New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?

28 January 2010

They have largely been ignored by the rest of the world, but some analysts say the U.S. might soon need to reach out to a little known indigenous group in Algeria known as the Kabyles, for help in the war against al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists who operate from the North African nation.

The Kabyles are part of the indigenous Berber peoples of North Africa and who in recent years have been pursuing self rule for the territory they call Kabylia within Algeria. A largely secular group of Muslims, the Kabyles support democracy, and like the U.S. they have been targeted by the Islamic terrorists who use Kabylia as a launching pad for their attacks. Their leaders maintain the Algerian government discriminates against them. Population estimates for the Kabyle people range between seven to ten million, with two million of them living mostly in France.

Walid Phares, a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, and a Fox News terrorism analyst, says the Kabyles "are mostly secular and believe in democracy, and could become an efficient ally against the Jihadists." He says "al Qaeda and the Salafists have strong bases in Algeria, and the Kabyles resist them fiercely so we have a strategic interest in helping them, but without crumbling our good relations with the Algerian secular Government."

Some experts believe that strategy could be risky. Ronald E. Neumann, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Algeria from 1994-1997 believes that any U.S. intervention in internal Algerian politics would be a mistake. Neumann, who is President of the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington, tells Fox News that U.S. "support would unquestionably threaten our relationship with Algeria", as the Algerians would view it "as a fundamental threat" to their country.

On its website, the State Department describes the U.S./Algeria relationship as a growing one, especially since 9/11 where "contacts in key areas of mutual concern, including law enforcement and counter-terrorism cooperation, have intensified." The State Department did not respond to questions regarding the U.S.’s position on the Kabyles.

Experts hope the Obama administration can strike a chord between its relations with the Algerian government and the Kabyle people, who have been pressing for some sort of autonomy ever since Algeria gained independence from France in 1962.

Walid Phares, who has also lectured on the Kabyles, says that the administration should not hesitate in supporting the rights of the Kabyles and accept their call for self rule "as a legitimate principle". Phares says "we need to maintain excellent relations with the Algerian Government, which is fighting al Qaeda. We can continue to support Algiers against al Qaeda while we are urging them to talk with the Kabyles, their own citizens: it will be in their own interest to do so."

"We are the only bastion of anti-Islamization on the continent", says Ferhat Mehenni the President of the Movement for the Autonomy of Kabylia (MAK), which is one of the three main Kabyle political parties, from his exile in France. He maintains that they have to contend with kidnappings and killings by Islamic extremists, including the Algerian arm of Al Qaeda, all of whom operate along the mountainous regions where the majority of Kabyles live. Mehenni tells Fox News that only last week a church was burned down by extremists and that he wants to work with the U.S. in efforts against al Qaeda, but will need its support for its peoples own freedom.

In 1992 Algeria was thrown into civil war following the election of an Islamic party. The military annulled the result, which led to a bloody civil war with Islamic terrorists which, according to the U.S. State Department, resulted in 150,000 deaths. In 2006 Al Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb, was formed and has adopted suicide bombings and kidnappings as part of its modus operandi. In 2007 it bombed the UN’s offices in Algiers which killed thirty people and the attacks have continued. The State Department continues to warn Americans about traveling to Algeria due to fears of terror attacks.

In what seems to be a sensitive topic, not just to the Obama administration, but also the Algerian government, the Algerian Ambassador to Washington did not respond to several requests that were directed to his office for an interview.

Meanwhile, Ferhat Mehenni is trying to get a meeting with Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and while the UN Secretary General has met with the likes of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad he wouldn’t meet with Mehenni who says he feels "betrayed" by the UN, but hopes a commitment of support from the Obama administration for the Kabyle fight for self rule, will lead to a strong partnership against the Islamic fundamentalists, saying that the Kabyles can be a "rampart" against them, and become a beacon for democracy in the area.

Phares, who describes the Kabyles as the "Indians of North Africa", believes the U.S. must always be "on the side of democratic values and fundamental rights" and that there should "not be any hesitations with regards the principle of supporting the rights of the Kabyles."

As to a change of policy by the administration regarding support of democratic movements in the region, Phares says, "because the administration is relying on the advice of experts representing the interests of the regimes and anti-democratic ideologies such as Jihadism and Pan Arabism, the administration was told and convinced that if the U.S. calls for freedom this would upset the Muslim world. The Administration was fooled because Muslims want freedom too.’’

January 28, 2010 - 9:54 AM by: Ben Evansky

Leave a comment

Discuss live in the forums

your comments:
New Ally in the War Against Al Qaeda?
11 February 2010, par Imazighen 1980
Let’s not make the same mistake the Kurds made in Iraq. America is only after its own interests in Algeria and if we (Kabyles or Berbers in general) help them against the Islamists then we will effectively have signed out own death certificate. After all, the US will leave and all the Islamo-Jihadists will flock to Kabylia to wage Jihad on the Berbers??!! Thanks, but no Thanks!!

The US is a country that has no scrupules (?) in its foreign policies, let’s not forget they are the biggest ally of the Wahhabi Terrorist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world. As Berbers we have absolutely nothing to do with Arab in-fighting in Algeria between the Arab regime and the Arab-Islamists. I say let them finish each other off, and if the US wants to get involved then let them deal with Algerian Arabs since the Al-Qaeda in Algeria is essentially an Arab-Terrorist organisation facing the Algeria Government, which in turn is an Arab-Terrorist regime.

We want our own autonomy to govern our own land and to get a 50% share of the Algerian oil. Let the Algerian regime deal with its own creation - the Islamists, and any US involvement is a matter for these two to deal with.

answer this message

http://www.north-of-africa.com/article.php3?id_article=610

More About the "Nice Moslem" and the "Good Moslem" -- are the one and the same?

This refers to Bill Warner's previously published Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim?

"Aghast" Scholarship
February 13, 2010
by Bill Warner

Claude Salhami was 'aghast' at a recent politicalislam.com newsletter-Is a Nice Muslim a Good Muslim? He replied to the newsletter with his Scourge of 'Islam Experts', but he missed my point.
The point of the Nice Muslim newsletter is that the doctrine of Islam is inhuman, not that Muslims always practice the Islamic doctrine at all times. A Muslim can be a fine person in dealing with a kafir when they are not practicing Islam. A summary of the Nice Muslim argument is:
The Koran defines the kafir, a non-Muslim. A kafir is hated and plotted against by Allah. Kafirs can be killed, tortured, crucified, raped, insulted, enslaved and deceived. Kafir is the worst word in the human language. A kafir does not have any positive attributes.
There is no Golden Rule in Islamic ethics. The Koran repeats 12 times that a Muslim is not the friend of a kafir.
Mohammed repeatedly said that it is good to deceive the kafirs, if it advances Islam.
Mohammed destroyed each and every kafir neighbor. It is Islam's purpose to make all kafirs submit to Islam.
A Muslim can only be a true friend to a kafir by the use of the Golden Rule, a non-Islamic principle.
The conclusion is that there is no good in Islam for the kafir. Sure there are those 2.6% of the Koranic words that seem to be good, but in every case the so-called good verses are abrogated later.
Anyone who implements the doctrine of Islam is not the friend of a kafir. If they are actually a friend, it is because of the power of the Golden Rule, not Islam. There is no good in Islam for the kafir. Note that this result was reached without the use of a single verse of the Koran (no cherry picking), but uses the systemic nature of its kafir doctrine.
Mr. Salhami makes these points in his reply:
On many occasions Christians have acted badly and Muslims have acted well.
So? Christians and Muslims are people. You can prove anything you want by choosing the right member. He also has some remarks about Christianity. To which I reply: I only discuss Islam, not comparative religion.
There are good Muslims and bad Muslims and we should not confuse the two.
What is meant by 'good' Muslims? Do we judge by the Islam of Medina or by the Golden Rule? If we judge by Islam of Medina, then Osama bin Laden is a good Muslim. Of course, by the Golden Rule he is not so nice. Stay with the doctrine of Islam in judging Muslims. A good Muslim is one who follows Islamic doctrine, not one who is likable.
Mr. Salhami uses his personal experience with Muslims to learn about Islam.
This confuses cause and effect. Islam is the cause and Muslims are the effect. A nice Muslim does not prove a nice Islam. Learning from Muslims is Muslim-ology,a sociological personal endeavor. Learning about Islam from the Koran, Sira, Hadith and Sharia law is learning about Islam.
He criticizes my use of the coined term, kafir-Muslim.
I will grant him this criticism and thank him for it. A much better term is Golden-Rule Muslim. Muslims, like all humans, have an innate sense of the truth of the Golden Rule and use it at times. However, this is an un-Islamic act since Islam does not have a Golden Rule.
All of the nice Muslims Mr. Salhami meets in the Middle East will not teach him anything about the suffering of their kafir ancestors during the jihad invasion and the centuries of being dhimmis living under the horror of Sharia law. He won't learn how the native civilization has been annihilated and replaced with the civilization of Islam. They will not tell him about the murder of millions of innocent Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, animists and Hindus to create the Islamic civilization.
His nice Muslim friends will not instruct him in the vision, strategy and tactics of jihad to annihilate all kafir civilizations. Nor will his nice Muslim friends ever explain Islam's dualistic ethical system, with one set of ethics for kafirs and a different set of ethics for their Muslim brothers.
Mr. Salhami is aghast at the self-taught scholars in Islam. There is a good reason for their appearance. The university trained 'experts' are apologists for Islam. They are trained in denial and justification and produce the type of scholarship that allows the army to investigate Major Hasan's jihad at Fort Hood and never refer to Islam.
The 'experts' give us the history of Islamic conquest and imperialism and praise it as the glorious rise of Islam. The 'experts' teach courses in women's studies and ignore Sharia law and Mohammed's treatment of women. They lecture on slavery and never mention the Muslim wholesaler who sold the slaves to the white man on the wooden ship or the Islamic slave trade in North Africa, East Africa, Europe and India. The denial goes on and on as the 'experts' drive our university policy. Is there a course in any American university system that is critical of Islamic political ideology? Indeed, the 'experts' argue that such a course would be bigotry.
It is the media 'experts' that give us jihad at Mumbai, India and never mention Islam. It is the 'experts' that give us the Official Islam that Bush and Obama talk about. Nice stuff-Official Islam. Too bad it does not exist.
So, it is no wonder that when we have such dhimmified professors, university trained 'experts' and media that professionals from other fields start reading the Koran, Sira and Hadith to see for themselves what the ideology actually is that drives the contradictions between current events and what we are told.
When you understand that the entire doctrine of Islam is found in Koran, Sira and Hadith, you realize that Islam is simpler than the 'experts' told us. All three texts have been made readable today and any disciplined person can become well informed. The 'experts' have failed us, and we must teach ourselves.
It is easy to be an expert. Know Mohammed and the Koran (the book he brought about). If what you say agrees with the Koran or Mohammed, then you are right. If it does not agree with Mohammed, then it is wrong, no matter who you are.
Mr. Salhami, buckle your seatbelt and prepare to be aghast again. It is a war between the university-trained dhimmi 'experts' and the self-taught kafir scholars who stand on the doctrine found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith. We will use critical thought on the doctrine and history of political Islam.
The 'experts' will talk about nice Muslims, criticize Christianity and the West, while not holding Muslims responsible for their ideology. Every Muslim must be held accountable for Islamic political doctrine and its bloody history.
Bill Warner, Director, Center for the Study of Political IslamPermalinkcopyright (c) CBSX, LLCpoliticalislam.com Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

How Many Times Do the Islamic Terrorists Have to Hit Us . . .

before we believe that the Islamic Jihadists are trying to kill as many of us as they can?

It’s Still Not Islamist Extremism?

By Supna Zaidi
Muslim World Today

It seems that every time there is an actual or attempted terrorist attack, the media goes into a tailspin, asking experts, pundits and politicians how such a thing could happen, and what we should do to prevent another incident in the future. Unfortunately, it is usually only a matter of time before another incident occurs, only to renew such empty commentary on TV yet again.

Sadly, the ineptitude illustrated by the latest terrorist effort by Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib in airline, airport, and immigration visa security policies reveals a systemic lack of resolve from the executive branch to the TSA and Homeland security to fight Islamist extremism. And without real resolve at the top, we shouldn’t expect much more than apathy from a domestic bag checker or consulate officer abroad.

Resolve requires believing there is a common enemy. Yet, current and past administrations deny that the Islamism, or political Islam behind the indoctrination of men like Muhammad Atta, Nidal Hasan, and now Umar Farouk Abdulmuttab. It is not Islam or a strain of Islam because we say so, but because the terrorists believe so. Empowered by Qurans, printed with militant anti-colonial commentaries from Muslim Brotherhood icons, or the anti-American and anti-western tirades of the South Asian Maulana Mawdudi’s version of Islam, Deobandism, Muslims are taught to interpret their social political ills through a lens of the most violent, separatist, and antiquated passages of Islam.

Yet, everyone, non-Muslim and Muslim alike on the airwaves seems confident in stating, "This isn’t Islam." Well, if it is not, where is the competing interpretation of the faith spreading globally to marginalize Islamic extremism. Oh, wait, the Saudi’s won’t fund that? Shocking.

That is because central to Islamist pr is deflection. By convincing everyone that all the craziness since 9/11 is strictly America’s fault, Islamists proceed to attack fellow Muslims with impunity.

The recent attack by Islamist extremists on a peaceful Muharram procession in Karachi by the minority Shiite community where over 40 were killed is but one illustration. A second glaring example is the democratic revolt in Iran, which has been labeled a western conspiracy and "un-Islamic" by the dictators in charge.

And where does the son of a wealthy banker like Mr. Abdulmutallab fit in? Well, as the college president of an Islamic society absorbed in rhetoric hostile to the West, or "at least in its interaction with the Muslim world," not very far. The Islamic Society, as the New York Times, notes, "provided comfort" to Abdulmutallib, posting YouTube videos revealing that the organization, "served in recent years as a forum for agitated debate about the "oppression" of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims by the United States and other Western countries."

Let’s not forget that oppression justifies legitimate jihad in the Islamic world. And where a man’s worldview is filtered by his faith, not a secular identity, its Muslim versus non-Muslim wherever he goes. This encourages boys like Abdulmutallib to reduce global politics to the world simply, and intentionally "out to get" Muslims, ignoring a myriad of factors that complicate that equation which would also make local elites and politicians accountable for the poor position of millions of Muslims worldwide.

Addressing Islamist indoctrination remains the most important and most ignored aspect of Islamist terrorism. While it continues to create boys like Abdulmutallib, immediate security concerns will remain.

But, instead of distributing body scanners, and any other technological innovations airports may need, the TSA will be forced to unduly debate the need for full body scanners because of privacy issues.

Television stations like CNN will repeatedly air terrorist affiliated CAIR messages imploring Americans not to ethnically profile, and our politicians will remain awkward when talking about Islamic extremism because, they themselves, apparently think Americans are intelligent enough to distinguish between Muslims engaged in a global political movement from ones who also want to live under democratic laws that protect women, ethnic and religious minorities under a regime that keeps religion out of politics.

By remaining reactive rather than proactive new innovative terrorist attacks will only grow. Richard Reid used his shoes to carry the same PETN powder Abdulmutallib carried in his underwear. So now, we take off our shoes when going through security and we debate body scanners. With everyone forgets that while we plug holes in security as the terrorists reveal them to us, they are searching for new ones for "next time."

(Supna Zaidi is assistant director of Islamist Watch, a project at the Middle East Forum and editor of Muslim World Today )

article reprinted from http://www.paktoday.com/mwtoday/sapna.htm

India Under Attack - Via Bengal!

THE DEATH OF INDIA STARTS FROM BENGAL
by BENGAL UNDER ATTACK
http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2010/02/death-of-india-starts-from-bengal.html

Read this exceptional article written by Dr Arun Shourie - THIS IS NOT MR. ADVANI SPEAKING.

WHAT COMES NEXT?

DR. PETER HAMMOND'S BOOK " SLAVERY, TERRORISM & ISLAM: HISTORICAL ROOTS & CONTEMPORARY THREAT" states:

Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life.Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other components.

Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.

Here's how it works.

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam.

Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine ["Palestinian" Arab occupied Israeli Territories] -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace.

Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.

SO WHERE IS BENGAL:

In districts where there are over 40% Muslim population, there is anarchy and hardly any rule of law. It provides for terrorist breeding and recruiting ground as I have written in many earlier articles. Shockingly barbaric Islamic rules are carried out with impunity without recourse to Indian Penal Code, including beheadings (these are documented facts).

WHAT NEXT:

Muslims demand Urdu to be the 2nd official language of four subdivisions: At a time when the Left Front is trying to keep its minority votes intact, the minorities' organisations want the state government to declare Urdu as an official language in four subdivisions of Kolkata, Garden Reach, Asansol and Islampur.

To press for their demand, representatives of various Muslim organisations under the banner of Anjuman Taraqqui Urdu (Hindi) staged a demonstration at Rani Rashmini Road on Sunday.

At present along with Bengali, Nepali is also an official state language since 1961. The four subdivisions where Muslim organisations want Urdu to be declared as an official language have nearly 20 per cent Urdu speaking minority population.

"If our demand is not met then its effect will be seen in the elections. There are more than 60 Assembly seats where minorities play significant role during elections," claimed a representative during the demonstration.

THE THREAT:

Always aimed at political class - vote share where minorities will swing the vote. And political class caves in.

WHAT FOLLOWS:

Caving in as : West Bengal govt announces reservation for Muslims in govt jobs: "On a day when the Andhra Pradesh High Court struck down job reservation for Muslims, the West Bengal government on Monday announced 10 per cent quota in employment for the community under the OBC category."

AND SO MY DEAR INDIANS - WHAT WILL FOLLOW IS MORE PRODUCTION OF CHILDREN FROM THE GREAT ISLAMIC FACTORY AND SEE BENGAL GO DOWN IN FLAMES AS IS SURE TO FOLLOW AS PER DR. HUMMOND'S PERCENTAGE FORMULA - AND WITH THAT THE IDEA OF INDIA.

Posted by BENGAL UNDER ATTACK at 3:13 AM

Labels: BENGAL

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey BUA,

Good that u have come bak to Bengal. It is indeed an alarming situation and now with this quota we are legitimizing all illegal migrants from Bangladesh to set up terror factories.The divergence between Gujarat and Bengal could not be starker.
February 8, 2010 8:00 PM

BENGAL UNDER ATTACK said...
I want to clarify something here. When I am talking of Muslims in this article, I dont mean the kinds that are represented by APJ Abdul Kalam, AR Rahman (a convert), Aamir Khans of this world. And there are Pervez Hoodboy, Asma Jehangirs and Ahmed Rashids in plenty in pakistan too.Unfortunately I am talking of the vast majority of Muslims who live in ghettoized colonies and get easily influenced by rabid Maulanas. Incl some educated ones who are lost in their identity and see Islamic cause as a vision to their own confused life. And hence this forms more than 80% of the Muslims in the sub-continent and elsewhere. Many well meaning perhaps, but will support "quom" over nation building.Go and see where least taxes come from, go and see where least electricity bills are paid, which localities. Even Hindus are Christians are poor - but there is something called "pride in nation" and nationbuilding that is missing en masse in ordinary Muslims in India.
February 9, 2010 2:45 AM
　
Narottam said...
Don't know much, but you are going right.

Post a Comment

http://bengalunderattack.blogspot.com/2010/02/death-of-india-starts-from-bengal.html

Related:

How to Stop Islam from Taking Over Your Country
Even More Drastic Times Call for Even More Drastic Measures
http://howtostoptheislamicjihad.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=30

from
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad

ALSO

Hindus of Bangladesh
Bangladesh and the destruction of Hinduism and Buddhism

Bangladeshi Hindu - Representing Bengali, Indian & World Hindus, Religion, Temple, Blog, Hinduism, Issues & Rights
http://www.bangladeshihindu.com/

Don't Believe Iran! Lies and Dissimulation are Part of Islam

.
The real reason Iran can't be trusted

By Mamoun Fandy

London – In the run-up to talks with Iran last month [October 2009], many in Europe and the United States asked whether Iran would, or even could, come clean on its nuclear activities.

Should the West trust Iranian promises? The short answer is "no." But the underlying question is "Why not?"

The answer lies in Iranian belief systems – notably the doctrine of taqiyya, a difficult concept for many non-Muslims to grasp. Taqiyya is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political or worldly affairs. At one level it means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime can tell themselves that they are obliged by their faith not to tell the truth.

This doctrine has not been discussed much in the West, but it should be. How should the world deal with taqiyya in Shiite Islam in the context of Iran's nuclear file?

Can Iran be trusted?

In Iran, the teachings of Shiite Islam govern all aspects of society. And taqiyya – dissimulation and concealment – is one of the key elements of the Shiite faith. While many outsiders are surprised by Iran's concealment of its nuclear installations, those who study the Shiite faith and recognize the signs of taqiyya are not.

Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Witness Israel's concealment of its nuclear capabilities. And former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping counseled his country to "hide its brightness" – for strategic reasons.

Iran's approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Certainly states do not need a religious edict to lie or obfuscate. But it helps if a state has one already in place.

What can the West do?

Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran's nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. Such context sheds critical light on the insecurities of the Iranian regime and that of the Shiite community at large.

Taqiyya doesn't mean the West should give up all negotiations with Iran, or that Iran can never be trusted. Tehran's concealment is a means to an end: It wants nuclear weapons to provide security for the clerical regime and the Shiite community. So long as Iran feels threatened, it will deceive. But if the West can ease Tehran's anxiety with strong assurances, then negotiations will be more truthful.

How a doctrine of deceit developed

Taqiyya requires the faithful to be deceitful at times of weakness. The history of Shiites in their conflict with Sunnis is a history of the downtrodden. They have been the underdogs in Islamic history, and have had to protect both their communities and their faith from being overrun by the more numerous Sunnis. Taqiyya emerged as a response.

Taqiyya offers a license to violate the strict rules of the faith in cases of extreme pressure or threat of extinction – something not unusual in Sunni-Shiite history. The doctrine allows dissimulation in the service of self-preservation, practiced by the faithful.

The teachings of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shiite imam, emphasise taqiyya as a political tool. "Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden," he advised. He also defined the relationship between the Shiite and other Muslims: "[B]eing double-faced with one's own takes one outside the bounds of faith, but with others [with non-Shiites] is a form of worship."

The words of Shiite imams are viewed as having the authority of the prophet Muhammad, and they entail obligations. Taqiyya is one component of the faith, and the Shiites are instructed to practice it until the time the Mahdi returns. The Mahdi is the figure who, like the Messiah in Christianity, will return and spread justice on earth.

Until that moment occurs, the Shiite faithful are obliged to practice taqiyya in their dealings with other Muslims, as well as with non-Muslims.

Opposing value systems

While the policies of the West and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are driven by the concept of transparency as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, those who are negotiating with Iran must question the extent to which the Shiite regime in Tehran is driven by the concept of concealment. There are two different value systems at work here, making common ground exceedingly difficult to find.

Today the West may rightly be obsessed with nuclear installations in Iran, or the number of centrifuges it has, or even uranium-enrichment levels.

Last month, Iranian officials allowed IAEA officials to inspect a nuclear facility near the city of Qom. But they won't reveal everything: that would violate their faith. Shiites are obliged by their religious teachings to protect both the faith and the community until the return of the Mahdi. From Tehran's perspective, "nuclear" taqiyya is a must, because strategic nuclear weapons are the only means to protect the Shiite community in these modern times.

The West must understand that Iran's nuclear guile is a function of regime insecurities. And its insecurity is rooted in reality: Iran feels squeezed by the tens of thousands of US troops who brought regime change to its west, in Iraq, and to its east, in Afghanistan.

If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith.

Mamoun Fandy is the director of the Middle East program at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, "The Shia-Sunni Divide and the Coming Middle Eastern Cold War."

[Fri Nov 20, 4:00 am ET]

[ALSO SEE Can Moslems Be Trusted? "Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah"

and

Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries]

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

NOW . . .

If you have read this far, do you believe this quote from the foregoing Mahmoun Fandy article represents the way things are with Iran?

"If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith."

There is no sign of Iran "negotiating in good faith," given Obama's weakness in facing its nuclear ambitions.

How much "feeling safe" does the Iraninian regime need? Allowing it to go ahead with perfecting the nuclear weapons it desires so that it can nuke Israel off the face of the Earth?

KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART ONE

Fitna and the Kafir: Part One

By Kenneth Roberts

December 1, 2009

Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.

Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.

Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.

What is fitna then?

The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.

This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.

As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.

There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.

In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.

Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.

Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.

Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.

The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.

Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.

In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.

The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.

Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.

In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!

As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.

In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?

The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).

Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.

Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.

The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.

Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.

Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.

Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'

But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.

Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)

No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.

The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.

The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"

Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!

That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.

Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.

Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.

Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.

FACTS, FALLACIES AND BIGOTS

by Bill Warner

Bill Warner presents us, in his words, with "an exercise in fact-based rational thought." He quotes a fairly typical, politically correct, fair-minded Rabbi committed to ecumenicism and determined to think well of everyone. Warner quotes the letter that embodies that point of view, then proceeds to demonstrate that this image of Islam doesn't conform to reality. Defusing the hatred in the Koran because the Jewish and Christian Scriptures also -- in the Rabbi's words -- contain "bad material" doesn't anwer why Jews and Christians have moved on, but Muslims still stone people and behead them and cut off hands for trivial offenses.
READ MORE

Islamic Terror is not only fought in the battlefields of Afghanistan and the Middle East . . .

from Small Wars Journal :

Major Hasan reintroduces 'Terror and Consent'

Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print

The massacre at Fort Hood is a reminder that the War on Terror is not fought just in south Afghanistan or Mosul. It is a global war also fought in an office building inside a military base in Texas. Many counter-terror analysts focus on the Pakistan connection and preventing The Big One that could top 9/11. But the real problem may well be the self-motivated “small ball” players like Major Hasan or a future disciple of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. “Small ball” terrorism won’t have the economic, political, or strategic impact that 9/11 did. But if there is enough of it, the public will eventually find political leadership that will provide an adequate response to the problem.

What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of “market-state terrorism” he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.

After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt’s theories.

Major Hasan’s case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don’t know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?

Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won’t be just theory for much longer.

Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
Comments (6)

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/major-hasan-reintroduces-terro/

ALSO see

An Oath Violated
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-oath-violated/

‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam

Why?

because Islam means peace. That's what they claim. But . . .



























An islamic miniature (one of many) that portrays muhamhead at a beheading. So if their guy is at killings, what is the big deal with associating islam with violence.

It's because it is TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.

www.practicalturkish.com/miniature-siyer-i-nebi--beheading.jpg

It shows Ali bin Abu Taleb beheading Nasr bin al-Hareth in the presence of the Prophet Mohamhead and his companions.

In 1995, this miniature (measuring just 7 by 9 inches approximately) fetched £ 42,000 at Sotheby's in London. the devil hates to be discovered for what the deceiver is.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/

above from http://www.finalcrusade.com/4.html

‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam
by sheikyermami on November 7, 2009

At last! Not a moment too soon: denial is a river in Egypt, but the kuffar-media is desperate to lap it up.

Debbie Schlussel:
Nidal Malik Hasan was just a "stressed out victim of Islamophobia."

King Kong Schlong: Its Islam, Stupid! Spare us the "Sudden ‘Camel Jockey’ Allahu Akbar Derangement Syndrome… Fake ’Dr’ Phil spouts this same BS line about stress and trauma being the reason, not that Islam actually was the reason.
Breitbart.com

Islam is "not responsible" for the bloodbath at an army base in Texas where Muslim-American army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down 13 people, the prayer leader at the mosque where the officer regularly worshipped said Friday.

"We offer our condolences and prayers to the families that have a person who died," said Imam Mohammed Abdullahi over loud-speakers that carried the weekly Muslim prayer to several hundred worshippers gathered at the mosque.

"Islam is not responsible," he stressed.
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/11/07/islam-not-responsible-for-fort-hood-massacre-us-imam/

　
Former JAG Officer on CNN Tells Dr. Phil to Quit The "Psychobabble" & Deal With The Islamic Factor at Ft. Hood....

Lefties are working overtime to spin this one so Islam isn't the motive (he's mentally ill, Islamophobia drove him to do it, Bush's fault etc). The facts: Hasan's a Muslim and he killed infidels to please Allah. Deal with it.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/video-gold-former-jag-officer-on-cnn-tells-dr-phil-to-quit-the-psychobabble-deal-with-the-islamic-fa.html

Islam breeds hate, intolerance and great confusion about the human condition. It is necessary that one day it be nothing more than a testimonial relic of man's capacity for misdirection. I look forward to that day, though I may not live long enough to see it. It had better come, though, or a new dark age will descend upon mankind, courtesy of Islam.

Yes, the situation is this dire. Islam is incapable of reform but very capable of creating repression, misery and death. Its theological blueprint is a menace to liberty as much as Marxism and Nazism were. And I'm running out of patience for those who blindly persist in not seeing this.
Wellington November 6, 2009 4:15 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/when-nidal-hasan-came-calling.html

　
How many centuries has this been going on and we still reject that Islam is anything but peaceful? There has never been a time, anywhere in the world, that Islam was not the aggressor. No, not every Muslim is radical, but can anyone show me one instance, even within the Military, where Muslims personally want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels?

We do not know the details of each and every Muslim serving alongside our Military. That's the problem. What are we asking Muslims to do when deployed to a war zone fighting the war on terror. We are asking Muslims to kill Muslims, knowing that their "faith" teachs that only Muslims can, and should, survive. I know many Muslims are serving this country, but, really, I ask again, will they tell you they want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels? Will they?

http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2009/11/cair-defends-islam-fort-hood-shooter.html



















Cartoon thanks to http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/left-wing-political-correctness-killed-those-soldiers-at-fort-hood/

When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard! http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-you-hear-someone-shout-allahu.html

THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM - HOW TRIBALISM TRUMPS RATIONALISM AND CIVILISATION.

by najistani

Viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter. Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!

And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.

To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.

If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.

This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.

Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:

- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.

- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.

- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.

- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.

- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.

- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.

Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.

Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.

The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.

najistani

Tags: islam, Tribalism, Muslims

When will the Arabic-Islamic colonialism end?

by Jugurten

All the Amazighs (Berbers) in Algeria-the Kabylians, Chaouis, Touregs, Chenouis and the Mzabs-have always been and continue to be the victims of Islamist colonialism for 14 centuries, since the death of Dihia ( A Berber Queen who fought against the first Arabic-Islamic hordes which invaded Algeria).

Centuries and centuries of oppression, persecution, exploitation, murders, destruction and falsification have deprived this “redoubtable and numerous” people-as described by Ibn Khaldoun-of its civilisation and its identity to an extent that makes him doubt of himself and fell like he is nothing without being an Arabic Islamic.

Today, we are witnessing and living an Amazigh revival in all Tamazgha (North Africa), and it becomes more and more evident that the changing or even the downfall of North African Islamic regimes is unavoidable. Recently, a Touareg (Berber from South Algeria) told me that if his people weren’t afraid of the Arab government of Algiers which is able to impose a food embargo on them, they would struggle by using any means necessary to gain back their cultural, linguistic, identity and racial rights.

Another Chenouis from Tipaza told me someday: “Azul [Hello], I am sorry, I can’t talk to you in Kabylian language, because as you know this sad situation is due to the criminal Algerian Arabic-Islamic government which has always favoured our extinction, we, the children of Juba (Amazigh King), but one day they (the Arabic-Islamic governors) will pay for all their crimes and our cultural genocide.”

Actually, all the Amazighs feel the same injustice which has lasted too long. The Arabic-Islamic colonists have always kept a permanent watch on the Amazighs for centuries, since they first arrived in the country. After more than 14 centuries of colonisation, the relationships between the Arabic-Islamic colonists and the Amazighs have not known any change at all. We are, until today, still being mistreated, brutalized, imprisoned, persecuted or murdered every time we dare ask individually or collectively for the official recognition our millennium culture and identity. We, Kabylians, must do everything necessary to win our sovereignty (autonomy) because the survival and the salvation of the rest of the Amazigh people in Tamazgha depend on the success of our human initiative. Then, Kabylia will serve as an example and show the right way to follow for our Amazigh sisters and brothers in Tamazgha, caught in a destructive and fascist Arabic-Islamic trap.

JUG

Posted Thu, 09/11/2008 - 00:25 by Jugurten
http://www.kabylia.info/when-will-arabic-islamic-colonialism-end

Why Did So Much of India Fall Under Moslem Rule?

[an excerpt from Fjordman]

Muslim scholars did not seriously study other cultures with curiosity and describe them with fairness, the Persian universal scholar al-Biruni’s (973-1048) writings about Hinduism and India being one of very few exceptions to this rule. He had taken the trouble to learn enough Sanskrit to be able to translate in both directions between this language and Arabic (for him also a learned language). As author John Keay writes in his book India: A History, Muslims were viewed by Indians as just another group of foreigners, perhaps annoying but essentially marginal. This was a big mistake:

“There is no evidence of an Indian appreciation of the global threat which they represented; and the peculiar nature of their mission — to impose a new monotheist orthodoxy by military conquest and political dominion — was so alien to Indian tradition that it went uncomprehended. No doubt a certain complacency contributed to this indifference. As al-Biruni (Alberuni), the great Islamic scholar of the eleventh century, would put it, ‘the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no science like theirs.’…his scientific celebrity in the Arab world would owe much to his mastery of Sanskrit and access to Indian scholarship….Unlike Alexander’s Greeks, Muslim invaders were well aware of India’s immensity, and mightily excited by its resources….Since at least Roman times the subcontinent seems to have enjoyed a favourable balance of payments….The devout Muslim, although ostensibly bent on converting the infidel, would find his zeal handsomely rewarded.”

[excerpt from Fjordman's  http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-did-europeans-create-modern-world.html]

STOP ISLAMIZING THE WEST!

[S]top referring to Islam as a religion and stop the mass immigration from Muslim countries.
--Geert Wilders

See MORE at . . .
Geert Wilders presents a 10 step plan for stopping the Islamization of the West.
http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/must-see-a-warning-to-america-from-geert-wilders/

The Plot Against America

Review by DEXTER FILKINS

Published: August 6, 2006

Reprinted from http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/03/plot-against-america-review-by-dexter.html?zx=a44486c44649c66


When Mohamed Atta and his four Saudi confederates commandeered a Boeing 767 and steered it into the north tower of the World Trade Center, they began a story that still consumes us nearly five years on, and one that seems, on bad days, to promise war without end.

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images
Osama bin Laden

Frances M. Roberts/The New York Times

F.B.I. counterterrorism expert John O’Neill, who died in the Sept. 11 attacks.

But the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were in many ways less the start of a tale than the end of one, or at least the climax of one, begun many years before in many different precincts: in the middle-class suburbs of Cairo, in the mosques of Hamburg, in Jidda, in Islamabad, in the quiet university town of Greeley, Colo.

In its simplest terms, this is the story of how a small group of men, with a frightening mix of delusion and calculation, rose from a tormented civilization to mount a catastrophic assault on the world’s mightiest power, and how another group of men and women, convinced that such an attack was on the way, tried desperately to stop it.

What a story it is. And what a riveting tale Lawrence Wright fashions in this marvelous book. “The Looming Tower*” is not just a detailed, heart-stopping account of the events leading up to 9/11, written with style and verve, and carried along by villains and heroes that only a crime novelist could dream up. It’s an education, too — though you’d never know it — a thoughtful examination of the world that produced the men who brought us 9/11, and of their progeny who bedevil us today. The portrait of John O’Neill, the driven, demon-ridden F.B.I. agent who worked so frantically to stop Osama bin Laden, only to perish in the attack on the World Trade Center, is worth the price of the book alone. “The Looming Tower” is a thriller.

And it’s a tragedy, too.

In the nearly five years since the attacks, we’ve heard oceans of commentary on the whys and how-comes and what-it-means and what’s nexts. Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker — where portions of this book have appeared — has put his boots on the ground in the hard places, conducted the interviews and done the sleuthing. Others talked, he listened. And so he has unearthed an astonishing amount of detail about Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Mullah Muhammad Omar and all the rest of them. They come alive.

Who knew, for instance, that bin Laden, far from being a warrior-stoic fighting against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, was actually a pathetic stick-in-the-mud who would fall ill before battle? That the combat-hardened Afghans, so tired of bin Laden’s behavior, declared him and his Arab associates “useless”? Or that he was a permissive father and indulgent husband? Or that he is only six feet tall?

More important, who knew — I sure didn’t — that bin Laden had left behind such a long trail of words? Wright has found them in books, on film, in audio recordings, in people’s notebooks and memories. This has allowed him to draw an in-depth portrait of bin Laden, and to chart his evolution from a self-conscious step-child growing up in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, to the visionary cave-dwelling madman who mimics the Holy Prophet in his most humdrum daily habits.

Wright takes the title of his book from the fourth sura of the Koran, which bin Laden repeated three times in a speech videotaped just as the hijackers were preparing to fly. The video was found later, on a computer in Hamburg.

“Wherever you are, death will find you, Even in the looming tower.”

There is poetry, too. Here is a particularly chilling bit, found on another videotape, which bin Laden had read aloud at the wedding of his 17-year-old son, Mohammed. The celebration took place not long after a pair of Qaeda suicide bombers, riding in a tiny boat filled with explosives, nearly sank the billion-dollar guided missile destroyer Cole. At least with regard to his abilities as an author, bin Laden was unusually modest: he let someone else write the words. “I am not, as most of our brothers know, a warrior of the word,” he said.

A destroyer, even the brave might fear,
She inspires horror in the harbor and the open sea,
She goes into the waves flanked by arrogance, haughtiness and fake might,
To her doom she progresses slowly, clothed in a huge illusion,
Awaiting her is a dinghy, bobbing in the waves.

“The Looming Tower” is full of such surprising detail. Al Qaeda’s leaders had all but shelved the 9/11 plot when they realized they lacked foot soldiers who could pass convincingly as westernized Muslims in the United States. At just the right moment Atta appeared in Afghanistan, along with Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ziad al-Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi, all Western-educated transplants, offering themselves up for slaughter. The game was on.

Just as dramatic as the portraits of bin Laden and Zawahiri is Wright’s account of the roots of Islamic militancy — the intellectual, spiritual and material world from which the plotters came. Wright draws a fascinating picture of Sayyid Qutb, the font of modern Islamic fundamentalism, a frail, middle-aged writer who found himself, as a visitor to the United States and a student at Colorado State College of Education in Greeley in the 1940’s, overwhelmed by the unbridled splendor and godlessness of modern America. And by the sex: like so many others who followed him, Qutb seemed simultaneously drawn to and repelled by American women, so free and unselfconscious in their sexuality. The result is a kind of delirium:
“A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid,” Qutb wrote, “but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume, but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.”

It wasn’t much later that Qutb began writing elaborate rationalizations for killing non-Muslims and waging war against the West. Years later, Atta expressed a similar mix of obsession and disgust for women. Indeed, anyone who has spent time in the Middle East will recognize such tortured emotions.

WRIGHT shows, correctly, that at the root of Islamic militancy — its anger, its antimodernity, its justifications for murder — lies a feeling of intense humiliation. Islam plays a role in this, with its straitjacketed and all-encompassing worldview. But whether the militant hails from a middle-class family or an impoverished one, is intensely religious or a “theological amateur,” as Wright calls bin Laden and his cohort, he springs almost invariably from an ossified society with an autocratic government that is unable to provide any reason to believe in the future. Islam offers dignity, even in — especially in — death. Living in the West, Atta and the others felt these things more acutely, not less. As Wright notes:

“Their motivations varied, but they had in common a belief that Islam — pure and primitive, unmitigated by modernity and uncompromised by politics — would cure the wounds that socialism or Arab nationalism had failed to heal. They were angry but powerless in their own countries. They did not see themselves as terrorists but as revolutionaries who, like all such men throughout history, had been pushed into action by the simple human need for justice. Some had experienced brutal repression; some were simply drawn to bloody chaos. From the beginning of Al Qaeda, there were reformers and there were nihilists. The dynamic between them was irreconcilable and self-destructive, but events were moving so quickly that it was almost impossible to tell the philosophers from the sociopaths. They were glued together by the charismatic personality of Osama bin Laden, which contained both strands, idealism and nihilism, in a potent mix.”

In John O’Neill, bin Laden almost met his match. The supervisor of the F.B.I.’s New York office and of the team assigned to track Al Qaeda in the United States, O’Neill felt, as strongly as anyone in the government, that Al Qaeda was coming to America. He was a relentless investigator, a volcanic personality and sometimes his own worst enemy. In the end he broke himself on a government bureaucracy that could not — and would not — move as quickly as he did. O’Neill and others like him were in a race with Al Qaeda, and although we know how the race ended, it’s astonishing — and heartbreaking — to learn how close it was.

Some of the F.B.I.’s field agents, as we now know, had premonitions of what was coming. When the supervisor of the Minneapolis field office was admonished, in August 2001, for expressing fears that an Islamic radical attending flight school might be planning a suicide attack, he shot back defiantly that he was “trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center.” Amazing.

The most gut-wrenching scenes are the ones that show F.B.I. agents trying, as 9/11 approached, to pry information from their rivals inside the United States government. The C.I.A., Wright says, knew that high-level Qaeda operatives had held a meeting in Malaysia in January 2000, and, later, that two of them had entered the United States. Both men turned out to be part of the team that hijacked the planes on Sept. 11. The C.I.A. failed to inform agencies like the F.B.I. — which might have been able to locate the men and break up the plot — until late in the summer of 2001.

The fateful struggle between the C.I.A. and F.B.I. in the months leading up to the attacks has been outlined before, but never in such detail. At meetings, C.I.A. analysts dangled photos of two of the eventual hijackers in front of F.B.I. agents, but wouldn’t tell them who they were. The F.B.I. agents could sense that the C.I.A. possessed crucial pieces of evidence about Islamic radicals they were investigating, but couldn’t tell what they were. The tension came to a head at a meeting in New York on June 11, exactly three months before the catastrophe, which ended with F.B.I. and C.I.A. agents shouting at each other across the room.
In one of the most remarkable scenes in the book, Ali Soufan, an F.B.I. agent assigned to Al Qaeda, was taken aside on Sept. 12 and finally shown the names and photos of the men the C.I.A. had known for more than a year and a half were in America. The planes had already struck. Soufan ran to the bathroom and retched.

Great stuff. I just wish Wright had given us something, even a chapter, on the hijackings themselves; as it is, he takes us right up to the moment, and then straight to the burning towers. Perhaps he felt that ground was too well-trodden. My other complaint is more substantive. Through the enormous amount of legwork he has done, tracking down people who worked with bin Laden and Zawahiri over the years, Wright has drawn up verbatim reconstructions of entire conversations, some of which took place more than a decade ago. Many of these conversations are riveting. Still, in some cases, it’s hard to believe that memories are that good.
“The Looming Tower” ends near the Pakistani border, where Zawahiri, or someone who looked like him, rode through a village on horseback and then disappeared into the mountains. It’s not a definitive ending; there is no closure. And that’s the point. For as amazing as the story of Al Qaeda and the road to 9/11 is, it’s not over yet.

Dexter Filkins is a Baghdad correspondent for The Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/books/review/06filkins.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=0e30be2935673b53&ex=1312516800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rsspagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=0e30be2935673b53&ex=1312516800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rssFirst Chapter: ‘The Looming Tower’ (August 6, 2006)


_________________________________________


*THE LOOMING TOWER
Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. By Lawrence Wright.
Illustrated. 469 pp. Alfred A. Knopf. $27.95.