FITZGERALD: WHEN A JIHADI IS DESCRIBED AS “NUTS”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/fitzgerald-major-nidal-hasan-must-be-nuts.html
Fitzgerald: Major Nidal Hasan must be “nuts”
I have heard on the radio, and read, a new theme about Nidal Malik Hasan. Now it is not so much “Islam has nothing to do with it” as – well, yes, come to think of it, Major Nidal Malik Hasan gave that lecture so nicely illustrating, for those with ears to hear and eyes to see and minds to think, part of the essential doctrine of Islam. This was the man who was always and everywhere talking about Islam, trying to convert others to Islam, making sure everyone, everywhere, knew of his deep faith and loyalty to Islam.
At least this is what he appears to have told all the non-Muslim officers and men. But one person, the chaplain Yahya Hendi, assured us, in his quiet and reassuring way, that in all of his private conversations with Nidal Malik Hasan, Hasan kept assuring him – now why would Hasan feel the need to assure a fellow Muslim of this? – of his loyalty to the American government and his desire to serve.
The one that struck me the most was a statement made on NPR by Tom Ricks, the Pentagon correspondent for the Washington Post, who said – in the new and most fashionable formulation — that Nidal Malik Hasan, we all know, was a “Muslim” and he was also “nuts.”
I wonder if Tom Ricks, who is hardly among the most offending, and all of the others now consoling themselves, at least partly, with the notion that Nidal Hasan was “nuts” (as well as being a…oh, let me see now, yes, that’s it, a “Muslim”), think that the tens of thousands of Muslims who right now are actively acting in exactly the same way in jihad groups around the world are also “nuts.” They are led by such people as Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri. All the hundreds of thousands of members of various groups – Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Ansar al-Islam, Laskar Jihad, and so on – another hundred or two hundred names of groups could be given, and another few thousand of known groupuscules that have acted, or tried to act – are they all “nuts”? And as for the individuals – oh, just take an Ahmed and a Mohammad and an Osama and a Najib and Anwar, and add in the surnames that are similarly so similar, mix-n’-match, keep changing the first name of each of the surnames in Mr-Potato-Head play-fashion, and voila, you will have them all. And these people, too, are impelled to participate directly in violent Jihad, as was Major Nidal Malik Hasan.
And we should never for a minute think only of those who participate directly and openly in violent Jihad, in a group or groupuscule, or as individuals, quite capable of premeditated murder (as with Nidal Malik Hasan) or of the other kind, the kind that we call Sudden Jihad Syndrome. In fact, it is never really quite so sudden, but usually has been the fruit of a “return to Islam” over weeks or months or moody years, by a Muslim unhappy with his lot, or with the universe, or with the hideous Infidels around him, who do not understand Islam and their proper role in the world according to Muhammad. No, we should also think of all those Muslims who approve of terrorism, who by their acts make the finding of terrorists more, rather than less difficult, who at every turn try to find excuses, try to keep blinders on the Infidels, try to keep them from beginning to grasp the doctrine, the ideology, of Islam, not least by encouraging easy pieties, easy formulations that do not correspond to the truth. These people, some of whom may offer financial, diplomatic, and above all “moral” support to those conducting Jihad directly through violence, themselves are Jihadists – people engaged in the Jihad or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam.
We can all name the obvious groups, with their worldwide reach or hoped-for scope, such as Al-Qaeda, or those other Jihadist groups, the ones that concentrate on a local, Lesser Jihad (as with the Jihads against Israel, or against India, or against the government, say, of the Philippines). But even within countries already dominated by Islam, such as the Sudan, the war against non-Muslims, to crush or eliminate them, or to so reduce them in size and power that they will have to accept being reduced to the status of dhimmis, continues, never stops.
So think of Osama Bin Laden, think of Ayman Al-Zawahiri, think of all those clever “engineers” of death in their service. Think of the Taliban, stomping women to death in stadiums, for the edification of the thousands of attendees. Think of Sheikh Fadlallah and his maddened Hezbollah bezonians. Think of those who run Hamas, or for that matter, think of those men of Fatah, outwardly more acceptable (because they are smoother men, who differ on tactics and timing with the Fast Jihadists of Hamas). Think of the people who run Lashkar-e-Toiba, or any of the other many Pakistani groups whom the government of Pakistan will not, can not, touch, and does not want, in any case, to touch, for tens of millions of Pakistanis support them, and among those supporters of such groups are many in the Pakistani military.
Think of those children’s shows that the “Palestinians” produce by the hundreds, the ones where tiny children are offered up for the emulation of other tiny children, wearing headbands and pretend suicide-vests and carrying tiny guns, and lisping how it is their fondest wish to “kill the Jews.” Think of all the pictures, all over Gaza and all over the “West Bank” and all over the Middle East, for that matter, that show the suicide bombers who attacked Israelis, or Americans, or British, or other Infidel troops. Think of the tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of videos, that show the last minutes, just before, and during, and after – with the severed head often triumphantly held aloft – of the decapitation, by Muslims spouting verses from the Qur’an, and monotonous music with similar verses often in the background, of helpless non-Muslim captives. Think of how these are not hidden, but used, used on the Internet, displayed proudly, as tools for recruiting other Muslims to the cause. There are Muslims who perform these acts, and Muslims who film them, and Muslims who watch these videos over and over again and find them simply splendid – and there are Muslims all over the world, all over the West, who watch those videos, though you don’t need to watch a single video to behave, for example, as Nidal Malik Hasan behaved. You need only have read, and taken deeply to heart, and not been of the cautious, prudential, more calculating sort, Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira.
Are they all “nuts”? Was the Ayatollah Khomeini, that learned theologian, “nuts” when he issued his own understanding of Islam? Remember?
You don’t?
Oh, here it is:
Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world…. 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! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to the enemy? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] verses and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”
Is that man, who ruled over 70 million Iranians, many of them wildly enthusiastic about him, and those who have followed him in continuing to mold Iran as he wished, are they all “nuts”? Or are they simply deep believers in Islam? Are they simply those who prefer to take their Islam straight, instead of on the rocks? They do not, like many Muslims living in the West, have to hide or otherwise slyly conceal their views, because they live among Muslims and need not worry overmuch about what non-Muslims might think, that might require more taqiyya than, in their all-Muslim societies, they feel is necessary.
And if you don’t think the comment above entitles the Ayatollah Khomeini to be declared or dismissed or explained away as “nuts,” then what do you think of this, also by the Ayatollah Khomeini?
A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine. [from Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990]
Or what about this:
If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned. [found in The Little Green Book, Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious, ISBN number 0-553-14032-9, page 47]
Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, Judge Khalkhali, President Ahmadinejad — are they all simply “nuts”?
What about the man in this television show? Watch him here.
Is he just “nuts”?
What about this man in the video you can see here?
Is he just “nuts”?
Here is something about women taken from several famous tafsirs (Qur’anic commentary):
Commenting on the Qur’anic verse Q. 30:21, which states “And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves, spouses, that you may repose in them” Razi said in At-Tafsir al-Kabir:
“His saying ‘created for you’ is a proof that women were created like animals and plants and other useful things, just as the Most High has said ‘He created for you what is on earth’ and that necessitates the woman not to be created for worship and carrying the Divine commands. We say creating the women is one of the graces bestowed upon us and charging them with Divine commands to complete the graces bestowed upon us, not that they are charged as we men are charged. For women are not charged with many commands as we are charged, because the woman is weak, silly, in one sense she is like a child, and no commands are laid upon a child, but for the grace of Allah upon us to be complete, women had to be charged so that they may fear the torment of punishment and so follow her husband, and keep away from what is forbidden, otherwise corruption would be rampant.”[15]
Another eminent Muslim thinker, Hadi Sabzevari, in his commentary on Sadr al-Mote’alihin wrote:
That Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi classifies women as animals is a delicate allusion to the fact that women, due to the deficiency in their intelligence and understanding of intricacies, and due to their fondness of the adornments of the world, are truly and justly among the mute animals [al-haywanti al-sa^mita]. They have the nature of beasts [ad-dawwa^b], but they have been given the disguise of human beings so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them. That is why our immaculate Law [shar’ina al-mutahhar] takes men’s side and gives them superiority in most matters, including divorce, “nushuz,” etc. (Quoted in Soroush, Abdolkarim, _Farbehtar az ideoloji_, Serat, Tehran, 1373 A.H.S.). [A.H.S. = After the Hegira]
What do you think? Do you think that someone who says that women “have the nature of beasts” and “have been given the disguise of human beings so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them” is someone who must be “nuts”?
What about this man? Is he just “nuts”? He sounds quite rational. You judge for yourself: by watching his speculations on 9/11/2001 here.
Is this Egyptian, a former advisor to UNESCO, simply “nuts” because of what he says so calmly here?
What about this Saudi here?
And this cleric here?
Was it “nuts” back in November 1979, when one group of Muslims seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, for Pakistani Muslim mobs to attack the American Embassy and other institutions, because of course “Infidels” (i.e., Americans) must have been behind it? Was it “nuts” for the world’s Muslims to break relations with Denmark, and for Muslims who had been living in, given refuge by, Denmark to go around the world whipping up, among Muslims, a campaign against Denmark and Danes, including death threats to all Danes, and attacks on Danish institutions, a campaign that included fake cartoons created by the Muslims themselves, because some cartoons were published of Muhammad?
And what about Muhammad himself? If you have read, and re-read, and re-read, and thoroughly assimilated the Qur’an, the (“authentic”) Hadith, and the Sira, what do you make of Muhammad? And what do you make of those who take him to be, and for all time, and in every way, the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil? Would you simply dismiss all of these people, in mcauliffian style, as “nuts”?
All, all of them, simply “nuts”? None of them affected by the main, practically the only thing of importance in their lives, that Total Belief-System, in societies suffused with Islam, and where non-Muslims either do not exist or do not dare to draw any attention to their own beliefs or desires, for fear of the consequences, that is — Islam? No, it can’t be Islam, can’t it?
That just won’t do.
So they must be….”nuts.”
Comments are closed.
