Posted on 12/03/2015 8:34:10 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
Hey Clintoon/Obama, the proper description for this ancient and current war on innocents, Barbaric Acts of Islamic terrorists.
The only difference in a moderate Islamist and a radical Islamist is tactical advantage. Once they think they have it, it is jihad time for all.
Coexist reality today!
How we can protect our families? Keep ISIS and Obama Syrians out of America, now.
If that fails:
Sudden Jihad Syndrome is a term coined by Daniel Pipes to describe Muslims that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror.[1] Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists.[2]
Examples include:
In another example of bias in Wikipedia, Wikipedia has refused to allow any article on this topic[15] and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.[16]
are we to assume that the rifles were bolt action and not semiautomatic like the pistols?
Its the Islam, Stupid. Sgt. Schultz misses the most obvious motive.
Thanks Dave. Great graphics.
Last night the news readers, talking heads and so-called ‘experts’ were all over the map speculating on ‘what-was-the-motive’ when everyone on FR already knew! ;-)
What a bunch of dumb-butts were on the cable news stations last night!
Duhhh...Got Islam?
Here is a prudent observation from the NYT comments:
“As a nurse consultant with many years in the area of public/community health, it is of concern that Mr. Farook had a position with the Public Health Dept. as an Environmental Inspector. It would be prudent to review what type of sites he was monitoring: water systems, food establishments, etc. to ensure his plan was limited to his acts on Thursday.”
M4L Jihad
What news reports? Boy, I'll bet they are the lead stories on ABCNNBCBS...NOT!
San Bernardino Shooting Investigators Seek Clues to Motive>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How stupid can they get?
Keep the politics out of this.
The perpatrator’s home had an IED set up, that should be a clue, its the same MO as seen in Israel by Palestinian Arab terrorists.. Both perpetrators were devout Muslims, and took their daughter to their grandparents before their jihad.. Good Muslims ( sic) have been decrying the attack ( CAIR) and distancing themselves away from the perpatrators who are called “bad Muslims.”
Damn straight it was a terrorist attack.
Islamofascism is not difficult to recognize, as long as you are not Barak Obama or one of his religious adherants such as Aunty Valerie Jarret and Aunty Susan Rice, a couple more treasonous criminals.
Donald Trump needs to make this issue a central one of his campaign.
Here’s my take, based admittedly on some spotty evidence:
The killers were part of an ISIS cell in So. Cal. and they were planning an attack for somewhere over the Christmas holiday. Hubby goes into work and it’s a “Christmas party.” That enrages the rage boy - who may have had other problems with his coworkers. He runs home and suits up with Mrs. Jihad with the idea of getting “even” with the coworkers, and then driving on to the nearest shopping mall or some other public location and opening fire. Only one problem: they got IDed a lot faster than they thought they would be and ended up in a shootout before they reached their second destination.
Time will tell whether this is what transpired, but I’d wager that it’s something pretty close.
There is a lot in here that fits right into the liberal and progressive political mindset.
[Farookâs wife recently lost a lawsuit against USbank.]
With the mindset of this terror cell, and their capabilities, you can imagine the carnage if they hit the bank at its busiest hour.
Lying is a basic human trait>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
True, but we are not talking about that. Taqiyya is institutionally supported lying, and Shiite Muslims are actually trauined to be able to do it properly:
See this
Islam trains them to perform Taqiyya, so its far beyond mere lying, its systematic, and concerted propaganda intended to change realty away from truth:
*****************************************************
To better understand Islam, one must appreciate the thoroughly legalistic nature of the religion. According to sharia (Islamic law) every conceivable human act is categorised as being either forbidden, discouraged, permissible, recommended, or obligatory.
âCommon senseâ or âuniversal opinionâ has little to do with Islamâs notions of right and wrong. Only what Allah (through the Quran) and his prophet Muhammad (through the Hadith) have to say about any given issue matters; and how Islamâs greatest theologians and jurists ââ¬â collectively known as the ulema, literally, âthey who knowâ ââ¬â have articulated it.
According to sharia, in certain situations, deception ââ¬â also known as âtaqiyyaâ, based on Quranic terminology, ââ¬â is not only permitted but sometimes obligatory. For instance, contrary to early Christian history, Muslims who must choose between either recanting Islam or being put to death are not only permitted to lie by pretending to have apostatised, but many jurists have decreed that, according to Quran 4:29, Muslims are obligated to lie in such instances.
Origins of taqiyya
As a doctrine, taqiyya was first codified by Shia Muslims, primarily as a result of their historical experience. Long insisting that the caliphate rightly belonged to the prophet Muhammadâs cousin and son-in-law, Ali (and subsequently his descendents), the Shia were a vocal and powerful branch of Islam that emerged following Muhammadâs death. After the internal Islamic Fitna wars from the years 656 AD to 661 AD, however, the Shia became a minority branch, persecuted by mainstream Muslims or Sunnis ââ¬â so-called because they follow the example or âsunnaâ of Muhammad and his companions. Taqiyya became pivotal to Shia survival.
Interspersed among the much more numerous Sunnis, who currently make up approximately 90 per cent of the Islamic world, the Shia often performed taqiyya by pretending to be Sunnis externally, while maintaining Shia beliefs internally, as permitted by Quranic verse 16:106. Even today, especially in those Muslim states where there is little religious freedom, the Shia still practice taqiyya. In Saudi Arabia, for instance, Shias are deemed by many of the Sunni majority to be heretics, traitors and infidels and like other non-Sunni Muslims they are often persecuted.
Several of Saudi Arabiaâs highest clerics have even issued fatwas sanctioning the killing of Shias. As a result, figures on the Arabian kingdomâs Shia population vary wildly from as low as 1 per cent to nearly 20 per cent. Many Shias living there obviously choose to conceal their religious identity. As a result of some 1,400 years of Shia taqiyya, the Sunnis often accuse the Shias of being habitual liars, insisting that taqiyya is ingrained in Shia culture.
Conversely, the Sunnis have historically had little reason to dissemble or conceal any aspect of their faith, which would have been deemed dishonorable, especially when dealing with their historic competitors and enemies, the Christians. From the start, Islam burst out of Arabia subjugating much of the known world, and, throughout the Middle Ages, threatened to engulf all of Christendom. In a world where might made right, the Sunnis had nothing to apologise for, much less to hide from the âinfidelâ.
Paradoxically, however, today many Sunnis are finding themselves in the Shiasâ place: living as minorities in Western countries surrounded and governed by their traditional foes. The primary difference is that, extremist Sunnis and Shia tend to reject each other outright, as evidenced by the ongoing Sunni-Shia struggle in Iraq, whereas, in the West, where freedom of religion is guaranteed, Sunnis need only dissemble over a few aspects of their faith.
Articulation of taqiyya
According to the authoritative Arabic text, Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam: âTaqiyya [deception] is of fundamental importance in Islam. Practically every Islamic sect agrees to it and practices it. We can go so far as to say that the practice of taqiyya is mainstream in Islam, and that those few sects not practicing it diverge from the mainstream...Taqiyya is very prevalent in Islamic politics, especially in the modern era.â
The primary Quranic verse sanctioning deception with respect to non-Muslims states: âLet believers not take for friends and allies infidels instead of believers. Whoever does this shall have no relationship left with Allah ââ¬â unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions.â (Quran 3:28; see also 2:173; 2:185; 4:29; 22:78; 40:28.)
Al-Tabariâs (838-923 AD) Tafsir, or Quranic exegeses, is essentially a standard reference in the entire Muslim world. Regarding 3:28, he wrote: âIf you [Muslims] are under their [infidelsâ] authority, fearing for yourselves, behave loyally to them, with your tongue, while harbouring inner animosity for them... Allah has forbidden believers from being friendly or on intimate terms with the infidels in place of believers ââ¬â except when infidels are above them [in authority]. In such a scenario, let them act friendly towards them.â
Regarding 3:28, the Islamic scholar Ibn Kathir (1301-1373) wrote: âWhoever at any time or place fears their [infidelsâ] evil, may protect himself through outward show.â
As proof of this, he quotes Muhammadâs companions. Abu Darda said: âLet us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.â Al-Hassan said: âDoing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment [in perpetuity].â
Other prominent ulema, such as al- Qurtubi , al-Razi, and al-Arabi have extended taqiyya to cover deeds. Muslims can behave like infidels ââ¬â from bowing down and worshipping idols and crosses to even exposing fellow Muslimsâ âweak spotsâ to the infidel enemy ââ¬â anything short of actually killing a fellow Muslim.
War is deceit
None of this should be surprising considering that Muhammad himself, whose example as the âmost perfect humanâ is to be tenaciously followed, took an expedient view on the issue of deception. For instance, Muhammad permitted deceit in three situations: to reconcile two or more quarreling parties; husband to wife and vice-versa; and in war (See Sahih Muslim B32N6303, deemed an âauthenticâ hadith).
During the Battle of the Trench (627 AD), which pitted Muhammad and his followers against several non-Muslim tribes collectively known as âthe Confederatesâ, a Confederate called Naim bin Masud went to the Muslim camp and converted to Islam. When Muhammad discovered the Confederates were unaware of Masudâs conversion, he counseled him to return and try somehow to get his tribesmen to abandon the siege. âFor war is deceit,â Muhammad assured him.
Masud returned to the Confederates without their knowledge that he had switched sides and began giving his former kin and allies bad advice. He also went to great lengths to instigate quarrels between the various tribes until, thoroughly distrusting each other, they disbanded and lifted the siege. According to this account, deceit saved Islam during its embryonic stage (see Al-Taqiyya Fi Al-Islam; also, Ibn Ishaqâs Sira, the earliest biography of Muhammad).
More demonstrative of the legitimacy of deception with respect to non-Muslims is the following account. A poet, Kab bin al-Ashruf, had offended Muhammad by making derogatory verse about Muslim women. Muhammad exclaimed in front of his followers: âWho will kill this man who has hurt Allah and his prophet?â
A young Muslim named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteered, but with the caveat that, in order to get close enough to Kab to assassinate him, he be allowed to lie to the poet. Muhammad agreed.
Maslama traveled to Kab and began denigrating Islam and Muhammad, carrying on this way till his disaffection became convincing enough for Kab to take him into his confidences. Soon thereafter, Maslama appeared with another Muslim and, while Kabâs guard was down, they assaulted and killed him. They ran to Muhammad with Kabâs head, to which the latter cried: âAllahu akbarâ or âGod is greatâ (see the hadith accounts of Sahih Bukhari and Ibn Sad).
The entire sequence of Quranic revelations are a testimony to taqiyya and, since Allah is believed to be the revealer of these verses, he ultimately is seen as the perpetrator of deceit. This is not surprising since Allah himself is often described in the Quran as the âbest deceiverâ or âschemer.â (see 3:54, 8:30, 10:21). This phenomenon revolves around the fact that the Quran contains both peaceful and tolerant verses, as well as violent and intolerant ones.
The ulema were uncertain which verses to codify into shariaâs worldview. For instance, should they use the one that states there is no coercion in religion (2:256), or the ones that command believers to fight all non-Muslims until they either convert or at least submit to Islam (9:5, 9:29)? To solve this quandary, they developed the doctrine of abrogation ââ¬â naskh, supported by Quran 2:105. This essentially states that verses ârevealedâ later in Muhammadâs career take precedence over those revealed earlier whenever there is a discrepancy.
Why the contradiction in the first place? The standard answer has been that, because Muhammad and his community were far outnumbered by the infidels in the early years of Islam, a message of peace and co-existence was in order. However, after Muhammad migrated to Medina and grew in military strength and numbers, the militant or intolerant verses were revealed, urging Muslims to go on the offensive.
According to this standard view, circumstance dictates which verses are to be implemented. When Muslims are weak, they should preach and behave according to the Meccan verses; when strong, they should go on the offensive, according to the Medinan verses. Many Islamic books extensively deal with the doctrine of abrogation, or Al-Nasikh Wa Al-Mansukh.
War is eternal
The fact that Islam legitimises deceit during war cannot be all that surprising; strategist Sun Tzu (c. 722-221 BC), Italian political philosopher Machiavelli (1469-1527) and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) all justified deceit in war.
However, according to all four recognised schools of Sunni jurisprudence, war against the infidel goes on in perpetuity, until âall chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allahâ (Quran 8:39). According to the definitive Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill Online edition): âThe duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorised. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.â
The concept of obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islamâs dichotomised worldview that pits Dar al Islam (House of Islam) against Dar al Harb (House of War or non-Muslims) until the former subsumes the latter. Muslim historian and philosopher, Ibn Khaldun (1332- 1406), articulated this division by saying: âIn the Muslim community, holy war [jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defence. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.â
This concept is highlighted by the fact that, based on the ten-year treaty of Hudaibiya , ratified between Muhammad and his Quraish opponents in Mecca (628), ten years is theoretically the maximum amount of time Muslims can be at peace with infidels (as indicated earlier by the Encyclopaedia of Islam). Based on Muhammadâs example of breaking the treaty after two years, by citing a Quraish infraction, the sole function of the âpeace-treatyâ (hudna) is to buy weakened Muslims time to regroup for a renewed offensive. Muhammad is quoted in the Hadith saying: âIf I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath (see Sahih Bukhari V7B67N427).â
This might be what former PLO leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Yasser Arafat meant when, after negotiating a peace treaty criticised by his opponents as conceding too much to Israel, he said in a mosque: âI see this agreement as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraish in Mecca.â
On several occasions Hamas has made it clear that its ultimate aspiration is to see Israel destroyed. Under what context would it want to initiate a âtemporaryâ peace with the Jewish state? When Osama bin Laden offered the US a truce, stressing that âwe [Muslims] are a people that Allah has forbidden from double-crossing and lying,â what was his ultimate intention?
Based on the above, these are instances of Muslim extremists feigning openness to the idea of peace simply in order to bide time.
If Islam must be in a constant state of war with the non-Muslim world ââ¬â which need not be physical, as radicals among the ulema have classified several non-literal forms of jihad, such as âjihad-of-the-penâ (propaganda), and âmoney-jihadâ (economic) ââ¬â and if Muslims are permitted to lie and feign loyalty to the infidel to further their war efforts, offers of peace, tolerance or dialogue from extremist Muslim corners are called into question.
Religious obligation?
Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of 11 September 2001, a group of prominent Muslims wrote a letter to Americans saying that Islam is a tolerant religion that seeks to coexist with others.
Bin Laden castigated them, saying: âAs to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarised by the Most Highâs Word: âWe renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us ââ¬â till you believe in Allah aloneâ [Quran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility from the heart. And this fierce hostility ââ¬â that is battle ââ¬â ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi ââ¬â a non-Muslim subject living as a âsecond-classâ citizen in an Islamic state in accordance to Quran 9:29], or if Muslims are at that point in time weak and incapable [a circumstance under which taqiyya applies]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the heart, this is great apostasy! Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity and hatred, directed from the Muslim to the infidel, is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them.â
This hostile world view is traceable to Islamâs schools of jurisprudence. When addressing Western audiences, however, Bin Ladenâs tone significantly changes. He lists any number of grievances as reasons for fighting the West ââ¬â from Israeli policies towards Palestinians to the Western exploitation of women and US failure to sign the Kyoto protocol ââ¬â never alluding to fighting the US simply because it is an infidel entity that must be subjugated. He often initiates his messages to the West by saying: âReciprocal treatment is part of justice.â
This is a clear instance of taqiyya, as Bin Laden is not only waging a physical jihad, but one of propaganda. Convincing the West that the current conflict is entirely its fault garners him and his cause more sympathy. Conversely, he also knows that if his Western audiences were to realise that, all real or imagined political grievances aside, according to the Islamic worldview delineated earlier, which bin Laden does accept, nothing short of their submission to Islam can ever bring peace, his propaganda campaign would be compromised. As a result there is constant lying, âfor war is deceitâ.
If Bin Ladenâs words and actions represent an individual case of taqiyya, they raise questions about Saudi Arabiaâs recent initiatives for âdialogueâ. Saudi Arabia closely follows sharia. For instance, the Saudi government will not allow the construction of churches or synagogues on its land; Bibles are banned and burned. Christians engaged in any kind of missionary activity are arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Muslim converts to Christianity can be put to death in the kingdom.
Despite such limitations on religious freedom, the Saudis have been pushing for more dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims. At the most recent inter-faith conference in Madrid in July 2008, King Abdullah asserted: âIslam is a religion of moderation and tolerance, a message that calls for constructive dialogue among followers of all religions.â
Days later, it was revealed that Saudi childrenâs textbooks still call Christians and Jews âinfidelsâ, âhated enemiesâ and âpigs and swineâ. A multiple-choice test in a book for fourth-graders asks: âWho is a âtrueâ Muslim?â The correct answer is not the man who prays and fasts, but rather: âA man who worships God alone, loves the believers and hates the infidelsâ. These infidels are the same people the Saudis want dialogue with. This raises the question of whether, when Saudis call for dialogue, they are merely following Muhammadâs companion Abu Dardaâs advice: âLet us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse themâ?
There is also a philosophical ââ¬â more particularly, epistemological ââ¬â problem with taqiyya. Anyone who truly believes that no less an authority than God justifies and, through his prophetâs example, sometimes even encourages deception, will not experience any ethical qualms or dilemmas about lying. This is especially true if the human mind is indeed a tabula rasa shaped by environment and education. Deception becomes second nature.
Consider the case of former Al-Qaeda operative, Ali Mohammad. Despite being entrenched in the highest echelons of the terrorism network, Mohammedâs confidence at dissembling enabled him to become a CIA agent and FBI informant for years. People who knew him regarded him âwith fear and awe for his incredible self-confidence, his inability to be intimidated, absolute ruthless determination to destroy the enemies of Islam, and his zealous belief in the tenets of militant Islamic fundamentalismâ, according to Steven Emerson. Indeed, this sentiment sums it all up: for a zealous belief in Islamâs tenets, which, as has been described above, legitimises deception, will certainly go a long way in creating incredible self-confidence when deceiving oneâs enemies.
Exposing a doctrine
All of the above is an exposition on doctrine and its various manifestations, not an assertion on the actual practices of the average Muslim. The deciding question is how literally any given Muslim follows sharia and its worldview.
So-called âmoderateâ Muslims ââ¬â or, more specifically, secularised Muslims ââ¬â do not closely adhere to sharia, and therefore have little to dissemble about. On the other hand, âradicalâ Muslims who closely observe sharia law, which splits the world into two perpetually warring halves, will always have a âdivinely sanctionedâ right to deceive, until âall chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allahâ (Quran 8:39).
****************************************
Source: http://www.meforum.org/2095/islams-doctrines-of-deception
Here is how it went down.
1. Farook went to the annual holiday party to bonk with fellow workers.
2. Someone at the party said something mean to him so he was offended.
3. He left the party and drove down to the local Wal Mart where he bought some automatic assault weapons, hand guns, pipes, black powder, body armor and assault clothing and such.
4. He returned home where he picked up his wife and they made their bombs dressed and returned with his wife and perhaps others to the party and opened fire.
Work place violence for sure.
Their “motive”? It was a variation on the `resentful high school outsiders picked on by jocks and shunned by girls’ motivation: hatred.
That is, the murderers were sincere proponents of a primitive man-made desert religion, suffering from feelings of inferiority and persecution, simultaneously holding the bizarre belief that if they died while or after killing others who reject their belief-set they would enjoy eternal bliss.
In non-Conehead or in plain English—they were muslims.
Let’s not overthink this, inspectors. Find them and toss them out, along with the Mexican cholos. This is what we’re paying you LEOs to do, ya boneheaded maroons.
Referring to your#21;
We need bumper stickers!
Thank you. After so many gun-grabbing comments you found a gem.
To be honest, I struggled with motive a bit. This was not a high profile target. They could have had much more publicity going after a more public target.
But...this was a soft target, as they prefer, they knew there would be zero resistance, and a Christmas party, in their warped minds, may seem to be perfectly suitable as an American institution.
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.