Saturday, July 29, 2006

Jihad in Seattle

Shooting at Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle“I am a Muslim American, angry at Israel.”

That’s pretty clear. Unequivocal, right?

That’s what the alleged murderer at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle said yesterday when he opened fire on the building’s employees.

But that’s not what the FBI calls “terrorism”:

“We believe … it’s a lone individual acting out his antagonism,” said David Gomez, an FBI assistant special agent in charge of counterterrorism in Seattle.

[…]

Gutt said the FBI is helping Seattle police assess whether the gunman was a “lone wolf” or part of a wider plan. If evidence of a terrorist plot evolved, the FBI would become the lead agency, but as of Friday night the case remained Seattle’s, Gutt said.

Dymphna has been ill and out of the loop, so I was filling her in on the news tonight over dinner. I explained how it was like pulling teeth to get the police and the FBI to utter the word “Muslim”, and how they were bending over backwards to keep the dreaded T-word out of their statements.

“Well,” she said, “Is it really terrorism when a guy is just acting on his own like that?”

I said, “Considering that Zawahiri just issued his call to all the Muslims of the world for jihad against the Jews, is it a coincidence that this Islmaist wacko starts shooting Jews in Seattle? It may not be terrorism, but it sure as hell is jihad.”

“Well,” she said, “I’d agree with that.”

So let’s call it what it is: Jihad. Part of the Great Islamic Jihad.

Without orders from Jihad Central, without direction from above, without being a part of cell in a terrorist cell, a murderer was performing jihad, according to the dictates of the Koran. Murdering Jews for Allah.

“Terrorism” isn’t the issue. The issue is Jihad.

29 comments:

A. Eteraz said...

"according to the dictates of the Koran."

It's statements like that hand the Koran/Quran/Qur'an/Holy Book over to the fundos. It says to them that their interpretation is right and all other competing visions (such as the one I and a thousand of my friends adhere to is wrong).

How about saying "according to their twisted malignant reading of the Koran."

Just makes the work I do that much harder & its part of the reason I don't comment much.

I have a question for you Baron. Let's say the Muslim world was like Singapore: straight and narrow. Would you still say, upoin hearing of a killing, that the individuals were acting according to the dictates of the Koran? If the answer is yes; then you don't like the Koran and I can't expect you to make your language more nuanced. If the answer is no, then you have no logical reason to not use the alternative language I've suggested.

KG said...

"...it’s a lone individual acting out his antagonism,”
Riiight..and Al Queada is a *whole lot* of individuals acting out their antagonism,eh?
a.eteraz, no wonder the work you do (?) is "that much harder". Having hundreds of your co-religionists bombing kids,cutting throats and threatening half the world with death or slavery unless they convert to islam WOULD tend to result in a certain..ah..consumer resistance.

A. Eteraz said...

but courage can be cultivated.

with courage.

there are too many examples of it in the course of islamic history.

do you know what i find fascinating? out of the four schools of law in sunni islam: the founder of three of those schools were extinguished in prisons and tortured by tyrants. the actions of each caused the downfalls of ideological inquisitions. many people use such facts to demean the history of Islam.

i use as an example of the kind of courage that is required to rebut ignorance.

there are numerous examples of such individuals in a new book by khaled abu el fadl: 'conference of the books.'i will be reviewing it for a magazine soon.

KG said...

eteraz, I suspect I speak for very many people when I say that the convoluted inner workings of islam are of absolutely no interest to me.
You speak of courage and ignorance.
Let us speak of courage first: courage is the parents of the children of Beslan, coming to terms with the slaughter of their kids. Courage is the Israeli mother who waves goodbye to her children on the school bus every morning, knowing that some fanatical islamic thug could easily target that particular bus this morning.
Courage is women who refuse to be treated as second-class citizens, knowing the risk of the lash or acid in the face.
And ignorance? Ignorance is a people so mired in a backward, ossified religion that they're unable to join the modern world, unable to live by civilized, humane values. So appallingly ignorant that they would rather see schoolgirls burn to death than let them out of a burning building unveiled....
I could go on, but this isn't my bandwidth.
Apologists for islam make me sick If there are so many "moderate muslims", how come they're unable to control the supposed tiny minority of radicals among them? The truth is that the religion itself is murderous, no more than a totalitarian ideology and the "moderates" are practicing taqqiya.

A. Eteraz said...

sigh.

in urdu a taqiya is a pillow.

smother me with it.

i'm out.

ScottSA said...

Eteraz: I have been working on a piece about moderate Islam and how it shares the ends if not the means of radical Islam. Whichever way it gets there, the aim of Islam is to bring Islam whither it goeth. In many ways the so-called "moderates" are more dangerous than the fundies.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

The issue is not terrorism : true. Terrorism is only a means, which can and has been used by many stripes of people : anarchists around the turn of 20th century, communists movements both underground and governments, the African National Congress (now leading a democracy), animal rights activists, libertarian militias.

The issue is Jihad? Weeeeelll, no. Jihad has one source. One set of practicioners. One ideology. One book.

The issue is Islam.


Lawrence Auster turned the spotlight on the moderate Islam business in Frontpage : The Search for Moderate Islam, where he argued that moderate Islam does not really exist, and that persisting to believe in it hurts us.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

Ah! It turns out the shooter was one of Eteraz bro's : Naveed Afzal Haq, American of Pakistani origins.

Eteraz's site mentions the incident , where he shows his actual attitude - hardly a word about the henious criminal, except excuses - more worrying about the bad publicity for Muslims and making weak excuses for that evil and wicked faith and community that follows it. And calling for gun control.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Except in this case*, where Muslims kill People.

: When the gunman, identified as Naveed Afzal Haq, fired a semi-automatic her way, Klein moved her arm toward her womb in an act of maternal defense.The bullet struck her arm, authorities say, likely preventing possible harm from coming to her unborn child. ( Link )

What a man Mr Haq, he goes on a shooting rampage, where he tries to shoot a pregnant woman through the stomach.

*this kind of case, Muslim leaves Mosque and makes random assault, is of course a daily thing in Israel, Iraq, Europe, India, Indonesia etc etc.

Epaminondas said...

Weak minded, sick or not ... you have to be very carefully taught to go out and do what this person did.


WHO TAUGHT HIM?
WHERE ARE THEY?
WHO ELSE DID THEY TEACH?
WHO IS PAYING THEM?
WHO CREATED SUCH A SYLLABUS OF RACISM?

These are the litttle stones which must be in place before some idiot does such a thing. Just like Baruch Goldstein. ALL THE SAME.

Where are the teachers when this stuff happens?

I'm an american and I hate Kofi, and for very justifiable reasons all of which are objectively based, but I never considered walking into the waste of real estate on the east side and going postal. No teaching I ever had makes this a possible outcome.

What teaching does? And why?

Old Peculier said...

Islam is not moderate. There are moderate Muslims, however, who don't practise it fully.

Calling this "jihad" rather than terrorism is a good idea. It shifts the burden of proof onto Muslims - including the moderate ones who haven't thought about their religion much - to show that they don't believe in jihad.

Unlisted said...

Look at what this Muslim guy had to say about the Seattle attacks on his blog

http://rasheedmoore.wordpress.com/2006/07/30/the-chickens-come-home-to-roost/

Voyager said...

It was a random selection of a target by a self-defined Muslim motivated in his own words by events in the Middle East and his hatred of Jews..............

Now had it been a White Protestant selecting a Muslim bookshop/charity/mosque at random and emptying a 9mm pistol into Muslims there is little doubt about the quiescent response of the "mulsim community"; or the restrained reporting of the media, or the press releases of the FBI, Police, DA etc................it would not happen

Baron Bodissey said...

Eteraz —

How about saying “according to their twisted malignant reading of the Koran.”

That kind of circumlocution is possible; I could do it. But is it appropriate? Considering that there are numerous specific verses of the Koran which instruct the faithful to slay infidels without cease and without mercy, is my choice of words so inappropriate?

You are to be commended for not taking those portions of your scripture literally. But there are many, many passages which must be interpreted metaphorically in order for the believer not to be directed to do violence.

And don’t tell me that it’s the same with Christians, because it’s not. The New Testament is devoid of exhortations to kill those who don’t believe in Christ.

Christians who kill other people on behalf of their religion have to make up their own justifications for doing so; their scripture gives them no assistance.

Baron Bodissey said...

Fellow Peacekeeper —

The issue is Jihad? Weeeeelll, no. Jihad has one source. One set of practicioners. One ideology. One book.

The issue is Islam.


It’s true that there can be no jihad without Islam. But can there be Islam without jihad? That’s what we hope.

The prospects do not look good, however. Looking back on the last 1400 years, Islam has either been actively practicing jihad, or biding its time. Right now we seem to be in a transition period from the latter condition to the former; that’s why we’re waking up to this ugly reality.

But I still have a tiny hope that we can avoid exterminating or converting 1.4 billion people. Remember, if the “moderate Muslim” turns out to exist after all, he’ll look a lot like Eteraz. Maybe not quite so erudite, though…

bordergal said...

If there are so many "moderate muslims", how come they're unable to control the supposed tiny minority of radicals among them?

Eteraz-that is a valid and extrememly important question.

Can you answer it?

bordergal said...

WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE TO DROP: HOW INEVITABLE IS AN ISLAMIST FUTURE

That leaders today struggle to illustrate their Islamic credentials tells us much about the state of the region; particularly how successful Islamists have been in framing the basic debate in the Middle East. In most other developing regions, populist rhetoric is usually focused on other messages, such as development, progress, improving the plight of the poor, etc. It is rare to find a South American, Eastern European, or East Asian politician trying to use his religiosity as a central election issue.

Indeed, while they have been routed by the regimes in their attempts to gain political power, it is essential to note that Islamists have been terribly successful in winning "the war of ideas." As Emanuel Sivan has written: Radical Islam has made tremendous inroads into the hearts and minds of Arabic-speaking Muslims. In the socio-cultural realm, militant Islamic discourse maintains a hegemony in the public debate among Arabs, replacing Pan-Arabism and Marxism. Islamism has a profound impact on gender roles, fertility, consumption habits, as well as on the marginalization of local Christians and the censorship of movies, plays and books.[4]

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2006/issue2/jv10no2a7.html

Dymphna said...

I have a Christian parallel, not exactly analogous on every point, but enough to give us pause to ponder...

i will make my caveats first: they don't kill people, and beyond their little group, they can't do much.

I'm talking about those Baptist nuts from the church which believes that we got what was coming to us on 9/11 because of homosexuality. The very same insensitive lunatics who show up at military funerals and hound the families.

Fortunately, they don't have much of a following. Neither do the "Christian" nuts who show up to kill abortionists.

However, lets' admit: every religion has its paranoid, unbalanced and murderous zealots. Islam, sadly, has more than most. The zealotry and ill will emanating from a fierce envy and an absolute dogmatic adherence to a literal interpretation of their Scripture. Like Christianity, they are splintered into many mutually exclusive groups who hate one another and only work together against the greater enemy, which is any non-Muslim.

Yeah, i don't think that nutcase would've gone in shooting without jihadist beliefs to back him up. And he wouldn't have had that belief system if it weren't so well promulgated in this country. Thank you Saudi Arabia.

But I still think the majority of Muslims in this country are like Eteraz and like Ali, the Iranian secular Muslim who owns the country store a few miles from us. Sends his kids to a private school (one with a Christian youth group) and is every bit as materialistic and ambitious as any other immigrant you'd want to meet. Give that up for some whacked out jihad belief system? No way: he has too much to lose.

OTOH, much as I like him, I happen to know he thinks thumping on his wife (he only has one) is okay. She's a fiery little thing, so I'm surprised she puts up with it...however, I'm hoping that the worm will turn eventually -- maybe with a pair of scissors in her hand. But notice, she's got a problem with Ali that a sizeable minority of American women have with their husbands, too. So it's not some strange Islamic behavior.

We may see more of these loose cannons here and there -- just like we did with the "Power-to-the-People" groups back in the '70's. In back of both belief systems is a screwy utopian vision combined with some kind of internal permission that the ends justify the means.

I am an agnostic as to whether Islam can transform itself into a modern belief system...but then, if you read the history of the Reformation in Europe, a rational person would have surmised that the Catholic Church was not going to survive, that it would end in a blood bath. Somehow, that didn't happen...much to the disappointment of many.

Here's something to ponder: if Islam loses its evocative power, what will rush in to take its place? Because that loss *will* create a vacuum and what replaces Islam could be even worse.

Just a thought.

A. Eteraz said...

Baron,

You seem to think that we have to take the statements about war/relating to war in the Quran metaphorically.

That's incorrect.

I have countlessly observed that the statements need to be read in a time-specific manner.

My suggestion would be out of left field BUT FOR the fact that even traditionalist orthodox Islam for the past 1400 years have been reading those statements in a very time-specific manner.

I don't like traditionalists. Everyone knows that. But when it comes to violence EVEN they read the verses in a time-specific manner.

I'll show you.
Go Here

I read an incredibly dense piece of traditionalist jurisprudence and outlined it in order to show that even the traditioinalist worldview does not condine violence.

Also, note: like I said, we don't metaphorize the statements about war. Islam is a legal religion. The moment a person becomes a Muslim they indirectly consent to the rule of law (Shariah). I tend to think that many elements of the Shariah are corrupted and old. However, from time immemorial, when it has come to violence, the legal rules on violence have been pretty clear. This is why Zarqawi's and Bin Laden's fatwas are couched in terms of legal reasoning. Even they have to try and 'argue' their case. The problem is that when they argue their case they do it in a deceitful and disingenous manner.

If you run a search for Zarqawi and 'The Slayer Verses' on my blog you'll see how deceitful their 'legal reasoning' really is.

You tend to think that Islam is Protestant and everyone is simply interpreting the Quran as they see fit. I don't think Islam is Protestant. It's quasi-Catholic/Judaic. With the rule of the jurists.

Look up Khaled Abu El Fadl who is the jurist par excellence in America today. Even recognized as such by the National Review.

I would behoove you to recognize the role of the jurists in constructing Islam. As long as you don't do that, you are one-step behind Robert Spenser and his associate at Jihad Watch.

His site has many more people that hate me, but I generally don't have a problem with their argument b/c they get into what the jurists are saying.

(If I had more time I could talk about the fact that jurists are also part of the problem, but that's not relevant here).

A. Eteraz said...

please see the statement of the seattle islamic community about this shooter:

Here

There is the CAIR statement there too, but I tend to think of CAIR as the moutpiece for the Gulf.

A. Eteraz said...

just a comment on some terminology, border gal. you can accept it or not.

usually 'islamist' refers to politically involved organizations who usually dont espouse violence but do (using the democratic route) want to establish an islamic state: this includes The Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat e Islami in Pakistan.

'jihadist' refers to what you're calling islamists. the violent ones. unsurprisingly, they also don't have a political plan.

i'm going to look into this more on my blog in a few days.

A. Eteraz said...

"Here's something to ponder: if Islam loses its evocative power, what will rush in to take its place? Because that loss *will* create a vacuum and what replaces Islam could be even worse."

Dymphna,

I think Islam has already lost its evocative power. What you have in the world today calling itself Islam is what fills the vacuum. In 1864, the Muslim world was known for its poets (i.e. Ghalib). Now its known for poet killing.

Unlisted said...

Eteraz:

I find your thoughts to be well reasoned and fair. The Singapore example is good. Too bad we can't point to such an example.

Why do you think there are not more Muslims that condemn the violence of the extremists?

At the protests, Muslim after Muslim refuses to condemn Hibullah's terrorism. Or some of them may offer a conditional condemnation

The link I posted above from one "Rasheed Moore" is a classic example of the conditional condemnation because on the one hand he seemingly condemns, but then on the other hand basically says it is justified by calling it "Chickens coming home to roost" (that was vile)

It is spin like this and trying to make the aggressor into the victim that makes many regular Americans fear Muslims.

It would be better for those like yourself to denounce these kinds of people every opportunity you get

A. Eteraz said...

im posting the results of a conversation i had with an american friend of mine now in a middle eastern country. i am no expert on the politics of the middle east. as such, i say very little about them. i think people should know their limits. you can't know what an individual palestinian thinks. nor can rashad know what the israelis are thinking.

ill have it up shortly.

A. Eteraz said...

IM Chat About Arab Street

here is the IM conversation/post I promised - about the middle east from someone on the ground.

bordergal said...

"By the way, the other thing that has happenned bro is that
it is difficult - if next to impossible - to be neutral anymore".

I wonder how the muslims living among us will choose?

Ummah or country?

Voyager said...

Ummah or country?

If you take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States killing US citizens to pressure the US Government becomes treason doesn't it ?

Voyager said...

"Here's something to ponder: if Islam loses its evocative power, what will rush in to take its place? Because that loss *will* create a vacuum and what replaces Islam could be even worse."

Christianity which taught Individual Accountability was supplanted in much of Europe by Socialism which commanded Group Obedience and was challenged by Nationalism which commanded Resistance to the Dissolution of the Nation

Islam is a fusion of temporal power with spiritual justification (Christianity is the Kingdom-to-come) and is a refuge from corrupt earthly rulers in the hands of a perfect Allah - but the balance has now flipped to the temporal as the politicians seek power like Mohammed to rule over others.

The misfits, the frustrated, the aimless, and the psychopathic all find salvation in violence and blood sacrifice by proxy.

Fellow Peacekeeper said...

"But I still have a tiny hope that we can avoid exterminating or converting 1.4 billion people. Remember, if the “moderate Muslim” turns out to exist after all, he’ll look a lot like Eteraz."

"....such as the one I and a thousand of my friends adhere to ..."

If Etaraz has 1000 friends, and they each have 1000 other friends who are all moderate muslims, and that is so in 100 countries then we only need to exterminate or convert (your phrase) 1.3 billion people instead. Furthermore, Muslims in the west do little to influence their brothers in the countries where the craziness comes from. Indeed they are just as likely to receive influence from there (the attitudes of the comparatively integrtaed British Muslims in the polls after 7/7 are instructive). And Etereaz still makes hand washing excuses when the Haqs from his own community go on random amoks.

Lawrence Auster has a great idea - deport all of them back home. Think about it - no 7/7 bombers, no 11/3 bombers, no 9/11 bombers, no Haqs, no honor killers, no female genital mutilators, no banlieus left here - and certainly send all the moderate muslims home, where they can do some good instead of sitting on the sidelines wondering which team they're cheering.

KG said...

fellow peacekeeper, what you said. amen to that.