Qur'an Burning; Idiot's Attitude: Respect for Islam

Qur'an Burning; Idiot's Attitude: Respect for Islam The video has disappeared from the AP article at Yahoo News. It is still available at the N.Y. Times.  48 seconds into the video, general John Allen , Cmdr of Nato forces:

"I assure you, I promise you, this was not intentional in any way and I offer my sincere apology for any offense this may have caused."

    The article quotes the White House spokesman thusly.

Press secretary Jay Carney says it was a "deeply unfortunate incident" that does not reflect the respect the U.S. military has for the religious practices of the Afghans.

I highlighted one clause that appears in other articles, but not within quotes. I do not know whether Carney uttered or implied the sentiment expressed in the highlighted clause. 

    From Reliefweb, we learn of a U.N. statement expressing the same "respect", describing remarks by SRSG Kubiš.

He stressed that the United Nations deeply respects the Islamic faith, traditions and culture of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

    From CBSNEWS we learn that a military source said that the Qur'ans were removed from the prison library because they "contained extremist messages or inscriptions".  The implication is that prisoners had made marginal notes. Exactly what was in those notes? Were they operational or motivational messages? 

        How would operational notes get out of the prison to those who would implement them?  What is the difference between motivational messages and the Qur'an, which exhorts Muslims to conquer the world?  If we don't want them to have access to incitement to violence, then they should not have been given access to Qur'ans, hadith, tafsir  & jurisprudence or the writings of Maududi, Qutb, Al-Banna or Azam.   Is there any limit to the stupidity & hypocrisy of our traitors?

    Yeah, General, Taliban are sure to believe that Qur'ans were collected, removed and sent to the garbage pile purely by accident, without intent to destroy them.  We did not want the prisoners to use them, the books are not in our language, and we did not want the marginal notes to get out, so we disposed of the, permanently.  You placed yourself in a bad position: you are either incompetent or a liar.  Which is it, or  are you both? 

    Removing the Qur'ans is not your error. Burning them is not your mistake. Doing it in public, within  sight of the enemy is a fatal mistake which has led to a dozen deaths and will probably cause more death and suffering.  Next time, incinerate the crap privately, in a proper facility and don't advertise it. 

    Do any of those involved, including the White House, Department of Defense, Department of State and United Nations comprehend the plain meaning of words?  They said that they "respect Islam".   Three classes of people "respect Islam": ignoramuses, damned fools and Muslims. Unfortunately, those classes are not mutually exclusive. 

    If you can respect a mercenary war cult whose doctrines sanctify genocidal conquest, terrorism & slavery, then you have a terrible mental or moral defect sufficient to warrant your removal from the gene pool of the human race and from high office. 

    Islam is not incidental to the Accursed Abomination and its aftermath; it is the central issue.  Allah's damnable imperatives, promises and threats which motivated the Magnificent Nineteen to slaughter 3000 innocent people, are at the core of the problem.  It is not possible to remove and permanently exclude  Afghanistan from membership in the set of terror sponsoring states without first removing Islam; Allah's yoke of slavery from the souls and necks of the people of Afghanistan and their regime.  So long as they remain Muslim, all the blood and treasure we have expended there are wasted, sacrificed to the demon of political correctness. 

    Brigadier General S.K. Malik gave us the key to victory in page sixty of "The Quran'ic Concept of War" but our leaders are traitors, unwilling to seize the key, insert it in the lock and turn it.  Pay particular attention to the sentences I have emphasized in this crucial quote.

Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
 cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent's
Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
produced by a physical act but this does not hold good of the
spiritual dislocation. To instill terror into the hearts of the enemy, 
it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Qur'an has
the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy.

    If we do not destroy Islam, nuking Afghanistan & Pakistan is our only hope of victory: there will be no alternative to complete extermination. The people of those enslaved nations must be made to comprehend the fact that Allah is an impotent idol whose threat and promise are vain.  They must throw off Islam's yoke of slavery or they must be exterminated.  Emancipation is morally superior to extermination.  We needed to get started eleven years ago. 

ROPMA

ROPMA

Update 02/20/12: The demise of tafsir.com broke the links to Tafsir Ibn Kathir.  The links have been changed to point to equivalent text at Islam-Universe.Relevant  references to Shari'ah have been added because they confirm the obvious better than anything else can. 

 

So Islam is "a great religion of peace" ? Explain these topic titles from Ibn Kathir's Tafsir. Click them and read their contents.  Why did Allah  command and order Muslims to commit aggression?

• The Command for Endurance when the Enemy Engaging
• The Command for Jihad against the Disbelievers and the Hypocrites
• The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found
• The Command to strike the Enemies' Necks, tighten Their Bonds, and then free Them either by an Act of Grace or for a Ransom
• The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers, the Closest, then the Farthest Areas
• The Order to fight to eradicate Shirk and Kufr
• The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
• The Order for Jihad against the Disbelievers and Hypocrites

So terrorism is haram? Explain these tafsir which explain 8:60 and 8:12!!

• Making Preparations for War to strike Fear in the Hearts of the Enemies of Allah
• Muslims invoke Allah for Help, Allah sends the Angels to help Them

    In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, you see the ayat which enjoin offensive warfare and the ahadith which confirm them, but you do not see their practical application.  For that you must turn to Shari'ah: Islamic law which is based on the Qur'an & hadith.

    Reliance of the Traveller is the most well known codification of Shari'ah. It reflects the fiqh of the Shafi'i school of Islamic law.  It is divided into books, each of which bears a letter as its name. Book O codifies the laws related to justice, including the definition, communal obligation & performance of jihad. 

    Reliance defines Jihad as "war against non-Muslims". It is a communal obligation, binding on all eligible male Muslims until a sufficient number have responded to the front.  Jihad must be performed in every year, and it is performed against disbelievers while they are in their own countries, peacefully minding their own affairs.

    The caliph makes war against Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians until they are subjugated and submit to annual extortion payments called jizya.  He fights all other peoples until they become Muslims. 

    That is not my opinion, I did not pull it out of any orifice, it is plain and clear on the face of the text of Reliance of the Traveller, which is certified authentic and accurate by sheikhs of  al-Azhar University at Cairo.  

• http://www.islamicbulletin.com/free_downloads/resources/reliance_complete.pdf#page=617

    Would you like a second opinion? Try Risala, the handbook of fiqh belonging to the Maliki school of Islamic Law.  Risala defines jihad as " a technical term for the Muslim fighting the unbelievers who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam". Muslims must invite disbelievers to Islam. If they reject Islam, they must demand jizya. If  refused, they must wage war. 

• http://www.baytulislam.org/Documents/fiqh/imammalik/The-Risala-A-Treatise-on-Maliki-Fiqh.pdf#page=284

    Would you like a third opinion?  Try Hedaya, the handbook of fiqh belonging to the Hanifi school of Islamic Law.  From Hedaya, we learn that jihad must be undertaken at all times by some party of the Muslims.  We learn that "destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels even though they be not the first aggressors".   We also learn that jizya is a punishment for infidelity and a payment in lieu of destruction. 

• http://ia700204.us.archive.org/10/items/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog/hedayaorguideac00hamigoog.pdf#page=154