It's a fake fatwa, and you're helping the enemy

From 630 WMAL:

"630 WMAL Suspends Michael Graham

In a statement released last night, 630 WMAL president and general manager Chris Berry announced midday personality Michael Graham would be indefinitely suspended pending an internal investigation into Graham's July 25th remarks that Islam is a terrorist organization.

'Talk radio is an excellent forum to discuss issues important to our society. Nevertheless, the statements that Michael Graham made on July 25 crossed the line,' Berry said. 'He has been suspended pending an internal investigation. We do not condone his position, and we believe his statements were irresponsible.'

Shortly after the second round of bombings in London last week, Graham began telling listeners Muslim leaders were complicit in terrorism, since they had not said or done enough to curb extremism.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a press release late Monday condemning Graham's remarks and urging the station to repremand him. The station has received hundreds of emails and calls since then, both supporting and criticizing Graham.

Yesterday, CAIR and other American Muslim leaders gathered in Washington to announce a fatwah, or religious edict, against terrorism, citing criticisms that Muslim leaders had not said or done enough to curb extremism. "

WMAL should reinstate Mr. Graham and apologize to him.

This station is taking the side of those who would destroy our Life and Liberty in their obedience to a god who commands:

"...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 9:5),

"fight..the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya" (Qur'an 9:29), and

"...fight...until all religion is for Allah" (Qur'an 8:39). (These verses are just a) sampling.

WMAL is helping CAIR, a front for Jihadists, and many of its leaders have been charged with, or convicted of, terrorism-related crimes.

Our nation will not be able to defend itself as it should if its people are not only unaware of the nature and purpose of Islam, but actually aid its adherents in establishing Shari'a.

A sad irony

Courtesy of Power Line:

"The arrest of one of the failed London bombers apparently has been a breakthrough, as nine more people were arrested earlier today, all in south London. It was also revealed that police found twelve unexploded bombs, some packed with nails, and four detonators in a car belonging to one of the terrorists who died in the July 7 attack.

In this rather grisly context, the AP's gratuitous 'religion of peace' reference seems a little jarring:

'Residents in Tooting said police arrested three men who lived in an apartment above a takeout restaurant selling halal burgers. Halal is meat from a herbivore slaughtered in a humane way — as Islam requires.'

No nail bombs for cows, I guess."

Is it the slaughtering or the humanity that is required? It depends on whether you're speaking of human beings or cattle.

The Qur'an commands fighting, killing, decapitating, and dismembering unbelievers, but I don't recall anything about doing it humanely.

That would mean Allah values unbelievers less than livestock, wouldn't it?

The myth of the 'moderate' Muslim

Excerpted from JihadWatch.org :

I have long maintained that those who identify themselves as moderate Muslims must resolutely attempt to convince Muslims that the theology and ideology of jihad is wrong, or their moderate statements are essentially useless -- and that jihadists will always be able to quote Qur'an and Sunnah against them. Jihadists, as I have often said, view the aggregate of moderate Muslims simply as a recruiting ground. I have also often noted here that support among Muslims for moderate Muslim groups such as Free Muslims seems to be notably slight. This is because, as I have said again and again, there are moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. But the mainstream media, left and right, has persistently ignored this, even though the facts abundantly attest to its truth. Now Salim Mansur in the London Free Press (thanks to Nicolei) tells these truths again:

Since at least Sept. 11, 2001, the non-Muslim world at large has been waiting for that segment of the Muslim population designated as "moderate" to resolutely denounce terrorists who, in defiling its faith-tradition, have subverted Islam into a cult of death.

The expectation there is a large, identifiable segment of "moderate" Muslims is a transposition to the Muslim world of the idea of "moderation" in politics and religion that sustains democracies.

It is also a natural expectation that the sort of extremism associated with "jihadi" (war-mongering) politics of Muslim terrorism and suicide bombings would generate a counter-offensive by "moderate" Muslims, repudiating such violence and isolating extremists politically and socially, while supporting the global war on terror.

But this has not happened. On the contrary, as atrocities mount, Muslims generally have remained -- their private anguish aside --publicly complacent, and their religious leaders divided on what should be the proper Islamic response.

...Instead of witnessing "moderate" Muslims resolutely taking back their faith-tradition from extremists and murderers, the world has grown numb to endless apologetics and polemics explaining away "jihadi" politics as a misguided, though inexcusable, response to the wrongs inflicted upon Muslims by the West.

The truth is there does not exist an identifiable body of Muslims, substantive in number or an outright majority, who could be described as "moderate" by their repudiation of Muslim extremists. [emphasis mine]

Violence has been an integral part of Muslim history, irrespective of whether it is sanctioned by Islam, and Muslims who unhesitatingly use violence to advance their political ambitions have created a climate within their faith-culture that any Muslim who questions such practice is then deemed apostate and subject to harm.

Consequently, what might pass for "moderate" Muslims, the large number of Muslims unaccounted for as to what they think, in practical terms constitute a forest within which extremists are incubated, nurtured, given ideological and material support, and to which they return for sanctuary....

Looking at the words and actions of an individual believer of whatever religion (or even a group of adherents to a particular faith) does not necessarily give an accurate representation of that particular faith (although it should be considered in evaluating it).

What defines a religion and the basis on which it should be judged is its sacred texts. From these the beliefs, and therefore, words and actions, of its people flow.

A faithful Muslim, no matter how decent, moderate, or patriotic, cannot argue against Jihad against unbelievers because Allah in his Qur'an commands it. That would be like a Christian arguing against the commands of Christ. You can't do that and still be a Christian (no matter what you might want to call yourself).

Were Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden justified? Some thoughts on Representative Tancredo's recent comments

Tom Tancredo, a member of the House from Colorado, was asked about a Muslim attack against U.S. cities using nuclear weapons. He stated that a nuclear response against Islam's holy sites might be appropriate.

Many otherwise sensible commentators disagreed. Two of my responses to one host's thoughts are posted below, not so much in defense of the Representative's statements, but to expose the wrong-headedness that apparently informs that host's positions.

This was sent this morning to Representative Tancredo:

Our "War on Terror" is actually a War of Self-Defense Against Jihad.

I believe that the enemy our nation faces in this life-and-death struggle is actually Qur'anic Islam. Suras 9:5, 9:29, and 8:39 clearly command the fighting against, subduing, and killing of non-Muslims.

These (and many other) commands of Allah, taken together with the life of Mohammed and 1400 years of global Jihad, demonstrate that those whom the politically-correct call "radicals" and "extremists" are actually practicing true Islam. It is the "moderate" Muslim whose practice is at variance with the "great world religion" and its scripture, founder, and history (and no doubt some of these "moderates" are actually practicing taqiyya).

A retraction of, or apology for, your hypothetical statement as to what the United States might do in response to a nuclear attack would show weakness to our enemy.

Those normally-sensible Americans calling for you to recant are taking a position consistent with Jihadist-front groups like CAIR, who are working vigorously to deceive the American people about the true nature and purpose of Islam. Such calls compromise what otherwise might be an effective deterrent.

Thousands of innocent Japanese were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Many innocent Germans were targeted in Dresden. Would those criticizing your statement today have made the same arguments sixty years ago? If force against civilians can be justified in those cases (especially in the case of using nuclear weapons against Japan), why is it not justified today (against what is arguably a much more malevolent and dishonorable enemy)?

Since it appears overwhelming, unspeakably-terrible force is the only thing Jihadists respect, such a response may be a necessary evil in defense of our innocents.

The first Rule of Holes...

...is: Stop Digging!

(Or, alternatively, "Ignorance is bliss--until the knife is at your throat")

Hugh Hewitt couldn't leave well enough alone by limiting his dhimmitude-inducing nescience to his radio program; he also updated his website with a few comments that require a response:

"First, Congressman Tancredo said that if we determined that 'extremist fundamentalist Muslims' attacked the U.S. with nukes, then we should bomb Mecca. Why, he should be asked, if 'extremist fundamentalist' Muslims are guilty would we declare war on all Muslims? Why make the distinction about 'extremist, fundamentalist' Muslims if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

"Extremist fundamentalist Muslims" is merely a synonym for "devout Muslims." Besides, it's redundant.

Mr. Hewitt's argument here belies the fact that Qur'anic Islam inspires and sustains the killers.

Can one have Islam without the Qur'an? No. Can one have Islam without Mohammed? Of course not. Yet it is both of these, the words of Allah and the sayings and doings of Mohammed, that the jihadists are fulfilling when they fight against and kill non-Muslims.

The only sense in which these individuals are extremist is that they are (currently) a relatively small number of people who actually are carrying out jihadist operations. But they must have additional ideological, logistical, and financial support. From where does this come? No doubt, other Muslims. And how many more in the Islamic world must lend them their prayers and their emotional support?

As evidenced by the 7/7 murderers, the degree of a Muslim's devotion to the Qur'an is directly proportional to the threat they pose to the non-Muslim world ("He recently became very religious").

It is only because a majority of Muslims are either unwilling or unable to carry out Jihad that they do not engage in it. (A third group are no doubt unaware of Allah's commands to do so. If they were, many of these would no longer be Muslim.)

Finally, doesn't "fundamentalist" mean they are adhering to the fundamentals of their scriptures? It does, as any cursory examination of Islam's "sacred" texts and history will bear out.

"Tancredo is no doubt being inundated with 'Stand tall Tom!' calls and e-mails from the anti-Islam crowd. This is a fringe opinion, but its supporters are not afraid of voicing it, much like the pro-Durbin remarks crowd on the left fringe urged Durbin to stand tall when he compared the American military to Nazis and Pol Pot's killers...."[emphasis mine]

This is the sort of repugnant moral equivalence Hugh usually condemns when others engage in it. It is completely indefensible here.

Our American military are not the monsters Durbin implied. Islam is the violent religion its god commands, and our nation needs to be prepared to do whatever it takes to crush Qur'anic Islam.

Hugh ought to answer these questions: Why are the "anti-Islam crowd" against Islam? Could it be they know something he doesn't? Or are the overwhelming majority of his Monday listeners ignorant, hateful bigots?

No doubt Hugh is surprised that his normally intelligent audience boycotted Monday's show.

He continues:

"...And he ought to apologize to every Muslim soldier, sailor, airman and Marine for suggesting that the way to respond to an attack on America is to attack their faith."

Yes, it is regrettable that some of our American heroes will suffer. But whose fault is that? The one who warns against the danger, or the ones who actually create the danger and necessitate such an extreme response?

As Hugh will discover if he researches Islam at all (and no, reading self-serving public announcements--possibly taqiyya--and having "Muslim" friends--probably Muslims In Name Only--doesn't make one an expert on Islam), it is not America attacking their faith, but their faith attacking America. They will have to choose, and a devout Muslim's first allegiance is to the Qur'an and to the Ummah, not to the United States.

"...Destroying Mecca wouldn't destroy Islam. It would enrage and unify Islam across every country in the world where Muslims lived."

After 9/11, many devout Muslims saw the "success" of the attack as a gift from Allah and a validation of their religious service. What would the destruction of their holiest site mean, but the defeat of their god and their theology of power?

"I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong...We are not in a war with devout Muslims. We are in a war with Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers and the nations that support those extremists."

What facts contradict the idea that the "War Against Terror" is really a "War of Self-Defense Against Jihad"? Anything from the Qur'an or Hadith? No.

Those "Muslims who think that their faith compels them to kill non-believers" are the "devout" Muslims, and they are right. The Qur'an commands it and Mohammed practiced it. Islam has carried out Jihad against the Infidel throughout its history.

Anyone who can read can see this for himself.

When Allied forces destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and fire-bombed Dresden, I'm sure the same questions Hugh asks above could have been asked then, "Why, ...if the 'extremist fundamentalist' government of Japan is guilty would we declare war on all Japanese? Why make the distinction about "extremist, fundamentalist" Nazis if the distinction doesn't matter in our response...."

It is war. What will deter the jihadists from attacking American cities with WMD, whether nuclear or otherwise? What will be the response from our President if 50,000 people are incinerated? Another warning? A strongly-worded note? To whom?

You must determine what matters to the enemy so that you have something with which to exert leverage.

...And I really hope that Congressman Tancredo, a fundamentally good man, will appear and regret his comments in unequivocal terms. Congressman Tancredo has seen the aftermath of Islamist terrorism up close when he visited Beslan. He knows the cost of encouraging such violence. I believe he will want to make clear that the vast majority of Muslims do not support that kind of butchery.

But that kind of butchery is commanded by Allah in his Qur'an. That sort of butchery was practiced by Mohammed and it has a long tradition throughout Islam's history, even to this very day.

What sense does it make to blame the victim here? Somehow we've encouraged such violence? How did we encourage 9/11? How did we encourage the U.S.S. Cole or our African embassies? How did we encourage the '93 WTC attack? How did those children in Beslan encourage their own blood being shed? How has any non-Muslim group encouraged such violence through the past 1400 years?

By not being Muslim.

What sense does it make to blame the victim? How does lying down and crawling deter the jihadists?

How does removing any option, even the most extreme, do anything but reassure our enemies of America's weakness?

An otherwise brilliant man blinded by multiculturalism and ignorance of Islam

In discussing today Tom Tancredo's comments on what to do if jihadists were to use nuclear weapons against American cities, Hugh Hewitt, an outstanding political commentator, revealed a huge blind spot regarding Islam.

It is an ignorance demonstrated by many in the West that, if allowed to persist, will result in either the death or dhimmitude of "unbelievers" everywhere.

Mr. Hewitt is right when he argues that many Muslims are decent, law-abiding people. He is right to want to avoid killing innocents, and he is right in arguing that a cataclysmic attack against Islam's holy sites would enrage those who otherwise would give little or no support to the Jihad Against the West.

Here is where Hugh is dead wrong:

First, open war is upon us, whether he would see it or not. We are not at war with Islam; Islam is at war with us, just as it has always been.

This is because the Qur'an commands it. Sura 9:5 says, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them;" Sura 9:29 reads, "...fight the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya;" and 8:39 exhorts, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah."

For 1400 years, Islam has waged holy war against non-Muslims all around the world. The global jihad continues today. All non-Muslims need to recognize this before it is too late. Having otherwise well-respected, influential commentators like Mr. Hewitt deny this truth dangerously weakens us in our life-and-death struggle against Islam.

Second, Mr. Hewitt apparently views Islam through the prism of Christianity (as do many in the West).

For many people, since Islam is a religion, and over and over again we hear about how Islam means "peace" and values "tolerance," and because many Muslims in the West appear to be decent people, Islam is believed to be just like Judaism or Christianity. People automatically assume that Islam shares the same values as those two (actually) great religions.

It is not! It does not!

If you need any more evidence than the commands of the Qur'an, the examples of Muslim perfection found in the Hadith, and fourteen centuries of bloody Jihad against the infidels, the four Englishmen who made their profession of faith on July 7th should be enough.

Third, the Reformation of the western Church was a move toward obedience to that faith's Scriptures. When a Muslim kills a non-Muslim for refusing to convert or submit to Islam, it fulfills Allah's command. What Islam needs is not a reformation (back to Qur'anic fundamentals), but a deformation away from the Qur'an's numerous commands to fight and kill unbelievers.

Fourth, instead of investigating the validity of the arguments of those who challenged his position, Hugh resorted to ad hominem attacks. That kind of non-argument is the last gasp of those supporting the untenable.

Instead of trying to equate one's ideology of choice with factors over which one has no control (ethnicity, national origin, etc.) , perhaps Mr. Hewitt should research terms like taqiyya and kitman and the doctrine of Abrogation. Maybe he should delve into why traditional Islamic theology divides the world into two lands: dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the Abode of War).

Hugh might discover that the "tolerance" afforded non-Muslims under Islam has been a less-than-second-class citizenship. He might discover the meaning of "dhimmi" before he becomes one himself.

Mr. Hewitt demonstrates his lack of Islamic credentials by denying what those who have studied Islam's "sacred" texts and history know to be true.

The answer is, "Because Allah commands it"

Hugh Fitzgerald asks and answers the question: 'Why do they hate us?' From Jihad Watch:

The question itself -- 'Why do they hate the West' --is the wrong question, and inevitably encourages the wrong answers.

The correct question is: 'Why do they hate the rest?' Anytime anyone, anywhere, talks about 'why they hate America' or 'why they hate the West' they have already, unwittingly, conceded much of the case.

But like the Ptolemaic (geocentric) theory, that could not account for the data or have predictive value as did the Copernican (heliocentric), those who keep focusing only on 'the West' will not be able to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Again and again it must be pointed out that the greatest victims of Islam have been Hindus, with some 60-70 million killed, and tens of thousands of temples destroyed. The Greco-Buddhist civilization of Afghanistan was largely destroyed by Muslim invaders. The Hindus and Buddhists who once inhabited the East Indies have been steadily reduced, under constant Muslim pressure, as a percentage of the population. The attacks all over Asia, and all over Africa, of Muslims against Christians (not only the Sudan, but the Jihad, with Egyptian pilots strafing Ibo villages, that was the war to suppress Biafra) and animists, need to be constantly recalled.

Not the 'War Against the West.'

But 'War Against the Rest' -- all the Rest.

If Israel was, in the last half-century, the Infidel victim that received the most media attention, this was only because the tiny Infidel state of Israel is located right in the Middle East. Similarly, the Christians of Lebanon, though they did not possess a state of their own, have been targets, especially the Maronites of Lebanon.

If America has been the main target, it is not because of American foreign policy but because America is the most powerful, and most unyielding, and must unsusceptible (chiefly, but not entirely, because it has far more believers in muscular Christianity, not the etiolated pro-"palestinian" kind, and far fewer followers of the Western cult of "tolerance" that the Dutch, to their own great surprise and sorrow, have suddenly and still confusedly realized leaves much to be desired, and is no substitute for knowledge of the enemy).

What Do Women Want? is a title with which we are familiar.

What Do Muslims Want?

That is a title that needs a book to be written under it. Okay, I hereby copyright it, pour tous pays sauf l'U.R.S.S., (which rumor has it no longer exists, so I needn't worry)

Phrase the question wrongly, and hark what silliness follows.

Phrase it correctly -- and you are in, like Flynn.

One of those taking part in the discussion here answered: "They hate us because they think we're corrupt and evil. We have pornography. We have drug use. We have homosexuality."

Is that it? Do the Sudanese blacks, all those Nuer and Dinka tribesmen, spend their time sniffing cocaine or watching Linda Lovelace? Did those 60-70 million Hindus who were killed, or Buddhists, or those devout Christians, singing their hymns, routinely blown up in Pakistan and Indonesia, or those Christian nurses punished in Saudi Arabia for singing Christmas hymns, or those naughty Copts in Egypt, who dare to remain Copts, and ditto with those Maronites in Lebanon -- are these people "hated" and persecuted and murdered by Muslims because they were "corrupt and evil...have pornography...drug use...homosexuality"?

What a failure to comprehend. No, let me put it to you bluntly: the Dinka and Nuer, the Hindus and the Buddhist monks in Thailand, the Christians opening their hymnals in Karachi or Lagos, the Hindu villagers in Kashmir and Pakistan and Bangladesh, are not now, and never were, "corrupt and evil...[with] pornography...drug use...homosexuality."

It is not cocaine and rainbow parties which caused Muslims to persecute and murder non-Muslims everywhere they conquered, and today, even within the countries called "Muslim," to keep the non-Muslims in their place.

It is the fact that they were, they are, Infidels. That's it. Whether we are in our Sunday-go-to-meeting best, or looking like Paris Hilton, looking at Rembrandt, or solemnly examining at the Tate Modern the unmade bed, underpants, tampax, and all the unseemly rest, that recently won a prize as "art."

Infidels. The prim and the libertine, le cru et le cuit, the wise man and the fool. It doesn't matter. Infidels -- that's our original sin. And unless we submit, as dhimmis or as "reverts," we will have hell to pay. Don't think that putting your soul in an upright position will save you, will prevent those Muslims from trying to highjack the civilizational plane you are on -- it won't work.

No, Mr. and Mrs. and Miss Infidel, and all the ships at sea, wherever you are, you can do no right by Islam. Don't even try.

A toast, Mr. Henry ...

To America's Sons and Daughters
who have left hearth and home
to defend our Life and Liberty:

May God grant them Grace, Mercy, and Strength!

Huzzah!