| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
From Memri:
On February 3, 2007, Islamist websites posted a 23-minute audio recording by Emir Al-Muaminin (i.e. Commander of the Believers) Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, whom Al-Qaeda has appointed "head of the Islamic State of Iraq." The recording, dated February 2, 2007 and titled, "Victory from Allah, Victory is Near," was issued by the Islamic State's media company Al-Furqan.
...The following are excerpts from his speech:
"We [hereby] inform the Sunnis of a [new] plan called the Plan of Honor, which is more comprehensive and more perfect [than the existing plan] and includes not only Baghdad but all parts of the Islamic State [of Iraq]... [This plan] will end with Bush announcing the failure of his [security] plan and signing an agreement of defeat... The goals of the plan are: to defend our people and our honor; to rout out the invaders and eradicate the remaining pockets and bases of heresy; to butcher the wounded Crusader tyrant and take advantage of the collapse of morale among [the Crusader] soldiers and commanders; to unite the ranks of the mujahideen and to strengthen the foundations of the Islamic State [of Iraq].
"Oh Muslim youths, remember the cut up bodies of the children, the voices of their bereaved [parents] and the anguished cries of the elderly. Let the volcano of your wrath burst forth. Burn the ground beneath the feet of the Jews and their helpers, eradicate their army, destroy their equipment, down their planes, ambush them in their homes, in the wadis and on the roads. Hide in the darkness of night and turn their morning into hell... We are not afraid of your coalitions...We have drunk blood [in the past], and we find no [blood] sweeter than that of the Byzantines [i.e. Christians]... Roast their flesh with car bombs, cut off their supply lines with [explosive] charges and tear out their hearts with sniper fire. Know that offense is the best [form of] defense, and be careful not to lay down your weapons before the war is over... We are not fighting out of nationalism, but with the aim of making Allah's word supreme.
Notice that Al-Baghdadi is banking on "Bush announcing the failure of his [security] plan and signing an agreement of defeat." He's banking on Congress to pull our troops out before their job is done. Congress must let the troops finish the job that they have fought so hard to accomplish.
Al-Baghdadi's approving reference to "drinking blood" underlines the evil of Al Qaeda. And notice that they say explicitly that they act according to their understanding of Islam: "We are fighting ... with the aim of making Allah's word supreme."
Muslims who say that Islam is a religion of peace, must speak out loudly and publicly, saying that people like Al-Baghdadi are not going to paradise. And if such Muslims do not speak out loudly and publicly and say that, we need to put them on the spot and ask them why they won't say so.
#2Mac, welcome to the site, and thanks for your excellent comments. I have just quoted from this one in a new article.
The question of demanding that moderate muslims denounce the radicals is an interesting one, and I think a more complicated one than most people know.
First there is the very real issue that those who speak out risk threats and even bodily harm from their own - other Muslims. "Moderate" muslims like to insist that moderation exists, yet when one imam denounces the radical philosophy he is ostracized from the community. What are we on the outside to make of that?
Secondly, we cannot leave the doctrines of "taqiyya" and "kitman" out of the whole discussion. Because of these doctrines, a person who presents himself as "moderate" may be lying through his teeth. I was recently watching FoxNews' E.D. Hill interviewing a man she introduced as - and obviously believed to be - a "moderate". She repeatedly asked him pointed questions about why radical islam was not denounced by moderates, and he repeatedly talked around the question - babbling on about "it's all politics" - and she let him get away with it. Shining example of kitman, and as I watched, it occurred to me that his whole mission at the interview might be to create the illusion that there are in fact moderates. But are there?
An Iranian friend of mine who has left Islam and lives in the West now, says that there is no moderation in Islam. He says that there are those who truly study and understand the purpose of Islam, and they are radicals. Then there are those who don't really know the Qur'an and Islam's other holy books well; they buy into a sort of mythological "religion of peace". Finally there are those who know well that there is no moderation, but present a moderate face to the Westerners they encounter, in order to protect themselves and advance Islam's cause. (Taqiyya - deliberate deceit in the advancement of Islam is acceptable to Allah; Kitman - the withholding of part of the truth in advancement of Islam is acceptable.)
When we are dealing with a people who see deceit as a virtue, how are we to ever trust their assertions of "moderation"?