Skip to comments.
Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists(exclusive interview)
Hindustan Times ^
| November 30, 2006
| Vir Sanghvi
Posted on 11/30/2006 4:32:00 PM PST by mylife
Abdullah says moderates must fight extremists
New Delhi, November 30, 2006
The time has come for moderate Muslims all over the world to stand up and fight the extremists within the community.
In an exclusive interview to the Hindustan Times, King Abdullah of Jordan said, "Let the silent majority win the street back."
King Abdullah said that Islam had been hijacked by a minority of extremists who had imposed their own agenda on the community. Further, he said, this agenda relied on miscommunication of Islam's tenets.
All over Asia, Muslims who did not speak Arabic were often misled into believing that the Koran said something which it did not. "The only solution is education and the dissemination of information."
The king is on an official visit to India, his first to the country. He is accompanied by his wife, Queen Rania, who was also here a few months ago.
He reiterated Jordan's support for India's permanent membership of the UN Security Council and said that he hoped to usher in a new era of economic cooperation.
"We have good relations at the governmental level. But the true relationship will be between the private sectors."
Shortly before he left Jordan, King Abdullah met US President George W Bush who is in the region to meet with the Iraqi prime minister.
Asked if he sensed a change in the US president's attitude to Iraq following Republican reverses in the mid-term polls, the king answered carefully: "There is no doubt that Iraq is the number one issue in the United States with regard to domestic politics. People are concerned about the safety of US troops."
King Abdullah said he believed that this was now a last-ditch attempt to resolve the situation in Iraq. "The region will pay a heavy price if this conflict continues," he said. "This conflict will spread beyond the borders of Iraq."
Asked about the perception that Iraq had, in the past, supported Pakistan against India, the king said: "I think we have to be as neutral as possible. We very much hope for a peaceful resolution of this situation."
The king's view is that Asia cannot afford a conflict between a Muslim and non-Muslim country because of what it will do to Muslim populations in the region. "We should do everything to avoid a clash of civilisations or a situation that leads to one." Therefore, it was important for any India-Pakistan dispute to be resolved peacefully.
Jordan's major concern is, of course, the Israel-Palestine conflict and King Abdullah believes that time is running out. "If we do not have movement towards a two-state solution within the next six months," he said, "then I think there will be no peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And therefore, no peace between Arabs and Israelis."
The king argued that the importance of the Palestine issue went beyond West Asia. "Muslim communities all over the world, whether in Malaysia, Indonesia or India are being radicalised by extremists who use the frustration with the core issue of Palestine as an excuse," he said.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: abdullah; jordan; moderateislam; moderatemuslims
posted on 11/30/2006 4:32:04 PM PST
I hope he doubled his guards.
posted on 11/30/2006 4:36:53 PM PST
(The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
Extremists are those who actively want to kill us, moderates are those who keep silent but secretly approve of and support the first group.
posted on 11/30/2006 4:43:04 PM PST
(I never met a liberal I didn't dislike.)
"If we do not have movement towards a two-state solution within the next six months," he said, "then I think there will be no peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. And therefore, no peace between Arabs and Israelis."
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.....seems like that is twice today that I've heard that 6 month figure......the Iraqi shia PM and the sunni king of jordan......on the day after the former objected to the latters attendance at the formers meeting with Bush.
picturesque or risque speech?
CCW is a better idea. Sam Colt et al are absolutely trustworthy. The guards might not be.
posted on 11/30/2006 5:01:15 PM PST
(When Law enforcement enforce idiotic Laws of Bad Politicians there are no good guys.-Phantom Patriot)
...and Arabs will ALWAYS lie when it is in their interest to do so.
A True story...
Once in U.S. history, an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines around 1911, when Gen. John J. "Black Jack" Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The U.S. soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Now the terrorists were terrorized! According to Islam, pigs are unclean animals and mere contact with the beasts can mean exclusion from paradise (and the virgins). This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the pig entrails dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and told his brethren what had happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
In case nobody has noticed, diplomacy doesn't work with these guys. We keep trying to project our way of thinking and reasoning onto them, and are disappointed when they don't follow us.
In their belief system, killing and being killed in the name of Allah is what it's all about.
Pershing spoke to them in a language that they understood perfectly. He understood the enemy.
Where have the "Black Jack" Pershings gone?
I hope he doubled his guards
Two outstanding useful idiots for our side have been King Abdullah of Jordan, and Ayotolla Sistani in Iraq. They both carry water for us.
Zarqawi realized this and threatened King Abdullah.
Your star is fading. You will not escape your fate, you descendant of traitors. We will be able to reach your head and chop it off, al-Zarqawi said, referring to the king.
Zarqawi is dead now, but any fundamental Muslim will try to kill Abdullah of Jordan.
The infidel collaborating Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is losing his influence to Infidel hating al Sadr. Muslims know what their purpose on this earth is, and getting along with Infidels isn't it.
Should be an interesting next few years. - tom
posted on 11/30/2006 5:48:45 PM PST
by Capt. Tom
(Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
posted on 11/30/2006 6:11:12 PM PST
Be careful about generalizing across continents and centuries. I like the saying, all generalizations are false, including this one.
posted on 11/30/2006 6:16:02 PM PST
(Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
It's good to be King Abdullah
Nuff said, Next Thread. Abdullahs only want things to be Abdullahs way. No Less
A True story...or urban myth?
Claim: General John J. Pershing effectively discouraged Muslim terrorists in the Philippines by killing them and burying their bodies with pigs.
Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001]
HOW TO STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISTS . . . it worked once in our History . . .
Once in US history an episode of Islamic terrorism was very quickly stopped. It happened in the Philippines about 1911, when Gen. John J. Pershing was in command of the garrison. There had been numerous Islamic terrorist attacks, so "Black Jack" told his boys to catch the perps and teach them a lesson.
Forced to dig their own graves, the terrorists were all tied to posts, execution style. The US soldiers then brought in pigs and slaughtered them, rubbing their bullets in the blood and fat. Thus, the terrorists were terrorized; they saw that they would be contaminated with hogs' blood. This would mean that they could not enter Heaven, even if they died as terrorist martyrs.
All but one was shot, their bodies dumped into the grave, and the hog guts dumped atop the bodies. The lone survivor was allowed to escape back to the terrorist camp and tell his brethren what happened to the others. This brought a stop to terrorism in the Philippines for the next 50 years.
Pointing a gun into the face of Islamic terrorists won't make them flinch. They welcome the chance to die for Allah. Like Gen. Pershing, we must show them that they won't get to Muslim heaven (which they believe has an endless supply of virgins) but instead will die with the hated pigs of the devil.
Subject: How to end the war quickly if you have absolutely no respect for pigs!
An Israeli friend recently informed me that the UK fought the Islamic terrorist attacks by burying the criminals with a pig. Apparently the Islamic belief is that if ones' body is buried with a pig (because they are considered unclean) their soul will go to hell. I did a little research into this subject matter and found it to be true. This got me thinking.
If we put a baby pig on every airline flight then all suicide terrorists would abort their missions as they would not want their souls to go to hell. Additionally, if we drop shipped, oh say, 100,000 pigs into Afghanistan I think our recon and assault efforts may be more successful. Apparently Muslims dislike the very sight of pigs A LOT!
They are also adamantly opposed to alcohol, thus we spike their water supply with a few thousand gallons of moonshine, get them drunk and turn the pigs loose. The war would be over in a weekend.
The desire for simplistic solutions to complex problems has spawned several widely-circulated messages of late which seek to transform a fight against terrorism to the easily-manageable level of a horror film or a comic strip. Today's popular notion is the concept that a pig is to a Muslim as a crucifix is to a vampire simply arm yourself with a porker, and you can use it to render even the most fanatical terrorist helpless, sending him cowering in fear lest he come into contact with anything porcine.
Such notions reduce an extremely widespread and diverse religion and the people who follow it to a monolithic entity with a single set of beliefs and rules to which everyone adheres. Islam has a variety of sects and sub-sects just as Christianity has a multiplicity of denominations; assuming that all "Muslims" believe and behave identically is like assuming that all Catholics and Baptists believe and behave identically because both of the latter groups are "Christians." In one sense, messages such as the ones quoted above could be considered as silly as Muslims' proclaiming that a good way to throw the USA into disarray would be to "bomb" America with juicy steaks on Fridays, because "Americans are Christians," and "everyone knows Christians who eat meat on Fridays go to Hell." Never mind that not all Americans are Christians, that not all Christians are Catholics, that not all Catholics believe in exactly the same things, that not all Catholics are equally religious or faithful, and that even the "rules" of Catholicism have changed over time.
Also implicit in this type of reasoning is the notion that "terrorist," "Muslim terrorist," "fanatical Muslim" and "devout Muslim" are all synonymous. They aren't just as not all Muslims are terrorists, not all terrorists are Muslims; one need not be devout to be fanatical, and not all religious fanatics are devout. Religion can be just as much about politics and power as it is about faith, and counter-religious behavior is often justified or sanctioned in the service of a "greater cause." The terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 were reportedly seen partaking of alcohol and engaging the services of naked lap dancers, activities which should have been anathema to true Muslims. Perhaps they were Muslims in name only, maybe they weren't all that devout, or possibly they rationalized that Allah would overlook their transgressions with booze and women since they were about to die in the service of Islam. Whatever the case, concerns about the afterlife probably wouldn't have dissuaded the hijackers from their plans to crash Flight 11 into the World Trade Center had a few pigs turned up on board the plane. If Allah was a concern, well, the hijackers could choose to believe that Allah would understand and make allowances for true warriors of the faith after all, the Koran teaches against suicide in the first place.
Nevertheless, the idea of subduing militant Muslims by threatening to bury them with pigs has held currency for many years. Just a few weeks before the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, Deputy Israeli police minister Gideon Esra suggested in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot that Palestinian suicide bombers be buried in pig skin or blood. In the 1939 film The Real Glory, Gary Cooper portrays Dr. Bill Canavan, an American Army doctor in 1906 Manila who "tries to protect the native population from ruthless invaders" (i.e., "Muslim fanatics"). At one point in the film, the Dr. Canavan character drapes a captured Muslim in a pigskin and proclaims that henceforth that all slain Muslim rebels will be buried in pig skins, thereby discouraging their "savagery" by threatening to prevent their entry into paradise. And, of course, the above-cited anecdote about General Pershing's handling of terrorists in the Philippines has been circulating widely ever since September and has been making the rounds even at the top levels of government in the USA:
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) cited as an example a dinner he attended last week with people who work on intelligence issues and have connections to the intelligence community. The dinner conversation ranged in part on how U.S. military commander "Black Jack" Pershing used Islam's prohibition on pork to help crush an insurgency on the southern Philippine island of Mindanao after the Spanish-American War at the turn of the last century.
In one instance, Graham explained in an interview, U.S. soldiers captured 12 Muslims. They killed six of them with "bullets dipped into the fat of pigs."
After that, Graham said, the U.S. soldiers wrapped the Muslim rebels in funeral shrouds made of pigskin and "buried them face down so they could not see Mecca. Then they poured the entrails of the pigs over them. The other six were forced to watch. And that was the end of the insurrection on Mindanao," Graham noted.
The history of the American administration of the Philippines between the Spanish cession of the islands at the conclusion of the Spanish-American war in 1898 and the attainment of full political independence in 1946 including American attempts to "pacify" various independence-minded groups through military means is too long and complicated to explicate here. Suffice it to say that General John J. "Black Jack" Pershing was part of the process as Governor of the troublesome Moro Province between 1909 and 1913. We haven't yet found any references to this alleged incident in Pershing biographies, however, nor does it match the way Pershing is generally recorded as having dealt with the Moros in 1911. When they refused to obey Pershing's order banning firearms by surrendering their weapons, his response was to draft a letter to the Moros expressing sorrow that his soldiers had to resort to killing to enforce the order:
I write you this letter because I am sorry to know that you and your people refuse to do what the government has ordered. You do not give up your arms. Soldiers were sent to Taglibi so that you could come into camp and turn in your guns. When the soldiers went to camp a Taglibi, your Moros fired into camp and tried to kill the soldiers. Then the soldiers had to shoot all Moros who fired upon them. When the soldiers marched through the country, the Moros again shot at them, so the soldiers had to kill several others. I am sorry the soldiers had to kill any Moros. All Moros are the same to me as my children and no father wants to kill his own children . . .
When negotiations stalled and matters came to a head, Pershing was still reluctant to be responsible for any more loss of life than was necessary:
[Pershing] went to his offices on [14 December 1911] only to hear a message from the Sulu district governor: hundreds of hostiles gathered on Jolo's Bud Dajo! The message had dread portent. Mount Dajo, awesomely high and capped with the creater of an extinct volcano, meant sacred things to Moros. It was the refuge against fate, the last bastion of the hopeless, the place where their ancestors stood off great waves of enemies. Once on the mountain, esconced in its big cotta, Moros would die gladly, as Leonard Wood had grimly learned. Retreat to Dajo meant a clear declaration of war.
Sobered and depressed, Jack wrote of an overriding worry: "I am sorry these Moros are such fools, but . . . I shall lose as few men and kill as few Moros as possible." Memories of Wood's massacre of men and families on Dajo rankled in the army and still bothered the chief of staff. Obviously another such slaughter in the winter of 1911 could adversely influence the 1912 elections in the States.
Pershing's strategy was to surround the Moros and wait them out while attempting to induce them to surrender, a strategy that worked effectively: the Bud Dajo campaign ended with only twelve Moro casualties. But in his report Pershing seemed keenly aware that the best approach was not to take any action that would encourage religious fanaticism:
There was never a moment during this investment of Bud Dajo when the Moros, including women, on top of the mountain, would not have fought to the death had they been given the opportunity. They had gone there to make a last stand on this, their sacred mountain, and they were determined to die fighting . . . It was only by the greatest effort that their solid determination to fight it out could be broken. The fact is that they were completely surprised at the prompt and decisive action of the troops in cutting off supplies and preventing escape, and they were chagrined and disappointed in that they were not encouraged to die the death of Mohammedan fanatics.
Other anecdotal accounts attribute Pershing's success to his merely threatening to do as described:
Col. John J Pershing threatened the mullahs with . . . "splattering of pigs-blood on your houses and families and any who attack us and are killed will be buried in pig-skins." Consequently the mullahs made Pershing an Honorary Chieftan with little if any more trouble in his area of command.
Yet another account, from the 1938 book Jungle Patrol, attributes the deed to someone other than Pershing:
It was Colonel Alexander Rodgers of the 6th Cavalry who accomplished by taking advantage of religious prejudice what the bayonets and Krags had been unable to accomplish. Rodgers inaugurated a system of burying all dead juramentados in a common grave with the carcasses of slaughtered pigs. The Mohammedan religion forbids contact with pork; and this relatively simple device resulted in the withdrawal of juramentados to sections not containing a Rodgers. Other officers took up the principle, adding new refinements to make it additionally unattractive to the Moros. In some sections the Moro juramentado was beheaded after death and the head sewn inside the carcass of a pig. And so the rite of running juramentado, at least semi-religious in character, ceased to be in Sulu. The last cases of this religious mania occurred in the early decades of the century. The juramentados were replaced by the amucks. .. who were simply homicidal maniacs with no religious significance attaching to their acts.
We haven't eliminated ruling out the possibility that Pershing at some point chose to deal with a group of "Mohammedan fanatics" in a manner similar to the one described above, but so far all we've turned up are several different accounts and nothing that documents Pershing's involvement.
Nonetheless, the "discouraging Muslim terrorists by burying them with pigs" concept is still invoked today, even if the evidence of its use (or success) remains nebulous:
For more on the Philippines campaign see "The Savage Wars of Peace" Max Boot.
posted on 11/30/2006 10:24:13 PM PST
(Rick Santorum 08)
To: Capt. Tom
Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is losing his influence or biding his time?
posted on 11/30/2006 10:25:55 PM PST
(Rick Santorum 08)
Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq is losing his influence or biding his time?
I believe Sistani's time for influence is past. He has been overtaken by Sadr.- Tom
posted on 12/01/2006 6:10:17 AM PST
by Capt. Tom
(Don't confuse the Bushies with the dumb Republicans - Capt. Tom)
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson