Three years ago, in the weeks before the invasion of Iraq, it fell to the then prime minister of Canada to make the most witless public statement on the subject by any G7 leader.
"Your president has won," Jean Chretien told ABC News in early March 2003. So there was no need to have a big ol' war because, with 250,000 American and British troops on his borders, Saddam was "in a box." "He won," said Mr. Chretien of Bush. "He has created a situation where Saddam cannot do anything anymore. He has troops at the door and inspectors on the ground... You're winning it big."
That's easy for him to say, and committing other countries' armies to "contain" Iraq is easy for him to do. A quarter million soldiers cannot sit in the sands of Araby twiddling their thumbs indefinitely. "Containment" is not a strategy but the absence of strategy - and thug states understand it as such. In Saddam's case, he'd supposedly been "contained" since the first Gulf War in 1991, when Bush Sr. balked at finishing what he'd started. "Mr. President," Joe Biden, the Democrat Senator and beloved comic figure, condescendingly explained to Bush Jr. in 2002, "there is a reason your father stopped and did not go to Baghdad. The reason he stopped is he didn't want to be there for five years."
By my math, that means the Americans would have been out in spring of 1996. Instead, 12 years on, in the spring of 2003 the USAF and RAF were still policing the no-fly zone, ineffectually bombing Iraq every other week. And, in place of congratulations for their brilliant "containment" of Saddam, Washington was blamed for UN sanctions and systematically starving to death a million Iraqi kids - or two million, according to which "humanitarian" agency you believe. The few Iraqi moppets who weren't deceased suffered, according to the Nobel-winning playwright and thinker Harold Pinter, from missing genitals and/or rectums that leaked blood contaminated by depleted uranium from Anglo-American ordnance. Touring Iraq a few weeks after the war, I made a point of stopping in every hospital and enquiring about this pandemic of genital-less Iraqis: not a single doctor or nurse had heard about it. Whether or not BUSH LIED!! PEOPLE DIED!!!, it seems that THE ANTI-WAR CROWDS SQUEAK!!! BUT NO RECTUMS LEAK!!!!
A NEW study by the American Enterprise Institute suggests that, aside from the terrific press, continuing this policy would not have come cheap for America: if you object (as John Kerry did) to the $400-600 billion price tag since the war, another three years of "containment" would have cost around $300 billion - and with no end in sight, and the alleged death toll of Iraqi infants no doubt up around six million. It would also have cost more real lives of real Iraqis: Despite the mosque bombings, there's a net gain of more than 100,000 civilians alive today who would have been shoveled into unmarked graves had Ba'athist rule continued. Meanwhile, the dictator would have continued gaming the international system through the Oil-for-Food program, subverting Jordan, and supporting terrorism as far afield as the Philippines.
So three years on, unlike Francis Fukuyama and the other moulting hawks, my only regret is that America didn't invade earlier. Yeah yeah, you sneer, what about the only WMD? Sorry. Don't care. Never did. My argument for whacking Saddam was always that the price of leaving him unwhacked was too high. He was the preeminent symbol of the September 10th world; his continuation in office testified to America's lack of will, and was seen as such by, among others, Osama bin Laden: In Donald Rumsfeld's words, weakness is a provocation. So the immediate objective was to show neighboring thugs that the price of catching America's eye was too high. The long term strategic goal was to begin the difficult but necessary transformation of the region that the British funked when they cobbled together the modern Middle East in 1922.
THE JURY will be out on that for a decade or three yet. But in Iraq today the glass is seven-ninths full. That's to say, in 14 out of 18 provinces life is better than it's been in living memory. In December, 70% of Iraqis said that "life is good" and 69% were optimistic it would get even better in the next year. (Comparable figures in a similar poll of French and Germans: 29% and 15%.)
I see the western press has pretty much given up on calling the Ba'athist dead-enders and foreign terrorists "insurgents" presumably because they were insurging so ineffectually. So now it's a "civil war." Remember what a civil war looks like? Generally, they have certain features: large-scale population movements, mutinous units in the armed forces, rival governments springing up, rebels seizing the radio station. None of these are present in Iraq. The slavering western media keep declaring a civil war every 48 hours but those layabout Iraqis persist in not showing up for it.
True, there's a political stalemate in Baghdad at the moment, but that's not a catastrophe: if you read the very federal Iraqi constitution carefully, the ingenious thing about it is that it's not just a constitution but also a pre-nup. If the Sunni hold-outs are determined to wreck the deal, 85% of the Iraqi population will go their respective ways creating a northern Kurdistan that would be free and pro-western and a southern Shiastan that would still be the most democratic state in the Arab world. That outcome would also be in America's long-term interest.
Indeed, almost any outcome would. In 2002, Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, warned that a US invasion of Iraq would "threaten the whole stability of the Middle East." Of course. Otherwise, why do it?
Diplomats use "stability" as a fancy term to dignify inertia and complacency as geopolitical sophistication, but the lesson of 9/11 is that "stability" is profoundly unstable. The unreal realpolitik of the previous 40 years had given the region a stability unique in the non-democratic world, and in return they exported their toxins, both as manpower (on 9/11) and as ideology. Instability was as good a strategic objective as any. As Sam Goldwyn used to tell his screenwriters, I'm sick of the old clich s, bring me some new clich s. When the old clich s are Ba'athism, Islamism and Arafatism, the new ones can hardly be worse, and one or two of them might even buck the region's dismal history. The biggest buck for the bang was obvious: prick the Middle East bubble at its most puffed up point - Saddam's Iraq.
YES, IT'S come at a price. In the last three years, 2,316 brave Americans have given their lives in Iraq, which is as high as US fatalities in Vietnam - in one month, May 1968. And, if the survival of Saddam embodied the west's lack of will, the European-Democratic Party-media hysteria over the last three years keeps that question open. But that doesn't change the facts on the ground. Instead of relying on the usual ineffectual proxies, Bush made the most direct western intervention in the region since General Allenby took Jerusalem in the Great War. Now on to the next stage.
Many youngish bloggers banging about these days were mere tadpoles in the '90s, so perhaps they need a short overview of how the Democrats once regarded the Butcher of Baghdad.
When Bill Clinton was bombing him in response to aggressive defiance of the interntional community, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaida. After President Chimpy McHitler had removed him from power in an illegal war, Saddam was a comic thug without weapons of mass destruction who served as a bulwark against Islamists. Everything clear?
Obviously, both cannot be right. American bombs are accurate, but it is doubtful they can go back in time and blow up Clinton's rationales. To the left, however, the clock of history was reset the day the Supreme Court overturned Al Gore's 50-state electoral sweep, and Iraq inexplicably became a large sandy Monaco the U.S. invaded on orders from Petro-Zionist puppetmasters.
What, then, will they make of the newly released documents that reinforce the alleged connections between Saddam and terrorists, and suggest Clinton was right all along?
Obviously, they're a plant. An attempt to deflect Censure Fever, now sweeping the nation. More lies from the people who said Saddam had WMD, when we all know the Kurds died from bad catered shellfish. More crafty Rovian disinformation, brilliantly leaked three years too late with as much fanfare as a straight-to-video "Deuce Bigalow" movie.
So far, decrypting the documents has been up to Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, the occasional ABC story and intrepid wingnut bloggers. Among other tasty tidbits, the documents suggest Saddam was shoveling money to a Philippine Islamist al-Qaida franchise -- Abu Sayyaf, Al-Angry, Al-Roker, something or other.
Nonsense, some Bush critics insist. Saddam was relentlessly secular! He hated the Islamists!
True; one can no more imagine Saddam bowing to Mecca than kneeling at the rail of St. Peter's for Communion. In his mind, there was one reason to kneel, and that's because you were about to be tumbled into a pit.
But that's quite different from saying he opposed al-Qaida out of high-minded principle. This is a fellow who specialized in transparent manipulation of religion, just to hedge his bets and build a PR rep in the region. He built enormous mosques that made American megachurches look like a Waffle House; he put a Quranic verse on the state flag, showed up on TV praying like a good Muslim, and commissioned a copy of the Quran that used his blood as ink. Wait until that thing hits eBay.
Suggesting that Saddam made common cause with bearded nutlogs to weaken mutual enemies is not exactly some ether-induced neocon delusion. In fact, to anyone who paid attention in the '90s, it's remarkable we're still arguing the point: When Osama bin Laden came out in '98 defending Iraq against the evil sanctions of the West, what was his motivation? A separate peace struck for reasons of "strategery," or a sneaky little crush on the brash lad from Tikrit?
Here the argument usually shifts to the post-9/11 rhetoric. According to the left, Bush spent 2002 insisting that God demanded we erect a 900-foot cross in Baghdad, preferably one doubling as an oil well, because Saddam was involved in the attack on New York and the Pentagon.
Of course, he said no such thing. The administration aimed its rhetoric at terror-supporting nations, foolishly expecting Democrats to remember when their guy got all hot and bothered about the megalomaniac gas-happy whackjob and his gangster-state government. No such luck. Once it became apparent that Bush was serious about draining the swamp, it suddenly became a protected wetland.
The more documents trickle out, the more we'll know.
But don't expect opinions to change; the hard left simply wants to glue horns on Bush, and if that means Saddam gets a bent rusty halo, well, it's collateral damage.
Besides, who cared if Saddam gave money to Philippine terrorists? Sure, they're all threads in the black tapestry of the anti-liberal modernity-hating stone-the-gays-and-hide-the-women death cult. Sure, planning for 9/11 took place in Manila. But the Philippines didn't attack us on 9/11!
Like they used to say about the military: always fighting the last war.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/23/2006 09:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Many youngish bloggers banging about these days were mere tadpoles in the '90s "
See here sonnyboy I was in Baghdad in uniform while you were still in your dads bag in liquid form!
Sorry, couldnt resist.
#2
"According to the left, Bush spent 2002 insisting that God demanded we erect a 900-foot cross in Baghdad, preferably one doubling as an oil well, because Saddam was involved in the attack on New York and the Pentagon."
LOL.
"Once it became apparent that Bush was serious about draining the swamp, it suddenly became a protected wetland."
WASHINGTON -- While officials privately debate whether communitarian violence in Iraq constitutes a low-grade civil war, there is no disagreement about the oil crisis there, which has little to do with the insurgency. Gasoline and home heating fuel are scarce and expensive, thanks to runaway corruption. This problem's difficulty and importance will test the new Iraqi government once it is organized.
Industry sources privately cite corruption as the reason for recent decisions by Turkey and Saudi Arabia to halt gasoline exports to Iraq for non-payment of bills. That exacerbates a worsening situation where Iraq, one of the world's great petroleum producers, has to truck in gasoline from Kuwait.
While the formal line in Washington and Baghdad blames insurgents for the oil crisis, U.S. officials who are close to the situation gave me a totally different explanation. They blame corruption at every level, from the oil ministry on down, that is common to Iraq. It cannot be controlled by the Americans but is the responsibility of the long-delayed Iraqi government. Thus, oil is a microcosm of the overall conundrum in Iraq, where there are no good options for the Bush administration in dealing with a culture where honesty and efficiency historically have been rare.
The exhilaration in the Bush administration that the Anglo-American attack in 2003 had preserved the oil producing capacity is as illusory as claims of victory three years ago. The fuel shortages in oil-rich Iraq are profound and growing worse, with endless lines at gasoline stations. That drives up prices to the equivalent of $15 for a cylinder of home fuel -- too expensive for the average Iraqi.
The best explanation for this was given me by a non-political U.S. civil servant, an "Arabist" with vast experience in the region. He has been ordered definitively to say nothing and write nothing about oil in Iraq or anything else to do with the country. He spoke to me only if I would not identify him, by name or organization.
My source blamed corruption on an unimaginable level. "There is no system for turning on the oil in Iraq," he told me. "Everyone there is taking their cut. Everybody takes a little." It is corruption from top to bottom. At a time of an acute shortage in Iraq, oil is being surreptitiously sent across the border for gain.
Such corruption is familiar there. The situation is endemic in the brief, tragic history of Iraq. Since the discovery of the country's liquid wealth, government officials have been dipping into the proceeds. This was true during the monarchy and the successor governments, including Saddam Hussein's. The addiction to corruption also contributed to the United Nations oil-for-food scandal.
The immediate crying need of Iraq's oil industry three years after the invasion is for substantial investment in improvements for infrastructure and technology. It was assumed that once the dictatorial regime was displaced, money from all over the world would pour into Iraq. But there is no inclination by risk capital to put any money in enterprises that are bleeding money to corrupt officials throughout the government.
Everybody with any familiarity with this situation believes the only answer is that the new Iraqi government, still unformed three months after the election, must gain control over corruption. One former U.S. official with experience in Iraq says: "We really have no levers left to pull, except hope that the government we're backing becomes powerful enough to take on the crooks."
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a frequent visitor to Iraq, is well aware of this dilemma. "The future of Iraq is in the hands of the Iraqis," he told me. Hagel is not yet ready to call for a unilateral military withdrawal from Iraq, realizing that the dreary conditions there -- including the oil crisis -- would get worse if the U.S. disconnected today. The pocketing of oil revenues by corrupt bureaucrats will hardly be improved by a quick American exit.
#1
how can you expect a dying culture with 6th century morals and ideas to come full steam into the civilized 21st century? Aint gonna happen, The Iraqi overlords (us) need to get off the naive horse and SEE what these animals are really all about...
Posted by: bk ||
03/23/2006 10:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Only 15% of Iraq has been fully surveyed for oil. The deepest wells in the world are in the Kurdish areas. Major development is on hold pending resolution of the Syrian and Iran problems. The Two-Rivers' patch is riddled with belligerent Sunnis and Shiites. Persian Gulf routes are in peril and an Iraq-Mediterranian pipeline is politically impossible. US troops aren't going anywhere until Syria and Iran are crushed like the territorial bugs that they are.
They consume 370,000 barrels in "motor spirits" (gas/diesel) per day, and have to import almost 170,000 barrels. Unemployment approaches 20%. Knock out a couple of refineries and they can wage jihad on donkeys.
#3
The immediate answer is to start charging market rates for fuel inside Iraq. This is only a problem because we have continued Saddam's policy of government subsidies -- socialism doesn't work in Iraq any better than it does in other countries.
Ask administration hard-liners about Iran's sudden acceptance of the U.S. offer to talk about stability in Iraq and you hear this reaction: It's a booby trap. These hawks are right.
Put the same question to moderates on the Bush team and this is the response: It's an opening in the confrontation and a necessary step toward an exit strategy for Iraq. The remarkable thing is that these doves are right, too.
President Bush must treat the Iranian decision to open discussions in Baghdad as trap and opportunity. It is both. The administration should pursue this small opening in the Iranian wall with discipline and attention to maintaining a united front with its European and Asian partners. They are Iran's immediate targets.
The Iranians will certainly suggest to Europe, Japan and India that the United States is dealing behind its allies' backs to protect its interests in Iraq. The Iranians are masters at playing on others' divisions, often by inviting them to exploit simulated divisions on the Iranian side. Thus the endless arguments over Iran's "moderates."
The Bush team must make the Baghdad talks one insulated part of a coordinated three-pronged approach to Iran. Contacts with Iran must be managed as hard-nosed diplomacy that will go to the brink -- but not be carried over it by bluster and inflexibility.
The White House rightly insists that the Baghdad talks be limited to practical steps for defusing the crisis in Iraq. Discussion in Baghdad of Iran's nuclear ambitions, now under scrutiny in the U.N. Security Council, or other broad topics would undermine the allied unity that has brought the complaint against Iran this far.
The State Department hopes to get a declaration from the Security Council in about two weeks that ostensibly gives the Iranians a final chance to suspend their nuclear enrichment program and return to negotiations with the European Union and Russia.
The statement is in fact a necessary step toward new U.N. negotiations over a resolution imposing sanctions on Iran. "The Europeans need to show their publics that they have jumped through all the hoops" before threatening sanctions, a U.S. official says. Washington is cooperating in this approach.
To reduce the danger that Iran will use the Baghdad talks as a divisive ploy, the United States should now join -- and lead -- the negotiating effort over enrichment. After the move to talk to Iran in Baghdad, the Bush administration cannot remain a silent, outside partner at the top rung of the negotiating ladder. And U.S. direct involvement provides the only hope of getting the Iranians back to the table.
The threat of sanctions has already triggered a counterthreat from Iran to use oil as a weapon. Washington must lead in establishing a credible international emergency energy-sharing program to confront that bad-case scenario. "We have to say to the Iranians together that we will endure a cold winter or two but they will be harmed even more by an oil boycott," says a senior European politician who has studied Iranian negotiating behavior extensively.
U.S. officials recognize that U.N. action might not be sufficient or even forthcoming. They now speak of a "diplomatic coalition of the willing" to pursue sanctions and other measures against Iran if the U.N. effort falters. But that coalition must be forged through diplomatic leadership and the sharing of the negotiating burden.
Such sharing can be reinforced in a third layer of contacts in this policy of engaging Iran, with intense skepticism. The United States should support efforts by the U.N. special representative to Iraq, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, to establish a contact group of regional states that would meet regularly -- in Baghdad.
Regional "meetings outside Baghdad don't work at this stage," Qazi told U.S. officials he visited this week in Washington in a refreshing burst of candor. Having senior diplomats from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and other Persian Gulf countries -- including Iran -- wrestle concretely with Iraq's daily problems could usefully supplement the U.S.-Iranian talks.
The experts say that Iran is six to nine months away from mastering the centrifuge process of enrichment, the key step in a 5- to 10-year process of building a nuclear bomb. Talking to the Iranians at three interlocking levels is the best way to determine whether there is any realistic hope of deflecting them from enrichment or deterring them if they get the bomb -- and what happens if the answer to both is no.
Bush must reshape Ronald Reagan's attitude toward Mikhail Gorbachev: Don't trust, do verify at every step of the way. First, there must be something to verify.
"The Europeans need to show their publics that they have jumped through all the hoops"
Jumping through all the hoops - the keystone to current European policy, both foreign and domestic.
Filed under 'Terror Networks' because you don't have a category 'Islam', and this seems like the closest fit.
Unlike some of my fellow believers I dont think that the recent glut of Westerners calling for the reformation of Islam is due solely to an imperial Western ambition. I believe that much of non-Muslim engagement with Islam is premised upon a well-intentioned impulse. I believe that some Western antipathy towards Islam is due to decency. It is quite plausible that a generation that faced off against two totalitarianisms might be right about a third. It is also plausible that for every Westerner who calls for the destruction of Islam in order to defend the Western status-quo, there is another Westerner who agitates for change in Islam because has a Muslim friend who has been hurt by what passes for Islam, or has a glimpse (in Hafiz, perhaps in Ibn Rushd), of what Islam could be; and as such, is upset by what Islam today is not. I believe that there are many in the West capable of recognizing beauty and they have recognized the beauty that Islam was in the hands of Rumi, and also have recognized the potential of that beauty in Islam today, in Muslims today. This is another way of saying that I believe there are many in the West who are driven by the humanity of the Muslim, who faces daily in Iraq, in Punjab, in subversive mosques in Europe, the inhumanity of a utilitarian death theology.
Yes, I know that there was a time when the West went to civilize and ended up conquering; when it went to keep the dominoes upright and ended up slaughtering; when it went to trade and ended up colonizing; when it went to liberate and left civil war behind. Yet, in spite of this I believe that there are Westerners who are impelled solely by the humanity of the Muslim, because when the West conquered there were Westerners who spoke against it; when the West went to Vietnam there were Westerners who spoke against it; when the West colonized there were Westerners who were anti-colonial. Even still, all Westerners cannot be held accountable for the sins of their leaders. Muslims can, and do, ask that others forgive what Muslim leaders do in the name of God. Why cannot the West be forgiven for how its leaders have manipulated humanism? I forgive.
If, then, there are those in the West who challenge what passes for Islam today, on the basis of their humanity with the Muslim, then we Muslims must embrace them as our brothers. It is conceiveable, yes, that there are those in the West with as much sadomasochim (or courage, if you will), as the reformists of Islam; with as great a penchant for human rights as the reformists of Islam; with as great a willingness to face off against the edifice of a corrupt theology as the reformists of Islam. We must embrace them as our brothers, be they Latino, Black, or dare I say, white; be they Hindu, Jew, Christian, or dare I say, secular-humanist. We this is the we that refers to all those who fight injustice did not exclude such helpers when the evil was Soviet Union. We this is the we that refers to all those who fight injustice did not exclude the helpers when the evil was Jim Crow. Nor when the evil was the patriarchy which denied female equality. In fact, if reformist Islam is to stand a chance, it has to be open to those who want to help. There has never been a case in history where change has occurred without participation by some members of the dominant discourse joining in the efforts of those who agitate for change.
There is a concern that some of those who wish to join are dissimulators. That they want only to use our reformist critique to demonize Islam. That there are hypocrites in the lot of the so called helpers. That they are drawn only to the exoticism of the Muslim woman, or the virility of the Muslim sperm, and so on. My reply is to not be frightened by this possibility. At this time the fight between our philosophy of the future and yesterdays death theory, has not even begun. When it begins, those who joined for illegitimate reasons will reveal themselves. But that remains to be seen. In fact, who is to say, given the magnitude of the confrontation and given what is at stake enlightened living for our children that there will not be individuals amongst us who turn tail in the face of the gravitas? Who is to say, given that our activism will pit us against our elders, our ancestral homes, our history as it has been so far written, that there will not be individuals amongst us who simply turn traitorous and expose us to the frothing fundamentalism we face off against? When we see those who appropriate our efforts, well, well call a spade a spade, but that is no reason to not start gardening.
Man has always come to the assistance of man. The Helpers of Medina to the migrants of Mecca; Indians to the Pilgrims; Ottomans to the Sephardigm; Albanian Muslims to the Jews of Europe. There are men and women in the West who wish to be of assistance to us. So what if they sometimes say things that you find offensive or incorrect. To correct them by way of friendship is much better than to sneer at them (or behead them). We must judge them, not by their ancestors history, but by their love of the oppressed. We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many Mukhtaran Mai? We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many tyranny? We are clear, are we not, that there has been one too many Bin Laden? One too many 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, and Aksari Shrine and Shia massacre and Bahai jailing and Jew-baiting. One too many Bamiyan Buddhas. One too many novelists accused. One too many suicides. The task ahead will be difficult enough. If, then, there are those who will link their arms with us, we must not hesitate. When the moment of reckoning comes and there is no reason to believe that time is not now we will be in need of every able mind, profligate pen, and nervous smile. Do it out of pragmatism, or do it out of love, but do it you must.
All those then, theists, secularists, atheists, deists, refuseniks, peaceniks, Jews, Gentiles, Unitarians, Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Philosophers, who wish to walk for humanity: speak up and do not stop speaking. Walk with the believers. There are believers who will walk with you.
Thinking Like a Muslim
(Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem)
By Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
Posted: 21-02-2006
This material would interest those who are somewhat familiar with Islam.
Recently - due to certain martyrdom operations in Dar al-harb - many Muslims have taken to condemning fellow Muslims, and have, in their pursuit of aiding the kuffar, used the ideas, the terms, the concepts, the perspective of the kuffar to condemn their fellow Muslims. Therefore 100% of Muslims are actual or potential traitors.
There needs to be clearer understanding of the Islamic perspective - and a desire to distance ourselves from the kuffar ("disbelievers" in Islam) in our life, and in our very way of thinking. We should strive to once again think like a Muslim - that is, judge things from an Islamic perspective, and an Islamic perspective only. "Distance?" Make haste back to where you came. Over 1200 bodies of African Muslims have been pulled out of Atlantic this year. They were trying to get out of dar-islam and to the Canary Islands, Spain.
The perspective of the Muslim is the perspective of The Last Day, of the judgement of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) - of this mortal life as but a means - and of following the guidance given to us in the Quran and Sunnah so that we might attain Paradise (Jannah) InshaAllah.
Innocent and Civilian:
Two terms which are frequently used by Muslims are "innocent" and "civilian". There is no concept, in Islam, of either "innocent" or "civilian". We should know and accept that these are kaffir concepts - concepts which they, and they apostate allies, seek to impose upon Islam in order to try and control Muslims and bring Muslims under the control, the domination - both physical and mental - of the kuffar. So we kaffirs are guilty-soldiers, that any Muslim can target with RPGs or SUVs.
Some Muslims quote the following Hadith in an effort to show that there is such a thing as the concept of "innocent" in Islam:
Narrated 'Aa'ishah who said that the Nabi (Prophet) (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "The pen has been lifted from three; from the sleeping until they awake, from the child until they mature, and from the one who is crazy until he is sane." Speaking of "child," narrator Aa'ishah was Mohammad's 6 year old bride. Yech!
In this Hadith we have a beautiful expression - "The pen has been lifted..." The question we must ask is - Do we take the context to mean that the three are "innocent" as the kuffar understand innocent? That is, do we project a kaffir meaning into this Hadith? Or do we refer it, for explanation, to what Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) has told us, and thus take it in the literal sense to mean that what they are doing, have done, has not been recorded? If we refer to what our Rabb says: Abdullah's Record of Good Muslim Deeds: Monday, I sent a check to CAIR; Tuesday, I beat my wife, according to Koran 4:84; Wednesday, I had wicked honor rape thoughts about Karen Hughes...
"And over you are Watchers - just, honourable - who know and record [write down] all that you do. Thus shall those who do what is commanded be in bliss while the disobediant will be in the blazing Fire. " [82: 10-14 Interpretation of Meaning] And I thought Hell was a Christian concept?
Thus, understood in the context of the words of Allah (Subhanahu wa Ta'ala) this Hadith refers not to some kaffir concept such as "innocent" but to the recording of our deeds. I get it: kaffir deeds are all damnable.
In Islam, there is only the distinction between Dar al-harb, the realm of war, and Dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam; or, expressed another way, between the lands of war, and the lands of Islam. Peace, for Islam, is the peace of Jannah (Muslim Heaven), and the peace that arises from a submission to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Peace has no other meaning in Islam. This peace can be and should be expressed through Muslims living in an Islamic way, that is, among Muslims in an Islamic community. This means Muslims giving bayah (blood oath; bin Laden took same from his terrorists) to an Ameer; it means turning to the Quran and Sunnah for guidance; it means upholding Shariah and Shariah only. It does not mean democracy and it does not mean accepting the kaffir concept of a "nation". It means a Khilafah, ruled by a Khalifah.
Thus, the lands of the kuffar are the lands of war - they can expect war; they can expect bloodshed; they can expect chaos. Only if and when they submit to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala can they expect peace. I know exactly what to expect from Muslims.
"Allah guides toward peace those who seek His pleasure." [5:16 Interpretation of Meaning]... Like when he guided suicide bombers to Murder teenagers in an Israeli pizza parlor.
-----------------------------------------------------
#2
Recently - due to certain martyrdom operations in Dar al-harb - many Muslims have taken to condemning fellow Muslims, and have, in their pursuit of aiding the kuffar, used the ideas, the terms, the concepts, the perspective of the kuffar to condemn their fellow Muslims.
And the difference between this rant and that of lefties who decry the fact they keep losing elections because the 'masses' are brainwashed zombies who can't see the real light?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
