling confidently-hijabbed Ms. Mogahed, for example), and the others called in for special advice (those “Muslim heads” of “American corporations” referred to today in The Times). And perhaps even John Esposito still has managed to escape being declared a virtual agent of Islam and thus persona non grata for his complete dependence on the vast amounts of Arab money he has been able to attract, originally from a rich Lebanese contractor, and latterly from the same Saudi prince whose check was ostentatiously offered to Mayor Giuliani, and promptly, and correctly, torn up. John Esposito has never met a check he wouldn’t cash.
In Bush’s case, and in Obama’s too, perhaps each was made aware of 5.32 and never bothered to find out if there might be a “context” they should know about. Or perhaps one, or both, knew about 5.33, but also knew that the long-suffering American public would not know about 5.33, but would simply accept the quoting of 5.32 without its indispensable -- for meaning -- following verse. What reporter, after all, even nearly eight years after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and with thousands of Muslim terrorist attacks carried out, or thwarted, all over the globe against every kind of non-Muslim in every possible setting, knows anything about the Qur’an? What reporter knows anything about Islam, even after the colossal sums -- some two trillion dollars -- spent in pursuit, in Iraq, of the will-o’-the-wisp goals of “prosperity” and “national unity”? Such goals are not only hopeless of attainment, but from the viewpoint of intelligent long-term policy to protect Infidels everywhere and to weaken the Camp of Islam, are exactly the wrong goals.
I suspect that Bush didn’t really know about 5.33. I suspect that Obama, on the other hand, did. But he is so intent on currying favor with Muslims that he is quite prepared to mislead his own people, the American people, and all the non-Muslims who at present (but perhaps not for much longer) look to America as the strongest Infidel power. They still (but perhaps indeed not for much longer) look to America as the power most willing to stand up against, and to refuse in any way to yield to, those conducting Jihad by many means other than terrorism and qitaal or combat. These include diplomatic campaigns, the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da’wa, and demographic conquest. Perhaps Obama is deeply condescending to the American public, certain that it will not find out, and will not choose to inquire, into what the texts of Qur'an and Hadith and Sira say. And he may be right. After all, have you ever seen, once, in major newspapers or on television ever, a single mention of Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, the Khaybar Oasis, the Banu Qurayza, little Aisha? You haven't? No, I didn’t think you had.
Muslims, by contrast, know all about 5.33 and a great deal more about the “Jihad verses” of the Qur’an. They know, in fact, all about what the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira say about Infidels, for Islam is a faith that was cobbled together in order, precisely, to offer an alternative to the Christians and Jews (and then the Zoroastrians). These were the inhabitants of the first lands conquered by Muslim Arabs. They were to be presented not with an entirely new faith, but with one that seemed a little bit familiar, for it incorporated, though in greatly distorted form, many of the main personages, and stories, of both Judaism and Christianity. Those two prior-in-time monotheisms were not denounced outright as completely false, but rather presented by Muslims as illegitimate because greatly distorted versions of Islam, of the true Message that had been received by Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets.
Among Muslims, many will think to themselves that he, Barack Obama, can be counted on to carefully ignore those passages that provide the essential “context” -- the absence of which “context” Muslims are always complaining about. He doesn’t want Muslims to think he cares, or perhaps even that he knows, what immediately follows 5.32. And what’s more he, Barack Obama, doesn’t care if by such selective quotation he furthers the ignorance and the misconception of the people whose understanding of Islam he claims to wish to further, and whose safety is his primary responsibility, and not the self-esteem of Muslims, in Cairo or anywhere else.
Oh, there is so very much that is wrong with this speech, that it will be seen as a defining moment -- a moment downwards, so that many in this country, including many dismayed by the impenetrable stupidity of Bush and so many around him, will now feel as if they are abandoned and forlorn, because they put their faith in Barack Obama, and he turned out to be, quite quickly in fact, someone with far less to offer than met the eye. But there will always be those who will still sing his praises, and ask, obliquely, when the subject of the recognition of Barack Obama’s deep deficiencies is raised, in order to deflect such talk, “who you gonna believe -- me, or your lying eyes?”
Bush and Obama have a great deal in common. Both appear to be deeply impressed with the notion that something called a “religion” deserves, for that reason alone, immediate respect. Bush thought that “religions” were always and everywhere a Good Thing. Obama may not truly believe that (it’s hard to get a handle on what he truly believes, except in himself and his Personal Journey, or in the Personal Journeys of others, especially if they are akin to his in being, as he liked to call it, “improbable”). But Obama suggests that criticism of Islam is illegitimate, and that those who would, for example, criticize the imposed restrictions on what women wear as using “the pretence of liberalism” to “criticize Islam.” Instead, he should see that the true liberals are those who will not allow Islam to remain immune from the same kinds of criticism that we should all be free to level against any religion, or any ideology, or any Total Belief-System, even one that we make the mistake, faute de mieux, of calling too carelessly a “religion” when it clearly contains a politics and a geopolitics.
I ran across two quotes just today, made by a recent American President. Here they are:
"Islam, itself, is a peaceful religion, and those who adhere to Islam are people that respect the rights of others... we cannot allow... these totalitarians, these Islamic extremists to distort a great religion and define the nature of that religion."
"There needs to be more understanding between the Muslim world and the Western world. There needs to be a better understanding of the true beliefs of their respective religions."
Both were made by George W. Bush. But both could easily, in the sentiment they expressed and in their wording, both treacly and untrue, have appeared in the Cairo Declaration of Barack Obama that was delivered on Thursday morning, June 4, 2009. That shows us how far we’ve come: we haven’t come far at all. We haven’t made a step beyond the misunderstanding of Islam, and the messianic sentimentalism, of the Bush Administration.
Obama is better at playing the role, or role-playing, as the Messiah who will bring Peace On Earth. It’s a tall order, but he’s a well-pleased pleaser, and thinks if anyone is up to it, he is.
So we are still colossally squandering men, money, and materiel, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. And Obama would like Americans to spend still more on those people, Muslims, who have been the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history, and one which came about not through any effort on the part of those Muslim, chiefly Arab, recipients, but purely as the result of an accident of geology.
What does he say the Task of Americans now is, those Americans suffering from economic desarroi that is not temporary but permanent, and that threatens Social Security and Medicare? Oh, our new task, should we choose to accept it -- and Obama assumes we will choose to accept it -- is to be here to help the world’s Muslims, lest they think we are insufficiently caring and sharing. We are here to supply -- can that favorite English phrase of so many Arabs, “Marshall Plan,” be far behind? -- still more money, and more money, despite the fact that the rich Arab states have received more than twelve trillion dollars in revenues from the sale of oil and gas since 1973 alone, and now sit collectively on far more than a trillion dollars, while America is the greatest debtor nation on earth. And we will mislead ourselves, or our leaders will do it for us, telling us what Islam stands for, and what the history of Islam, and of Muslim conquest of vast non-Muslim lands and peoples, has meant. Barack Obama does not recognize Islam as a vehicle of Arab imperialism, in which the conquered peoples were, quickly or slowly, forcibly converted -- most often to avoid the onerous condition of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity that was the lot of all dhimmis, even if sometimes an unusual Muslim ruler, such as the syncretistic Akbar, might temporarily soften the effects of Muslim rule. Akbar even lifted the payment of the Jizyah, but after Akbar came Aurangzeb with all his ferocity. He has given no thought to how, in Islam, all pre-Islamic and non-Islamic elements that have gone into the making of a people are ignored, belittled, forgotten, or destroyed, as examples of Jahiliyyah, of the Time of Ignorance before Islam arrived.
Bush and Obama are showing themselves to be very much alike. But Bush, as everyone knew, was a dope. What, many would like to know, is Obama’s excuse?
Update on April 18, 2013:
And what will be the excuse now, for all those who report on the Muslim who spoke at that Interfaith Service, if they say nothing of his deliberate act of deception, and fail to take the opportunity, as I have not, to point out that the Qur'an 5.32 requires the reader, or listern to its recitation. to immediately modify its contents with what is in Qur'an 5.33.
EXCLUSIVE:A new Department of Homeland Security intelligence bulletin warns it could be "impossible" to stop 3D-printed guns from being made, not to mention getting past security checkpoints.
A May 21 bulletin distributed to numerous state and federal law enforcement agencies and obtained by FoxNews.com states that the guns, which can be made by downloading blueprints into cutting edge computers that mold three-dimensional items from melted plastic, "poses public safety risks" and are likely beyond the current reach of regulators. The guns threaten to render 3D gun control efforts useless if their manufacture becomes more widespread.
"Significant advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing capabilities, availability of free digital 3D printer files for firearms components, and difficulty regulating file sharing may present public safety risks from unqualified gun seekers who obtain or manufacture 3D printed guns," warns the bulletin compiled by the Joint Regional Intelligence Center.
The bulletin refers specifically to Defense Distributed, a nonprofit company started by a University of Texas law student, which has successfully made and fired a 3D gun whose only metal parts are the bullets and a small firing pin. Some 100,000 plans for a gun called "The Liberator" were downloaded in just a few days before May 3, when a branch of the U.S. State Department told it to stop sharing the file. But the government bulletin seems to acknowledge that the genie is out of the bottle.
"Limiting access may be impossible," concludes the three-page bulletin.
A source tells FoxNews.com the potential problems faced by government authorities involve securing large, high-profile events or those attended by the President, where magnetometers used to screen for weapons would not pick up a 3D printed gun.
"This is a serious threat," the law enforcement source said. "These could defeat magnetometers. The only security procedure to catch [the 3D firearms] is a pat down. Is America ready for pat-downs at every event?"
In a section called "Liberator design poses Public Safety Risks," the bulletin explains:
"Magnetometers may fail to detect the Liberator, depending on device sensitivity. Though it is prohibited by federal law, manufacturers may deliberately omit the unnecessary metal insert, leaving only a small nail and ammunition as the sole metal component. Future designs could further reduce or eliminate metal entirely.
"Unqualified gun seekers may be able to acquire or manufacture their own Liberators with no background checks."
Other concerns mentioned in the bulletin include: that 3D-printed firearms can be made without serial numbers or unique identifiers, hindering ballistics testing. And improvements in technology and decreasing 3D printer costs are likely to mean even more sophisticated printed guns will become easier to acquire.
"Proposed legislation to ban 3D printing of weapons may deter, but cannot completely prevent their production," the memo says. "Even if the practice is prohibited by new legislation, online distribution of these digital files will be as difficult to control as any other illegally traded music, movie or software files."
In May 2013, the Church of Scotland issued a document titled The Inheritance of Abraham? A Report on the ‘promised land'.
This text, which was a follow up to another paper on the same subject, Theology of Land and Covenant, published in 2003, generated a lot of complaints, most of them directed at its criticism of the belief that the Jewish people have a legitimate claim to the land of Israel by virtue of the promises made to the Jews in Hebrew Scriptures. The document was also roundly condemned for promoting the Kairos Palestine Document, issued in 2009. This text, prepared by Palestinian Christians with a history of assailing the legitimacy of the Jewish state, described Palestinian terrorism as legal resistance and invoked the Holy Land to subject Israel to intense scrutiny while giving its adversaries a pass.
The controversy proved to be so intense that the Church of Scotland retracted The Inheritance of Abraham? for a few days and then issued revised version in which the authors emphasized the legitimacy of Israel as a modern nation state. They also apologized for creating anxiety on the part of Jews in Great Britain.
The revisions and apology notwithstanding, the document (which can be accurately and fairly described as "Judeo-centric"), is a good example of how Christian churches in the West have subjected Jews, the religious and political ideas they embrace – and their state – to intense scrutiny while largely ignoring the impact which Muslims, Islam and Islamism have had on life in the Middle East.
Ostensibly, the text addresses the manner which Christians should view the Holy Land and how, if at all, they should affirm the Jewish presence in the Land of Israel. Ultimately, however, the text is a treatise about the transformation that Israeli Jews need to make in order to live in peace with their Arab and Muslim neighbors in the Middle East.
According to this and similar statements issued by liberal Protestant churches in Europe and North America, the Arab-Israeli conflict is rooted in Jewish self-understanding and self-expression and almost nothing else. According to their logic, the way to peace between Israel and its adversaries is through a conversion experience on the part of the Jewish people.
The authors of The Inheritance of Abraham? were not so ham-handed as to expect Jews to convert to Christianity, but they do expect the Jewish people, especially those living in Israel, to repent of their exclusivist ways, get over the Holocaust and make peace with the Palestinians.
In order to promote this conversion, the document depicts the land promise as a threat to Jewish wellbeing because of the rules that come with it and the inability of Jews to live up to these rules. Since Jews cannot live up to the rules that come with the land, they risk expulsion and the loss of sovereignty that follows, the authors state. At one point, the authors ask, "Would the Jewish people have a fairer claim to the land if they dealt justly with the Palestinians?"
In sum, the text subjects Israeli Jews to intense theological scrutiny, finds them wanting in their pursuit of peace and implicitly justifies violence against them. At no point in The Promise of Abraham? do we see any attempt to understand or challenge the ideology used to justify violence against Israel and Jews in the Middle East.
Groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that seek Israel's destruction become ciphers, non-descript tools whose violent acts against the Jewish state are of a potentially divine mechanism that punishes Israel for falling short of the moral demands imposed upon them by their scriptures.
We have seen this behavior before. In Approaches to Auschwitz: The Holocaust and its Legacy (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), Richard L. Rubinstein and John K. Roth report that in 1942 the towering Protestant theologian "reproved a stricken Jewish community for failing to understand the Holocaust as divine punishment for its willful refusal to believe in the lordship of Christ. ‘There is no doubt,' [Barth] wrote, ‘That Israel hears; now less than ever, can it shelter behind the pretext of ignorance of ignorance and inability to understand. But Israel hears—and does not believe.'"
Rubenstein and Roth also report that in 1949, Barth "continued to suggest that the evil that came to the Jewish people was a ‘result of their unfaithfulness,' that the Jew ‘pays for the fact that he is the elect of God,' and the Jewish people are ‘no more than the shadow of a nation, the reluctant witnesses of the Son of God and the Son of Man.'" In other words, Jewish suffering caused by the Holocaust was the result of Jewish faithlessness and consequently this suffering testified to the credibility of the Christian faith.
A similar schema is evident in The Inheritance of Abraham? With Barth we have a Christian theologian invoking the Holocaust as a consequence of Jewish obduracy.
With the Church of Scotland document we have Christian commentators promoting a view of the Arab-Israeli conflict that blames Israel for the violence directed at its citizens. Hamas and Hezbollah attack Israel not because they embrace an antisemitic ideology but because Israeli Jews refuse to "deal justly" with the Palestinians.
The document does offer Israel and its Jewish inhabitants and supporters a way to escape this divine scrutiny and judgment (and the violence that accompanies it) through the abandonment of an exclusivist mindset and resentment over the Holocaust in favor of a universalist worldview or ideology.
To encourage Israeli Jews to make this conversion, the authors invoke the writings of Mark Braverman, an American Jew who in his 2010 book Fatal Embrace: Christians, Jews, and the Search for Peace in the Holy Land (Synergy), condemns his fellow Jews for the blindness and insensitivity in their dealings with the Palestinians. His description of Hamas, however, fails to acknowledge the group's totalitarian agenda and its stated goal of destroying Israel. This helps explain why Braverman, who is very popular among liberal Protestants, has no Jewish following to speak of. Like St. Paul before him, Braverman preaches to the gentiles.
The polemics deployed in The Inheritance of Abraham? have obvious analogues in the anti-Judaic passages in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church fathers that depicted all but a few Jews as unable to accept interpret their own scriptures and accept Christ's universalistic message of God's love for all humanity. On this score, the Church of Scotland is not unique. Liberal supporters of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center in both North America and Europe have deployed similar arguments for years.
The persistent use of and tolerance for such polemics by would-be peacemakers in the progressive Christian churches and para-church organizations in the West raises serious doubts about the ability of these institutions to deal rationally with issues related to the Jews.
It is well known that significant numbers of Christians are fleeing countries in the Middle East in an effort to avoid oppression and murder at the hand of Islamists in that region. But instead of addressing the theological and ideological arguments used to incite violence against Christians and to expand the reach of Islam throughout the world, the Church of Scotland deems it necessary to interrogate Israel and its claim to the land.
In light of the church's silence about anti-Christian violence, and its obsession with Jewish sovereignty, it seems reasonable to conclude that the denomination is more troubled by Jewish sovereignty and survival than it is by Christian destruction.
What is being taught in British mosques, from MEMRI:
Abu Mounisa: "When we talk about da'wa [call for Islam], don't ever think, my brothers and sisters, that our da'wa is only to address a few people on the streets, and call them to Islam. Our da'wa should be the da'wa that attacks their system, and we replace it with Islam. That's what we need to do, my dear brothers, we need to call the whole of society to Islam. We're not just calling one sister or one brother to follow the religion of Allah. We want the whole society to bow down to Allah. We don't want only one sister to wear the khimar [veil] and jilbab [cloak]. We want the whole society to wear the khimar and jilbab. We don't want only our brothers and sisters to make sujud [bow down] to Allah. We want the whole society to make sujud to Allah. This is the da'wa of the Prophet Muhammad. This is our da'wa, my dear brothers and sisters."
[...]
"If you carry your da'wa stall, and you stand there, just inviting people to Islam, like [cleric] Zakir Naik [does], do you think that is going to change society? Without attacking the law and order? No, my dear brothers, there is no way it is going to change society. It's impossible that society will change.You need to provoke society for society to be changed.
"Also, my dear brothers, what we need to understand is that when the Prophet Muhammad was inside Mecca, there were 360 idols in Mecca at that time.Today, people don't worship physical idols. Today, people worship the ideas of democracy, freedom, and capitalism. This is what the people are worshipping today. The woman says: I am free to have an abortion. The man says: I am free to go for sexual promiscuity. Do you see what I mean? This is the reality of today.
"Who allows that freedom? Who allows that democracy? Who allows these false gods to exist? The government, the law and order, they are the ones that allow it. When the [people] said to the Prophet Muhammad: Why don't you add your god amongst our gods? Just one more, just add it in. He said: No way!"
[...]
"He said: Do you think I am going to mix my God with your gods? I'm never mixing my God with your gods. It's impossible for me to mix my gods [sic] with your gods, and I would never do so. I believe Allah is self-sufficient. He doesn't need your gods. I have come to destroy your gods. When Allah gave the Prophet Muhammad victory inside Mecca, he went to the Kaaba and destroyed all 360 gods inside it. But do you know what? He never stopped there. Do you know what he did? He went to the areas of [the idols] Lat, Uzzat, and Manat... He went inside these areas, and he asked the people: Where is Uzzat, where is Manat? He went and destroyed them, killed them, chopped their heads off, beheaded them. That is why, my dear brothers, we need to behead democracy from its roots.
"We need to behead capitalism from its roots, take it, kill it from its roots. That is what we need to do. We should hate it so much, my dear brothers, that every day, we should attack their system. Every day. Just like the Prophet Muhammad did."
[...]
"This is how we should feel. This is how we should believe. We should have the zeal in our hearts, for the sake of Allah, to destroy all their system and replace it with Islam."
[...]
"Who allows alcohol in the first place? The law and order. So we need to address the law and order. We need to attack the law and order. A man during the time of the Prophet Muhammad... Sorry, I apologize. One time, Omar Ibn Al-Khattab saw some woman, and she was dressed inappropriately. What Muhammad did... No, I'm sorry what Omar Ibn Al-khattab did... He went up to her, and he hit her. He hit her. He said to her: "How dare you walk in the streets of Al-Madina, which belong to the Prophet Muhammad, dressed the way you are dressed?" She turned around and said to him: "Who the hell are you to tell me to dress like this?!" Do you know what he said? "I am the Emir of the Believers." But today, we can't go around slapping every woman in the street. We cannot do that. It is not allowed for us to do that.
"So what we need to do is to address the munkar [evil]. We need to turn around and attack society. By removing the roots of the problem, you remove the issue. But if you just deal with the branches, grab a couple of branches here, a couple of branches there, it's not going to solve the problem. It would never solve the problem. We need to attack the root of the problem, which is the man-made law, the man-made system, which we live under today. Do you understand, brothers? That is what we need to do.
"We cannot just sit down until our brothers say: Brother, what you are doing is forbidden. Sister, your scarf is completely forbidden, a big hump on the head. You can't do it like this. What you need to is tell the sister that her hump is wrong. You need to tell the brother he is wrong. Plus you need to command good and forbid evil, and make the society bow down to Allah.
"That is what we need to do, my dear brothers. We need to attack the leaders. We need to turn around and attack, what's it? Daoud Kamroon... Cameron. He calls him Daoud Kamroon. We need to attack him. We need to say: Your laws are oppressive. We need to deal with those laws, and replace them with Islam. "Whoever rejects the Taghout and believes in Allah..." So we would destroy his system and replace it with Islam. That is what we need to do."
Listen to the latest in a series of international discussions on developments in the Middle East on 1330AMWEBY, Pensacola, Florida. This is the latest program in the periodic round table discussions led by “Your Turn” host Mike Bates and Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and author of The West Speaks. Our guests will be Dr. Jonathan Schanzer, Vice President for Research of the Washington, DC – based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) and Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director of the Jewish Policy Center in Washington.
The WEBY program will air today during the 5 to 6:00PM CST (6:00 to 7:00PM EST) segment. You may listen live here.
Among the topics to be discussed:
1. Why the Syrian conflict is a stalemate pitting Iran Backed Shia versus Sunni Supremacists backed by Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia
2. Why Israel is preparing for a possible war in the North unlike its brief engagements with Hamas in Gaza.
3. Why the Obama Administration is not committed to stopping a major humanitarian crisis in the Syrian conflict with more than 80,000 dead and over a million refugees in Turkey and Jordan.
4. Why the Iran Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighters are engaged in the effort to create an Alawite stronghold to facilitate continued arms supplies?
5. What is behind the Russian direct assistance to the Assad regime with deliveries of advanced anti-air and shore to ship missiles, as well as sending a flotilla to protect the ports at Tartus and Latakia?
6. How the US is not involved with the formation of the UN sponsored Syria conference that Russia and China have backed Iran as a participant?
7. That two candidates in The June Iranian Presidential have outstanding Interpol arrest warrants for their involvement in the 1994 AMIA Jewish Center bombing in Buenos Aires.
8. The new sanctions passed b y the House Foreign affairs Committee that may cut Iran oil exports and stop Turkey gold trade and purchase of Iranian Oil.
9. How Turkey’s PM Erdogan a NATO member is leading the Sunni Supremacist initiative in the Middle East defying Obama’s agenda with direct aid to terrorist groups and militia in Syria and Hamas visits shortly.
10. How Jordan is besieged with refugees from the Syria conflict and internal conflicts and protests with the Muslim Brotherhood seeking to overthrow King Abdullah that may put the Israeli Peace treaty in jeopardy?
11. How Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood - led government is tottering on the brink of failure and the secular and Salafist opposition may have an opening with upcoming parliamentary elections?
12. The futility of US efforts to bring the Israelis and the Palestinian to the table for peace discussions against the rising autocracy of PA President, Mahmoud Abbas who has ejected US moderates from the PA government.
13. How the NYPD Counterterrorism program with Israeli security assistance was able to net 16 Palestinians engaged a massive cigarette smuggling scam skimming illegal profits that may have been funneled to terrorist group Hamas.
An article based on today’s 1330AMWEBY international round table discussion will appear in the June edition of the New English Review.
Here's the clear statement, from this convert, this self-infected victim of Adult-Onset Islam who like all converts takes his Islam undiluted (by nuance, by custom, by indifference, by deliberate avoidance -- all of which are at least available, to one degree or another, to those born into Islam), as to why he did what he did:
"The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one. It is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'a in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme. You are the ones that when you drop a bomb you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. By Allah if I saw your mother today with a buggy I would help her up the stairs. This is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments, they don’t care about you. You think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? You think politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy, like you and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so can all live in peace. So leave our lands [Dar al-Islam] and we can all live in peace. That’s all I have to say. [in Arabic:] Allah’s peace and blessings be upon you."
Somerset Maugham, the great doctor-author, once said that he would rather read a railway timetable than nothing at all, and I am of that ilk. One of the few lessons that life has taught me is never to go anywhere without a book, for then delay cannot irritate, and indeed (if it is a good book) can delight. A life of frustration is thereby transformed into a life of pleasure.
But no one ever keeps entirely to his principles, and recently I found myself walking in a provincial city without a book. Worse still, I had no notebook with me when suddenly I was struck by an idea for an article. My memory not being what it once was (or what I think it once was), I felt the need to write down my idea at once. I went into a stationer’s and bought an exercise book.
In my childhood such books had on their covers information about how many drachmas made a grain and how many rods and poles made a perch (or was it the other way round?). But now that we have the metric system – so dull by comparison – to blunt our brains, we need different information, a different stimulus, from the covers of our exercise books. The one I bought taught ‘Active reading and listening skills for your studies, work and life.’ There was enough in it to read and keep me occupied if the bus came late; by thus purchasing it, I had killed two birds with one stone. Not bad for £2.99!
One learns a lot from casually-encountered sources, I find. For example, ‘Active reading’ involves, among other things, understanding what is written; one’s notes should always be appropriate. But now that so much of doctors’ time is taken up by meetings, it was the section on ‘Active listening’ that I found most illuminating.
When you are at a committee meeting and some boring fool is droning on, proposing something absurd because some bigger boring fool higher up the ladder has told him to propose it, ‘smile and use other facial expressions’ (not grimaces, of course), and ‘nod occasionally’ (but not from sleep). You ‘should encourage the speaker to continue with small verbal comments such as “Yes” and “uh-uh,”’ and you should ‘Note your posture and make sure it’s open and inviting.’
In the world of active listening skills, there is no one who is ill-intentioned or needs no encouragement to continue speaking. That is why you must remember that ‘Active listening is a model for respect and understanding.’ At no time must you ever be distracted by the thought that the speaker is a time-serving apparatchik who would sell his mother for a team-building away-day (with or without a vegetarian option for lunch), let alone promotion to the post of Director of Co-ordination. ‘Responding appropriately’ is one of the five keys to ‘Active listening’ and never includes anything as vigorous as disagreement, let alone scorn: for appropriate is now as weaselly a word as ‘valid,’ as (for example) in ‘My opinion is as valid as yours.’
Am I imagining it, or are we living in a world of increasingly inescapable exhortatory platitude, from which an awareness of the tragic dimension of life has been expunged by ‘active reading and listening skills’? If you doubt it, I can only advise the following, with regard to this article:
Once you have read appropriate sections, run through the key information in your mind several times. Isolate the core facts or essential processes…
One of the two men involved in the Woolwich terror attack was known to a banned Islamist organisation and went by the name of Mujahid, The Independent has learned. Anjem Choudary, the former leader of the group, Al Muhajiroun, confirmed that he had known the man who was seen on video in the immediate aftermath of yesterday's horrific killing waving a cleaver with bloodied hands and making political statements.
Mr Choudary said Mujahid, who he said had converted to Islam in 2003 and was a British-born Nigerian, had stopped attending meetings of Al Muhajiroun and its successor organisations two years ago. The former solicitor said he had also known "Mujahid" as Michael.
He told The Independent: “I knew him as Mujahid. He attended our meetings and my lectures. I wouldn’t describe him as a member [of Al Muhajiroun]. There were lots of people who came to our activities who weren’t necessarily members.
“He was a pleasant, quiet guy. He reverted to Islam in about 2003. He was just a completely normal guy. He was interested in Islam, in memorising the Koran. He disappeared about two years ago. I don’t know what influences he has been under since then.”
Mr Choudary said: “My position is clear. There is a covenant which says that in return for Muslims being allowed to live peacefully and practice their faith in Britain, then it is forbidden to attack the British authorities, soldiers, in the UK. When people go abroad then the inhabitants of those countries have a right to defend themselves. The biggest aggravating factor we have today is British foreign policy.”
He denied that Mujahid could have been radicalised by his teachings, adding that more extremist material, including the sermons of Yemen-based cleric Anwar Al Awlaki and the Al Qaeda-linked magazine Inspire, have been easily available via the internet.
“Mujahid left us two years ago. There is plenty of material out there that does not observe the covenant we do that there can be no attacks in Europe. There is Al Awlaki and Inspire. I do not know what sort of material Mujahid could have seen.”
Elsewhere it is reported that was claimed that one of the attackers was stopped last year from travelling or was arrested on his way to join the terror group al-Shabaab to fight in Somalia.
Police said a property in Lincolnshire has been searched in connection with the murder. From This is Lincolnshire
Police have raided the former Lincolnshire home of Woolwich murderer Michael Adebolajo, believed to be in Saxilby near Lincoln. The house in a Lincolnshire village is believed to belong to his dad, nurse Anthony Adebolajo, 56. Neighbours said the same family had lived in the house for about a decade
Michael Adebolajo was listed as being resident in 2004, shortly after the family moved in.
A Lincolnshire Police spokesperson said: “Lincolnshire Police can confirm that the Metropolitan Police executed a search warrant under Police and Criminal Evidence act PACE at an address in Lincolnshire. This is in connection with the ongoing investigation into the murder of a man in Woolwich. The Metropolitan Police are not prepared to discuss the matter further at this stage.”
The Woolwich killers are of Nigerian background and the man seen ranting on video immediately after the soldier's murder is believed to be Michael Adebolajo.
Wednesday night saw more burning cars, smashed windows, and stone throwing at police in at least 15 suburbs around Stockholm, as the fourth night of riots swept the Swedish capital.
The unrest began shortly after 10pm in Husby, northwestern Stockholm where the riots began on Sunday night. Youths gathered in the town square, some of them masked.
Hagsätra in southern Stockholm came under fire at roughly the same time. A police patrol was attacked, and one officer was taken to hospital with serious injuries to the head.
By 2am, Stockholm's fire service had attended 75-80 incidents across the city. Much of their work was delayed by youths throwing stones at them, meaning police were left to attend to the stone-throwers to allow the fire fighters access to the fires.
A restaurant went up in flames in Skogås, southern Stockholm. Police labelled the crime as aggravated arson. In Rågsved, a police station was set on fire.
Melanie Phillips, Daily Mail columnist authored a book about the Islamization of Great Britain, Londonistan. In it she graphically portrayed how tolerance of the intolerant was creating what former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir- Ali called “no go” Muslim self governing areas. An example is the London borough of Tower Hamlets . Areas in which Muslims predominate, to the virtual exclusion of non-Muslims. Those British citizens are excluded and even subject to street violence. All while British institutions like Lord Chief Justice Phillips and Dr. Rowan Williams, a controversial previous Archbishop of Canterbury , condoned adoption of Shariah law. We have read of Muslim youths gang raping naïve British girls and turning them into sex slaves . We witnessed the rise of opposition groups like the English Defense League endeavoring to defend basic traditions of decency and fair play. They have been derided as punk racists and clapped in jails crowded with predatory Muslim criminals. Britain was shocked by the coordinated London underground and bus bombings of 7/7/05. These were perpetrated by third generation Muslims who trained in Al Qaida camps in Pakistan. 52 fellow Britons were killed, 700 were injured. Four bombers were killed in the attacks.
Today, we were shocked by a video of a slaughter in broad day light of a British soldier attacked by two Jihadis, a British African and a bearded white, near Woolrich Arsenal in South London that houses the Royal Artillery Barracks. The video was taken by a man who was on a bus going to a job interview. It was later broadcast worldwide by Independent News and has since gone viral via You Tube.
The shocker was the cool dispassionate chilling comments by one of the perpetrators while holding a bloodied knife and meat cleaver inviting people to take pictures saying, “We must fight them. I apologize that women had to witness this today. But in our land, our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe”. He then went over to his accomplice while shocked women tried to attend to the remains of the slaughtered soldier. Police arrived, chased down the perpetrators of this heinous crime and shot and wounded them. This slaughter of an innocent soldier in broad daylight was an act of barbarity condoned by Islam.
Watch the entire grisly barbarous episode. It is disquieting and should make you discomforted.
Last weekend Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an op ed for the Wall Street Journal, “Swearing in your Enemy”, a reference to her joy at becoming a US citizen on April 25th in Boston, less than 10 days after the horrific Boston Marathon Bombing. More pointedly it was also a send up on the betrayal of America’s generosity by the Times Square and Boston Marathon Bombers, Faisal Shahzad and the Chechen Refugee Jihadis, the Tsarneav brothers. All while they conspired to murder us. She noted:
The Tsarnaev brothers are emblematic of the divided loyalties of our times—and they are not the only ones. Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani national, is a naturalized U.S. citizen who lived the American dream: He arrived on a student visa, married an American citizen, graduated from college, worked his way up the corporate ladder to become a junior financial analyst for a cosmetics company in Connecticut, became a naturalized citizen at the age of 30 and then, a year later, in 2010, tried to blow up as many of his fellow citizens as possible in a failed car bombing in New York's Times Square.
Prior to sentencing, the judge asked Mr. Shahzad about the oath of allegiance he had taken, in which he did "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." The defendant replied: "I sweared [sic], but I didn't mean it." He then expressed his regret about the failure of his plot and added that he would gladly have sacrificed a thousand lives in the service of Allah. He concluded by predicting the downfall of his new homeland.
TheTsarnaev brothers killed three spectators and injured more than 260, maiming 14 for life with missing limbs, with their home made IED detonated near the Boston Marathon finish line on Patriots Day, April 15th. They may also murdered an MIT campus police officer. Police investigators may have made a forensic match between them and three Jews slaughtered in grisly fashion, covered with marijuana on the tenth anniversary of 9/11 in a suburban Waltham, Massachusetts apartment.
Hirsi Ali then wrote of another grisly mid-day Islamic slaughter of her collaborator on the film Submission, Dutch film director, Theo Van Gogh, perpetrated by a Dutch Moroccan on the Streets of Amsterdam in 2004. She noted:
Political Islam killed my Dutch friend Theo van Gogh, who dared to collaborate with me in making the film "Submission," which criticizes the mistreatment of women in the name of Islam. Adherents of political Islam regularly threaten me, an apostate from their faith. Political Islam eventually made my life in the Netherlands impossible. If it were not for political Islam, I would almost certainly still be Dutch.
Lest we forget there was the video of the grisly slaughter in 2004 of Nick Berg , a US contractor abducted in Iraq by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, later killed in a US air strike in 2006.
Our memories should also be jarred by the grisly video of the slaughter of the late Wall Street Journal reporter, Danny Pearl in Karachi, Pakistan in 2002 by the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Pearl was forced to say: “My father's Jewish, my mother's Jewish, I'm Jewish”, now engraved on the head stone of the late Mayor of New York, Ed Koch in Trinity graveyard in lower Manhattan.
This chronicle of barbarism at the core of Islamic doctrine is perhaps best captured in the final line from the classic novel of Joseph Conrad, The Heart of Darkness, by the trader in the Belgian Congo gone native, Kurtz. He utters , “the horror, the horror”. The line is repeated in the Viet Nam war classic film by Francis Ford Coppola, Apocalypse Now, by the late Marlon Brando who portrays Col. Kurtz, a US Army Special ops officer.
The horror is that Britain has been held hostage because of its generosity given to more than 2 million Muslims, who were invited to make a home in Britain as former colonials. Radicals in the British Muslim community have returned the kindness by fostering home grown Jihadi. Two of whom perpetrated the bloody savagery caught on video in South East London, today.
Boston man recounts frightening fight with a man later tied to Marathon bombing suspects
By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff
Three years before he was shot and killed by an FBI agent at an Orlando apartment while being questioned about the Boston Marathon suspects and a triple murder in Waltham, Ibragim Todashev admitted to instigating a brawl in Downtown Crossing, revealing a frightening temper, according to court documents and the man he fought.
On a Thursday afternoon in February 2011, Many, a 28-year-old father from Brighton, was riding with his son’s mother; his sister was behind the wheel of the red Mazda. The three were driving through Downtown Crossing, trying to get home to celebrate Many’s son’s seventh birthday. As the car idled at a traffic light in front of Felt, a nightclub on Washington Street, a gray food delivery van suddenly pulled up close behind the Mazda, Many recalled in an interview Wednesday. Many asked to be identified only by his nickname because he wants to maintain his privacy.
Behind the wheel of the truck was a young, dark-haired man so eager to squeeze past them in the tight right lane that he seemed to be trying to pull the van up on the sidewalk.
Many’s sister honked her horn lightly, trying to get him to back off, and drove ahead of the truck when the light turned green.
“He began to follow,” Many recalled. “He was honking the horn real hard, holding down the horn. He was acting real aggressive. I was just thinking, ‘What the hell is wrong with this guy?’ I thought he was on something.”
Terrified, Many’s sister turned onto Tremont Street, trying to lose the driver, who continued his pursuit. She began to turn left on Avery Street, in front of AMC Loews Boston Common, when the van screeched ahead of her from the right lane, trying to cut her off.
Instead, Many recalled, the driver hit a blue Pontiac, totaling the car and damaging the front end of his own gray van.
Many said he got out the car to help the driver of the Pontiac, an elderly man who looked shaken and scared.
The driver of the van, later identified as Todashev, got out of his vehicle, a cigarette dangling from his mouth.
“He starts blowing smoke in my face,” Many said. “He gets real close to me. He swears and I swear back.”
“What the hell is wrong with you?” Many asked him.
“What the hell is wrong with me?” Todashev replied in a thick accent. “What the hell is wrong with you?”
Many’s sister and his son’s mother pleaded with Many to back off. “‘It’s your son’s birthday,’” his sister told him. “‘Don’t get in a fight ... Let’s just wait for the police to get here.’”
Many said he tried to walk away, but Todashev yelled “[Expletive] you and your son.”
Furious, Many yelled back, though he could not recall what he said.
According to the police report of the incident, Todashev said, “ ‘You say something about my mother, I will kill you.’”
“I don’t’ remember saying something about his mother,” Many said. “To be honest, I probably did.”
Then, Many said, Todashev rushed him and grabbed him by the shirt collar. Afraid of what Todashev might do next, Many said he hit him. Though Todashev, at 5 foot 10, was taller, Many said he was able to subdue him, placing him in a chokehold as Todashev tried to kick him and his sister wept, begging him to let him go.
“Don’t fight! Don’t fight!” she kept crying. His son’s mother also wept, kicking at Todashev.
“I had to defend myself,” Many said.
When the police arrived, he said he finally let him go. Todashev kept struggling as police tried to handcuff him.
Witnesses later told the officers that Todashev was the aggressor, according to a Boston police report.
Todashev admitted to sufficient facts in November 2010 on charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and reckless driving. Admission to sufficient facts is a plea that allows a defendant to avoid a conviction while at the same time conceding there is enough evidence for a guilty finding.
The resisting arrest charge was dismissed. The other two charges were continued without a finding and dismissed after nine months. Todashev’s lawyer at the time, Anthony Rossi, a Chelsea defense attorney, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Many said he was shocked to learn the man he fought had ties to the brothers accused of orchestrating the Boston Marathon bombings.
“I can’t believe that was him,” he said. “Is it really him?”
Many said he was also surprised to learn he subdued a man described as having a martial arts background. Before Todashev moved to Florida, he lived in the Boston area and was brought to an Allston gym where Boston Marathon bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, trained as a boxer. Todashev was a mixed martial arts athlete.
“I’m guessing he wasn’t [a fighter at the time] because I don’t know anything,” Many said. “I’ve never trained in my life.”
Exclusive: A cub scout leader confronted terrorists just seconds after they had beheaded a soldier asking them to hand over their weapons and warning them: "It is only you versus many people, you are going to lose."
A mother-of-two described tonight how she put her own life on the line by trying to persuade the soldier’s murderers to hand over their weapons. Cub scout leader Ingrid Loyau-Kennett selflessly engaged the terrorists in conversation and kept her nerve as one of them told her: “We want to start a war in London tonight.”
She was photographed by onlookers confronting one of the attackers who was holding a bloodied knife.
“Being a cub leader I have my first aid so when I saw this guy on the floor I thought it was an accident then I saw the guy was dead and I could not feel any pulse.
“And then when I went up there was this black guy with a revolver and a kitchen knife, he had what looked like butcher’s tools and he had a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives and he said 'move off the body’.
“So I thought 'OK, I don’t know what is going on here’ and he was covered with blood. I thought I had better start talking to him before he starts attacking somebody else. I thought these people usually have a message so I said 'what do you want?’
“I asked him if he did it and he said yes and I said why? And he said because he has killed Muslim people in Muslim countries, he said he was a British soldier and I said really and he said 'I killed him because he killed Muslims and I am fed up with people killing Muslims in Afghanistan they have nothing to do there.”
Moments earlier, the killers had hacked at the soldier “like a piece of meat”, and when Mrs Loyau-Kennett arrived on the scene they were roaming John Wilson Street waiting for police to arrive so they could stage a final confrontation with them.
“He was not high, he was not on drugs, he was not an alcoholic or drunk, he was just distressed, upset. He was in full control of his decisions and ready to everything he wanted to do. I said 'right now it is only you versus many people, you are going to lose, what would you like to do?’ and he said I would like to stay and fight.”
The suspect in the black hat then went to speak to someone else and Mrs Loyau-Kennett tried to engage with the other man in the light coat.
She said: “The other one was much shier and I went to him and I said 'well, what about you? Would you like to give me what you have in your hands?’ I did not want to say weapons but I thought it was better having them aimed on one person like me rather than everybody there, children were starting to leave school as well."
Mrs Loyau-Kennett was not the only woman to show extraordinary courage. Others shielded the soldier’s body as the killers stood over them. MPs praised the “extraordinary bravery” of the women and raised concerns about why it took armed police 20 minutes to arrive at the scene while people’s lives were at risk. According to a security source the delay in the armed police response is “particularly surprising” because there is a heavily armed police presence at Woolwich Crown Court, which is just two and a half miles away.
I suppose this song might be dedicated to Randi Messige-Norheim, Andrea Kramer, Esq., and many others, the tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of political and media bigshots all over the Western world, who through their stupidity, their criminal negligence, their cruelty to the very people they presume to protect and instruct, have made the lives of so many in that Western world so much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, and for ever, all because of the large-scale presence of Muslims (and of those among the socially and psychically marginal who unsurprisingly onvert to Islam) that need never have occurred, that should never have occurred, that those who were well-prepared -- such as Jacques Ellul -- warned about, but their warnings, in an age where everyone is endlessly encouraed to worship Diversity, coute que coute, and even to make burnt offerings of themselves on the Altar of this Idol of the Age.
"Dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and another man — who was killed by the FBI on Wednesday — murdered three people in Massachusetts after a drug deal went wrong in 2011, law enforcement sources tell NBC News.
Sources say that what began as a drug ripoff ended in a triple homicide when Tsarnaev and friend Ibragim Todashev realized their victims would later be able to identify them."
-- from a news story
Ibragim Todashev is reported to have described the killing of the three men in Waltham, Massachusetts, their throats all slit in a manner that comes naturally to those who are to that manner born (and what are Eids all about if not for providing practice in, letting one become inured from an early age to, the slitting of throats?), as "a drug deal gone bad." Does that make sense? If it were a "drug deal gone bad" why would they worry about being recognized? They knew perfectly well that if their victims -- the ones they attempted to rob, presumably, of money and marijuana, recognized them, they would still not report them to the police -- it would make no sense if the victims of the robbery were also drug dealers. When drug deals go wrong, the hardened dealers wreak their vengeance themselves. But in this case, Mess, Weissman, and Teken, if one or more of them was indeed living by selling marijuana (and the police ought to be able to determine this), they hardly fit the profile of tough drug dealers who would ever be a threat to the likes of two martial-arts experts, Tamerlan and Ibragim.
Isn't it more plausible to think that on September 11, 2010, there was another element, or motivation, involved? Tamerlan Tsarnaev was already deep into that old-time religion, encouraged both by his own mental disarray and failures to do much of anything of value, and also, more importantly, by his sinister mother, who had herself become steadily more religious while living in the United States, and who saw Islam as a way to bring her son back to the true path of islam, the path of Allah, instead of wandering off on the byroads where Satan lay, whispering his Western temptations. Wouldn't it make sense for them to slit the throats of three Infidels, two of whom were Jews?
And wouldn't it make sense for Ibragim Todashev to carefully avoid saying anything about that, to stay well away from Islam-based murderousness, and to present the murders as just part a run-of-the-mill drug deal gone bad?
Man with ties to Boston bombing suspect admits role in 2011 murders; shot during FBI questioning
John Raoux / AP
An FBI investigator walks to the apartment where a man was shot by an FBI agent, on May 22, in Orlando, Fla.
By Richard Esposito, Pete Williams and Matthew DeLuca, NBC News
Dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and another man — who was killed by the FBI on Wednesday — murdered three people in Massachusetts after a drug deal went wrong in 2011, law enforcement sources tell NBC News.
Sources say that what began as a drug ripoff ended in a triple homicide when Tsarnaev and friend Ibragim Todashev realized their victims would later be able to identify them.
Todashev was killed by a federal agent while giving a statement on his role on Wednesday in Orlando, Fla.
The man who was shot, Todashev, 27, allegedly attacked an agent with a knife while confessing to the 3-year-old slayings. He was not suspected of having played any role in the bombing that killed three people and injured scores more in April, but he did confess to being involved in a brutal Boston-area slaying two years ago, investigators said.
AP Photo/Orange County Corrections Department
In this May 4, 2013 police mug provided by the Orange County Corrections Department in Orlando, Fla., shows Ibragim Todashev after his arrest for aggravated battery in Orlando
Law enforcement officials said Todashev was being questioned as part of the FBI’s effort to find and talk to anyone who had any contact with Tsarnaev, the older bombing suspect killed in a shootout with police.
The shooting occurred in the early morning hours on Wednesday, the FBI said in a statement.
“The agent, two Massachusetts State Police troopers, and other law enforcement personnel were interviewing an individual in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual,” the statement said.
“During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries,” according to the statement.
It's not clear who shot Todashev, officials say, because -- while he was being questioned by an FBI agent -- officers from the Massachusetts state police and the Orlando police department were also present in the house where the interrogation was going on.
Todashev, they say, had spent some time in the Boston area, where he was a mixed martial arts fighter, and knew Tsarnaev there. Investigators say he confessed to the agent in Florida that he played a role in a triple murder in 2011 in which three men were discovered slain in an apartment in Waltham, Mass.
Brendan Mess, 25; Raphael Teken, 37; and Eric Weissman, 31, were found with their throats cut in September of 2011, and their bodies were covered with marijuana. No suspects had been arrested in that case.
A spokesperson for the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office, which is investigating the three deaths, said that the office does not discuss ongoing investigations. Relatives for the three men did not immediately return requests for comment.
Officials say FBI agents were questioning Todashev on Tuesday. He was cooperative at first, they say, but later that night, he attacked the agent with a knife, who shot and killed him. Officials say Todashev became violent as he was about to sign a written statement based on his confession.
A man officials say knew the bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed in Orlando, Fla., when he allegedly attacked an FBI agent who traveled to Orlando to interview him. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
The officials say Todashev had some connections with radical Chechen rebels, but they say it's not clear whether he had any role in radicalizing Tsarnaev.
A friend of Todashev told NBC News affiliate WESH that he was being questioned along with the man who was shot due to their connections to the mixed martial arts community in Boston.
“They were talking to us, both of us, right? And they said they need him for a little more, for a couple more hours, and I left, and they told me they’re going to bring him back. They never brought him back,” friend Khusn Taramiv, 27, told WESH.
Todashev was arrested for aggravated battery on May 4, 2013 after getting into a fight over a parking spot with another man at Premium Outlets in Orlando, according to an Orange County Sheriff’s Office arrest affidavit.
Todashev said that he pushed the other man after he “got into his face,” according to the affidavit. The man’s son then “came at him swinging,” Todashev told police. The 5’9”, 160-pound Todashev admitted to police that he was a former mixed martial arts fighter, according to the arrest affidavit.
“This skill puts his fighting ability way above that of a normal person,” the arresting officer wrote in the affidavit.
Todashev was transported to the booking and release center without incident, according to the affidavit. His Miranda warning was read but not invoked, the document says. He was released May 5 on a $3,500 surety bond, according to the Orange County Corrections Department.
The man was born in Russia and had U.S. citizenship, according to the affidavit.
A spokesman for the Orlando Police Department referred all questions regarding the shooting to the FBI.
An FBI incident review team was dispatched from Washington, D.C., and was expected to arrive in Orlando within 24 hours, FBI Special Agent Dave Couvertier said on Wednesday morning.
Todashev was also arrested in downtown Boston in 2010 following a fender bender involving his van and a car carrying two women. Todashev had to be restrained by witnesses after he aggressively confronted the women, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office told NBC affiliate WHDH. Witnesses said Todashev was clearly the aggressor, and there was physical contact between everyone involved.
However, authorities say there were no injuries and no charges were pressed.
Meanwhile Muslim grooming trials continue. From the BBC. the first day of evidence in the Operation Ribbon trial
A young girl was repeatedly raped and sexually abused by 10 friends over a five-year period, a court has heard.
The victim was just 11 when she was groomed and raped by Iblal Fiaz, 21, who plied her with alcohol and drugs, Oxford Crown Court was told. Iblal Fiaz and his brother Khasim Fiaz, 23, both of St Georges Close, High Wycombe, deny multiple rape charges.
The pair appeared in court with eight other men accused of offences in connection with the abuse.
The girl - who cannot be named for legal reasons - believed she was in a relationship with Iblal Fiaz despite only being 11, Eleanor Laws QC said.
The barrister said after gaining her trust and after she turned 12, Iblal Fiaz made her perform sex acts on his brother Khasim Fiaz and at least eight other men.
Warning the jury they would find the facts "difficult to hear", Miss Laws said: "Once he had gained her confidence Iblal Fiaz introduced her to alcohol and drugs, and soon after to sex with other men."
There are 44 charges against 10 defendants but the complainant told detectives she was also forced to have sex with several other men who are not on trial. The court heard that on 29 October 2011 Iblal Fiaz drove her to a hotel and dropped her off with an unknown man who raped her. Despite bleeding, she was then raped by two other men, the prosecutor said, Mudassar Hussain, 19, and Jubroin Khan, 21.
Mr Hussain, of Abbey Barn Road, and Mr Khan, of Rutland Avenue, both in High Wycombe, deny rape.
The remaining defendants, who all deny rape and are also from High Wycombe, are: Ammar Rafiq, 19, of Castleview Gardens; Mohammed Adnan, 21, of Upper Green Road; Kasam Dad, 23, of Gibbs Road; Rameez Ali, 21, of West End Street; Janaid Sharif, 26, of Cambridge Crescent and Asif Hussain, 21, of Plummer.
Tsarnaev friend Ibragim Todashev questioned about triple homicide before FBI shooting
Mugshot photos of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, left, and Ibragim Todashev, was fatally shot in Orlando, Fla. May 22, 2013 when he initiated a violent confrontation, FBI officials said. /Cambridge Police Department/AP/Orange County Corrections Department
A friend of Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was questioned about an unsolved triple homicide before authorities say he instigated a violent confrontation that resulted in his death early Wednesday morning in Orlando, Fla., CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports.
Authorities have what law enforcement sources described as strong evidence to suggest that Tsarnaev, his brother Dzhokhar and the man, a Chechen identified as Ibragim Todashev, were involved in the 2011 killings in Waltham, Mass.
The Tsarnaev brothers and Todashev apparently knew the three people killed in Waltham on the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the sources said.
The sources also said that authorities have no evidence tying Todashev to last month's deadly terrorist bombing at the Boston Marathon that the Tsarnaev brothers are accused of carrying out.
The sources described the 2011 killings as brutal and grisly, with all three bodies nearly decapitated. The bodies had marijuana and thousands of dollars in cash sprinkled on them.
Sometime after midnight Wednesday morning in Orlando, an FBI special agent from the bureau's Boston field office was accompanied by at least two troopers from the Massachusetts State Police and a Joint Terrorism Task Force agent to question Todashev, the sources said. The questioning primarily focused on the 2011 killings.
While the FBI's investigation into Wednesday's shooting is ongoing, the preliminary details are that Todashev became angered during the questioning and brandished a knife, prompting the officials to feel that their lives were in danger, the sources said. The FBI agent then shot Todashev.
Todashev lived in the Boston area at the time of the killings and was friends with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who died in a shootout with authorities in the days after the April 15 attack. It's unclear what kind of a relationship Todashev had with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who remains in federal custody awaiting trial.
Footage from ITV news of one of the jihadist murderers, a young black man with a 'London black' accent, his hands and cleavers dripping blood justifying his actions to a passer by. Here.
We have heard from a man - an attacker, who you see in the ITV News footgage - with blood on his hands, saying "...we swear by almighty Allah, that we will never stop fighting you. Until you leave us alone, your people will never be safe".
He goes on: "...the only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day. This British soldier is an eye-for-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth."
The two men waited for the police to arrive, then attacked the police, who shot them.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
Mehdi Hasan is a relentless and vigorous propaganda jihadist in the U.K., whose every word is directed to one purpose, and that is the promotion and defense of Islam, requiring the "struggle" against disbelief and disbelievers, whilst presenting as though he were a "moderate".
Mehdi Hasan is the liar who was caught on a recording citing the Quran and referring to disbelievers--atheists and others--as "cattle," then tried to wriggle out of it with deceptive gymnastics, smoke and mirrors, etc.
No surprises that this con artist would remove important parts of verse 5:32 about "mischief/corruption," just like all the liars do. They want you to believe it is peaceful, when they know it is not, as proved by the parts they intentionally hide. They know the vast majority of the public doesn't have the time or interest to check the original sources. They are doing their duty to Allah (and to themselves and their ummah) in presenting a pleasant face to the infidels, all the while intending--like the majority of Muslims as polled--to impose sharia.
_____________________________________________