IN MEMORIAM 
Posted on 11/09/2005 7:05:57 AM PST by NYer
Interesting post!
bump
Thanks, I will need to reprint this for the wimps I know.
Let us hope that the nihilism and isolation of jihadist militancy presage the renunciation by faithful Muslims of sacralized violence. Such a turn would free those who call upon the name of the One God from the well-earned stigma of religious brutalityYeah, why shouldn't that work? I mean, the nihilism and isolation has been going on for fourteen centuries, but that doesn't mean it won't work now, right?
later read
TROP: the TRUTH PING!
From the article: Jihad, either in the form of the “greater jihad” (the struggle all Muslims must wage against sin) or the “lesser jihad” (the armed struggle with nonbelievers), was integral to bringing wholeness and unity to a divided world.
They say its still as true today: Jihad
“Victory is beautiful but it will be more beautiful to fulfil the pledges. The smallest Jihaad is over and the biggest Jihaad is ahead.”This expression of ‘the smaller Jihaad to the bigger Jihaad’ has been used time and time again to diminish the importance, reward and requirement for the Muslims to perform Jihaad Fi Sabeel Lillah i.e. physical struggle...
...the saying and actions of Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) show that Jihaad definitely is to start (offensive) fighting the kuffar to make the Words of Allah the highest and to propagate (da’wa) the call of Islam. Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) said:
"I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that, ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger’ and they establish the prayer and the zakat. And if they do this, then from me is protected their blood and their wealth except by the right granted by Allah."As for his (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) actions, they are full of actions that show Jihaad is to start the fighting. So when he went out to Badr to take the caravan belonging to the Quraysh, this was going out to fight, this is offensive – as Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) initiated the action before the Quraysh. Likewise, when Muhammad (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) invaded Hawazin in the battle of Hunayn, when he (Salalahu Alaihi Wasallam) seiged Ta’if and the battle of Mutah to fight the Romans and the Battle of Tabuk – all of these are evidences to show that Jihaad is to start fighting kuffar (offensive). This should clarify the erroneous view that in origin Jihaad is defensive...
From the article: It is commonplace to claim that the Crusades scarred the imagination of the Muslim world for centuries. While modern Arab nationalists and Islamists have at times pointed to the Crusades as a source of anti-Western views in the Middle East, this is simply incorrect.
It has to be noted that the Muslim invasion of Europe that was stopped in its tracks by Charles Martel in 732 preceded the first Crusade (called by Pope Urban II) by about 300 years. This was a Islamic jihad from the start. When asked why he had kept going so far into (Christian) Spain, the Muslim commander Tarik stated "To serve Islam." It's the RoP MO to whine and play "victim" after they lose the conflicts that they start.
...reading.
IN MEMORIAM
Great short order tour of Anatolia. The excerpts below demonstrates how little muslim tactics have changed since then and now: (Inserts mine)
"What made such raids all the more difficult to repel was their constant, yet ad hoc, character."
(Compare today's ad hoc homocide bomber.)
"Turkish raiding parties often operated independently." (Today's jihadist's also operate in small cliques of so called "extremists" and allegedly operate independently)
"Even treaties the Byzantines negotiated with Turkish princes or the caliph could not restrain raiders who thought of themselves as ghazis and who often had the verbal approval of their overlords to carry on their assaults."
(Compare today's peace treaties with palestinians and the "road map to peace"...where jihadists, again allegedly operatiing on the outside somehow manage to continue to kill maim and mutilate at will all the Jews they can.)
Postius Grandisimo Bennydickto Oppulentum
(at least I think thats what the Pope said)
Gee I could have sworn an expert told me today ONLY The Wahhabists are the ones we need concern ourselves with.
Hmmm... the things you learn here....
BUMP for later read.
That's why I leave them on the list, victims of another jihad!
Thanks!
I read on another FR blog that they are torching "white" cars and bypassing "black" ones, especially those sporting bumperstickers with quotes from the Koran or a picture of Africa.
Another interesting comment on that blog is that quite a few of the Muslim kids doing the torching are well dressed (hey, it's France, land of haute couture and what "French" reporters would immediately notice), the latest in footwear fashion and carry expensive cellphones. According to the MSM, aren't these kids from "oppressed" neighborhoods, jobless and living on limitted incomes?!
As improverished or oppressed as say, Bin Laden, Arafat, Hussein par example?
Interesting that many of them are well-dressed and can afford expensive cell phones; reminds me of all the 60s hooligans that caused so much trouble with their "protests" - they weren't the truly poor African-Americans in the inner cities, they were suburban middle-class to rich white kids who never had proper application of hickory switches on their spoiled brat backsides. Now these types are in power (aka, see Hillary for example).
Excellent editorial.
Here is another I received from AINA.
http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20051126120420.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.