Flag draped at Fort Hood 10-Nov-2009 (AP)
The muslim website kavkaz center published an entry from Sheikh Anwar Al-Awlaki calling for jihad against the United States on November 1, 2009, just 4 days prior to the Fort Hood tragedy.
Al-Awlaki was the imam at Dar Al-Hijrah mosque during the time cowardly murderer Nidal Hasan attended the center. Al-Awlaki also had contact with Hasan at the time of the attack, which he called acceptable under islamic law.
In this article, Al-Awlaki speaks out against "opposition to terrorism and illegitimate violence" indicating that these acts are justifiable for a "Muslim who wants to live according to Islamic rule." and also that "a moderate Muslim to them (Americans), is in reality a non-Muslim!"
This comment "a moderate muslim ... is a non-muslim" is absolutely true, for the quran calls for the decapitation of non-believers "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (quran 8:12) while "moderate muslims" call for peace and understanding.
Some will claim that this refers to allah, but look at the wording "smite ye above their necks..." (you smite above their necks). "Slay the idolaters (non-muslims) wherever you find them" (9:5) "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace" (9:14)
In another part of this entry, Al-Awlaki writes " Who ever takes, my Awliya', my friends as enemies, then I will wage war against them" (Bukhari :: Book 8 :: Volume 76 :: Hadith 509). America has taken the Awliya' of Allah as enemies; therefore they will be fighting Allah Almighty. And the result and outcome is known!" "Yes, the religion of Allah will be victorious but we want to have a part in that, we want to share in reward! We don't want to be sitting on the sidelines and watching as spectators!" and ""Wage jihad against the disbelievers with your self, and with your wealth, and with your word"
Is it a coincidence that Hasan carried out a terrorist attack 4 days later? Doubtful.
Comments
I am a dyed-in-the-wool liberal and secularist going way back, but I have absolutely parted company with the imbeciles on the left who insist on coddling Islam and Muslim fanatics. These traitors are absolutely depraved. Their stupidity concerning Islam knows no bounds, as they are completely oblivious that under Islamic domination and law, they would be some of the first oppressed, persecuted and executed.
Complete and total morons, the lot of them. While they are coddling and appeasing Islam, millions of women suffer horribly under Muslim rule. Gays are regularly executed, while secular intellectuals are persecuted and often murdered. These hypocritical idiots on the left have NO concern for any of these persecuted minorities. Their only concern, it seems, is to allow for these atrocities to continue, by defending Islam and Muslims fanatics.
Disgusting, depraved, immoral reprobates, the lot of them.
for No Dhimmi- I get the impression that you are a real liberal, and not a socialist usurping the title of liberal. If this is true, I look forward to your comments. You are a dying breed.
John said, "for Blackout - I wrote the article. If I want to delete an editorial that no longer has any relevance I will."
LOL...Considering that the only article that you have deleted in recent weeks is the one in which you were soundly thumped, I think that your answer is nothing but B.S., and seeing as you only deleted your comments after that thumping spread to some of your other equally uniformed and factually flawed discussions, your response appears disingenous (at best) if not simply a bald-faced lie. Ah, well...fortunately, I saved most of those comments, and will be replacing some of the more interesting ones, shortly.
As I said, it was an editorial and was no longer necessary. This is a news column, not a blog site. No news articles are being deleted.
Editorials are the printing of my opinion, which is not news and needs not be kept indefinitely. Just as these comments are a collection of opinions, mine as well and need not be kept indefinitely.
As I said before, if you want your opinions posted ad infinitum, get your own article. I'll show you how if you'd like.
Also, blackout, I am not going to allow you to dominate the comment section over others. Posting 10 or more full comment boxes is unacceptable. I'll ask again that you keep your comments to one box.
John said, ""s I said, it was an editorial and was no longer necessary."
Nonetheless, your decision to delete ONLY the "op-ed" (since you don't like the term "blog") in which you were proved wrong says a lot about the integrity (or rather, lack thereof) in your publications.
John said, "I am not going to allow you to dominate the comment section over others."
Actually, I checked the Terms of Use for the site, and there is nothing in them to prevent me from posting as many comments as I like. You can always delete them again, but I can put them back up just as easily, especially now that you have shown your willingness to abuse your editorial powers to eliminate comments that disagree with your biased point-of-view. Of course, it wouldn't have been NECESSARY to re-post so many comments in a row, if you had just left them alone to being with...
Posting 10 or more full comment boxes is unacceptable. I'll ask again that you keep your comments to one box.
Oops...I edited that last one sloppily. I apologize.
blackout - Again, if you want your opinions to remain posted forever, get your own column. I, however, will delete the old comments when there are too many.
And as I said before, just because you can't accept the fact that someone thinks different than you do does not make that other person wrong. The fact that you must keep posting that my opinion was "proved wrong" shows ego-maniacal rage that you cannot control my opinions or my comment section.
And throwing a fit like a 2 year old and reposting old comments that are no longer relevant further proves my point.
John said, "I, however, will delete the old comments when there are too many."
Keep saying it, and maybe someone will believe you. However, I maintain that this is a B.S. defense. You aren't deleting comments because there are "too many." You are doing it because you haven't been able to effectively rebutt the opposing point-of-view.
JOhn said, "And as I said before, just because you can't accept the fact that someone thinks different than you do does not make that other person wrong."
When you say something that is factually incorrect, you ARE wrong. My problem with you isn't that you "think differently." It is rather that you have a startling tendency in your articles to assert positions that are demonstrably false.
John said, "The fact that you must keep posting that my opinion was "proved wrong" shows ego-maniacal rage that you cannot control my opinions or my comment section."
Personally, I think that the most "childish" position here is the one in which the author mass deletes the comments after his has been proved wrong, so as to hide from his own failures.
For example, you asserted in the previously deleted material that the quran contains violent passages, but that the bible does not. You also asserted that muslims participate in terrorism, but that christians do not. Both of these assertions are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
So yes, you were "wrong." Now grow up and eat your crow like a big boy.
With the exception of you and Iqubal or whatever his name was, most comments were positive. If I was singling yours out, I would have left them.
And as for your vague generalizations twisted from reality into your own delusions, you have yet to actually prove anything I wrote wrong.
Again, when my opinions differ from yours and you can't convince me of your way of thinking, out come the insults and the childish taunts.
My reports facts stand on their own.
John said, "And as for your vague generalizations twisted from reality into your own delusions, you have yet to actually prove anything I wrote wrong."
That's a very convenient assertion, since the specific points to which I was referring were statements made by you in the comments that you deleted. I revisited those points, below, and indeed your assertions were plainly false.
As for you article, it isn't so much wrong as it is HYPOCRITICAL. You are applying a standard of ethics and behavior to muslims that you refuse to apply to your own religious community. BOTH of your religions preach violence. BOTH of your religions have extensive networks of extremists that regularly commit violent acts of terrorism all over the world.
If you want to be taken seriously as a political commentator, then you need to learn how to apply at least a little objectivity to your comments.
As
I write news stories. You want a commentator, go talk to Rush.
John said, "I write news stories."
Actually, NEWS stories are supposed to be objective and typically offer a neutral perspective. YOUR articles are not "news". What you write is political commentary. Heck, even your Examiner title, i.e. "Trumbull County CONSERVATIVE Examiner" indicates quite clearly that your topic is not the objective reporting of the news.
Okay, this is probably my last messege here. This article quotes out of context. For example, during the Vietnam war, the American military generals I am sure told the soldiers 'kill the vietnamese soldiers', not 'be killed'. But that was during the war, so it would be criminal of me to say that the American president is saying kill the Vietnamese, because that will be me trying to make the president look like a butcher. John, the verse of Qur'an that you quoted is Surah Towbah, Chapter number 5 verse 9. But you do not mention the verses before or after it, like many other illogical critics. In that verse it does say kill non believers, but the verses before explain why. I am giving the explanation in my next post.
The Arab Muslims had a treaty with another Arab tribe, which was broken by the tribe. So Allah gave that tribe an ultimatum of 4 months, to sort it out or the Muslims would give a declaration of war. So Allah in His Own Words said to not be afraid of the non believers in battle and kill them. That was till verse 5. In verse 6, the Muslims ask that what if the enemy wants to surrender, Allah then says that if that happens, don't just abstain from the fight, but also escort them to a place of safety. Most critics, I know of one in India, always quote the 5th verse, like you did, and skip out the verses before it or the 6th verse, to just get your point delivered. I am pretty sure our president will not be saying 'kill the vietnamese' now, but back then he did due to situational reasons, same as this. So I urge you, do your homework before criticizing.
Correction: Chapter number 9 verse 5 is the one you quoted out of context.
In the movie "Mars Attacks" the Martians said "We come in peace" as they killed people and blew up buildings.
Muslims say "We come in peace" as they kill people and blow up buildings.
Do Muslims like Slim Whitman?
John said, "In the movie "Mars Attacks" the Martians said..."
You may not be aware of this, John, but the events depicted in the movie "Mars Attacks" were fictional, much like your vision of mainstream islam. Confusion fantasy with reality seems to be a common trait among neo-conservatives.
John lost it. Seriously John you are so illogical. In this article, you criticized Qur'an, which is the scripture of Islam. Then as soon as you lost on that portion, now you are talking about Martian movies and all and how muslims are evil. Yes, many muslims are, but thats because they dont follow Islam, much like KKK and other religious extremists.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!