Jihadists MUST See Themselves As Victims

I found the following on Political Islam, the organization who published A Simple Koran.

I love this quote: "In short, the poor Muslims were the victims, and the dead kafirs were the oppressors. It has been ever thus for 1400 years."

Seeing themselves as the victim helps Muslims solve the dilemma caused by two important rules of Islam: You can't be an aggressor and you can't guarantee Paradise unless you die fighting for Allah. Solution: See yourself as a victim (no matter what the kafirs do), see Islam as a victim, and then defend Islam.

Anyway, here's the piece:

Of Interest

Frank Gaffney wrote a piece on soft jihad at the Democratic convention.

Here is Robert Spencer's take on the same event.

A Victim at the Democratic Convention

Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), took part in the Democratic Convention in Denver.

As a brief aside, the ISNA is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood (its stated purpose is to destroy the West from inside) and is also included as an unindicted co-conspirator in terrorism financing conspiracy. All of the armed force's Muslim chaplain's and prison chaplains have to take Dr. Mattson's course on Islam. In the course she supports Sharia law to replace our Constitution in order to achieve an "ethical" government. Like Obama, she believes that poverty and social oppression caused the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Neither one will speak of any basis for the attack in Islamic doctrine.

There are four kinds of jihad — sword, pen, mouth and money. Dr. Mattson is a jihadist of the pen and mouth version. Some people call it soft jihad.

At the Convention she spoke of Muslims as being victims in America. Poor Muslim immigrants have to leave their Islamic earthly paradises and come to a mean America where they are victims of the cruel kafirs.

But in Islam it is Sunna. Mohammed was a victim of oppression, so Muslims are always victims and never oppressors.

Examine the record. In Medina Mohammed sent out his jihadists eight times before they were able to kill their first kafir and steal the kafirs' wealth. They had their success in a holy month. The Arabs had rules of war and one of those rules was that there were holy months when no Arab was to attack another. So the Arabs complained that Mohammed had broken the rules of war and was oppressing other Arabs.

Mohammed was troubled by the charge of being a war criminal, but Allah came to his rescue:

Koran 2:216 You are commanded to fight although you dislike it. You may hate something that is good for you, and love something that is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not. When they ask you about fighting in the holy month, say: Fighting at this time is a serious offense, but it is worse in Allah's eyes to deny others the path to Him, to disbelieve in Him, and to drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque. Idolatry is a greater sin than murder.

The way of life for the kafir Arabs that included their religion (idolatry is a greater sin than murder) made them fair game for jihad. The kafir Arabs had only one fault-they did not believe that Mohammed was the prophet of Allah. What the kafir Arabs had done by telling Mohammed to leave town (drive His worshippers out of the Sacred Mosque) was worse than war.

In short, the poor Muslims were the victims, and the dead kafirs were the oppressors. It has been ever thus for 1400 years.

All jihad is defensive. The kafirs make the first offensive move against Islam by not believing in the prophet-hood of Mohammed.

Dr. Mattson follows the doctrine of political Islam to the letter when she declares that Muslims are victims in America. And there is only one way that Muslims will stop being oppressed in America. Only when we live under Sharia law will the oppression stop. It would seem that Obama and the Democrats are doing what they can at this time to assure that no Muslim will be a victim.

Bill Warner

Permalink http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/a-vicitim-at-the-democratic-convention/

copyright (c) CBSX, LLC (reprinted on the IBA with permission)

The "Darfur Crisis": Sudan's Silent Jihad

French President Nikolas Sarkozy made the claim, the other day, that the "Darfur Crisis" is driven by Global Warming:

Sarkozy: Climate change driving Darfur crisis

French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday said the war in Darfur had been sparked in part by climate change, and warned global warming could lead to "dozens" more conflicts.

In a speech at a major conference in Paris, Sarkozy said the conflict in Darfur resulted from "an explosive mixture" in which climate change had affected agriculture, forcing a migratory wave that had then helped to unleash war. (AFP)

This makes me so angry I want to take every word he spoke, wad them up into little dense turds, and I want to shove them back down his throat, so he chokes on his own fecal-verbage.

The "Darfur Crisis, is not simply a crisis, a word which whose sense of inevitability lends itself to passivity. What's going on in the Sudan is a genocide. It is the Arab-government of Sudan using it's henchmen, the Janjaweed Militia, to kill everyone who is not a Muslim.

The "Darfur Crisis" is a Jihad against the Infidel.

That's what it is, my friends. To call it anything else is to lie about it, and to lie about an ongoing genocide is to prolong the genocide, so that more people will die.

Here's an important article written by Robert Spencer in 2004 which explains the genocide in the Sudan:


Just in time to mark the tenth anniversary of the Rwandan genocide that it largely ignored, the human rights community is beginning to take notice of the genocide in Sudan. As welcome as this is, and as refreshing as it is that the New York Times and Washington Post have done extensive reporting on Darfur in recent weeks, few have noted that the tragedy of Darfur is actually the second Sudanese genocide of our age. The first killed over two million African Christians and animists in southern Sudan.

They may be forgiven for being slow on the uptake, however; after all, Darfur marks the third genocide in Africa that Kofi Annan is declining to notice: Rwanda, Sudan I and now Sudan II. Over 100,000 people have been killed in Darfur. By autumn the number of those who have been displaced or impoverished, or whose lives have been destroyed by the war in other ways, will most likely exceed three million. Yet Annan declared that he cannot consider it “genocide or ethnic cleansing yet.”

There is another word that Annan has never uttered in connection with Sudan. For a decade Khartoum has waged what the regime itself calls a jihad against Christians and tribalists in the South.

A 1992 fatwa issued by a group of pro-Khartoum Sudanese imams declared: “An insurgent who was previously a Muslim is now an apostate and a non-Muslim is a non-believer standing as a bulwark against the spread of Islam, and Islam has granted the freedom of killing both of them.”

This allowed for the murder of Christians and animists in the south; now it has been turned against the Muslims of Darfur, whose Islam doesn’t measure up to Khartoum’s hardline standards.

Yet Annan has never acknowledged that what is going on in Sudan is a jihad. And this is just one manifestation of the by-now inescapable fact that the United Nations is damaged beyond repair. The Islamic states maintain an unbreakable solidarity. The only exception to their unwillingness to condemn other Muslim states came when Saddam Hussein’s Iraq attacked Kuwait. Meanwhile, the Europeans and Chinese have oil interests in Sudan that dovetail nicely at the UN with the Islamic bloc’s determination to repel any criticism. France, the most energetic opponent of UN sanctions against the Khartoum regime, is heavily invested in Sudan through its oil giant ElfTotal.

The emperor has no clothes, but Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights and Oxfam are still paying enthusiastic obeisance. A perusal of each of their websites demonstrates that they criticize the UN only with extreme reluctance and in the most muted tones. In a startling recrudescence of the old “white man’s burden” mentality, they tend to focus more anger at the United States and Western Europe for failing to stop killings than at the murderers themselves.

And above all, they won’t describe the conflict as what it really is: a jihad, another example of the crying need for large-scale reform within Islam.

Yet until they do so, they give jihadists carte blanche to continue their work. Instead of providing a platform for those who will work for Islamic reform, the human rights organizations, out of political correctness and a reflexive inability to see any non-white, non-Western entity as anything but a victim, are treating the symptoms but not the cause.

Search for “jihad” at the Amnesty International website, and you will find articles alleging that Israel has mistreated a man named Jihad Shaker Abu Ayesh, as well as members of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad.

You won’t find the word mentioned in connection with Sudan.

Human Rights Watch analyzes the Sudanese crisis exclusively in economic and ethnic terms, with no notice of how the murderers themselves have explained what they are doing.

So the very people who are supposed to tell us the truth — that the UN is broken, and no longer truly stands for human rights — can’t or won’t do so. Why? Are they so trapped in their old illusions about how the world works, and how to make peace, that they are in denial about the harsh realities of the post-9/11 landscape? It seems so.

The victims are the blacks of Darfur and southern Sudan, who continue to be murdered and enslaved by Islamic Arab fundamentalists.

The jihadists operate with impunity before a world that doesn’t dare give a name to the crime they are committing. How many more deaths will be needed before Annan and the human rights establishment admit the truth?

How To End "Islamophobia"

The conclusion of this article by Robert Spencer in Human Events:

1. Focus indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.

2. Renounce definitively not just “terrorism,” but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Islamic Sharia law even by peaceful means.

3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.

4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.

5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

Do those things, and “Islamophobia” will vanish.

Read it all.

In the same essay, Mr. Spencer also says the following:

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. If offensive speech had been prohibited in the 1770s, there would be no United States of America, and that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.

Instead of being intimidated by the possibility of offending Muslims, we infidels need to crank it up.