Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A Grand Jihad Strategery Meet-Up

Caroline Glick has a new one and it's amusing. Heads are exploding in al-Jazeera's little world. Nor will this one be removed due to some spurious copyright infringement. Her satire is sans sappy music this time.

Instead, she has devised the conceit of a Grand Jihad strategy meeting, one that could have come straight out of the pages of Reliance of the Traveller.

The odd thing is, while I was up in the Baron’s office (re-establishing our connection to the internet satellite after a thunderstorm) I picked up Reliance just to have something to read while waiting for the reboot. The page opened randomly to some advice about when it is permissible for the caliph to use the tactic of a so-called “truce” in order to gain the upper hand in an emergency move. According to the book, this can only be done as a stop-gap measure until the time is right to conquer the infidel.

The verse closes with an admonishment from the Koran that Allah wants Islam to reign supreme. So much for good faith negotiations, hmmm? [No, I don’t have it in front of me, but tomorrow when I have to go upstairs again, I’ll attempt to find the exact quotation. No promises as it’s a very large tome. One no house should be without.]

Besides Caroline Glick’s video in the mail, there was a serendipitous link to Frank Gaffney’s Big Government post from last week, in which he discusses the Supreme Court’s June 22nd ruling on the spurious idea that support may be given to terrorist organizations if maybe they also hand out candy to orphans when they’re not blowing things up.

Hold it right there, said the Supremes…
- - - - - - - - -
Mr. Gaffney relies on The Investigative Project on Terrorism for the details regarding their decision. He prefaces IPT's details on the ruling this way:

Bad news today [June 22nd] for President Obama, his Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Advisor, John Brennan, and other proponents of the idea that the United States can safely reach out to “moderate” elements within terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Taliban. In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court found that no distinction can be made between violent and non-violent wings of such groups and that the former will be beneficiaries of whatever “material support” is given them.

Notice the lopsided 6-3 ruling. This was not a narrow vote. However, I doubt it will stop Mr. Obama for long. He violates our laws with impunity. Why? Because he won - just ask him. In Chicago the winner makes the rules, not the useless legislature. While you're at it, ask him how often he was around during his brief tenure in the Senate. No, he didn't respect it then, either. At least he's consistent.

The Investigative Project lays out the ruling for us:

Under U.S. law, it is a crime for any person to provide “material support or resources” to a designated FTO. Known as the “material support” law, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B has become a cornerstone in U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. Since 2001, the U.S. has charged approximately 150 defendants with violations of the statute, and to date approximately 75 people have been convicted.

The statute defines “material support or resources” as:

“any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instrument or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials” (emphasis added in the original).

The Court began by rejecting the argument which claimed that the statute violated the Fifth Amendment, then it went on discard First Amendment (free speech) notion:

…The Court found that not only was there no distinction between the violent and non-violent wings of terrorist groups, but that terrorist groups benefit from any support given to them.

Here is the Court’s wording:

“Whether foreign terrorist organizations meaningfully segregate support of their legitimate activities from support of terrorism is an empirical question. When it enacted section 2339B in 1996, Congress made specific findings regarding the serious threat posed by international terrorism. One of those findings explicitly rejects plaintiffs’ contention that their support would not further…terrorist activities…: ‘Foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.’”
Amen, brothers.

So Islamists in the U. S. will have to break American law in order to perform zakat by giving material support to terrorists. Well, at least they can't claim injured innocence anymore.

They don’t have to do it this way...except that the Koran tells them to. Zakat is for jihad. Period. If they belonged to a peaceable group rather than “The ‘Religion’ of ‘Peace’” they’d be supporting some of the underfunded NGOs that try to help the endless numbers of sexually abused women and children suffering in Sharia-burdened hellholes.

But don’t hold your breath. As Mr. Gaffney pointed out:

The logic of the Supreme Court’s decision on material support suggests that it would be illegal to provide $400 million via the so-called “moderates” of the Palestinian Authority to the designated terrorist organization (DTO) Hamas, which runs the Gaza Strip – something President Obama has announced he intends to do. It should also preclude the sort of “outreach” to the so-called “moderates” of another DTO, Hezbollah, as presidential advisor Brennan has twice indicated he thinks is in order. Ditto negotiations with “moderate” members of the Taliban, at least to the extent such a process entails what amounts to material support to that terrorist organization in the form of financial or other substantial inducements to their cooperation.

Let’s see how long it takes our President to ignore the ruling of our Supreme Court.


filthykafir said...

I wonder how this ruling might affect U.S. Government contributions to Gaza, or even West Bank, "relief" and "humanitarian aid." I suppose, since such money is funneled through the ever-scrupulous U.N., Americans will continue to fund those particular terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Who is going to charge Obama with these crimes, no matter how public or obvious they are? The only people who could work for him.

Anonymous said...

It's not just Pres. Obama, unfortunately. Sec. Clinton and some Pentagon top brass also believe in the myth of the moderate Taliban, and are fully prepared to give your tax dollars to win temporary loyalty to the West.

The Taliban "reintegration" program IS in violation of the material support provisions of the Patriot Act, and if we elect Hillary, Petraeus, whoever on the next go-round we'll get more of the same.

Sean O'Brian said...

It's not just Pres. Obama, unfortunately. Sec. Clinton and some Pentagon top brass also believe in the myth of the moderate Taliban, and are fully prepared to give your tax dollars to win temporary loyalty to the West.

Whenever I see the phrase "moderate Taliban" I think of Hamid Karzai. He used to be in league with the Taliban in the 1990s and a few months ago he said he may join up with them if he comes under foreign pressure.

The Taliban are a "grassroots" movement of the Pashtun people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. As long as their co-ethnics are governing the country they cannot be fully marginalised politically.

Vicktorya said...

Thank you Dymphna.

Jedilson Bonfim said...

Dymphna, that mahoundians and their enablers swear that their zakat is for charity could be interpreted as the truth, but only when we consider the epistemology of charity in Western vs. mahoundian minds. The latter, as Raymond Ibrahim pointed out in his essay When Will Westerners Stop Westernizing Muslim Concepts?, can be interpreted as follows:

... men (SIC!!!) such as Osama bin Laden actually see their jihad—yes, with all the death and destruction entailed—as an act of altruism, as an ugly means to a beneficent end (see Koran 2:216), that is, the establishment of Islamic law across the world (which is, incidentally, another Muslim duty). One of the most renowned Muslim clerics and hero of modern day jihadists, Ibn Taymiyya, has written at great length describing jihad as the ultimate expression of "love."

Yep, is that twisted, sick or what???

In any case, I wanted to share that as a bit of additional info on your observation, also explored in depth in Ibrahim's essay, that zakat is jihad.

Zenster said...

Most excellent link, Jedilson Bonfim!

From the linked article: It is, therefore, a bit ironic that Ms. Grossman's entire article is a testimony to this phenomenon. For starters, even though I indicated Muslims are actually forbidden from bestowing zakat onto non-Muslims, her opening sentence stubbornly describes zakat as a "mandate to be charitable." Surely "charity" that discriminates according to religion cannot be deemed all that "charitable," a word that, in a Western context, is connotative of universal beneficence.

How many more innocent lives will need to be fecklessly slaughtered by Muslims until Westerners are taught NOT to view Islam through the West's own compassionate lens?

Islam's compassion is reserved for Muslims alone.

To portray Islam and zakat as being in the service of anything but jihad is tantamount to criminal malfeasance and renders anyone who does so an accomplice to jihadist terrorism.

For all non-Muslims, the "Religion of Peace" bestows only the "peace" of the GRAVE.

Unfortunately, however, when it comes to the significance of Islamic terminology, neither her opinion nor mine matters much; how Islam's authoritative schools of jurisprudence (specifically, the four madhahib) have interpreted fi sabil Allah is all that matters. And Islam's juridical rulings are such that fi sabil Allah is synonymous with the concept of violent jihad.

As Robert Marchenoir noted in GoV’s “The Circumstances of Our Oppression” thread:

"Islam" does not exist. Unless your aim is to entertain a purely academic debate with no practical implications, "Islam" actually means what real Muslims think and do. [emphasis added]

Again, NOBODY’S opinion counts for ANYTHING with respect to Islam save that of Muslims themselves. Muslim opinion is clearly expressed every single day by what Muslims do … AND WHAT MUSLIMS DO IS KILL. DAY IN AND DAY OUT, THEY KILL.

As a result, the same canon of Islamic law (the Sharia) that unequivocally forbids Muslims from giving zakat (financial assistance) to non-Muslims, advocates giving it to what we call "jihadists." This is a simple fact, played over and over again—not my opinion, nor something that is "open to interpretation." [emphasis added]

And yet Western leadership, both political and religious, continues to blindly interpret Islam according to Western lights instead of understanding that:

"Islam" actually means what real Muslims think and do.

There comes a point where such persistent willful blindness actually becomes malice aforethought. Nobody, regardless of position or rank, is entitled to repeat the same LETHAL experiment over and over again − while constantly hoping for different results − and not be deemed insane per Einstein’s own dictum. We do not let the criminally insane wander our streets unfettered and neither should the civilized world tolerate the politically or religiously insane to bare our collective jugular to Islam.

For millennia, the criminally insane have been put to death in order that society should be protected from them. How many more terrorist atrocities and crimes against humanity will be required before society finally realizes that punitive measures must be taken against those in the West who knowingly enable Islam’s encroachment upon the civilized world?

Zenster said...

One final point: As Jedilson Bonfim notes from his linked article:

One of the most renowned Muslim clerics and hero of modern day jihadists, Ibn Taymiyya, has written at great length describing jihad as the ultimate expression of "love." [emphasis added]

Jedilson Bonfim: Yep, is that twisted, sick or what???

Summarized in a nutshell. According to an Islamic hero and scholar, the 9-11 atrocity can be interpreted as an "expression of love".

Few greater perversions of reality and humanity are possible. Even the slaughters of Hitler, Stalin and Mao pale in comparison to this monstrous moral inversion. This is what has driven jihad along its historically bloodsoaked course and seen some 80,000,000 innocent human beings put to the Islamic sword in the name of Muslim "love".

Few better examples can be given for why Islam must be opposed with any and all means necessary, be they nuclear or even genocidal. Either Muslims abandon their quest for global jihad or face annihilation for their own intransigence. The choice is theirs.

Either Muslims set about killing ALL OF THEIR TERRORISTS or they must face the consequences.

Islam has been, is and always shall be, incompatible with civilization. Better a world that is permanently freed of Islam than one which must eternally suffer its terrorist predations.

Mother Effingby said...

Here's the perfect name for their organization: