Sunday, November 30, 2008
The Olmert Doctrine
now has a new official anti-terror policy.
It consists of releasing terrorists from prison as rewards for terrorist
organizations that do NOT release Israeli captives.
No, that was not a misprint. You read that correctly.
The Olmert junta is about to release scores of Hamas officials, including
Hamas members of the Palestinian "parliament" and Hamas "cabinet
ministers," as a reward for the Hamas refusing to release kidnapped
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
When Shalit was first kidnapped, Israel grabbed up some Hamas leaders and
tossed them into the clink, promising to keep them locked up until Shalit
was released. One of them is that clown who likes to put orange day-glo
paint in his beard. Well, Shalit has NOT been released. But since the
Hamas terrorhoids were originally jailed under an initial jail sentence
that is about to run out in 2009, the Olmert people are arguing that they
are all about to go free anyhow so why not let them go free early as a
goodwill gesture?
Now, this might leave you speechless. After all, I could point out to you
that, regardless of what the original sentence was for these people, they
could always be retried and given an additional new sentence, and this can
be done over and over until Shalit is released. But then you would
respond to my comment like my children are wont to do so often these days,
and say "Like DUUHHH!"
I could point out that once released these Hamas people will return to
bombing and rocketing Israeli civilians, or that holding them in jail as a
way to pressure the Hamas to stop shooting rockets at Sderot would also
make sense. But then you would probably tell me, like my kids, "Like
Double DUUUHHHH!!!" Yesterday the Hamas fired a mortar into an Israeli
base near Gaza, wounding 8 soldiers, one of whom lost a leg and whose
second leg is in danger. So you think such attacks will become LESS
common or MORE common after Olmert releases the terrorhoids?
But Olmert has decided to go down in the history books for the Olmert
Doctrine, which consists of paying terrorists rewards for NOT releasing
Israeli captives.
Now releasing terrorist leaders as reward for terrorists NOT releasing
Israelis has some precedents. The Israeli government repeatedly released
Hezbollah and other terrorists even while the terrorists refused to
release Ron Arad (or his remains or even information about him). It also
repeatedly released terrorists to reward the Hezbollah for murdering
captured Israeli soldiers in cold blood (so that they would then send
their corpses over the border). It released baby murderer Samir Kuntar
and two leaders of the actual Shi'ite militia that had originally held Ron
Arad, as reward for the Lebanese Shi'ite terror NOT releasing Arad. So
the Olmert Doctrine is solidly grounded in Israeli precedents.
(See also this: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/2#3178 )
Oh, did you notice that the Indian anti-terror troops were not under
orders to read the terrorists their Miranda rights before shooting them,
nor to sit back and refuse to shoot if there might be any chance of
collateral damages? Of course, India also does not release Moslem
terrorists as rewards for Moslem terrorist organizations carrying out
terror, but then again India is such a backward country!
Oh, also, the Indian chief of the security services resigned after the
failures and the inability of those services to stop the attacks. Like I
say, India just is not very modern, unlike Israel, where ministers and
McClellenist generals NEVER resign simply because they have been
responsible for massive security disasters (such as the 2006 war with the
Hezbollah)!
2. Meanwhile the amen chorus for Islamic terror is already gearing up
to rationalize and justify the atrocities in Mumbai. And this includes
the usual Far Leftists. The leftwing Neo-Stalinist magazine Counterpunch
is already cheering on the terrorism as an understandable response to
social inequality in India (see this:
http://counterpunch.com/tariq11272008.html ). (Counterpunch is also
running Neo-Nazi articles about how Washington is an Israeli settlement .
see this: http://counterpunch.com/rosen11282008.html ).
Columnist after speaker is coming out and sighing about how tough it is
to be a Moslem living in oppression under Indian rule. The BBC and the
rest of the media booberocracy went out of their ways to describe the
terrorists as "militants." This is a bit surprising because it was India
and not Israel being attacked by the terrorists. I think the media
refused to use the "T" word for these terrorists thanks to the fact that
so many Jews were murdered in India. It was almost one of those
understandable responses by Islamic activists to Israeli settlement
activity.
3. This is not a spoof or a joke. The front page headline in Haaretz
today is this: "Bush asks Olmert: Why are you trying to give away the
Golan Heights without getting nay quid pro quo." Think I am kidding? See
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1042008.html
When Washington has to berate Israel's Prime Minister for being too
anti-Israel, you know it is time for all teenagers to start yelling again,
"Well, DUUUHHHHH!!!!"
November 30, 2008
Hindus, Jews, and Jihad Terror in Mumbai
By Andrew G. Bostom
Sixty hours of jihadist terror depradations throughout India's financial
capital, Mumbai -- during which nearly 200 innocent victims were
murdered, and 300 wounded -- apparently ceased this Saturday, November 29,
when Indian commandos slew the last three gunmen inside a luxury hotel,
while it was still ablaze. Mainstream media coverage of these rampaging,
cold-blooded murderous acts of jihad terrorism -- perpetrated by a
self-professed "mujahideen" organization (i.e., "The Deccan Mujahideen")
-- consistently ignored the clear ideological linkage to Islam. Simply
put, "mujahideen" are Muslim jihadists, "holy warriors," because there is
just one historically relevant meaning of jihad, despite present day
apologetics.
The root of the word jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran and in
subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries -- from the
greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam, to ordinary people --
meant and means "he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and
the like." As described by the seminal mid-19th century Arabic
lexicographer E.W Lane, "Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify
wag[ing] war, against unbelievers." A contemporary definition, relevant to
both modern jihadism and its shock troop "mujahideen" was provided at the
Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Islamic Research at Al
Azhar University, Cairo -- Islam's most important religious educational
institution-in 1968, by Muhammad al-Sobki:
...the words Al Jihad, Al Mojahadah, or even "striving against enemies"
are equivalents and they do not mean especially fighting with the
atheists...they mean fighting in the general sense...
Contemporary validation of the central principle of jihad terrorism --
rooted in the Koran -- (for example, verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26)-i.e.,
to terrorize the enemies of the Muslims as a prelude to their conquest --
has been provided in the mainstream Pakistani text on jihad warfare by
Brigadier S.K. Malik, originally published in Lahore, in 1979. Malik's
treatise was endorsed in a laudatory Foreword to the book by his patron,
then Pakistani President Zia-ul-Haq, as well as a more extended Preface by
Allah Buksh K. Brohi, a former Advocate-General of Pakistan. This text --
widely studied in Islamic countries, and available in English, Urdu, and
Arabic -- has been recovered from the bodies of slain jihadists in
Kashmir. Brigadier Malik emphasizes how instilling terror is essential to
waging successful jihad campaigns:
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is
the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is
obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where
the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing
decision upon the enemy (sic); it is the decision we wish to impose upon
him...
"Jihad," the Koranic concept of total strategy...[d]emands the preparation
and application of total national power and military instrument is one of
its elements. As a component of the total strategy, the military strategy
aims at striking terror into the hearts of the enemy from the preparatory
stage of war...Under ideal conditions, Jihad can produce a direct decision
and force its will upon the enemy. Where that does not happen, military
strategy should take over and aim at producing the decision from the
military stage. Should that chance be missed, terror should be struck into
the enemy during the actual fighting.
...the Book [Koran] does not visualize war being waged with "kid gloves."
It gives us a distinctive concept of total war. It wants both, the nation
and the individual, to be at war "in toto," that is, with all their
spiritual, moral, and physical resources. The Holy Koran lays the highest
emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for
war to the utmost. The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability
to instill terror into the hearts of the enemies.
The Islamic correctness of most mainstream media outlets -- which refused
to consider such ideological motivations, rooted in jihad -- did not
apply, however to Hindus, or Jews--targeted infidel victims of the
attacks. Blithely ignoring obvious Islamic and Muslim connections --
credit taken for the attacks by a mujahideen organization; or testimony
from a Turkish Muslim couple briefly apprehended, and then released
unharmed by the jihadists because, "...[w]hen the (Muezzinoglus) said they
were Muslims, their captors told them that they would not be harmed" --
some media (at Fox; NPR) even voiced their own "speculations" about the
possible culpability of "Hindu extremists," an absurd calumny, stated in
full paranoid transference mode by the Muslim Brotherhood:
A photograph published in Urdu Times, Mumbai, clearly shows that Mossad
and ex-Mossad men came to India and met Sadhus and other pro-Hindutva
elements recently. A conspiracy was clearly hatched.
Yet these same media offered no speculation about Islamic Jew hatred as an
obvious potential motivation for the transparently selective attack on
Mumbai's Chabad House -- a focal point symbol of the miniscule Jewish
community of 5000 (or 0.03%) in a city of some 15 million inhabitants.
More egregiously, this neglect of any hateful Islamic motivations for the
targeted murder of such innocent Jews -- including a young Lubavitcher
Rabbi and his wife -- was accompanied by consistently dehumanizing and
demeaning references to these victims as "Ultra-Orthodox," and their
entirely false characterization as "missionaries."
This current Jewish tragedy within a much larger non-Muslim, primarily
Hindu tragedy, reminded me of the Indian Sufi "inspiration" for The Legacy
of Islamic Antisemitism, Ahmad Sirhindi. Nearing completion of my first
book compendium, The Legacy of Jihad, in early 2005, specifically the
section about jihad on the Indian subcontinent, I came across a remarkable
comment by the Indian Sufi theologian Sirhindi (d. 1624). Typical of the
mainstream Muslim clerics of his era, Sirhindi was viscerally opposed to
the reforms which characterized the latter ecumenical phase of Akbar's
16th century reign (when Akbar became almost a Muslim-Hindu syncretist),
particularly the abolition of the humiliating jizya (Koranic poll tax, as
per Koran 9:29) upon the subjugated infidel Hindus. In the midst of an
anti-Hindu tract Sirhindi wrote, motivated by Akbar's pro-Hindu reforms,
Sirhindi observes,
Whenever a Jew is killed, it is for the benefit of Islam.
The biographical information I could glean about Sirhindi provided, among
other things, no evidence he was ever in direct contact with Jews, so his
very hateful remark suggested to me that the attitudes it reflected must
have a theological basis in Islam -- contra the prevailing, widely
accepted "wisdom" that Islam, unlike Christianity was devoid of such
theological Antisemitism. Having originally intended to introduce, edit,
and compile a broader compendium on dhimmitude in follow-up to The Legacy
of Jihad, this stunning observation inspired me instead to change course
and focus on the interplay between Islamic Antisemitism, and the
intimately related phenomenon of jihad imposed dhimmitude for Jews,
specifically.
Of course Jew-hatred was merely a sidelight to Sirhindi's hatemongering
Islamic "ethos." He was an intensely anti-Hindu bigot, as revealed by
these words:
Cow-sacrifice in India is the noblest of Islamic practices. The kafirs
[Hindus] may probably agree to pay jizya but they shall never concede to
cow-sacrifice...The real purpose in levying jizya on them [Hindus] is to
humiliate then to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya , they
may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should
constantly remain terrified and trembling. It in intended to hold them
under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam...
Completely uninformed about (and stubbornly resistant to any informed
discussion of) the motivating Islamic ideology for the Mumbai attacks, the
media "meta-narrative," repeated ad nauseum, is also oblivious to the
living historical legacy of jihad on the Indian subcontinent. Thus
journalists and even policymaking elites appear to accept at face value,
and uncritically, the "rationale" for this wantonly murderous jihadism as
stated, for example, by one of the Muslim perpetrators:
Are you aware how many people have been killed in Kashmir?...Are you aware
how your army has killed Muslims?
The Muslim supremacist, jihad-inspired conflict in Kashmir -- really a
tragic ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Hindus by Muslim jihadists which
began in earnest during the 14th century -- re-emerged in late June of
this year when the Indian government had the "temerity" to want to
transfer 99 acres of land to the Shri Amarnath Shrine Board, a trust
running the popular Hindu shrine (including the cave that houses a large
ice stalagmite itself, revered by Hindus as an incarnation of Siva, the
god of destruction and reproduction). Hundreds of thousands of Hindus
visit the area as part of an annual pilgrimage to the cave.
Please view the poignant, elegantly produced video by Kashmiri filmmaker
Ashok Pandit, "And the World Remained Silent," (linked here, Parts 1 and
2) which chronicles in gory detail the brutal ethnic cleansing of some
350,000 indigenous Hindus from Kashmir during early 1990, orchestrated by
Pakistan. and it's Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. (Focus on the time
period 2:15 to 4:00 minutes, from Part 1 above, and witness the jihadist
speech of the late, much ballyhooed "modernist reformer" Ms. Bhutto. She
was a jihadist, plain and simple; the head of what remains a jihadist
state.)
Despite the brutal Islamization of India -- dating back to the initial 8th
century Arab Muslim jihad ravages, and the subsequent more extensive
campaigns under the Ghaznavids (Islamized Turkic nomads who annihilated
the indigenous Hindus of Afghanistan by the mid-9th century), through the
Delhi Sultanate period (1000-1525 C.E.) during which an estimated 70-80
million Hindus were slaughtered -- due largely to bowdlerized educational
and public discourse on Islam, even many modern Hindus remain ignorant of
both this history, and the Koranic injunctions which inspired the brutal
waves of jihad conquest, and Muslim colonization of India.
The Muslim chroniclers al-Baladhuri (in Kitab Futuh al-Buldan) and al-Kufi
(in the Chachnama) include enough isolated details to establish the
overall nature of the conquest of Sindh (in modern Paksitan) by Muhammad
b. Qasim during 712 C.E. These narratives, and the processes they
describe, make clear that the Arab invaders intended from the outset to
Islamize Sindh by conquest, colonization, and local conversion. Baladhuri,
for example, records that following the capture of Debal, Muhammad b.
Qasim earmarked a section of the city exclusively for Muslims, constructed
a mosque, and established four thousand colonists there. The conquest of
Debal had been a brutal affair, as summarized from the Muslim sources by
the renowned Indian historian R.C. Majumdar. Despite appeals for mercy
from the besieged Indians (who opened their gates after the Muslims scaled
the fort walls), Muhammad b. Qasim declared that he had no orders (i.e.,
from his superior al-Hajjaj, the Governor of Iraq) to spare the
inhabitants, and thus for three days a ruthless and indiscriminate
slaughter ensued. In the aftermath, the local temple was defiled, and "700
beautiful females who had sought for shelter there, were all captured".
The capture of Raor was accompanied by a similar tragic outcome.
Muhammad massacred 6000 fighting men who were found in the fort, and their
followers and dependents, as well as their women and children were taken
prisoners. Sixty thousand slaves, including 30 young ladies of royal
blood, were sent to Hajjaj, along with the head of Dahar [the Hindu
ruler]. We can now well understand why the capture of a fort by the Muslim
forces was followed by the terrible jauhar ceremony (in which females
threw themselves in fire [they] kindled...), the earliest recorded
instance of which is found in the Chachnama.
Practical, expedient considerations lead Muhammad to desist from carrying
out the strict injunctions of Islamic Law and the wishes of al-Hajjaj by
massacring the (pagan) infidel Hindus of Sindh. Instead, he imposed upon
the vanquished Hindus the jizya (Koranic poll-tax, pace Koran 9:29) and
associated restrictive regulations of dhimmitude. As a result, the
Chachnama records, "some [Hindus] resolved to live in their native land,
but others took flight in order to maintain the faith of their ancestors,
and their horses, domestics, and other property."
Thus a lasting pattern of Muslim policy towards their Hindu subjects was
set that would persist, as noted by Majumdar, until the Mughal Empire
collapsed at the end of Aurangzeb's reign (in 1707):
Something no doubt depended upon individual rulers; some of them adopted a
more liberal, others a more cruel and intolerant attitude. But on the
whole the framework remained intact, for it was based on the fundamental
principle of Islamic theocracy. It recognized only one faith, one people,
and one supreme authority, acting as the head of a religious trust. The
Hindus, being infidels or non-believers, could not claim the full rights
of citizens. At the very best, they could be tolerated as dhimmis, an
insulting title which connoted political inferiority...The Islamic State
regarded all non-Muslims as enemies, to curb whose growth in power was
conceived to be its main interest. The ideal preached by even high
officials was to exterminate them totally, but in actual practice they
seem to have followed an alternative laid down in the Koran [i.e., Q9:29]
which calls upon Muslims to fight the unbelievers till they pay the jizya
with due humility. This was the tax the Hindus had to pay for permission
to live in their ancestral homes under a Muslim ruler.
Regarding the Islamization of Hindu Kashmir, although Mahmud of Ghazni
made brutal forays into Kashmir in the early 11th century, it was not
until the mid-14th century when the ruling Hindu dynasty was displaced
completely by Shah Mirza, in 1346, and Kashmir was brought under Muslim
suzerainty. During the reign of Sikandar Butshikan (1394-1417), mass
Islamization took place as described by the great historian K.S. Lal:
He [Sikandar Butshikan] invited from Persia, Arabia, and Mesopotamia
learned men of his own [Muslim] faith; his bigotry prompted him to destroy
all the most famous temples in Kashmir-Martand, Vishya, Isna, Chakrabhrit,
Tripeshwar, etc. Sikandar offered the Kashmiris the choice [pace Koran
9:5] between Islam and death. Some Kashmiri Brahmans committed suicide,
many left the land, many others embraced Islam, and a few began to live
under Taqiya, that is, they professed Islam only outwardly. It is said
that the fierce intolerance of Sikandar had left in Kashmir no more than
eleven families of Brahmans.
Lal also notes that,
His [Sikandar Butshikan's] contemporary the [Hindu] Raja of Jammu had been
converted to Islam by [Amir] Timur [the jihadist, Tamerlane], by "hopes,
fears, and threats."
When the Moghul ruler Akbar annexed Kashmir in 1586, the majority of the
population was already Muslim. Lal summarizes the chronic plight of the
Kashmiri Hindus during a half millennium of Islamic rule, through 1819,
which explains the modern demography of Kashmir:
When Kashmir was under Muslim rule for 500 years, Hindus were constantly
tortured and forcibly converted. A delegation of Kashmir Brahmans
approached Guru Teg Bahadur at Anadpur Saheb to seek his help. But Kashmir
was Islamized. Those who fled to preserve their religion went to Laddakh
in the east and Jammu in the south. It is for this reason that non-Muslims
are found in large number in these regions. In the valley itself the
Muslims formed the bulk of the population.
There is also a modern era nexus -- rooted in jihad-between the Hindus of
Islamized Kashmir, and the Jews of Islamized Palestine. Hajj Amin
el-Husseini, ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, and Muslim jihadist, who became,
additionally, a full-fledged Nazi collaborator and ideologue in his
endeavors to abort a Jewish homeland, and destroy world Jewry, was also a
committed supporter of global jihad movements. Urging a "full struggle"
against the Hindus of India (as well as the Jews of Israel) before
delegates at the February 1951 World Muslim Congress, he stated:
We shall meet next with sword in hand on the soil of either Kashmir or
Palestine.
And el-Husseini's jihadist, Koran (and hadith)-inspired Jew hatred was
shared by a seminal modern Muslim ideologue from the Indian subcontinent,
Maulana Mufti Muhammad Shafi (d. 1976), a major late 20th century Koranic
commentator. An eminent scholar, Maulana Muhammad Shafi served as a
professor and as a grand Mufti of Darul-Uloom Deoband, the well-known
university of the Islamic Sciences in pre-partition India. In 1943, he
resigned from Darul-Uloom, because of his active involvement in the
Pakistan movement. When Pakistan came into existence, he migrated to
Karachi devoting his life to the service of this new Muslim state. He also
established Darul-Uloom Karachi, an renowned institute of Islamic Sciences
patterned after Darul-Uloom Deoband, and considered today as the largest
private institute of Islamic higher education in Pakistan. Here is Maulana
Muhammad Shafi's commentary on the central antisemitic motif in the Koran,
sura (chapter) 3, verse 112:
...verse 112 speaks of the general condition of the Jews. They played the
most virulent against the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] and the movement of
Islam. It was not strange that they were the most malignant against the
Holy Prophet because they had played a similar role against the Prophets
before the advent of Islam. They had slandered Jesus Christ, they had
plotted to kill him, they had slain so many Prophets before Jesus Christ.
They had earned the wrath of Allah before the Holy Prophet by killing the
Prophets and the Saints and by their vociferous opposition to the Divine
Commands. This wrath increased when they deadly opposed the Holy Prophet
and made treacherous and surreptitious plans to kill Muhammad and defeat
Islam. They tried to harm the Muslims and prevented the common men from
Islam. These activities enhanced the wrath of Allah, and curse became
their eventual fate. The wrath of Allah manifested itself in conditional
abasement, but permanent poverty. Their abasement could be suspended if
they could cover a bond of Allah or they should be covered by a bond of
the people. But the poverty and the general wrath of Allah was pitched
without any suspension. Bond of God means adherence to some remnants of
the Torah. Bond of men means either becoming the subjects of some Muslim
State or some Christian State or some other constitutional State; or
becoming a satellite or a protectorate of some powerful people, whoever
they may be either Muslims, or non-Muslims, by means of some agreement,
treaty, or merely political support. Their separate individual existence
enjoying an inviolable sovereignty or commanding a good respect in the
Comity of Nations is not implied in this verse because of the extreme
wrath of Allah which is significant of their superlative Kufr [infidelity]
against Allah and their extremely tremendous enmity against the Holy
Prophet as compared to other non-Believers. For example, the modern State
of Israel cannot survive if the Americans and Russians, etc., give up
their support. [note: this commentary was written beginning in the 1960s]
This is the bond of the people which has outwardly suspended their
abasement. But so far as wretchedness (poverty) is concerned it is pitched
on them permanently and the general wrath and anger of Allah surrounds
them forever. Inner wretchedness can be reconciled with outer opulence.
The Jews may have become billionaires but the wretchedness and poverty of
hearts cannot leave them any moment. Parsimony has become a part and
parcel of their internal self.
Nearly six decades ago, Sir Jadunath Sarkar (d. 1958), the preeminent
historian of Mughal India, wrote admiringly of what the Jews of Palestine
had accomplished once liberated from the yoke of jihad-imposed Islamic
Law. The implication was clear that he harbored similar hopes for his own
people, the Hindus of India, and those of their Muslim neighbors willing
to abandon the supremacist, discriminatory, and backward mandates of
Islam:
Palestine, the holy land of the Jews, Christians and Islamites, had been
turned into a desert haunted by ignorant poor diseased vermin rather than
by human beings, as the result of six centuries of Muslim rule. (See
Kinglake's graphic description). Today Jewish rule has made this desert
bloom into a garden, miles of sandy waste have been turned into smiling
orchards of orange and citron, the chemical resources of the Dead Sea are
being extracted and sold, and all the amenities of the modern civilised
life have been made available in this little Oriental country. Wise Arabs
are eager to go there from the countries ruled by the Shariat [Sharia;
Islamic Law]. This is the lesson for the living history.
The jihadist carnage in Mumbai, and some 12,327 other acts of jihad
terrorism since 9/11/2001 -- motivated by supremacist Islamic doctrine,
and the atavistic hatred of Hindus, Jews, and other non-Muslims it
inculcates -- provides ugly living proof that Sarkar's wistful admonition
from 1950 remains almost entirely unheeded.
5. Test your Hebrew! Can you find out what is wrong in the attached
photo?
