Excerpt from this article in American Thinker, and Dr. Walid Phares makes a point I haven't read elsewhere:
In other words, that tape from OBL represents the overt union of terrorists and political Islam.
Not a comforting thought, huh?
Sometimes, I think that the Salafist threats are a lot of empty air. In fact, I want nothing more than to believe that OBL has little influence. But the essay by Dr. Phares also states the following:
...Bin Laden's school of Jihadism would have smitten first, explained later. So why is this message more peculiar than previous ones? What can we read into it?If Dr. Phares is correct--and I have no reason to doubt his insights--we're seeing a clear connection between the ideology of OBL and Muslim groups recognized both at the OIC summit last week and also by Western governments.
In short, I see in it the imprint of Jihadi "politicians" and strategists in international relations deeply immersed in the diplomatic games across the Mediterranean. Even though it is indeed the voice of al Qaeda's master, one can see the increasing impact of political operatives on the movement's public statements....
[...]
... A simple check of archives shows that it wasn't Bin laden or Zawahiri who have asked Europe to enact laws against "insult to religion" but more "mainstream" Islamist forces and intellectuals....
In other words, that tape from OBL represents the overt union of terrorists and political Islam.
Not a comforting thought, huh?
Sometimes, I think that the Salafist threats are a lot of empty air. In fact, I want nothing more than to believe that OBL has little influence. But the essay by Dr. Phares also states the following:
What I saw in the al Qaeda message and the al Jazeera debate was clear: The Salafist movement worldwide was "talking" to the Europeans and the Euro-Jihadis. It was threatening Governments to retreat from the confrontation on the one hand and unleashing the pools of indoctrinated Jihadis across the continent to "engage" in violence....
3 comments:
This is a truly great post.
I have never been convinced by Spencer, Bostom, Kuntzel, Yeor and even Lewis, though I doubt he intended it, that there is NO DIFFERENCE between any haram baloney typing of MAINSTREAM today and either of salafist or 'radical' Shia teaching.
All one.
All for one objective.
All for the same reason.
Okay, so how do we convince everyone?
Without looking like lunatics?
We are 2 years before Rosa Parks in this movement, despite 9/11. People don't want to have the face the music and dance. And in the USA we face the added 'burden' of Freedom of Religion in ascertaining a course which is both constitutional, and prudent.
We know how FDR solved that kind of issue. I find that unacceptable.
COORECTION to above... I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED...
Epa,
In answer to your question, I think we just have to be willing to calmly and cooly look like lunatics.
The best thing to do, in my opinion, is keep the pressure on with mocking and criticism, and thereby, expose the anger and pettiness behind Islam. If Islam can not stand for criticism, then it deserves no place in the American panopoly. It is a religion, and religion as ideologies must be criticized.
If Muslims can't take a joke, then they need to be silenced, because they are attempting to insert an ideology into the public debate which they deem to be above criticism.
That's not allowed in America.
Post a Comment