What holy war? 1

The  Obama administration has cut the money New York gets for defending the city against terrorist attacks.

Obama refuses to admit that Islam is waging war against America, so it’s unlikely that the recent attempt by a Muslim terrorist to explode a massive car bomb in Times Square will get the lost funds restored.

But the jihad will not only continue, it will intensify.

On the meaning of “jihad”, here’s an extract from an article by Cliff May in the National Review Online:

Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss-born academic — he holds the His Highness Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani Chair in Contemporary Islamic Studies at Oxford (no kidding) — last week told the Washington Post that jihad “has nothing to do with holy war. . . . Where you are trying to resist bad temptations and reform yourself with good aspirations that you have, this is a jihad of the self.”

What makes this lie so brazen — though the Post did not think to question it — is that Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, who in 1928 founded the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Banna himself stated clearly that the Qur’an and other Islamic doctrines “summon people . . . to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting.”

In addition: The Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood is Hamas. Among Hamas’s founders was Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, who also was Osama bin Laden’s mentor. As Andy McCarthy relates in Willful Blindness, Azzam “galvanized Muslims worldwide with his call to jihad — traditional, unreservedly violent jihad.” In a speech in Oklahoma City in 1988, Azzam instructed fellow Muslims: “The jihad, the fighting, is obligatory on you whenever you can perform it. And just as when you are in America you must fast . . . so, too, must you wage jihad. The word jihad means fighting only, fighting with the sword.”

And fighting with car bombs, and plastic explosives in one’s underwear, and FN Five-seven semi-automatic pistols and .357 magnums (used to slaughter American soldiers at Fort Hood), and hijacked passenger planes, and maybe, before long, with nuclear weapons as well.

None of this should be surprising. What is: the obstinate naïveté, the determined ignorance, the continuing willful blindness of so many of our political and media leaders in the face of the 21st century’s most daunting challenge and most deadly threat.

Or could it possibly be that some of “our political and media leaders”, including the President, are in sympathy with the aims of the jihad?

We think it’s not only possible but probable.

But of course it’s unthinkable that they – or he – could be in sympathy with the method of terrorism that is being used to attain those aims.

Isn’t it?

  • NoCountryForYoungMen

    How do you register your disapproval? That's right you get one vote every 4 years on the federal government. That one vote then has a different value depending on the sate you live in. Then there are only 2 choices: democrat or republican and both parties could be split into 2 based on the different ideologies the so called 'wings' support for a total of at least 4 US federal parties.

    Then there is the debate as to whether it is better not to vote or to vote libertarian. I think democracy in the US at least has become a big charade. The only choice is between 'Christian' Oligarchic Plutocracy and Oligarchic State bureaucracy – this isn't really a choice at all because the same people still hold all the cards no matter who is in power. The special interest groups especially wall street – are running Washington.

    This might be a bit late, but about the health care legislation… why couldn't this be left up to individual states? One of the strengths of federations is the possibility of political experimentation and variety, I see no reason why the 'blue states' would have to force the 'red states' to follow their domestic agenda.