Keep Current on the status of the Jihad

[johnb]

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

[johnb]

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13385

The Kids Deserved to be Killed?

By Tamar Sternthal
CAMERA.org | May 14, 2004

In perhaps the most distorted coverage of the brutal murder of a pregnant Israeli mother and her four young daughters, NPR’s Julie McCarthy blamed the victims for their own slaughter. In the atrocity in Gaza on May 2, the gunmen reportedly fired on the family’s car from 20 yards away. When 34-year-old Tali, a social worker who was in her last trimester of pregnancy, lost control of the vehicle, the Palestinian terrorists approached the vehicle and executed Tali and her daughters — Hila, 11; Hadar, 9; Roni, 7 and Merav, 2 — one by one at close range. According to press reports, the younger children were still strapped into their car seats, the car was blood-soaked, and it took the ZAKA recovery crew a long time to extract all of the bullets and collect the body parts.

Julie McCarthy’s egregious statement on “Morning Edition” today came at the end of a report about Ariel Sharon's referendum loss on his “disengagement" plan. McCarthy reported:

The settlers rallied support saying Israel was withdrawing under fire. But there was ample evidence yesterday to show that their continued presence in Gaza is provoking bloodshed. Israeli troops shot dead two Palestinian gunmen after the men ambushed mother and her four small daughters outside the Gaza settlement of Gush Katif. The family was shot and killed on their way to the Israeli city of Ashkelon where they intended to campaign against Ariel Sharon and his plan to uproot them from Gaza. Julie McCarthy, NPR news, Jerusalem.

BLAMING THE VICTIM
McCarthy’s editorializing that the Jewish community’s “continued presence in Gaza is provoking bloodshed” is consistent with the Palestinian Authority view that the killing of settlers is a natural and legitimate outgrowth of the fact that Jews dare to inhabit territory that the Palestinians claim as their own. According to Ha'aretz, “A senior Palestinian source said he thought there was no chance the Palestinian Authority would express reservations, since every settler was considered an integral part of the occupation against which action must be taken” (Danny Rubinstein, 5/3/04).

Of course, though, there is no justification whatsoever within international law that justifies the killing of civilians simply because they live in territory which others claim as their own. Unfortunately, McCarthy's report suggests justification where there is none.’

REVERSING CAUSE AND EFFECT
McCarthy further distorts the killing of the Hatuel family members by reversing the chronology of events. She states: “Israeli troops shot dead two Palestinian gunmen after the men ambushed a mother and her four small daughters outside the Gaza settlement of Gush Katif.” Why is the Israeli response mentioned before the Palestinian murder? The result is that the defensive Israeli action is amplified while the Palestinians’ barbarous act is de-emphasized.

SOFT-PEDALLING THE MURDER
McCarthy's sanitized description of the Hatuels’ murder employs equivalent language to describe Israel’s shooting of murderers and the murderers’ butchering of young children and their mother. Thus, “Israeli troops shot dead two Palestinian gunmen,” “the men ambushed a mother and her four small daughters,” and “the family was shot and killed.” From these indistinguishable descriptions, listeners would have no clue as to the brutality of the execution of a mother and four children whose bodies were riddled by dozens of bullets shot at point blank range.

Update: NPR’s Follow Up

In response to a deluge of complaints received about Julie McCarthy’s May 3 report on the killing of the Hatuel family, NPR distributed the following statement and posted it on their Web site:

In a story that aired Monday, May 3, on the political setback to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to disengage from Gaza, correspondent Julie McCarthy reported on the killing of an Israeli mother and her four daughters outside a Gaza settlement by Palestinian gunmen who were later shot dead by Israeli troops. However, in the report McCarthy said "... there was ample evidence yesterday to show that their [the settlers'] continued presence in Gaza is provoking bloodshed." The purpose of the report was to take note of the continuing violence. The story in no way meant to suggest that the killings were justified. NPR regrets that the report made any such implication.

[johnb]

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/mystery/showpics.cgi?real_islam

http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/mystery/showpics.cgi?real_islam

[johnb]

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=aed9d12f-689e-4725-b652-12d25afe4ebe


Al-Qaeda says Canada deserves bombing
Jihad spokesman says Canadians were mean to Khadrs

Stewart Bell
National Post


May 15, 2004

ISLAMABAD - The Al-Qaeda terror network views Canada as a legitimate target because it is a "selfish" nation committing "terrorism" against Muslims around the world, an unofficial spokesman for jihadists waging holy war against the West said Friday.

Khalid Khawaja, a friend of Osama bin Laden's who calls the Saudi terrorist and his followers "the most wonderful people of the world," told the National Post that Canadians should not be surprised if suicide bombers want to strike their country.

"It is very simple," he said. "As Bush says, either you are a friend or you are an enemy. So if you are not my friend, you are our enemy. So it is very simple. When you are supporting the enemy [the United States] then you are a target."

He also said Canada was hated because of its military presence in Afghanistan and its treatment of the Khadr family, notably Abdul Karim, the teen who set off a public outcry when he returned to Toronto for medical treatment after he was wounded in a shootout in Pakistan that left his al-Qaeda father dead.

"Look at these Canadians. They have millions and millions of dollars to fight against Muslims, to send their troops, to send their weapons, and all of them put together, they have objections to giving treatment to this 14 year-old-boy who has been a victim of your terrorism."

Bin Laden first publicly encouraged attacks against Canada in a statement broadcast on Nov. 12, 2002. In March, 2004, an al-Qaeda manual posted on the Internet ranked Canadians as the fifth most important targets.

But al-Qaeda and its ideological theorists have provided little explanation as to why. Canada did not send troops to Iraq, its foreign policy is not particularly pro-Israel and Ottawa has not been overly aggressive in fighting terror.

A top Canadian terrorism expert said Mr. Khawaja's comments were typical of the way al-Qaeda followers view the world, as divided between two conflicting religious and cultural camps: Dar ul-Islam, the perfect Muslim world, and Dar ul-Harb, the immoral rest of the world.

"Canada, as a secular democratic society, is by definition assigned to Dar ul-Harb. From the perspective of al-Qaeda and associated Islamic militants, it is incumbent upon Muslims to wage a jihad, a holy war, against Dar ul-Harb in order to destroy its perceived evils and transform those societies into Dar ul-Islam," said Professor Martin Rudner.

"According to this doctrine, Canada is a religiously sanctioned target for terrorism, suicide bombing and political violence," said Prof. Rudner, Director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton University's Norman Paterson School of International Affairs.

A Canadian intelligence report written shortly after bin Laden first urged attacks against Canada said the country was singled out "in view of its support of the U.S." The more recent al-Qaeda manual explains only that Canada is a "Christian" country.

According to a translation of an article written by Abu Ayman al-Hilali, a senior al-Qaeda leader and ideologist, the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany, and Australia are "enemies" and attacks against their civilians are justified. Since Western governments are engaged in a war against Islam, he argued, the civilian voters who elect those governments cannot be considered non-combatants and are legitimate targets for terrorists.

In an interview in Islamabad yesterday, Mr. Khawaja, who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan and openly admits he supports jihad activities, provided a rare explanation of why terrorists wish to bring violence to Canada.

Suicide bombers are simply fighting back against the Western assault on their faith and Canadians should just learn to "take it," he said.

"Today you have the power in your hand. The other day the suicide bomber also has power. So you use your cruise missiles and atom bombs and all that, so he uses his power. So why do you cry at that time? When you say we are fighting a war against you, so better take it then.

"They are also fighting a war against you. They are fighting their way, you are fighting your way. So let's be happy. But only thing is, your faces are pulled down, you are scared, sitting in America and Canada. You are scared of a man sitting in the cave."

"We are not scared of you."

He described life as a "cage" and a "prison" from which he hoped to escape. "We love it like we want to live in a toilet, and we just want to get out of it." And the best way to leave life is in jihad, he said. "So how can you fight with us?"

Mr. Khawaja would not say when he last spoke with bin Laden but his recent activities include helping the families of al-Qaeda members killed in a 1998 U.S. cruise missile strike on a terror training camp in Afghanistan, and helping the Khadr family of Ontario.

The return of Mrs. Khadr and her youngest son Abdul Karim to Canada, and the broadcast of comments in which the mother and her daughter praised suicide bombings, outraged many Canadians. Thousands signed a petition calling for the deportation of the family.

"You have paralyzed [Abdul Karim], your system has paralyzed him -- although of course he's been paralyzed by Pakistan Army, but it was under order of this coalition. To me I call them governments of terrorists, the coalition of terrorists.

"So you paralyzed this boy with no thought, you paralyzed his father with no thought, now the whole Canadian nation put together, they are bothered about taxpayers' money, that this boy should not be treated with this money.

"You have all the money to kill the people, you have all the billions of dollars to make the people slaves, you have billions of dollars to torture the people, you have billions of dollars to put up in the media to create false enemies and you have no money to give treatment to one of your victims. So what treatment do you deserve?

"Your civilization is selfish and self-centred. Just you want to live and enjoy yourselves and that is all, you don't give."

He said terrorist attacks would end only when the West stopped trying to dominate the Muslim world.

"We don't believe in killing innocent people but we would certainly like to send you into the Stone Age the same way you have sent us into the Stone Age."

[johnb]

http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary052004.asp

MAY. 20, 2004: SACRED MURDER

Irshad Manji has an important oped in the Wall Street Journal today. Manji, NR readers may recall, is the Canadian Muslim who recently published The Trouble with Islam, a biting diagnosis of present-day Muslim religiosity. Brave and insightful, Manji brings from her own first-hand experiences a warning that demands attention.

The warning is this: actions like the murder of Nicholas Berg may violate the human feelings of decent Muslims. But the hard truth is that it is just wishful thinking to claim that the killing violates the teachings of Islam, as those teachings are authoritatively interpreted by the leading modern Muslims.

Islam, like all religions, teaches respect for human life. But Islam also contains unique elements all its own. For unlike Judaism and unlike Christianity, the spiritual elements of Islam are mixed with an ideology of war and conquest, even in the pages of the Koran itself. And both the text of the Koran – and the personal example of the Prophet Muhammad – justify killing in general and beheading in particular as legitimate weapons against unbelievers.

The brave Iraqi blogger at www.healingiraq.com reminds us of the Koranic text that he translates thus: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”

This was not just a theoretical prescription. As Andrew Bostom has observed, one of the great events in the story of Muhammad is his mass beheading of the defeated survivors of the Jewish Arabian tribe of the Qurayza.

“According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an ‘arbiter’ who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens.

“Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional ‘booty’ among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.”

In other words: It is very possible that the killers of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg believed themselves to be re-enacting a scene from the life of the Prophet Muhammad. And when they videotaped the severed heads of their victims, they may have thought that they were fulfilling a commandment of the Koran.

Now I don’t want to single out the Islamic text and Islamic legends for criticism here. The Bible contains stories just as horrifying as the story of the story of the Qurayza; it too sacralizes war leaders like Joshua and Gideon. But over the centuries, Jewish and Christian tradition re-interpreted Biblical scriptures to make it plain that the massacring of Midianites and Amalekites is no guide of any kind to contemporary action, and there was a time when Islamic scholars did the same thing. Andy Bostom goes on to quote an 11th century Muslim jurist’s commentary on the Koran’s commandment to behead unbelievers:

“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them.”

The jurist in question was evidently a civilized man trying to deal with an awkward text. He has no choice but to reaffirm the religious permissibility of beheading captives. But then he goes on to suggest that there might be more intelligent ways to deal with them – leading up to option four, which is to spare their lives and deal kindly with them. Anyone who has ever studied the way in which the rabbis of the Talmud endeavored to explain away the more gruesome and primitive sections of the Book of Judges will recognize exactly what this Muslim jurist is up to.

You often hear people say that the Islamic world needs a “Reformation.” Alas, in many ways, Islamic extremism is the Muslim “Reformation.” Al Qaeda and its ideological supporters are rejecting a thousand years of interpretation - interpretation that has tended to soften the often harsh Koranic text - to return to the bald words of Islamic scripture.

And this last brings us to a very difficult problem – unfortunately, one that has to wait for tomorrow.

[johnb]

Female Desire and Islamic Trauma
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
May 25, 2004
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1823
http://daily.nysun.com/standard/ShowStoryTemplate.asp?Path=NYS/2004/05/25&ID=Ar00901&Section=Foreign

The pictures from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq touched such a nerve in the Muslim world that one analyst said that the rape pictures "would equal a nuclear explosion" if seen in Muslim countries. Such extreme reactions raise the delicate topic of sex in Muslim-Western relations.

The West and the Muslim world entertain vastly different assumptions about female sexuality. (I draw here on the ideas of Fatima Mernissi in her 1975 book, Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in a Modern Muslim Society.) In the West, it was until recently assumed that males and females experience eros differently, with men actively undertaking the hunt, seduction, and penetration, and women passively enduring the experience. Only lately did the idea gain currency that women too have sexual desires.

Considering the Muslim reputation for archaic customs, it is ironic to note that Islamic civilization not only portrays women as sexually desirous, but it sees them as more passionate than men. Indeed, this understanding has determined the place of women in traditional Muslim life.

In the Islamic view, men and women both seek intercourse, during which their bodies undergo similar processes, bringing similar pleasures. If Westerners traditionally saw the sexual act as a battleground where the male exerts his supremacy over the female, Muslims saw it as a tender and shared pleasure.

Indeed, Muslims generally believe female desire to be so much greater than the male equivalent that the woman is viewed as the hunter and the man as her passive victim. If believers feel little distress about sex acts as such, they are obsessed with the dangers posed by women. So strong are her needs thought to be, she ends up representing the forces of unreason and disorder. A woman's rampant desires and irresistible attractiveness gives her a power over men that even rivals God's. She must be contained, for her unbridled sexuality poses a direct danger to the social order. (Symbolic of this, the Arabic word fitna means both civil disorder and beautiful woman.)

The entire Muslim social structure can be understood as containing female sexuality. It goes to great lengths to separate the sexes and reduce contact between them. This explains such customs as the covering of women's faces and the separation of women's residential quarters, or the harem. Many other institutions serve to reduce female power over men, such as her need for a male's permission to travel, work, marry, or divorce. Revealingly, a traditional Muslim wedding took place between two men - the groom and the bride's guardian.

Even married couples should not get too attached; to insure that a man does not become so consumed with passion for his wife that he neglects his duties to God, Muslim family life restricts contact between the spouses by dividing their interests and duties, imbalancing their power relationship (she is more his servant than his companion), and encouraging the mother-son bond over the marital connection.

On the whole, Muslims lived up to these Islamic ideals for male-female relations in premodern times. Yet the anxiety persisted that women would break loose of their restrictions and bring perdition to the community.

Those anxieties multiplied in recent centuries as Western influence spread through the Muslim world, for Western ways nearly always collide with Islamic ones. The two are divided by the enhanced power and freedoms women have gained through legal equality, monogamy, romantic love, open sexuality, and a myriad other customs. As a result, each civilization looks upon the other as deeply flawed, if not barbaric.

For many Muslims, the West poses not just an external threat as the infidel invader; it also erodes traditional mechanisms to cope with the internal threat, woman. This leads to widespread worries about adopting Western ways and a preference instead to cling to older customs. Differences in sexuality, in other words, contribute to an overall Muslim reluctance to accept modernity. Fear of Western erotic ways ends up constraining Muslim peoples in the political, economic, and cultural arenas. Sexual apprehensions constitute a key reason for Islam's trauma in the modern era.

And this explains the extreme sensitivity to such varied matters as girls wearing the headscarf in French classrooms, "honor" killings in Jordan, women drivers in Saudi Arabia, and those pictures from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1823#comment
To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org

To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
(Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)

Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles): http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php
Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases): http://www.campus-watch.org/subscribe.php
Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (monthly publication): http://meib.org/maillist_survey.htm

You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its author, date, and source.

[Dharma]

OMG! I can't believe I've come full circle! Now I understand why the regulars here at "Don's Pub" don't take an instant likin to outsiders.

[Wuptdo]

DonHah Akbar! Donhah Akbar! Donhah Akbar! :D :D

Until we drink with you, outsiders scare us. :wink:

Wuptdo B-)