Duped And Living In Jihad Denial

Bruce Thornton: Reality & Censorship

Its not US, its not the Jooozzz; its not colonialism or the crusades:

Its the jihad, stupid!

Notice that metaphor: jihad––for that is what the terrorists are engaged in, as they repeatedly tell us––is a cultic deformation of otherwise healthy cells in the body of Islam, an alien growth that needs to be excised so health returns. Yet this received wisdom, repeated over and over, even by the Bush administration, is simply false to Islamic history, theology, and jurisprudence. If one attends carefully to that record, it is obvious that jihad is not an alien “tumor” but a vital organ of Islam.

Of course, one can try to avoid this unpleasant fact by denying that what the terrorists are engaged in is jihad. One can indulge the laughable rationalization that jihad is really “inward striving” to be a better Muslim. This minority interpretation of jihad appears late in Islamic history, and is looked on with scorn by many Muslims themselves. Listen to the Ayatollah Khomeini, creator of the first modern Islamic nation, writing in 1942: “Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! . . . Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and the shadow of the sword.” And again in 1979, from a speech delivered at the Feyziyeh Theological School: “Islam grew with blood . . . . The great prophet of Islam on one hand carried the Koran and in the other a sword . . . . Islam is religion of blood for the infidels but a religion of guidance for other people.”

Some Westerners, following duplicitous Muslim apologists, no doubt would argue that Khomeini, a revered Muslim theologian, is distorting the traditions of his faith. But given that the 1979 speech was delivered at a theological school, where the audience is knowledgeable about their faith and so could identify distortions of its tenets, this rationalization is incredible. Common sense tells us that Khomeini and the other modern jihadists know their own faith and its doctrines, and are speaking squarely in that tradition, as can be documented from the Koran, Hadiths, and subsequent Muslim theologians, jurists, and other commentators (see Andrew Bostom’s invaluable anthology, The Legacy of Jihad). All these sources tell us that jihad indeed is the imperative to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed, who said in his farewell address: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

No, it is we who are the dupes of distorters, all those apologists, propagandists, and Western useful idiots who obscure the truth of Islam and its history. And they are successful: Washington Times columnist Diana West, writing on July 6 about Robert Spencer’s important web-site jihadwatch.org, reports that “very ominously, Mr. Spencer’s Web site is being blocked by assorted organizations which, according to his readers, continue to provide access to assorted pro-jihad sites. Mr. Spencer reports he’s ‘never received word of so many organizations banning this site all at once.’ These include the City of Chicago, Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, GE IT, JPMorgan Chase, Defense Finance and Accounting Services and now, a federal employee in Dallas informs him, the federal government.” Why? “Some Internet providers deem the factually based, meticulous analysis on display at jihadwatch.org to be ‘hate speech.’”

This is the pass that we have come to: facts about the motives of an enemy sworn to our destruction are censored as “hate speech.” This betrayal of the truth demonstrates perfectly the West’s self-loathing failure of nerve that confirms the enemy’s belief in his spiritual superiority–– and his ultimate victory.

ExileStreet

In support of Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch

Unblock Jihad Watch!

When Political Correctness Runs Amok:

Even the Washington Times Comes Out in support of Free Speech

In the last few weeks, e-mails began trickling to Jihad Watch Director Robert Spencer that his Web site had been blocked on the senders’ office computers as “hate speech.” The same blocking was also happening in some instances against the site memri.org, a translator of Arabic-language media. The sites are being blocked by private firms such as General Electric and JPMorgan Chase, plus a few state and local government agencies, whose filtering services had somehow decided the sites were “hate speech.”

“Hate speech” exists on these sites, all right, but not the kind that filters should be blocking — not as long as there exist doubletalkers who say all the right things in English but breathe anti-Western fire in Arabic. These sites shed much-needed light on this phenomenon, and as long as private firms are allowing political content on office computers, they should not be duped into blocking some. How they got blocked in the first place is a story of political correctness run amok. But it is also a story of what happens when citizens speak out in opposition.

First, the good news. Over the last four days, blocks have been lifted at Fidelity Investments, Whirlpool and a handful of other major companies, Mr. Spencer reports, following a wave of complaints by users. The complaints trigger a corporate reality check, which causes some to reconsider. “People need to realize that this kind of filtering is politicized, just like anything else. Leftists will be willing to use filtering services” just like any other medium, Mr. Spencer says. Various and sundry pro-Islamist Internet opinionists slap the “hate speech” label repeatedly, hope it sticks and sometimes, it does. But with a counter-campaign, their work can be undone.

The other piece of good news is that federal agencies, especially the ones we’d most like to read such material, have not been duped. The sites are available on computers at the Department of Homeland Security, the Pentagon and the State Department, according to our correspondents. Whether they are actually read there is a separate matter with a likely depressing answer. But at least the material is available.

We don’t doubt that the corporate blockers do their blocking in many cases unwittingly through politically unsavvy filtering services which in turn find themselves on the receiving end of various political campaigns. All these companies simply want to avoid social or political controversy.

But it is not really possible to avoid taking a position here, irrespective of these firms’ rights to block whatever they choose to, as long as the policy is fair and consistent. Essentially, these firms must either block all political speech — and we would counsel strongly against this heavy-handedness — or they would need to allow a wide range of material through, with only very obviously pornographic or incendiary material being blocked.

With any other approach, firms will be caught in the type of politicization that Jihad Watch and MEMRI know all too well. It does not serve anyone’s interests.

Asserting that terrorism is not inherent to Islam is either uniformed or willfully untruthful.

Let’s look at what one of Islam’s own “holy books” say about the subject. The reports of the Prophet’s sayings and deeds are called Hadith. Al-Bukhari’s Hadith is second only to the Qur’an in importance to Muslims. It is comprised of the most authentic traditions associated with early Islam and the words of Muhammad.

Bukhari:V4B52N220 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror. The treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.'”

Bukhari:V1B7N331 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else. Allah made me victorious with terror. The Earth was made for me…. Booty was made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else.'”

Other Hadith by other authors also go into this, but this one source alone reveals the lie about Islam being a “religion of peace.” The Qur’an and other Hadith also say that it is OK to lie and use deceit and trickery against the infidels in the furtherance of the muslim cause, and that’s what they are doing when they talk about the “religion of peace.”