Monday, July 11, 2005

New York Times Submits To The Jizya

Belgravia Dispatch notes that the NYT ran a "news" article, written by Alan Cowell, regarding the bombings in London, which asserted the following:

Now, as long predicted and feared, his support of the war appears to have cost British lives at home.

There are some profound assumptions which go into making such a statement. At the very least, isn't there a bit of a question as to whether the Islamists would stop attacking us, if we pulled out of Iraq? Well, yes, of course there is, but the NYT feels comfortable assuming that there is not.

Belgravia Dispatch suggests that maybe Cowell would do well to read Al Qaeda's own statement about the attack:

Community of Islam: rejoice at the good news! Community of Arabism: rejoice at the good news! The time of revenge has come for the crusader, Zionist British government.

In response to the massacres that Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan, the heroic holy warriors have undertaken a blessed raid (ghazwah)in London. We continue to warn both the governments of Denmark and of Italy and all the crusader governments that they shall partake of the same retribution if they do not withdraw their forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The question then becomes, was it also wrong for us to unseat the Taliban government of Afghanistan? It would seem that there should be no argument there, but in case there is, let's just remember that the Taliban:

1) allowed Al Qaeda to maintain training camps in Afghanistan, where jihad warriors were trained in terrorist methods aimed at Western nations.

2) harbored Osama Bin Laden in the years during which he planned 9/11, and refused to give him up after the link was established proving that he was the mastermind of those attacks.

3) Instituted a fascist society governed by Sharia law, where women were burkha-shrouded slaves, non-Muslims were not allowed to live freely, and homosexuals and adulterers were publicly stoned to death.

It's hard to see how anyone could justify not making war against such a tyranny.

Belgravia Dispatch comments:

... it is irresponsible of Cowell to feed Blair's many vociferous Iraq critics by suggesting--but for that ill-fated Iraq adventure--all would have gone swimmingly on the Tube yesterday. Cowell couldn't quite come out and say the "Iraq war" in the sentence in question because he is aware of the inconsistency between his analysis and even the statement issued by the perpetrators themseleves (with the prominent dual mentions of Afghanistan).

So he cleverly engages in semantic games by saying that Blair's "adopting the stance he took after the Sept. 11 attacks" was to blame for putting London in the line of attack. If he had left it at that, that might have been a fairer statement--though jihadist terror, most notably in New York City on 9/11 of course--occurred pre-Afghanistan and pre-Iraq, as we are all so painfully aware.

It is important to note for instance that planning for the Madrid bombings of March 11, 2004 began sometime around September of 2001. In other words, well before the Iraq War:

Some people who have closely followed the investigations suggest that the bombings were not specifically timed for the election.

In other intercepted telephone conversations reported by El Mundo and broadly confirmed by Spanish authorities as accurate, Ahmed was overheard saying the planning for the March 11 attacks took 2 1/2 years.

The Iraq War is clearly not the primary motivating force in the worldwide Jihad movment. Instead, the war is just one more thing upon which the Islamofascists project their anger at not being able to humiliate all us infidels into subjugation.

It is important to understand that the fascistic Islam of the terrorists is an Honor/Shame Culture. In such a culture one is either the humiliated and subdued, or has humiliated and subdued the other.

For instance, it is not quite accurate to say that the Islamofascists want to kill all infidels. That's not true. They will live with us, as long as we are humiliated and subdued. The law code of Sharia calls for the levying of the Jizya tax upon the Dhimmi (the humiliated):

Fight those who believe not
In God nor the Last Day
Nor hold that forbidden
Which hath been forbidden
By God and His Apostle,
Nor acknowledge the ReligionOf Truth, (even if they are)
Of the People of the Book,
Until they pay the Jizya
With willing submission,
And feel themselves subdued.
---Koran Sura 9:29

Mohammed Asghar, of Faith Freedom International says of the Jizya:

Jizya literally means penalty. Its payment protected the non-Muslims who lived under Islamic regimes. It also confirmed their legal status. Those who could not pay this tax were required to convert to Islam. Refusal to convert meant certain death.

Apart from penalizing the Dhimmis for living in a Muslim state, Muslims used the Jizya tax system not only to humiliate them, but also to force them to submit themselves to their superior authority. The Dhimmis tolerated the Muslims and lived under their atrocious rule due to their own weaknesses and shortcomings.

Believing that the Dhimmis were destined to suffer at the hands of their foreign masters, the later day Muslim rulers took other steps to humiliate them more effectively. In 853, Caliph al-Mutawakkil forbade Dhimmis from riding horses; they were to stick to donkeys and mules. Jews living in the 14th century Egypt had to wear a yellow turban and the Christians a blue one to publicly demonstrate their religious preferences.

So, no they don't want to kill us all. They just want us to be subdued and humiliated, kind of like the New York Times is when they lie for the Islamofascists about the real reasons for terrorism.

See how that works?