The Islamic state is as radical and extreme as… Saudi Arabia.
Robert Spencer, Daniel Greenfield and Hugh Fitzgerald explain in three different articles why Koranimals bomb each other in the name of allah, while ordinary Muslims twist themselves into pretzels to deny that none of that has anything to do with Islam.
Ramadan, “a month of conquests.”
No conquest to see here in Baghdad, but lots of dead Muslims. Curiously, al Jazeera, the MuBro channel based in Qatar, hardly covers this latest Baghdad blast which killed 300 people.
BBC: ISIS IS UN-ISLAMIC BECAUSE IT’S JUST LIKE MOHAMMED
Courtesy of the BBC, an explanation of why ISIS is un-Islamic. Because it’s just like Mohammed.
Nearly 300 people have died in Sunday’s appalling attack in Baghdad. It is just one of eight different attacks believed to have been carried out by the so-called Islamic State (IS) over the last month – the Muslim month of Ramadan.
In total, more than 300 people have died in such atrocities from Orlando to Dhaka to Istanbul.
IS is also suspected of being behind an attack on one of the holiest sites in Islam on Monday – the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, Saudi Arabia.
There is, as usual, no mention of the Ramadan Muslim terror attacks in Israel. Because Muslims and the BBC don’t consider that terrorism. Not even to the extent of pretending to condemn it.
Ramadan is traditionally viewed as the most holy and spiritual month in the Islamic calendar, a time of penance and temperance.
Juxtaposed alongside that ascetic puritanism is the view of radicals who regard Ramadan as a month of conquest and plunder.
They believe it is an opportune moment to double down on their millenarian war against civilisation and therefore launch more attacks than normal.
Indeed, al-Qaeda’s official chapter in Syria, the Nusra Front, recently described it as “a month of conquests.”
Ordinary Muslims rightfully despair at these interpretations of jihad and its link to Ramadan.
For them it is a month of restraint and reflection – but such is the crisis of modern Islam that extremist interpretations of the same idea are almost wholly divorced from normative understandings.
To the radical mind, if additional prayer and alms giving is encouraged in Ramadan – then why not more bloodshed too?
Where would Muslims possibly have gotten this bizarre radical notion from?
The belief in Ramadan as a month of war comes from Islamic history itself.
The Prophet Muhammad waged his first jihad, known as the Battle of Badr, during Ramadan in 624.
Eight years later he also conquered Mecca during the month of Ramadan, thereby claiming the city which houses one of Islam’s most holy sites today: the Kaaba.
So was Mohammed a radical and an extremist? Apparently he was.
The attack on the Prophet’s tomb caused shock across the Islamic world – raising the question of why IS might chose to bomb the burial site of Islam’s most central figure?
IS adopts an ultra-literal and puritanical form of Islam that – contrary to most Muslims – believes the Prophet’s Mosque is actually a shrine, because the Prophet is buried within its confines. As a result, they regard it as distracting people from the worship of God alone and believe the site should be demolished.
Where would the Islamic State possibly have gotten such an idea from?
Maybe the Saudis? Wahhabism began destroying various Islamic shrines in Saudi Arabia associated with Mohammed from the very beginning. The Saudi government is doing it today in its role as custodian. So ISIS is as radical and extreme as… Saudi Arabia.
Robert Spencer: Muslims wouldn’t bomb Muhammad’s city, would they? Sure they would.
Over at PamelaGeller.com Robert Spencer explains why the latest attempts to exonerate Islam from responsibility for the crimes done in its name and in accord with its teachings founder on the facts:
The Islamic State (ISIS) attack in Medina shows once and for all that ISIS is not Islamic, right? After all, how could a Muslim group, much less a self-styled “caliphate,” set off a bomb in the city of Muhammad himself? That proves that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam, no? That’s what many Muslims would have us believe. Unfortunately, this is just more deception from practiced masters of deceit – and it’s deception that is increasingly dangerous and offensive as the jihad death count climbs ever higher.
Maher Zain, a Multi Platinum-winning singer and songwriter who is Muslim, wrote on Twitter to his 1.47 million followers: “Still need proof that ISIS is the foremost enemy of Islam? They attack the Prophet’s City. Terror knows no religion!” Boxer Amir Khan tweetedto his 1.75 million followers: “The attack in our beloved Prophet Muhammad’s city Madinah proves that Isis has no religion!” The UK Muslim broadcaster Mohammed Shafiq wrote: “The attack on #Madinah was an attack against all Muslims. We need unity against this evil.”
Neither Zain nor Khan nor Shafiq nor anyone else, however, explained why this it would be out of the question for jihadis to strike in Medina. Did Muhammad command jihad warfare against unbelievers? Yes: a hadith depicts Muhammad saying: “Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them…. If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
In commanding this, did Muhammad forbid jihad against unbelievers in his city? He did not. But of course, in Medina there are only Muslims, no? And the Qur’an forbids Muslims to kill other Muslims (4:92). But Islam also mandates death for those who are considered heretics and apostates – and the Islamic State, in claiming to be the caliphate, the one true government to which all Muslims owe allegiance, and in demanding the obedience of all Muslims worldwide, has placed itself in the position of considering any Muslims who reject its authority to be heretical by virtue of that very rejection, and therefore worthy of death.
That is all the more true regarding governments of Muslim states that do not accept the caliphate. The Islamic State regards the House of Saud as illegitimate, and therefore to undermine it is a holy act. Reuters reported Sunday that the Islamic State jihadis targeted “a security headquarters at a mosque in the holy city of Medina,” and that “a suicide bomber detonated a bomb near the security headquarters of the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, the second-holiest site in Islam. Saudi-owned al-Arabiya television said an initial death toll from the Medina blast included three suicide bombers and two security forces officers.”
So the target was not Muhammad’s mosque itself, but a security headquarters nearby – an outpost of the hated Saudi state, which the Islamic State considers to be heretical and apostate. Considered in light of the other recent Islamic State jihad bombings in Turkey, Bangladesh, and Iraq, it becomes clear: the Islamic State is targeting Muslim countries and trying to undermine their governments, with the ultimate goal of bringing them into the purview of its caliphate. However unattainable that goal may be in practice, it doesn’t prevent them from killing people in hopes of bringing it closer to attainment, and in hopes of pleasing their god who commands jihad warfare against unbelievers, without exempting Muslim rulers who are deemed to have left the straight path.
There is no doubt, however, that the deception and denial will continue. The lies from Islamic apologists are as much of a certainty in life as death and taxes, if not more so.
After Islamic State jihadists screaming “Allahu akbar” murdered twenty hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on the night of July 1, the serially deceptive Islamic apologist Qasim Rashid tweeted: “In #Ramadan’s final 10 days, Daesh has mass murdered dozens in three Muslim majority nations Please tell me more about how Islamic they are.” In another tweet, he included a photo captioned: “So you’re telling me they killed Muslims during Ramadan and you still blame Islam? Are you that incompetent or that bigoted?” To that, Rashid added: “Likewise, how I feel when I hear Islamophobes claim Islam was somehow behind the #DhakaAttack.”
Echoing Rashid was no less illustrious a personage than Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who insisted: “Anyone who believes in religion cannot do such act. They do not have any religion, their only religion is terrorism.”
This from a woman who adheres to a religion whose holy book three times exhorts Muslims to kill unbelievers (2:191, 4:89, 9:5), and tells believers to “strike the necks” of unbelievers (47:4) and to “strike terror in the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60). In other words, she must know better when she says “their only religion is terrorism” Even after the Medina bombing, their religion is quite clear. And unless and until the West starts to speak honestly about this motivating ideology of terrorism, and to formulate realistic ways to confront it, it will continue to advance.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
Hugh Fitzgerald: Was the Medina Attack an “Assault on Islam Itself”?
After every attack by Muslim terrorists, Muslims, and many non-Muslim apologists for Islam, insist that “these attacks cannot possibly have anything to do with Islam.” But now, after the attack in Medina, a new mantra is being chanted, which is that these attacks have something to do with Islam because they constitute “an attack on Islam.”
The U.N. human rights chief, for example, a member of the Jordanian royal family, called the suicide bombing outside the Prophet Mohammad’s Mosque in the Saudi city of Medina “an attack on Islam itself.” He was echoed by others, including the tireless Muslim propagandist Haroon Moghul, who wrote that the “Medina attack is an assault on Islam itself.” Still others have lumped the Saudi attacks in with those in Baghdad and Dhaka, claiming that in these attacks of the last few weeks “Muslims have been the main victims.” (In a purely arithmetical sense, given the 200 killed in Baghdad, that may be – misleadingly – true). My, how quick so many of us are to sow or reap confusion.
Let’s try to keep clear and distinct what each of these attacks was targeting.
The first thing to do is not to allow ourselves to forget what the attack on the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka was all about. Beyond any confusion or doubt, it was an attack solely on non-Muslims. These were selected, by their killers, through the administration of a macabre quiz about the Qur’an. Those who, among the patrons and staff, showed sufficient knowledge of the Qur’an, were spared, and were even treated solicitously by the attackers, who made sure they were fed, while those who could not pass it were identified as non-Muslims, and tortured and killed.
Indeed, the attackers appear to have suggested to those they had spared that they should try to be just like themselves, they who had been busily torturing and killing 20 men and women, as the very models of “good Muslims” that others should emulate:
“When they realised that troops might storm the building, they came to our room one last time and told us not to tarnish the name of Islam, be a good Muslim and uphold the pride of Islam. They said they had no intention of hurting us as we were Muslims.”
Whatever place it may have attained in the annals of grotesque cruelty, what happened at the Holey Artisan restaurant did not constitute an “attack on Muslims.”
After Dhaka, it was bombs away in Baghdad, set off in the mainly Shi’a Karada neighborhood, killing nearly 200 people. Was this an “attack on Islam,” as some Western apologists for Islam have claimed? (Sunni Muslims are noticeably silent on the attacks aimed at Shi’a, and are careful not to claim that such attacks are an “attack on Islam itself.”) No, those bombs were targeted at Karada precisely because the Shi’a, in the view of the energetic takfiris of ISIS, are not real Muslims at all. And it is not just the Sunnis of ISIS, but other Sunnis, too, who share that view.
We must not forget that according to these Sunnis, the Shi’a are “Rafidite dogs” (from “rafida” – “rejectionists”), so called because they reject the legitimacy of three of the caliphs — Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman — who followed Muhammad, insisting instead that the only legitimate successor to Muhammad was Ali. This is the main, but not the only difference between Shi’a and Sunnis. The most extreme Sunnis regard the Shi’a as even worse than Christians and Jews. An ISIS spokesman put it this way in 2015: “The greatest answer to this question [are the Shi’a worse than Christians and Jews] is in the Qur’an, where Allah speaks about the nearby enemy – those Muslims who have become infidels – as they are more dangerous than those which were already infidels.” ISIS has been ferocious in its nonstop denunciation of the Shi’a. In the 13th edition of the ISIS magazine Dabiq, for example, the main article is entitled The Rafidah: From Ibn Saba’ to the Dajjal; this article contains “pages of violent rhetoric directed against Shiites,” who it claims are “more severely dangerous and more murderous…than the Americans.” The article justifies the killing of Shia Muslims, whom ISIS insists are not Muslims at all but apostates, and apostasy in Islam is punishable by death.
What about the three simultaneous attacks in Saudi Arabia? Surely these were, as the egregious Haroon Moghul assures us, “attacks on Islam itself”?
Let’s take those attacks one by one.
The first was the attack in Qatif, in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia, where almost all of the Shi’a live. The bombs in Qatif went off outside a Shi’a mosque, and were meant to kill only Shi’a, who are despised in the Wahhabi kingdom, called “Rafida,” just as they are by Sunnis in ISIS. In Qatif, there was neither an attack “on Islam” nor on Muslims, but on the Shi’a, regarded – see the excerpt from Dabiq above — by their uber-Sunni attackers as apostates from Islam.
The second attack was in Jeddah, with an attacker blowing himself up near the American consulate, but not piercing its perimeter. This was clearly meant to be an attack on American Infidels. Again, not an “attack on Islam.”
The third attack was in Medina, and here is where the “attack on Islam” description might, one may think, be justified. But is it? The attack appears to have hit its intended target, not the mosque itself, but the Saudi security forces stationed near the Prophet’s Mosque. It was an attack, that is, on the Saudi state, attempting to show that the Saudi rulers’ main claim to legitimacy, as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, was hollow. For if the Saudi security forces could be hit even at the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina, how could the Al-Saud present themselves as effective guardians (that is, protectors) of the two holy mosques? ISIS regards the Saudi rulers as not real Muslims, even though ISIS and the Saudis share the same Wahhabi brand of Islam. For it is not doctrinal matters, as with the Shia, that makes ISIS regard the Al-Saud as enemies and infidels. It is, rather, because of the way the Al-Saud lead their lives. That over-the-top decadence of all those princes and princelings and princelettes, their pocketing of so much of the national wealth, their spending of much of that wealth on themselves, their mega-yachts in the Mediterranean, their shopping sprees in Paris, their gambling in London and Las Vegas, their gamboling in southern Spain and southern France, their buying up of fabulous pleasure palaces all over the Western world, their incessant whoring – this has earned the fury of ISIS, and of other Muslims too. That was what the bombs in Medina were about: a successful attack on the Al-Saud in their official role as protectors of the two holy places would weaken their claim to rule. For ISIS the Al-Saud are “tyrants” who have “corrupted the faith” in order to hold onto power, and despite their claims of being observant Wahhabis, deserve to be considered as apostates, as infidels.
We mustn’t allow ourselves to be confused by the seeming variety of targets ISIS has chosen, and overlook what links them in our eagerness to believe that “Islam is under attack” and that as a result, perhaps, now all those “moderate Muslims” (yet another forlorn hope we cling to) will join forces with us, the world’s Infidels, against the “extremists.” In Dhaka, it was clearly non-Muslims who were the target. In Baghdad, it was “apostate” Shi’a, who for ISIS are even worse infidels than Christians and Jews. In Saudi Arabia, the targets were three varieties of Infidels: Americans in Jeddah, “apostate” Shi’a in Qatif, and the Al-Saud in Medina (as represented by their surrogates, the security services), whose decadence ISIS describes as equivalent to apostasy. Despite the Haroon Moghuls of this world, it is not Islam that is “under attack,” but whomever the Islamic State defines, to its own murderous satisfaction, as Infidels. That’s the unhappy moral of Dhaka, Baghdad, Qatif, Jeddah, and Medina. Only that, and nothing more.