I am going to tell you something that no political leader will admit to in public, no news media outlet will acknowledge, and the overwhelming majority of ordinary, non-Muslim citizens around the world do not believe.
There is no "War on Terror". “What?—Just a minute!” you say. “What about the thousands who have been killed and the billions spent; if that's not a 'War on Terror' what is it?”
I will tell you what it is—it is a sham. It is a term used by politicians to cloak their actions against those people and organizations that have done us harm, and who will certainly do so again. The news media is too gullible, ignorant, politically correct, liberally biased, and worried about their bottom line to tell you the truth.
Before you get your knickers all twisted in a knot, let me you tell you truth. Let me tell you what is really going on. This is going to take some time, so settle in and be prepared to read a lot and think more than you may normally do.
Terror is only a tool. One of the definitions of terror is, “intense or overwhelming fear.” I know of no “war” that has been fought against a tool. Wars are fought for the supremacy of one country or group over another. War is a fight both for physical survival and survival of a way of life, customs, and beliefs.
What we have is not a “War on Terror” but World War III. It makes not one bit of difference whether you believe this of not. The Muslim world knows it, supports it, and is confident of winning this war. You, if you are not a Muslim, are targeted for death for no other reason than that you are an infidel (def: somebody who has no belief in the religion of the speaker or writer, especially Islam).
Americans, and for the most part, other Western democracies, with their traditions of religious tolerance, view Islam simply as a religion. Politicians and the news media go to great lengths to tell you that most Muslims are not terrorists. Right, and most Germans weren't Nazis either. That didn't stop them from worshipping Hitler and taking great pride in his conquest of other countries. Where is the public outrage from prominent Muslim clerics and public marches from the Muslim public denouncing the practices of what politicians and the news media call Islamic Extremists?
Having a problem with my ideas? Think I'm engaging in fear mongering? Think I don't understand the issue, as you believe it to be? How about a few examples from some prominent Muslims. Bear in mind these Muslims are not some nut-burgers you can dismiss by saying they don't represent all Muslims. You would only be right in that assumption to a small degree. They don't represent all Muslims, but they do represent the majority. They echo the beliefs and aspirations of that majority.
• Hamas leader Ahmad Yassin justifies the jihad against the U.S. in Muslim and Arab countries on the basis of Islamic law. Jihad against America is a positive commandment in every respect and is the realization of “the right of self-defense against” “the Crusaders' war” and the terrorist war waged by the United States against the nation of Islam in Afghanistan and against the Islamic jihad movements in the world. Yassin emphasized that jihad has a defined goal, which is to “bring Islam to a dominant global position and release it from the hegemony of America and its Zionist allies.”
• Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Qatari-based spiritual authority for the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood, issued an Islamic ruling that, despite the pessimism among Muslims, Islam will definitely prevail and eventually become master of the entire world. One of the signs of Islamic victory will be the conquest of the Italian capital, Rome, by the Muslims. Occupying Europe and defeating Christianity will become possible, according to al-Qaradawi, with the spread of Islam inside Europe until it becomes strong enough to take over the whole continent.
• Many Muslim scholars consider the state of confrontation with the West not as something predestined from God, which Muslims have to endure until salvation, but as an opportunity to promote Islamic awareness and to release themselves from Western dominance and values. The command of jihad applies not only to Muslims on the confrontation lines in the Muslim and Arab worlds, but to all Muslims living in the areas of the enemy as well. Abd al-Aziz al-Jarbou', a Saudi scholar, has ruled that the current state of relations between Islam and the West is to be expressed as one of total war against the infidels. America, according his viewpoint, is not a regime with which Islam can maintain normal relations until Islam becomes strong enough to launch a jihad against it.
• Another Saudi scholar, Salman bin Fahed al-'Auda, in his book “The End of History”, asserts that the solution to Islamic distress that may bring about the fall of America and the Western world “exists in one word which is Jihad.” Appealing to Muslims throughout the world, he wrote: “We should not simplify this issue and narrow its meaning to a restricted military battle in one of the Islamic regions or even to an all-out war against the West, which is possible and predicted and we assume is arriving." He continues: "Life as a whole is a battlefield. The weapons are not only the rifle, the bullet, the airplane, the tank, and the cannon. Not at all! Thinking is a weapon, the economy is a weapon, money is a weapon, water is a weapon, planning is a weapon, unity is a weapon, and so there are many types of weapons.” During the 1990s, he was regarded as the most influential preacher in Saudi Arabia.
• In April 2002, Sheikh Hamed al-Ali, a lecturer on Islamic culture in Kuwait and one of the leaders of the radical Salafi stream, clarified in a religious ruling the circumstances in which it is permitted to kill civilians in the cause of jihad without violating the Prophet Muhammad's command prohibiting the murder of women and children.
• Sheikh Suliman bin Nasser al-Ulwan, a Saudi scholar, issued a ruling on May 18, 2001, which defined the suicide attacks against the “exploitive Jews” in “Palestine” and against the “aggressive Christians” in Chechnya as “acts of self-sacrifice according to the way of Allah, and are therefore legitimate means of warfare from a religious perspective.”
• Sheikh al-Ulwan argued that it is not prohibited to kill children as a consequence of suicide actions if the perpetrator of such an action had no premeditative intent to kill them. Nevertheless, al-Ulwan includes “all the Jews in Palestine” in his definition of “combatants,” adding that, “If jihad fighters are not able to kill combatants [only] without [also] killing children [who are with them], there is no problem in such cases if they [the children] are killed.”
• Muhammad Saleh al-Munajjid in a fatwa issued in April 2003: "The Jews distorted the religion of Allah...murdered the prophets and denied the existence of Allah; they are intriguers, frauds, and traitors...bringing corruption to Muslim communities...set fire to the Al-Aqsa Mosque...desecrated the Quran...committed massacres; so how is it possible for Muslims not to rejoice at murdering the infidel, thieving Jews? Moreover, Allah will satisfy his believers by destroying and exterminating them all. This is our right as Muslims as was promised by our Prophet.
• One of al-Qaeda's leaders, identified by his nickname, Abu Ayman al-Hilali, in an article published in the periodical Al-Ansar, justified killing Western civilians for the following reasons:
(1) The citizens in democratic Western countries become full participants in governmental decision-making by voting in elections and therefore they are no longer considered "non-combatants".
(2) The citizens in Western countries are full participants in the war their governments are waging against Islam. Their designation by al-Qaeda as "targets" was a reaction to the aggressive policies of their governments. Al-Hilali asserted that even those in the West who oppose their governments' policies have no immunity from al-Qaeda's jihad since they are a small minority without real influence and cannot be distinguished during the commission of attacks.
• Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, leader of the Bayat al-Imam extremist group takes a further step in his book "Democracy is a Religion" They become "combatants" and infidels and lose their status of ahl al-dhimma not only because of their participation in elections, but as a result of their endorsement of democracy and its values. For al-Maqdisi, democracy is a prohibited innovation that contradicts Islamic values and embodies a new heretical religion. Its followers are "infidels" and "polytheists," even if they consider themselves as Jews or Christians by religion. Al-Maqdisi based his claim on the following arguments:
(1) "Democracy gives legitimacy to the legislation of the masses or to the despotic regime. It is not [the expression of] the rule of Allah.... Allah ordered his Prophet to execute the commands given to him and forbade him to follow the emotions of the nation, the masses, and the people."
(2) "Democracy is the rule of the masses or the rule of paganism, which is conducted according to a constitution [written by humans] and not according Allah's laws.... It [democracy] has become the mother of laws and is considered [by the masses] as a holy book. The religion of democracy has no relation to Quranic verses or the Prophet's way of life and it is not possible to legislate according to them unless they are compatible with the holy book [the constitution]."
(3) "Democracy is an outcome of despicable secularism and its illegitimate daughter, since secularism is a heretical school striving to separate religion from state and government."
(4) "Democracy is a religion that is not Allah's religion.... It is the rule of paganism...it is a religion which includes other gods in its belief...the people represented in the religion of democracy by its delegates in the parliament...who are actually standing idols and false gods placed in their chapels and their pagan fortresses, namely, their legislative councils. They and their followers rule according to the religion of democracy and the constitution's laws upon which the government is based, and according to the paragraphs of their legislation.... Their master is their God, their big idols who approve or reject legislation. He is their emir, their king, or their president."
• Islamic scholars rely in their rulings on the principle of retaliation while justifying indiscriminate mass murder of Christians. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, listed the crimes of the U.S. against the Arab and Muslim world. He argued that the U.S. is responsible directly and indirectly, in its long-lasting war on Islam, for the death of four million Muslims, including 1.2 million Iraqis, 260,000 Palestinians (as a result of its support for Israel), 12,000 Afghans and Arab fighters, 13,000 Somalis, and millions more throughout the world. From his perspective, al-Qaeda's attacks in Washington and New York in September 2001 are not enough to balance the equation of killing. Basing his claims on the Islamic principle of retaliation, Abu Ghaith argues that Muslims have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, to displace eight million Americans, and to cripple hundreds of thousands more. Moreover, Abu Ghaith asserts that Muslims are religiously entitled to use chemical and biological weapons in their war against the U.S.
• Nasser bin Hamed al-Fahd, another prominent Saudi Salafi scholar, in an Islamic ruling published in May 2003, approved the use of weapons of mass destruction against America. He also based his indictment on the principle of retaliation, but argued that Muslims have the right to kill ten million Americans in response to the crimes of their government against the Muslim nation. Al-Fahd also said that if military leaders decided to use weapons of mass destruction based on military need, it would be an obligation under Islamic law.
• A senior al-Qaeda operative named Saif al-Din al-Ansari argued in his book "The September 11th Attack" that the killing of thousands of civilians in the suicide attacks did not go beyond the "special circumstances" in which Muslims are religiously permitted to kill infidel civilians. Saudi Islamic scholars have also expressed support for this position:
(1) Hamud bin Uqla al-Shuaibi referred to the September attacks in his Islamic ruling as follows: "Any decisions taken by the American infidel state, particularly those dealing with war and other critical decisions, are taken based upon public opinion surveys or representatives' voting in their infidel legislatures. These legislatures represent primarily the people's opinion.... Therefore, any American citizen who voted for the war is considered a combatant or at least an accessory [to the war]."
(2) The Saudi Sheikh Ali al-Khudier wrote in another Islamic ruling: "We should not regret the deaths of civilians in the Twin Towers attack since the American is an infidel because of his connection to his government. He fights for it, supports it with money, opinions or advice, and this is the type of their political regime. Therefore, they deserved what they experienced, since their fighting, support, and opinions deserve punishment."
(3) Al-Qaeda has adopted a broader interpretation of the religious command concerning the killing of infidels. It is considered an absolute command. Saif al-Din al-Ansari, in an article in al-Qaeda's official periodical, presented the new, comprehensive concept of total extermination of Islam's enemies based on the Quranic verse: "And that He may purge those who believe and deprive the unbelievers of blessings" (Al-Imran, 142). According to al-Ansari, this is the way Allah deals with infidels, who are doomed throughout history to total extermination through various types of death, as was the fate of the people of Noah, Hod, Saleh, Lot, Midian, and Pharaoh. Al-Ansari asserters that the extermination of infidels is a permanent Islamic law and unchangeable fate for infidels that is as relevant today as it was in past generations. According to al-Ansari, "Just as the law of extermination was applied to the infidel forces among the nations in previous days and no one could escape it, so it will be applied to the infidel forces in our day and no one will escape it. Namely, similar to the fate of the Thamoud and 'Ad peoples [two pagan Arab peoples which, according to Islamic tradition, were exterminated due to their rejection of the words of the Prophet], so the American state, the Jewish state, and all other infidel countries will certainly be destroyed."
And there you have it. A representative sampling of what is really being said and believed by a majority of Muslims. Unfortunately, there are Americans who agree with many of these same beliefs. Consider Colorado Professor Ward Churchill's remarks. He called the traders and other businesspeople who worked at the World Trade Center in New York “Eichmanns”—a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate Europe's Jews. He believes American foreign policy and the spread of capitalism around the world for U.S. profit are acts of genocide against Iraqi civilians and others in the same way as the Nazi movement was against the Jews during World War II. Churchill said, “As to those in the World Trade Center ... true enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire.”
And let us not forget Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin who compared American military personnel to Nazis in their treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
And if you are one of the thousands who blame the United States, despite all the evidence listed above, for every bombing these religious wackos carry out, all I can say is, “Up Yours!” Are you listening Ken Livingstone [mayor of London, England]? This is the same mayor who has repeatedly called President George W. Bush, “the greatest threat to life on this planet.” and has supported Muslim scholar Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi [see 2nd bulleted item above for some of al-Qaradawi's comments]. All this sucking up and ass-kissing didn't help. London was bombed anyway. If ever there was a case to be made for terminal stupidity, the mayor would be exhibit #1. His stupidity is indeed terminal—there is no known cure.
Finally, a great big loud Bronx cheer to all those that say the United States should set a definite withdrawal date from Iraq. They want us to tell those committed to our destruction that we will fight up to a certain date and not one day more. Curiously, they don't want our enemies to set any dates for their withdrawal [see preceeding paragraph for example of “terminal stupidity”].
I rest my case. Unless you are a Muslim you are an infidel. As such, you are marked for destruction. The fact that you are tolerant of other's religious beliefs and their freedom of expression is itself justification for destroying you, your children, and your country. Just thought you would like to know what's in store for you. But remember, all Muslims aren't bad and all Germans weren't Nazis. They only supported their leaders and took pride in their achievements.