I have written and talked about Sweden for a while, especially Malmo, a city where Islamists have a free reign against those who do anything outside of Muslim norms. As Robert Spencer correctly points out, when non-Mulsims are in a Muslim land, they must conform to Muslim norms. When non-Muslims are in a non-Muslim land, they must conform to Muslim norms. OK, we are straight on that, right?
This latest attack by the religion of peace, in one of the most outspoken bastions of multi-culti acceptance in Europe, has shaken Swedes to their core. Of course, the authorities are playing the "we do not know what caused this attempted bombing" card, trying to downplay the obvious: jihad in the name of Allah.
From the article;
"Although police haven't confirmed Saturday's attack was motivated by Islamist views, an audio file sent to Swedish news agency TT shortly before the blast referred to jihad, Sweden's military presence in Afghanistan and a cartoon by a Swedish artist that depicted the Prophet Muhammad as a dog, enraging many Muslims."
Let us look closely at this statement, and find out what they are really saying. The police will not admit that Islamic doctrine and tenets were the prime motivator in this attack, and that publishing cartoons enraged Muslims but do not look at that as a valid reason for the bombers actions.
Are we to be held responsibile for Muslims feelings? Have we been given the power to control how Muslims behave and react? How can this be, when we bend over backwards to accomodate Muslim sensibilities by providing footbaths at airports, private swimming times for women at public pools, halal food in prisons and Ramadan ceremonies in public schools at taxpayers expense.
This latest attempt to instill Islam into Swedish society by way of the sword (9-29) only serves as another in a long line of wake-up calls, calls which remain unanswered.
Read it all here.
7 comments:
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/12/13/uk-mosque-denounced-stockholm-bomber-for-militancy/
Surprise, surprise, surprise…, Taimour Abdulwahab Al-Abdaly hailed from the city of Jihadist brotherly love, Luton…, the home of the five convicted fertilizer bombers, the place where the 7/7 bombers met on the day of the attacks in 2005, the home of two young men killed fighting in Afghanistan in 2001, the home of Mohammed Quayam Khan who was liaising with al-Qaeda and helping folks set up a training camps in Pakistan, the home of the Imam Omar Bakri, the home of the Imam Abu Hamza, and the home of the “Lions of Luton”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxSseM-wkbA
The only thing you can count on coming from mosques is al-Taqiyya
Copy and paste this ultimate cartoon in the address bar…, this one’s for Al-Abdaly
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15OypPabIqQ
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/12/13/uk-mosque-denounced-stockholm-bomber-for-militancy/
Of course they never explain how Jihadists’ are violating the tenets of their faith. How exactly did Taimur Abdulwahab al-Abdaly misunderstand Islam?
It’s par for the course, again and again over the years we have seen Islamic spokesmen make sweeping generalizations about how Jihad terror contradicts basic tenets of Islam, but detailed theological refutations of doctrinal Islamic Jihad remain extremely thin…
" detailed theological refutations of doctrinal Islamic Jihad remain extremely thin…"
No, your understanding remains extremely thin. It's hardly any different than the Christian concept of a "just war". Jihad has never sanctioned violence against civilians or independent of a proper state; such violence is known as 'baghy' and is a capital offense in the shari'a. Unless you yourself are a total pacifist, you yourself believe an armed jihad can be legitimate.
There are plenty of detailed theological refutations of terrorism; just google 'Muslims condemn terrorism', visit The American Muslim, or the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center.
"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5
The Objectives of Jihad
o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.
o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)
After reading through the condemnations, one must realize who the innocents are.
What constitutes an innocent life under the legal system of Islamic Law or under the ideology of Islam?
According to Islamic Shariah, the “Kafir” are “NOT INNOCENT” - they are the worst of all creatures - so says Islam…
"...whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)
"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..." (5:33)
The first part (5:32) sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent, but the second part (5:33) permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances (kufr/Kafiroon) because, they have committed corruption, or mischief in the land by not believing in “Mo-Alla” which puts one “beyond the pale of Islam”
Islamic Law says - not my words or feelings :
* Kafir - Non-Muslim / Non-Believer/ Pagan / Agnostic /Jew / Christian, etc…
* Kufr - Unbelief/infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.
(Reliance of the Traveller - index for above - see pages 1132,1170,1172,1207).
c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...
(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
(pgs 30-31)
o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)
o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed
o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:
(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).
Post a Comment