Custom Search

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Better Late Than Never: NYT and Jihad Etiquette

The New York Times is finally showing its readers what we, on the right, have been saying for quite a long time... Extremists ideology and the rules they play by, sometimes, if it is convenient.

We were in a small house in Zarqa, Jordan, trying to interview two heavily bearded Islamic militants about their distribution of recruitment videos when one of us asked one too many questions.

“He’s American?” one of the militants growled. “Let’s kidnap and kill him.”

The room fell silent. But before anyone could act on this impulse, the rules of jihadi etiquette kicked in. You can’t just slaughter a visitor, militants are taught by sympathetic Islamic scholars. You need permission from whoever arranges the meeting. And in this case, the arranger who helped us to meet this pair declined to sign off.

“He’s my guest,” Marwan Shehadeh, a Jordanian researcher, told the bearded men.

With Islamist violence brewing in various parts of the world, the set of rules that seek to guide and justify the killing that militants do is growing more complex.

This jihad etiquette is not written down, and for good reason. It varies as much in interpretation and practice as extremist groups vary in their goals.....

So they do have some sort of rules, changing rules, but rules nevertheless about killing and the NYT shows us a few of the basic rules to murdering women and children deliberately.

Of course, finally the Times points out that no rules apply in regard to Israel.

Some of these rules have deep roots in the Middle East, where, for example, the Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi has argued it is fine to kill Israeli citizens because their compulsory military service means they are not truly civilians.

Lets take a look at the six "rules" Jihadists live by: (While reading these rules, please consider what Americans reactions would be, or even the whole worlds reactions and outrage if WE played by the same rules when fighting these extremists and NO I am not advocating that we do so, I am asking you to consider whether we would be given the same sympathy that these "misunderstood" extremist jihadists are given by the left. Example: Rosie O'Donnell stating that these are mothers and fathers too, so we should have sympathy for them)

Rule No. 1: You can kill bystanders without feeling a lot of guilt.

The Koran, as translated by the University of Southern California Muslim Student Association’s Compendium of Muslim Texts, generally prohibits the slaying of innocents, as in Verse 33 in Chapter 17 (Isra’, The Night Journey, Children of Israel): “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for just cause.”

But the Koran also orders Muslims to resist oppression, as verses 190 and 191 of Chapter 2 (The Cow) instruct: “Fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out, for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. ...”

So, murder is wrong, unless of course you think it is right and just. Got that? Thats clear right?

This next one is something I personally believe the left of our country will completely ignore or worse yet, in some cases, might even try to justify.

Rule No. 2: You can kill children, too, without needing to feel distress.

True, Islamic texts say it is unlawful to kill children, women, the old and the infirm. In the Sahih Bukhari, a respected collection of sermons and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, verse 4:52:257 refers to Ghazawat, a battle in which Muhammad took part. “Narrated Abdullah: During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah’s Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.”

But militant Islamists including extremists in Jordan who embrace Al Qaeda’s ideology teach recruits that children receive special consideration in death. They are not held accountable for any sins until puberty, and if they are killed in a jihad operation they will go straight to heaven. There, they will instantly age to their late 20s, and enjoy the same access to virgins and other benefits as martyrs receive.

Kinda like, kill em all and let god sort them out?

The the times went and found a professor of Islamic history to compare that attitude with the Pentagons attitudes, neglecting to mention that our troops do everything in their power to minimize collateral damage while the Hihadists deliberately target innocent women and children as well as hide behind them.

Islamic militants are hardly alone in seeking to rationalize innocent deaths, says John O. Voll, a professor of Islamic history at Georgetown University. “Whether you are talking about leftist radicals here in the 1960s, or the apologies for civilian collateral damage in Iraq that you get from the Pentagon, the argument is that if the action is just, the collateral damage is justifiable,” he says.

Huge Hat Tip to TigerHawk who has some very interesting thoughts on this article from the times also, for pointing out exactly who this professor Voll is.

Taking a quick break before going to rule number 3, Tigerhawk points out a couple articles written about Voll, one titled "Dr. John Voll supports a terrorist", written in September 2005, and his letter regarding the dismissal of Dr. Sami A. Al-Arian from the University of South Florida.

Find out more about Dr. Sami A. Al-Arian at wiki or any of the dozens of links the search engine provides when you type his name in to search.

Palestinian computer engineer who was convicted of conspiracy to help Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Al-Arian, a former university professor, was arrested by the United States government in 2003 on charges of funding terrorists. He was acquitted on eight of the 17 charges against him December 2005 after a six month trial with three co-defendants. On April 14, 2006 Al-Arian pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy to provide services to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and agreed to be deported. In return, federal prosecutors agreed to drop the remaining eight charges against him. Al-Arian was sentenced to the 57 months in prison and given credit for time served. He was to serve the balance of 19 months and then be deported. However, Al-Arian is currently serving an 18-month sentence for civil contempt of court after refusing to testify against former associates. The time 18-month sentence is not credited towards his remaining criminal sentence.

Yup, the New York Times had to dig deep into hell to pull up and use this mans words.

I don't doubt that the Times readers will sympathize with this man either.

Back to rule number three of Jihad etiquette from the NYT:

Rule No. 3: Sometimes, you can single out civilians for killing; bankers are an example.

In principle, nonfighters cannot be targeted in a militant operation, Islamist scholars say. But the list of exceptions is long and growing.

Civilians can be killed in retribution for an enemy attack on Muslim civilians, argue some scholars like the Saudi cleric Abdullah bin Nasser al-Rashid, whose writings and those of other prominent Islamic scholars have been analyzed by the Combating Terrorism Center, a research group at the United States Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

Shakir al-Abssi, whose Qaeda-minded group, Fatah Al Islam, has been fighting Lebanese soldiers since May 20, says some government officials are fair game. He was sentenced to death in Jordan for helping to organize the slaying of the American diplomat Laurence Foley in 2002, and said in an interview with The New York Times that while he did not specifically choose Mr. Foley to be killed, “Any person that comes to our region with a military, security or political aim, then he is a legitimate target.”

Once again, the rules are in constant flux and can be changed at any given time, so we will call these "guidelines" instead rules.

Rule No. 4: You cannot kill in the country where you reside unless you were born there.

Militants living in a country that respects the rights of Muslims have something like a peace contract with the country, says Omar Bakri, a radical sheik who moved from London to Lebanon two years ago under pressure from British authorities.

Militants who go to Iraq get a pass as expeditionary warriors. And the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not violate this rule since the hijackers came from outside the United States, Mr. Bakri said.

I am not even going to attempt to make any sort of sense out of this one, but I DO want to note the last paragraph in this "guideline"

“We have a voting system here in Britain, so anyone who is voting for Tony Blair is not a civilian and therefore would be a legitimate target,” says Khalid Kelly, an Irish-born Islamic convert who says he studied with Mr. Bakri in London.

Get that? If you VOTE for anyone these extremist Jihadists do not like, you are no longer a civilian, so I suppose we should publish all the voting records so they know who IS and who ISN'T fair game huh?

Actually no, because remember, bystanders can be killed without guilt, according to rule number one (see above).

Works out just dandy for them doesn't it?

Rules number 5 and 6 can be found on page two of the times article.

Although the Times always manages to put their own spin on every article instead of just "reporting the facts", it still has done a good thing by finally telling their readers the truth about radical jihadist extremists.

Something we have been showing you for a long time and that the New York Times seems to be just discovering.

Two examples are my previous posts called The Nature of our enemy and Spoonfed Hatred, morning, noon and night.