The Grim Milestone of Blogs "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational" - Prince Charles "Nuts" - Gen McAuliffe America: Saving idiots from themselves since WWI

Friday, December 16, 2005

Nobody would lie to, gasp, a pollster

That's not right. (Hat tip: Dhimmi Watch)
Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland, said Al Qaeda was not leading a movement that threatened to mobilize the vast majority of Muslims. A recent poll Mr. Telhami conducted with Zogby International of 3,900 people in six countries - Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon - found that only 6 percent sympathized with Al Qaeda's goal of seeking an Islamic state.

The notion that Al Qaeda could create a new caliphate, he said, is simply wrong. "There's no chance in the world that they'll succeed," he said. "It's a silly threat." (On the other hand, more than 30 percent in Mr. Telhami's poll said they sympathized with Al Qaeda, because the group stood up to America.)

The New York Times loves any argument based on hating America. They'll swing at that pitch even if it's three feet outside the strike zone. This is an appropriate time to revisit the Muslim concept of taqiyya, strategic deception. Who would feel safe answering the "Islamic state" question in the affirmative within, say, Jordan and Saudi Arabia?

Like many Islamic concepts taqiyya and kitman were formed within the context of the Arab-Islamic matrix of tribalism, expansionary warfare and conflict. Taqiyya has been used by Muslims since the 7th century to confuse and split 'the enemy’. A favored tactic was ‘deceptive triangulation’; to persuade the enemy that jihad was not aimed at them but at another enemy. Another tactic was to deny that there was jihad at all. The fate for such faulty assessments by the target was death.

I'm sure Muslim sympathy for al Qaeda has nothing to do with the many (many) times Osama quotes the Koran.

Osama's 1998 fatwa
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."

This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"

.....Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."

You may or may not have noticed American soldiers have never set foot in Mecca, much less anywhere near the 'holy' mosques. I implore anyone reading my blog, yet again, to read Sura Nine. Sura Eight (AL-ANFAL (SPOILS OF WAR, BOOTY) should be read alongside the Gospel of Warfare and Theft in the Bible.

What's that? Oh, yes, there is no such gospel in the Bible.

You may ask yourself, "What's this about 'tumult and oppression?'" Until Islam conquers the entire world, there will be "tumult and oppression." What you were thinking is a non-starter, but you're not the only one to fall for it.

The New York Times has found a very important niche, being wrong about history and dictators every, single, time.

No comments: