Saturday, August 21, 2010

To understand Muslim conflicts you can’t follow the game without a play list.

Why do Muslims kill other Muslims? Why do Muslims hate other Muslims almost as much as they hate Israel (and America)? Why do they sometimes sound like they disagree with one another? To begin to understand the conflict you need to go back almost 1400 years in time to the year 632, the year that the Islamic Prophet Muhammad died. But instead of this being a dry and boring lesson in ancient history, consider this: Do you really understand today the reason why one Muslim in America says something uncomplimentary about another Muslim? For instance, as Debbie Schlussel pointed out on her web site yesterday, when she explained why Rima Fakih, the Muslim who won the Miss USA contest touched on the Ground Zero Mosque controversy in NYC:
“But the 24-year-old says while she supports freedom of religion in America, the people behind the mosque should consider the feelings of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.”

“It shouldn’t be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion,” said Fakih.
As Debbie Schlussel explains it: “First of all, Fakih is a Shi’ite Muslim. The Ground Zero mosque is a Sunni mosque. Shi’ites and Sunnis hate each other. It’s what the very long Iran-Iraq war was all about. It’s why Dubai and other Gulf States expelled their Sunni populations. It’s why Yemen has Shi’ite terrorists fighting the Sunni government. Of course, she doesn’t want her Sunni enemies to have a mosque there. If it were a Shi’ite mosque, well, that’s another story.”
So there, it isn’t one Muslim against another Muslim, it is one Shi’ite Muslim against a Sunni Muslim. According to Wikipedia, my favorite source of on-line information, 70-75% of the world’s Muslim population are Sunni while only 15% are Shi’ite. It makes it easier to understand how the late (hanged by the neck) Iraq dictator Saddam Hussein, who was a member of the minority population of Shi’ites, ruled a country of Sunni Muslims with such brutal force and killed so many of his own people.

As Wikipedia tells it: The historic background of the Sunni–Shia split lies in the schism that occurred when the Islamic prophet Muhammad died in the year 632(AD), leading to a dispute over succession to Muhammad as a caliph of the Islamic community spread across various parts of the world which led to the Battle of Siffin. Sectarian violence persists to this day from Pakistan to Yemen and is the most common element of friction throughout the middle east. Sunnis hold that Abu Bakr was Muhammad's rightful successor and that the method of choosing or electing leaders (Shura) endorsed by the Qur'an is the consensus of the Ummah, (the Muslim community). Shī‘īs believe that Muhammad divinely ordained his cousin and son-in-law Ali (the father of his grandsons Hasan ibn Ali and Husayn ibn Ali) in accordance with the command of God to be the next Caliph, making ‘Alī and his direct descendants Muhammad's successors.
And they have been fighting over this for 1400 years. To put things in perspective, that’s twice as long as the Protestants have been fighting the Catholics in Northern Ireland but the death toll throughout the Muslim world is a million times worse.

Then, of course, there is Taqiyya – the command to lie to non-Muslims. You will never understand what is behind the rhetoric unless you know the rules of the game.
Muslims are allowed to deceive non-Muslims if it helps Islam. For non-Muslims this principle, called Taqiyya, is another surprising concept of Islam. While most other religions speak highly of truthfulness the Qur’an instructs Muslims to lie to non-Muslims about their beliefs and their political ambitions to protect and spread Islam. The practice of concealing one’s faith in dangerous circumstances originates in the Qur’an itself, which deems blameless those who disguise their beliefs in such cases. The practice of taqiyya in difficult circumstances is considered legitimate by Muslims of various persuasions. Sunni and Shi’i  commentators alike observe that Q 16:106 in particular refers to the case of ‘Ammar b. Yasir, who was forced to renounce his beliefs under physical duress and torture.
The practice of Taqiyya (also spelled Taqiyyah) is a big thing among Muslims. There is a whole Muslim web site devoted to explaining this to Muslims called Answering Ansar.
Taqiyyah proven from the Qur'an
It is an irrefutable fact that the use of Taqiyyah can be proved from both Qur'an and the sayings of Prophet Mohammed (S). All the prophets (A.S), the Imams (A.S) and others pious people have advised to perform Taqiyyah. Following are 'some' Ayahs from Qur'an to prove our case:

First verse
Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith but such as open their breast to unbelief on them is Wrath from Allah and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty"
Surah An-Nahal, verse 16:106 transliteration by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. Text confirmed on University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement web site.
The web site Answering-Ansar  is actually the authoritative reference used in Wikipedia to define Taqiyya. Muslims are sometimes accused of practicing Taqiyya in contemporary political debates such as the ongoing discussion about so-called moderate Muslims versus the fundamentalist Muslims and whether Islam is violent and radical by its very nature. So you can be sure that what you hear from the Muslims really isn't the truth if it doesn't advance the cause of Islam. You can also be certain that you won't hear the truth from our liberal mainstream news media. But the reason for that is related to another Arabic word, Dhimmitude. Dhimmitude is a neologism first found in French denoting an attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands. (I just love Wikipedia)
Here is a perfect example of Dhimmitude from Tom Kent, the deputy managing editor for standards and production at the Associated Press as reported by Andrew Breitbart at Big Journalism.
Associated Press Deputy Managing Editor for Standards and Production Tom Kent sent the following note to the staff about covering the New York City mosque story:
Aug. 19, 2010
Here is some guidance on covering the NYC mosque story, with assists from Chad Roedemeier in the NYC bureau and Terry Hunt in Washington:
1. We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s “near” ground zero, or two blocks away.
In short headlines, some ways to refer to the project include:
_ mosque 2 blocks from WTC site
_ Muslim (or Islamic) center near WTC site
_ mosque near ground zero
_ mosque near WTC site
We can refer to the project as a mosque, or as a proposed Islamic center that includes a mosque.
It may be useful in some stories to note that Muslim prayer services have been held since 2009 in the building that the new project will replace. The proposal is to create a new, larger Islamic community center that would include a mosque, a swimming pool, gym, auditorium and other facilities.
2. Here is a succinct summary of President Obama’s position:
Obama has said he believes Muslims have the right to build an Islamic center in New York as a matter of religious freedom, though he’s also said he won’t take a position on whether they should actually build it.
For additional background, you’ll find below a Fact Check on the project that moved yesterday.
Thanks, Tom, for confirming what most Americans already suspected. You so-called professional journalists bend, warp and distort the news to suit your own preconceived, nefarious agenda. Just like the New York Times who's motto almost says: All the news that fits we print.


1 comment:

  1. "All I Ever Needed to Know about Islam, I Learned on 9/11"

    After those planes struck America on September 11th, 2001, many relatives of the victims roamed the smoking rubble and toxic air of Ground Zero in the vain hope of some word, any word, on their missing loved ones.

    Few received any word.

    By the very nature of their quest, all of those who posted notices on those dusty, dirt- encrusted doors and walls left standing in the vicinity of Ground Zero seeking information on fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters were emotionally moving but one was exceptionally so. A small boy carried a large sign asking, “Has Anyone Seen My Daddy?” with a photo of his dad attached.

    It’s unlikely that anyone had seen the boy’s father.

    It’s far more probable that he was one of those vaporized by the ferocity of the planes’ impacts, burned alive, crushed in the falling debris of two thousand-foot towers, or he was one of those many and still-uncounted who chose to escape the searing flames by a few moments of deadly exhilaration before they were literally obliterated when their bodies smashed into the pavement.

    Too graphic? Too Much Information? Well, too damned bad for any overly-sensitive psyches out there. 9/11 is what it is, was what it was, and to hide from its realities is both an act of pusillanimity and perilously un-American. . .
    (


No foreign language comments allowed. English only. If you cannot access the comments window send me an email at