 The Washington Post shows the slides shown by the Fort Hood jihadist before he acted on his beliefs: Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist believed to have killed 13 people at Fort Hood, was supposed to discuss a medical topic during a presentation to senior Army doctors in June 2007.
Instead, he lectured on Islam, suicide bombers and threats the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries. Go through those slides here. Mark Durie, a priest and scholar, describes what Hasan said: He is saying that Muslims can experience problems in the military for two reasons. One reason is the prohibition against Muslims killing other Muslims (’whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell’ – slide 12). The other is the requirement that Muslims wage war against non-believers in both defensive jihad (slides 37-41) and aggressive jihad (slides 42-48).
This command, he is saying, can be expected to be followed by devout, God-fearing Muslims (’Allah expects full loyalty’ – slide 49), especially if they are persuaded that in so-doing they would be ‘fighting against the injustices of the “infidels,”’ (slide 48).
His point is that if US Muslim soldiers can be persuaded that fighting against fellow-Muslims is an injustice, this could trigger a deadly attack against fellow US soldiers instead, e.g. by means of ‘suicide bombing, etc’ (’We love death more than you love life!’ – slide 48). The Major was explaining that when Muslims in the military are ordered to fight against other Muslims (such as in Iraq or Afghanistan) this can trigger their religious convictions to such effect that they will seek to be discharged from their combat duties.
Otherwise they could feel compelled to attempt to kill fellow US soldiers in a personal jihad. Major Hasan refers to this possibility as ‘adverse events’.
He cites the case of convert to Islam and US soldier Hasan Akbar (slide 13), who killed two US officers in a grenade attack during the Gulf War, and had written prior to the attack: ‘I may not have killed any Muslims, but being in the Army is the same thing. I may have to make a choice very soon on who to kill.’ Hasan warned that Muslims soldiers could not be trusted to fight a Muslim enemy, and could turn their guns on their countrymen instead. He then did just that himself.
Question: why did the army not remove this man from his post? And how can anyone still doubt the role of Islam in this massacre? Source: Andrew Bolt H/T: gramfan 
 More than a year after he was forced to disown his Chicago pastor, President Obama has begun to attend services led by a Christian chaplain who views Islam as a violent faith. Mr Obama has been an irregular church attender since becoming President, but has expressed a fondness for Carey Cash, the navy chaplain at the Camp David presidential retreat who has been criticised for proselytising in the military and his mistrust of Islam. The White House insists that the Rev Cash, the great-nephew of the singer Johnny Cash, has not become Mr Obama’s new pastor, but it appears that the President has heard more sermons by him than any other minister since taking office. The emergence of Mr Cash, 39, who was profiled on the front page of The Washington Post yesterday, will pose some tough questions for the White House — and for President Obama, whose father was Muslim. In a 2004 book describing his deployment to Iraq the year before, Mr Cash calls Islam violent, a faith that “from its very birth has used the edge of the sword as a means to convert or conquer those with different religious convictions”. He added: “Sadly, grace is often absent in Islam, which is based upon binding religious law, requiring strenuous adherence to every tenet of the ‘Five Pillars of Allah’. “A religion that emerges from the soil of strict adherence to law as a means of gaining God’s favour will always tend toward extreme selfsacrifice.” Since Mr Obama, who opposed the war in Iraq, disowned the Rev Jeremiah Wright for his incendiary sermons during the presidential campaign last year, he has been hesitant about choosing a new pastor and has declined to pick a church to attend regularly. He likes Mr Cash and the Evergreen Chapel at Camp David, which is 70 miles (113km) from Washington and closed to the public and press. He told reporters this summer that Mr Cash “delivers as powerful a sermon as I’ve heard in a while. I really think he’s excellent”. According to the report in The Washington Post, the White House has instructed Mr Cash and his family not to talk to the newspaper. Mr Cash has been criticised by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a watchdog that monitors proselytising in the military, for his work with Campus Crusade for Christ’s Military Ministry. According to the watchdog, the group’s goal is to transform the US military into a force of “government-paid missionaries for Christ”. Source: Times Online
 By Robert Spencer In his “The Faith Divide” blog at the Washington Post’s website, Eboo Patel took umbrage Monday at two recent reviews in the New York Times Book Review charging “Dishonesty About Islam in the NYT Book Review.” Patel was angry at favorable reviews of what he called “Bruce Bawer’s alarmist book Surrender” (about which he huffed, “the subtitle says it all: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom”) and Christopher Caldwell’s Reflections on the Revolution in Europe (which was reviewed by Fouad Ajami). Yet while making the improbable claim that the New York Times printed material that was dishonest and negative about Islam, Patel showed himself to be not a little disingenuous – suggesting that before he call these reviewers on their alleged dishonesty, he should look to his own. “Ajami,” complains Patel, “opens his piece by juxtaposing two disparate pieces of history: the departure of Spain’s last Muslim ruler in 1492, and the terrorist attacks on Madrid in 2004. ‘A circle was closed,’ Ajami writes, ‘and Islam was, once again, a matter of Western Europe.’” What is wrong with this? “The Muslim presence in medieval Spain,” asserts Patel, “is widely regarded as a time of tolerance, good government and support for the arts and education. In fact, Ajami himself wrote a positive review of one of the many books on that era, Maria Rosa Menocal’s The Ornament of the World. Placing Al-Andalus, as it was known, in the same breath as a ghastly terrorist attack - as if to say ‘Here’s what happens when Muslims are around’ - is beyond questionable. A dead fish wouldn’t want to be wrapped in a newspaper article with that level of intellectual dishonesty.” Read more ...Source: FPMEboo Patel
Latest recipients of the Yellow Rag Award
 By Steven Emerson Former President Jimmy Carter's Middle East trip has generated a fair amount of scorn because of his direct meetings and open embrace, both literal and figurative, of the terrorist group Hamas. Carter argues that peace between Israel and Palestinians cannot be reached without talking to the terrorists. It is not a widely shared view. "The United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help" peace efforts, said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Even the Washington Post ridiculed Carter in an editorial April 17: Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. Read more ...Source: IPT News
Feisal Abdul Rauf: Archbishop of Canterbury Was RightThe recent and controversial call by Dr. Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, primate of the Church of England and spiritual leader of 80 million Anglicans, for incorporation of Sharia law into British law will not be the last utterance in favor of Islamic law. Nor should it be. The addition of Sharia law to "the law of the land", in this case British law, complements, rather than undermines, existing legal frameworks. The Archbishop was right. It is time for Britain to integrate aspects of Islamic law. Read more ...Source: Newsweek / Washington PostNewsweek / Washington Post
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 Feisal Abdul Rauf
Latest recipient of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
 Muslims Against Sharia are amazed at the depth of Newsweek / Washington Post's stupidity for allowing Islamofascist propaganda on its site.
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
The Washington Post shows the slides shown by the Fort Hood jihadist before he acted on his beliefs: 
Posts
