Hooded al-Qaida Thugs Real Enemies of Islam

Whatever the beheadings of Daniel Pearl and Nicholas Berg left untold, the recent beheadings of American Paul Johnson and South Korean Kim Sun-il certainly clarify, for those who remained uncertain, what our country is up against. As a Muslim, it also clarifies what my faith is up against.

These acts are not those of humans, nor even animals. These acts are demonic, pure and simple.

The kidnappings and beheadings join the litany of gruesome savagery that has been done in the name of my religion - Islam. I am filled with incalculable sorrow, but it also stiffens my resolve to no end.

As much as the hooded demons of al-Qaida are enemies of freedom, they are enemies of Islam.

The terrorist ideology, clothed in religious jargon, is similar to that of Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany. It is all based on one thing, destroying the spirit and will of others through fear and chaos so that a brutal ideology may reign supreme.

It is only through freedom that we can get closer to God. Faith is when man freely chooses to relate to God, and is not dictated to do so by the commands of others.

This is diametrically opposed to what Islamist fanatics believe. Their belief is medieval, just like those beheadings that are torn out of the pages of medieval history. They think that through the terror of the sword, they can kill and intimidate people into believing as they do.

But they will not win. They are, in fact, a dying breed. This recent gruesome series demonstrates that they feel the terminal nature of their militancy. They are the dinosaurs of the modern era. They may, and probably will, still inflict tremendous damage as they continue to exploit our freedom. But their day is fading. These fanatics can only destroy. They cannot create. They cannot bring prosperity or happiness. All they can do is manufacture rage and a cowardly exploitation of religion.

For too long, the so-called leaders of the Muslim world have, for the most part, remained quiet in the face of these atrocities. Their reprimands have been continually couched with qualifications or passive platitudes, but the time for denial is long over.

The South Koreans have responded by dispatching 3,000 more troops, which sends an unmistakable message that targeting innocents only raises the resolve of freedom-loving nations to extinguish al-Qaida.

My resolve and the resolve of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD) is, in fact, exponentially magnified. I see a two-headed poisonous snake, against which our resolve is necessary. One head, not of this world, is violently militant and must be defeated on the ground; the other is oppressively theocratic and must be defeated in public discourse.

For their vicious killers, Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and Kim Sun-il were merely pawns in their game. Their real enemy is freedom. Their actions are meant to silence and intimidate people of good faith. But they will not succeed. If we have seen one thing in the titanic battles played out in the 20th century, it is that the forces of tyranny and oppression will eventually lose to the forces of freedom.

"Al Qaida is NOT the only face of Islam - every Muslim, hooded, terrorist or otherwise, is guilty of the same crimes because they have REFUSED to stand up to the terrorists who have committed murder in the name of their religion. If Dr. Jasser really believes this ka-ka, he needs to start putting his money where his mouth is - start turning in the terrorists - even if they are his cousin's sister's son or his own flesh and blood."

Let's be realistic here.

Dr. Jasser IS standing up to terrorists who have committed murder in the name of his religion. Just because he is Muslim doesn't mean he knows Islamist terrorists, and I find it highly unlikely that murderers with rigid, violent fundamentalist worldviews would befriend this man.

Would I be justified DEMANDING that you turn in Neo-Nazi skinheads in Eastern Pennsylvania based on the fact that you are an American and they are Americans too (on paper, if not in spirit)?

People claim to act in the name of many things, but it doesn't mean that their reasoning is correct. It does mean, however, that their reasons are important to know, because that's how we can understand them and STOP them.

Hellooo?

"Dr. Jasser needs to quit pretending there is such a thing as "moderate" Muslims..." ??? He IS ONE. I don't think you'd be teaching him anything new about the Koran.

"REFUSED to stand up to the terrorists who have committed murder in the name of their religion"???? What do you think he's doing?

From Dr. Jasser's web site : "* Download the pdf file of the flier AIFD is posting and distributing in order to remind all communities of those identified as "Most Wanted" by the Department of Justice for questioning in possible connection to this summer's threat. AIFD calls upon our citizens to find these individuals wherever they may be and report them to the authorities for questioning.

* Please download the flier and contact us and lets us know if your insititution would like to lend its name as a supporting institution be it cultural, business, community, or religious to help in distributing this flier and help in raising the level of community vigilance."

People claim to act in the name of many things, but it doesn't mean that their reasoning is correct. It does mean, however, that their reasons are important to know, because that's how we can understand them and STOP them.

The reasoning of the terroists is the reasoning of Mohammed.
Islam is Mohammedanism.
To reform Islam into something "moderate," either Mohammed (and his Koran) must be removed from Islam, or the terrorist heart must be removed from Mohammed.
Neither outcome is likely.

I applaud Dr. Jasser's voice of reason. I only hope that many, many more Muslims will join his lone voice.

For decades now the world has lived with Muslim terrorists, but the violence has escalated and can no longer be ignored. Their attacks of 9/11 forever changed us. Moderate Muslims should note that this is not a time for silence, as silence is take as tacit support for the radical Muslims and their terrorist tactics.

We all must share this planet and if the so-called moderate Muslims want to be tolerated, if not welcomed by the rest of civilization, then they must speak up with Dr. Jasser.

I don't follow your reasoning, but maybe nuconvert could put you in touch with Dr. Jasser. He knows a thing or two about Islam ... certainly more than me.

Islam is a triumphalist ideology bent on absolute conquest. It is a posthumous cult of personality centered around Mohammed that has always sought to bring all of its subjects into submissioin under Sharia law.
Islam divides the world into Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, that is, "the House of Islam" and the House of War." Lands not yet in submission to Muslim dominion are at war with Islam, whether we desire it or not.
Today's terrorists are no more savage than Mohammed was.
Mohammed wrote: "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12)
How should that be explained away? Is it another "Satanic verse?"

"Islam is a triumphalist ideology bent on absolute conquest. It is a posthumous cult of personality centered around Mohammed that has always sought to bring all of its subjects into submissioin under Sharia law.

Islam divides the world into Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, that is, "the House of Islam" and the House of War." Lands not yet in submission to Muslim dominion are at war with Islam, whether we desire it or not.

Today's terrorists are no more savage than Mohammed was.

Mohammed wrote: "Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers." (Sura 8:12)

How should that be explained away? Is it another "Satanic verse?" "

Your post illuminates your command of the subject.

"Sharia law" is superfluous. The Arabic consonant-root Sh-R-' encompasses words dealing with law and jurisprudence.

"Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Harb", less selectively translated, mean "Abode of Peace" and "Abode of War." The Islamic faith in 7th century Arabia offered unity under God and a measure of peace in an otherwise violent time and place. The "Dar al-Harb" is named not because Muslims are expected to fight against it, but because it was a realm at war, internally and externally. Accepting God, the early Muslims argued, meant accepting the Sh-R-' proscribed for Muslims and would allow converts to escape a treacherous and violent world to join a society in which everyone acknowledged their equality under God.

Knowing that the petty powermongers of Dar al-Harb opposed this message of unity, can you see why they would wage a vicious campaign against the early Muslims?

Finally, in an ironic(?) note, the most extreme and unforgiving Wahhabi theologians of the 19th century were the first to denounce mainstream Muslims as adherents to "a posthumous cult of personality centered around Mohammed."

How should THAT be explained away?

He knows a thing or two about Islam ... certainly more than me.

Yes. And so do I, but, unlike Mr. Jasser, I don't have the blessing of MY scriptures to lie. The Koran says to lie if it furthers the goal of worldwide Islamic dominance over every human being in every land on earth.

When Islam takes the last city, you or your descendants will be given the sweet choice of a prayer rug or a coffin. There will be no other choice. Doubt that? Read the Koran. You will see.

Your post illuminates your command of the subject.

"Sharia law" is superfluous. The Arabic consonant-root Sh-R-' encompasses words dealing with law and jurisprudence.

"Sharia law" is the common English parlance, as "Sharia" alone is meaningless to most English speakers.

"Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Harb", less selectively translated, mean "Abode of Peace" and "Abode of War.

Only if "Islam means peace," which it doesn't. It means "submission" or "submission to God."

The Islamic faith in 7th century Arabia offered unity under God and a measure of peace in an otherwise violent time and place. The "Dar al-Harb" is named not because Muslims are expected to fight against it, but because it was a realm at war, internally and externally. Accepting God, the early Muslims argued, meant accepting the Sh-R-' proscribed for Muslims and would allow converts to escape a treacherous and violent world to join a society in which everyone acknowledged their equality under God.

What a whitewash.

Knowing that the petty powermongers of Dar al-Harb opposed this message of unity, can you see why they would wage a vicious campaign against the early Muslims?

The campaigns against the Mohammedan jihads were more likely motivated by the allergic reactions of the necks of Christians and Jews to conversion at swordpoint.

Finally, in an ironic(?) note, the most extreme and unforgiving Wahhabi theologians of the 19th century were the first to denounce mainstream Muslims as adherents to "a posthumous cult of personality centered around Mohammed."

How should THAT be explained away?

Easy: Mohammed supersedes what came 13 centuries later.
Not even a worthy begging of the question. Back to Sura 8:12 for you.

""Sharia law" is the common English parlance, as "Sharia" alone is meaningless to most English speakers. "

Then why write "sharia" at all? "Law" is a meaningful word for most English speakers

Only if "Islam means peace," which it doesn't. It means "submission" or "submission to God."

It's a PEACEFUL submission to God. Same S-L-M root. Any Arabic speaker would immediately recognize the link.

The campaigns against the Mohammedan jihads were more likely motivated by the allergic reactions of the necks of Christians and Jews to conversion at swordpoint.

Please see your comments re: whitewashes.

No, I meant, how can your explain the fact that you and Wahhabi extremists have such similar views?

Then why write "sharia" at all? "Law" is a meaningful word for most English speakers

Why are you picking this nit? "Sharia law" is a common phrase (36,000 hits on Google), and folks have an idea that it means something different than "law."

It's a PEACEFUL submission to God. Same S-L-M root. Any Arabic speaker would immediately recognize the link.

Funny how the "Mysteries and subtleties of Arabic" dodge gets lost in the realities and history of Arab brutality. Arabic is apparently so nuanced even Mohammed and most Arabs don't understand it.

No, I meant, how can your explain the fact that you and Wahhabi extremists have such similar views?

Simple: Wahabi extremists are more honest about Mohammedanism than are "moderate Muslims," or you for that matter.
Done begging the question? Care to address Sura 8:12?

Would I be justified DEMANDING that you turn in Neo-Nazi skinheads in Eastern Pennsylvania based on the fact that you are an American and they are Americans too (on paper, if not in spirit)?

Wow. There are mismatches and there are mismatches. Yours are off the planet. First, I'm neither a skinhead, a neo-nazi, nor do I live in eastern Pennsylvania. American to American, absolutely I would turn them in if I knew that they were neo-nazi skinheads who were perpetrating evil or criminal deeds. The difference is that Dr. Jasser has positioned himself as a Muslim apologist who attempts to get us to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Arabs, AS A GROUP, have demanded to be left to their own devices; i.e. telling the west to butt out of their affairs. And yet, every terrorist we are facing today is of Arab extraction and Muslim to boot. Dr. Jasser says that we should ignore all those other Muslims and only focus on the ones wearing hoods. That would be great if all the terrorists would accommodate us by walking down the street wearing hoods - but they don't. They dress just like you and I until they are ready to execute whatever evil, deadly plan they have. It's much like the westerns we used to watch - all the bad guys didn't wear black hats and all the good guys didn't always wear white hats. Dr. Jasser would have us believe that the only bad Muslims are the ones wearing hoods and masks.

By attempting to segregate Muslims into hooded Muslims and non-hooded Muslims, Dr. Jasser misses the bigger picture. The hooded terrorists are conducting murders in the name of Islam. Instead of hlding those terrorists responsible for their evil deeds, he tells us to only hold the hooded ones responsible. My question is this - why isn't he and the "moderate" Muslims holding them responsible and speaking out against them with one voice? Why aren't they dpoing more to reclaim their religion from those who have hijacked it? This is the fundemental issue that he doesn't seem to grasp. He isn't speaking out - he's making more excuses.

>>so-called leaders of the Muslim world have, for the most part, remained quiet in the face of these atrocities. Their reprimands have been continually couched with qualifications or passive platitudes,

The essential issue. People pick up on their nuanced condemnations and rightly view them as BS, even us infidels and kuffrs.

The problem is, the US has supported the worst of islam, the Saudi wahhabs.

And now it bites us, bad.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Putting stuff on a website doesn't make him a saint, an activist or a "moderate" Muslim. It makes him one more person who publishes his opinions on the web and turns around and claims that he has done his part. Has he organized other "moderate" Muslims to seek out and turn in the terrorists they know about? Has he done anything besides lecturing to the rest of us that we shouldn't paint all Muslims with the same brush?

The problem is that Dr. Jasser has positioned himself as a Muslim apologist who attempts to get us to ignore the man behind the curtain.

Arabs, AS A GROUP, have demanded to be left to their own devices; i.e. telling the west to butt out of their affairs. And yet, every terrorist we are facing today is of Arab extraction and Muslim to boot. Dr. Jasser says that we should ignore all those other Muslims and only focus on the ones wearing hoods. That would be great if all the terrorists would accommodate us by walking down the street wearing hoods - but they don't. They dress just like you and I until they are ready to execute whatever evil, deadly plan they have. It's much like the westerns we used to watch - all the bad guys didn't wear black hats and all the good guys didn't always wear white hats. Dr. Jasser would have us believe that the only bad Muslims are the ones wearing hoods and masks.

By attempting to segregate Muslims into hooded Muslims and non-hooded Muslims, Dr. Jasser misses the bigger picture. The hooded terrorists are conducting murders in the name of Islam. Instead of holding those terrorists responsible for their evil deeds, he tells us to only hold the hooded ones responsible. My question is this - why isn't he and the "moderate" Muslims holding them responsible and speaking out against them with one voice? Why aren't they doing more to reclaim their religion from those who have hijacked it? This is the fundemental issue that he doesn't seem to grasp. He isn't speaking out - he's making more excuses.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.