Todayz Newz

In an article in the December 5, 2009 issue of World Magazine, author Lynn Vincent hits the nail on the head: U.S. analysts, constrained by politics, are loath to conclude and publicize what the facts already show: that jihadist Muslims who state that they kill non-Muslims because their religious ideology demands it are in fact doing so. They have successfully infiltrated the United States from foreign countries, have won and radicalized Muslim converts among U.S. citizens, and—if the uptick in busted plots is any indication—are planning violence at an increasing rate.”

The article mentions five separate “lone wolf” incidents of Islamist-style jihadist attacks that were discovered this year and halted in time, before anyone actually lost their lives. Then, almost as if it was an oversight, one slipped through the cracks: Major Nidal Malik Hasan opened fire at Fort Hood, Texas, in what some are calling the worst case since 9-11 of domestic terrorism. But our government and military leaders are not so quick to draw such a conclusion.

It is only through continuing willful ignorance that we will see more and more of these acts perpetrated on our soil. Until our leaders recognize these events for what they are, they will be unable to form a strategy to counter them.

Major Nadal Malik Hasan

None dare call what happened in Texas by its real name: Sudden Jihad Syndrome.

by Ebrahim Ashabi

Islamist Perfidy and Western Naivety
Which Is More Lethal?

by Raymond Ibrahim
Pajamas Media
November 9, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2496/islamist-perfidy-western-naivety

In a blog entry for Islamist Watch, David J. Rusin shows how the word “jihad” continues to be euphemized in the West. Despite Islamic law’s unequivocal portrayal of it as a military endeavor to empower Islam, jihad is still being peddled as “nothing more than a student laboring to pass algebra, a mom driving her kids to soccer practice, or, in the words of the Cambridge study, a civic-minded person engaged in ‘lobbying, activism, and writing’ — a community organizer of sorts.” Rusin concludes by observing: “Why Islamists peddle such specious definitions should be clear. More baffling and disturbing is why they gain traction among so many Westerners.”

Indeed, therein lies the irony: Islamist perfidy is only to be expected; Western naivety, on the other hand, which, if anything, should have begun to dissipate in our post-9/11 world, has burgeoned to the point of nearly making the former unnecessary. For while there is no doubt that Islamists (and their misguided Western cronies) distort the meaning of jihad, increasingly, even when the true meaning is in plain sight, America’s leaders and media still fail to discern it. In other words, apathy — or willful blindness — regarding jihad has become so deep-seated in the West that Islamists need no longer actively dissemble.

Consider: When President Barack Hussein Obama addressed the Islamic world from Cairo on June 4, 2009, he said: “As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth’ [Sura 9:119]. That is what I will try to do — to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us.” Let us for the moment put aside the fact that Sura 9, from whence Obama quotes, contains the most violent and intolerant exhortations in all the Koran (which is saying something). The problem here is that the original Arabic text of Sura 9:119 says absolutely nothing about “speaking the truth.” The word “speaking” is nowhere in the text, and “truth,” as an abstract, is a wrong translation for sadiqin, which refers to people. The verse most literally translates as “fear Allah and be with the truthful.” In other words, Muslims should stand firm with fellow Muslims (”truthful” serving as a Koranic epithet for “Muslims” the same way “believers” often does). It is, as ever, a call for divisiveness — of Muslims (the “truthful”) versus infidels (the “false”).

Last evening I got into a bit of a discussion on Facebook with someone who had a mutual friend with me. He was decrying all the ‘right-wingers’ who were attempting to label the shooting at Ft. Hood as an act of jihad perpetrated by a lone gunman. His position was that it was not jihad at all; it was just the random act of a madman with a gun, and none of this would have happened if guns were outlawed. And his position is not alone. I have heard this and a number of other theories put forth as to what drove Maj. Nadal Malik Hasan to do what he did. To me, they all seem to miss the obvious, and likely out of political correctness, or out of fear of being labeled a bigot or an Islamophobe (whatever that is).

Let’s look at the facts as we know them to be at this point in time:

• Hasan had attempted to contact al-Qaeda operatives
• Hasan posted anti-American slogans on a blog
• Hasan spoke openly against the war in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Hasan told fellow soldiers Muslims should not be fighting against other Muslims
• Hasan was disciplined for proselytizing patients in Islam
• At a meeting with senior Army staff more than a year ago, Hasan warned of “adverse events” if the military did not allow Muslims to opt out of assignment to Muslim nations as conscientious objectors.
• The morning of the shooting, Hasan sold and gave away all his personal possessions, in addition to passing out copies of the Qur’an
• According to eyewitnesses he shouted the words “Allahu Akhbar” just before opening fire

I am confident the ongoing investigation will reveal even more facts and details. But what is clear so far is that this was not a simple random act of violence perpetrated by a madman with a gun. This was clearly an act of jihad, albeit by one lone man, attempting to right the wrongs that have been committed against ‘Muslim brothers’ by the United States armed forces. Hasan clearly intended to die the day of the shooting. It appears he was unsuccessful.

How much longer must we endure the politically correct atmosphere in our government and our major media outlets? How many more acts of mass violence against Americans by radical Muslims must we endure before we recognize the enemy and call it by name: Radical Islam?