PDA

View Full Version : Muslim World Must Publically Denounce Jihadists


Warrior-Mentor
01-06-2010, 07:30
Friedman still fails to understand that for a Muslim to denounce jihadists is apostacy under sharia [islamic law],punishable by death. He is right to applaud Mutallab, but to expect the rest of the ummah to do the same as this clearly exceptional individual, is to delude himself.

The pre-conditions of his argument aren't going to happen:

- "unless the Arab and Muslim societies...[shame potential suicide bombers]."

- "unless more Muslim parents, spiritual leaders, political leaders — the village — are ready to publicly denounce suicide bombing against innocent civilians..."

Which means:

- "[then] this behavior will not stop."

Finally, with respect to his comment: "Every faith has its violent extreme."

Although technically correct, it is intellectually lazy and fundamentally dishonest.

Yet it remains a standard liberal talking point. It fails to recognize that some faiths have more violent extremists than others, to analyze why, and to recognize that some faiths have an ideological foundation for that violent extremism, while other denounce their violent extremes.



January 6, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Father Knows Best
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Surely, the most important, interesting — and, yes, heroic — figure in the whole Christmas Day Northwest airliner affair was the would-be bomber’s father, the Nigerian banker Alhaji Umaru Mutallab.

Mutallab did something that, as far as we know, no other parent of a suicide bomber has done: He went to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria and warned us that text messages from his son revealed that he was in Yemen and had become a fervent, and possibly dangerous, radical.

We are turning ourselves inside out over how our system broke down — and surely it did — in allowing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be suicide bomber, to board that airliner. But his father, in effect, told us something else: “My family system, our village system, broke down. My own son fell under the influence of a jihadist version of Islam that I do not recognize and have reason to fear.”

The Times, quoting a cousin, said the son had sent the father a text message from Yemen in which he declared that “he had found a new religion, the real Islam” and that he was never coming home again. A Feb. 20, 2005, Internet posting attributed to the son and quoted by The Associated Press said: “I imagine how the great jihad will take place, how the Muslims will win ... and rule the whole world, and establish the greatest empire once again!!!”

Finding people with the courage to confront that breakdown — the one identified by the father, the one that lures young Muslims away from the mainstream into a willingness to commit suicide against innocent civilians as part of some jihadist power fantasy — is what matters most right now.

Yes, we need to fix our intelligence. Yes, we absolutely must live up to our own ideals, as President Obama is trying to do in banning torture and closing Guantánamo Bay. We can’t let this “war on terrorism” consume us. We can’t let our country become just The United States of Fighting Terrorism and nothing more. We are the people of July 4th — not Sept. 11th.

But even if we do all that, no laws or walls we put up will ever be sufficient to protect us unless the Arab and Muslim societies from whence these suicide bombers emerge erect political, religious and moral restraints as well — starting by shaming suicide bombers and naming their actions “murder,” not “martyrdom.”

I keep saying: It takes a village. The father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, saw himself as part of a global community, based on shared values, and that is why he rang the alarm bell. Bless him for that. Unless more Muslim parents, spiritual leaders, political leaders — the village — are ready to publicly denounce suicide bombing against innocent civilians — theirs and ours — this behavior will not stop.

Just last Friday, for example, a suicide bomber set off an explosives-laden vehicle in the midst of a volleyball tournament in the Pakistani village of Shah Hassan Khel, killing more than 100 people. Most were youngsters. No surprise. When suicide bombing becomes legitimate to use against non-Muslim “infidels” abroad it becomes legitimate to use against Muslim opponents at home. And what becomes “legitimate” and “illegitimate” in a community is so much more important than any government regulation.

All too often, though, Arab and Muslim governments arrest their jihadis at home, denounce them privately to us, but say nothing in public. The global leadership of Islam — like the king of Saudi Arabia or the Organization of the Islamic Conference — rarely take on jihadist actions and ideology openly with the kind of passion, consistency and mass protests that we have seen them do, for example, against Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

President Obama should not hesitate to call for it — respectfully but publicly. If he only presses for more effective airport security, which he must, it’s a cop-out.

“When you want to foster more responsible behavior in people, you can’t just legislate more rules and regulations,” said Dov Seidman, the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical cultures, and the author of the book “How.” “You have to enlist and inspire people in a set of values. People need to be governed both from the outside, through compliance with rules, and from the inside, inspired by shared values. That is why shame is so important. When we call a banker ‘a fat cat’ for taking too big a bonus, we’re actually being inspirational leaders because we are telling them, ‘You are behaving beneath how a responsible human being should behave.’ We need to inspire the village to shame those who betray our common values.”

Every faith has its violent extreme. The West is not immune. It’s all about how the center deals with it. Does it tolerate it, isolate it or shame it? The jihadists are a security problem for our system. But they are a political and moral problem for the Arab-Muslim system. If they won’t address this problem for us, I truly hope they will do it for themselves. Eventually, we’ll find a way to keep most jihadists off our planes and out of our volleyball games — but they will have to live with them.

SOURCE:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06friedman.html

testedone
01-07-2010, 10:58
Sir, was looking for where to post this in a response format....

Seeing that this article makes a premise that not all Muslims are Jihadist's (more or less) what are your thoughts on Ron Paul's statements that the only reason extremist exist is because we are over there?

I believe Ron Paul subscribes to a policy of non-intervention...which for my ignorant mind is the same as isolationist.. So if we do not intervene in any nation they would leave us alone...I am surprised by that view...

Just wondering what your thoughts are on His (Ron Paul) view point that if we were not there we would not have a problem....

Edit to add, Mr. Paul states we created the extremist..


Thanks

Pete
01-07-2010, 11:50
.... what are your thoughts on Ron Paul's statements that the only reason extremist exist is because we are over there?......

Ron Paul said that? :Dx100 Consider the source.

wet dog
01-07-2010, 11:58
Ron Paul said that? :Dx100 Consider the source.

I think Ron Paul has missed the leason on the last 1400 years of history.

greenberetTFS
01-07-2010, 12:21
I think Ron Paul has missed the leason on the last 1400 years of history.

WD,I'm afraid the American people in general don't get the message either! ................:(

Big Teddy :munchin

testedone
01-07-2010, 12:34
WD,I'm afraid the American people in general don't get the message either! ................:(

Big Teddy :munchin

That's what amazes me, because a cursory look into history will show these things to be true. I like some of the views of the Libertarian Party but when they start to say it is our fault for the extremists (me I believe it is a Islam problem as a whole) well you have to start thinking like Rosie and the Charlie Sheen crowd...:confused:

dadof18x'er
01-07-2010, 12:49
Ron Paul said that? :Dx100 Consider the source.

does Ron Paul know that they kill each other? is that our fault?:confused:

Warrior-Mentor
01-07-2010, 13:23
Sir, was looking for where to post this in a response format....

Seeing that this article makes a premise that not all Muslims are Jihadist's (more or less) what are your thoughts on Ron Paul's statements that the only reason extremist exist is because we are over there?

I believe Ron Paul subscribes to a policy of non-intervention...which for my ignorant mind is the same as isolationist.. So if we do not intervene in any nation they would leave us alone...I am surprised by that view...

Just wondering what your thoughts are on His (Ron Paul) view point that if we were not there we would not have a problem....

Edit to add, Mr. Paul states we created the extremist..


Thanks

Ron Paul [and you] need to read the link here:

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=306832#post306832

Raymond Ibraham is spoon feeding the Cliff Notes. Take the time to read them.

We were attacked in 1979. Desert Sheild/Storm hadn't happened yet. Gitmo didn't exist to recruit them then. Oh wait, Gitmo wasn't an issue on 9/11 either.

Must be the Israel thing. :rolleyes:

HELLO Mr. PAUL - IT'S ABOUT GLOBAL DOMINATION.
_____________________________________

War Is Eternal in Islam
Raymond Ibraham

That Islam legitimizes deceit during war is, of course, not all that astonishing; after all, as the Elizabethan writer John Lyly put it, "All's fair in love and war."[24] Other non-Muslim philosophers and strategists—such as Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes—justified deceit in warfare. Deception of the enemy during war is only common sense.

The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God[Allah]."[25]

In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states:

"The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]

Moreover, going back to the doctrine of abrogation, Muslim scholars such as Ibn Salama (d. 1020) agree that Qur'an 9:5, known as ayat as-sayf or the sword verse, has abrogated some 124 of the more peaceful Meccan verses, including "every other verse in the Qur'an, which commands or implies anything less than a total offensive against the nonbelievers."[27] In fact, all four schools of Sunni jurisprudence agree that "jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and the infidels refuse."[28]

Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the "realm of submission [to islam]," the world where Shari'a governs; the second, dar al-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day.

The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:
In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[29]

Finally and all evidence aside, lest it still appear unreasonable for a faith with over one billion adherents to obligate unprovoked warfare in its name, it is worth noting that the expansionist jihad is seen as an altruistic endeavor, not unlike the nineteenth century ideology of "the white man's burden." The logic is that the world, whether under democracy, socialism, communism, or any other system of governance, is inevitably living in bondage—a great sin, since the good of all humanity is found in living in accordance to God's law. In this context, Muslim deception can be viewed as a slightly less than noble means to a glorious end—Islamic hegemony under Shari'a rule, which is seen as good for both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This view has an ancient pedigree: Soon after the death of Muhammad (634), as the jihad fighters burst out of the Arabian peninsula, a soon-to-be conquered Persian commander asked the invading Muslims what they wanted. They memorably replied as follows:

God has sent us and brought us here so that we may free those who desire from servitude to earthly rulers and make them servants of God, that we may change their poverty into wealth and free them from the tyranny and chaos of [false] religions and bring them to the justice of Islam. He has sent us to bring his religion to all his creatures and call them to Islam. Whoever accepts it from us will be safe, and we shall leave him alone; but whoever refuses, we shall fight until we fulfill the promise of God.[30]

Fourteen hundred years later— in March 2009—Saudi legal expert Basem Alem publicly echoed this view:

As a member of the true religion, I have a greater right to invade [others] in order to impose a certain way of life [according to Shari'a], which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of offensive jihad. When we wage jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.[31]

And it should go without saying that taqiyya in the service of altruism is permissible. For example, only recently, after publicly recounting a story where a Muslim tricked a Jew into converting to Islam—warning him that if he tried to abandon Islam, Muslims would kill him as an apostate—Muslim cleric Mahmoud al-Masri called it a "beautiful trick."[32] After all, from an Islamic point of view, it was the Jew who, in the end, benefitted from the deception, which brought him to Islam.

Excerpt from link at:
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=306832#post306832