The House of David

"all your cities lie in dust"

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Cry for help


Andrew Sullivan has a few words (h/t Ace; who didn't link, or treat his comment fairly IMO):

Reading Dana Priest's summary and then the document itself, it seems to me that in some ways, Hasan was airing an important debate. I don't glean from the notes for his lecture that he was necessarily an Islamist fanatic, merely that he could see how Islam could be seen as incompatible with military service in Iraq and Afghanistan. His view is pretty close to what many critics of Islam argue.

Yep, Hasan agrees with Spencer. Hasan agrees with Awlaki. Hasan agrees with the Qur'an, hadith, sira and Hanbali sunna. Hasan agrees with everyone except the ignorant and the willfully-blind. Hasan was a logically-consistent Hanbali Sunni Muslim; and I'd go so far as to say Hasan was in the mainstream of Islam itself in his justifications.

The "money quote", to borrow a Sullivanism, would be: "The lecture almost reads like a cry for help, rather than a warning." "Cry for help" is a psychological term, and the reason it exists is because psychologists have observed this as a phenomenon in mental illness. In short, Islam drove Hasan mad; and in his madness he delivered a dangerous speech to a hostile audience. He was looking for a deus ex machina. Unfortunately God was out on business...

Sullivan ain't all there himself; e.g. he proposed that ridiculous Trig Palin birther fable last year. But I would trust him to understand mental instability. And I think he nails the purpose of the presentation as public acting-out of his internal conflict ("greater jihad" if you like).

Labels:


posted by Zimri on 16:52 | link |

Sunday, November 08, 2009

The Department of Homeland Security works for YOU


We get attacked by a Muslim terrorist, and who does the DHS make it a priority to protect - Muslims.

In mainland America, we are empirically more in danger from Muslims than Muslims are from us. There is clearly a "priorities" problem here.

In addition the DHS is spreading the message to Muslims that if they want something - preferential security arrangements, say - their best bet is to shoot up some Americans.

UPDATE 11/9/2009: And now the Attorney General is off to negotiate with CAIR.

Labels: ,


posted by Zimri on 22:44 | link |

Going wobbly


I'm wondering if we've got the next Andrew Sullivan on our hands.

Rick Moran, on the subject of Nidal Hasan, is looking at what he thinks are egregious comments by Pamela Gellar, Digby (whose blog is so obscure even Moran couldn't spell it right), RS McCain, and (ironically) Sullivan. Of these Gellar is as shrill and wrongheaded as ever; Digby likewise; McCain is right; and Sullivan is fatuous.

I don't know that it's at all worth our time to pay attention to Gellar or Digby (THE Digby? from HULLABALOO?!), much less to hold them up as supreme examples for Teh Blogoweb. Of the other two more prominent bloggers, whose output I can't say I much like either, Moran scores an own goal by citing one of McCain's more lucid opinions.

While Moran was whining about how quick the rush to judgement was on both sides, and passive-aggressively boasting about how much wiser he is: My Pet Jawa was digging into Hasan's mosque. Turns out that the weekly Friday rants were delivered by one Anwar al-Awlaki and that Hasan was bowing down between 9/11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour.

Yes, the Right blogs were right. Yes, Hasan chose to follow extreme Islam. The only missing step is to find if any Salafi imams had given him an agreeable fatwa, but frankly even that step is redundant. Hasan waged a jihad on American unit cohesion and morale, and so far he has won. Rick Moran had best make his peace with that, as he's apparently made his peace with socialism.

UPDATE: The pieces are coming together. Al-Awlaki has praised the act. It hardly takes a genius to guess what al-Awlaki would say; and Hasan knew him better than I do. I don't know if we're going to find a specific fatwa, but everyone in his mosque knew in general what was expected of them.

Labels: ,


posted by Zimri on 22:11 | link |

Saturday, November 07, 2009

Muhammadan cinematography


I hear that we're going to have another movie about Muhammad.

Yes, "another". We've already had one (and I don't mean "Dune"). The label on the DVD I rented, in 2003 I think, was "Al-Risala / The Message". This would be the one starring Anthony Quinn. Quinn's starring role was... the stalwart believer Hamza. So where's Mo?

The movie made sure not to depict Muhammad himself. Sometimes the Muhammad-based action occurred offstage, but... not always. When they did show a Muhammad scene, for instance his triumphant entry into the Ka'aba, they shook the camera around from the point-of-view of the Prophet himself.

This manoevre brought to mind that verse 33:21, "You have an excellent model in the messenger of Allah, for all who put their hope in Allah and the Last Day and remember Allah much." Its sura, al-Ahzab, is about the most biographical sura in the Qur'an; which is to say, it was involved in the debates over the sira both inside Islam and against non-Muslim detractors.

The faction in Islam which sura 33 espouses was the Muhammadan faction. This asserted that it is not enough to believe in one God and the Day of Judgement, and not enough even to accept various suras as the word of God. Joseph Schacht in "Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence" reports that Iraq held out against implementing the legal rules of sura 33, which hints that Muslims were not at first united as to whether this sura was for real. But once sura 33 became legally binding upon Muslims, then to be Muslim was also to imitate Muhammad.

So, filming from behind the eyes of the Apostle of God is exactly the right thing to do if you are filming a movie from the sira. The audience is supposed to identify with the Messenger. That is what the (present) Qur'an demands.

Labels: ,


posted by Zimri on 15:33 | link |

Friday, November 06, 2009

The moderate Muslim


I was trolling Jawa after they got a visit from a moderate-Muslim.

The moderate admits that mediaeval Islam includes qital (violent jihad). He even admits that Islamophobes are right about it. The moderate reports that moderate Muslims don't know about their faith's inherent ("orthodox") violence. When you get past the tu quoque, the moderate says:

the difference is that this "extremism" is still part of mainstream Muslim theology whereas it has already been pushed to the fringe in many other religious traditions...the saving grace is, the theology is not known to most mainstream muslims in any detail. sounds confusing, but its true

The moderate does not come to non-Muslim sites with a plan for Muslims themselves to "push to the fringe" the "'extremism' ... part of mainstream Muslim theology".

The moderate comes with a plea for "common sense". What is common sense? For the moderate - it's the end of "zionism", and the loss of "permanence" for the Jewish entity in "Palestine". (Yes, this particular moderate hit that theme three times.) He comes with demands.

The moderate is, also, in solidarity with the jihad against the infidel in "Islamic land". The moderate is, ultimately, a Muslim first.

We can commend the moderate for his willingness to present his case. We cannot treat his case as holding merit. And we cannot bargain with him. He is partly tribal, partly in thrall to a faith. He has not reasoned his way into this position.

Labels: , , ,


posted by Zimri on 19:05 | link |

Thursday, November 05, 2009

Fort Hood


[started at 4 PM, bumped] Several people dressed as military have shot up troops at Fort Hood. Death toll is at 12 and rising.

This isn't a sniper up on a clock tower picking people off, or some grunt tossing a grenade into a tent (despicable as those actions are). This is a premeditated attack, with several people involved, and timed perfectly. In addition the perpetrators had to have had military training to get this close. MSNBC says it was a Major who was the ringleader. (h/t, Ace at first - then Drudge.)

This is designed to weaken trust between soldiers and their officers, and to discourage volunteers for the Armed Forces.

Is the date significant - the day of Guy Fawkes? Was it an anarchist? I don't know how much credence to put on the "Arabic sounding name". I think it bears waiting to see what happened. The story is "developing".

Whoever did it, and whyever, it was an act of war.

Pray for the victims.

Ensure it doesn't happen again.

UPDATE 4:13: Malik Hassan, a convert to Islam? Ugh. Jihad successful. I'm starting to get angry.

UPDATE 4:47: Yeah, there were a bunch of posts earlier which were more general and/or lighthearted. I'd written them earlier, before 4 PM. I'm bumping this one to the top of the queue.

UPDATE 5:02: No-one's walked back the name yet. It's distinctive. The name "Hassan" refers to 'Ali's son the Shi'a prince and in its natural habitat it is, still, Shi'ite. A name like "Malik", without the "Abdal" in front of it, implies kingship. Shi'ites until about 1979 or so didn't have a tradition of feeling powerful, and not really until very recently in Iraq; you wouldn't see these names Malik and Hassan together in the Near East. Add to that "Nidal" (Abu Nidal...?). I think we're dealing with a Black Muslim someone who has hated us for a long time, and turned Muslim as a manifestation of that hate.

UPDATE 5:08: If it sounds like I'm calling Charles Johnson a worthless pile of slime, that's because I am.

UPDATE 5:10: I see that the media is insulting Killeen and generally refusing to name the beast. Heckuva job, guys.

UPDATE 5:38: They released his picture... so the end of my 5:02 post was a jump-to-conclusions mat. Corrected. Sincere apologies. I'm leaving the thing up there as a monument to my carelessness.

UPDATE 6:57: My fallback idea was Baathist from Syria or Iraq. Turns out he was Syrian. Not a convert. Mind you THAT mistake wasn't my fault. I think whoever started the "convert" meme was thinking along the same lines I was - that pious Muslims don't prefer the name "Malik". Unless they become pious...

UPDATE 11/10: After this much time, no-one's found any other shooters, so I'm overdue for the correction.

I'm also trying to figure out if I owe Charles Johnson an apology for insulting him on account of his comment that the shooter's name might signify a non-Muslim black man. While totally bogus, and arguably racist; at the time I was thinking he might be a Muslim black man, which was about half as bogus but equally racist (c.f. my grovel at 5:38). Johnson has since corrected his stance to be more in line with the facts; although he's not come to full terms with those facts, that it was not just an Awlaki jihad but a victory for the Umma.

Labels: , , ,


posted by Zimri on 17:10 | link |

Monday, November 02, 2009

Apostasy and tribalism


The Jawa Report has a quote from Wafa Sultan about how she's being treated as a Muslim apostate. Rusty, the commenter, then compares that to how Mormons treat their apostates (nerf-bat harassment) and Fundamentalist Christians theirs (passive-aggressive threats, shunning).

I am not about to belittle the Muslim penchant for violence, which is real and terrible. But it's not what these religions do to their apostates which hurts the most.

The trauma comes when you find out that your former friends - Muslim, Mormon, Christian, whatever - only ever saw you as another mark in the tally.

If you lived your life for your friends, and then a theological disagreement causes you to be harassed or shunned: you learn quickly that all you did for your friends, didn't matter. They never cared about you as a person. You may as well be dead to them.

Is the shunning worse than death? I'd prefer the shunning, myself, but then I've been called a sociopath on several sites. Most humans are social creatures.

Anyway Islam seems to offer the death along with the shunning. That makes the question somewhat moot.

Labels: , ,


posted by Zimri on 18:10 | link |

Thursday, October 29, 2009

CAIR package


Someone shot a couple of Jews in a parking lot. The cops don't know why; but given LA, the suspicion is Sudden Jihad Syndrome. The 24 Hour Rule would apply here.

Just in case, though, CAIR have a press release. That much is fair game.

This reminds me of what I was saying earlier about criminal enterprises. You get a group which is inherently criminal, like the Crips. But not all the crimes the criminals do in Crips are what that gang actually wants. Here, CAIR doesn't want the headache of addled Muslims puttin' a jihad on bystanders.

CAIR used to get on TV and say "ofcoursewecondemnthisattack BUT! Palestine, Zionists, al-Aqsa, Jerusalem blah blah". That but-headedness turned off the American people. They're not doing that anymore, which means they've learnt something.

They are still a terrorist organisation though.

Labels: , ,


posted by Zimri on 17:36 | link |

Banned Bibles


According to the AP, 15000 Bibles were confiscated in Malaysia. (h/t WrathOfG-d from the blogmocracy.) It was because they used the word "Allah" to translate "God".

Putting the aspie / nitpicker's hat on, I somewhat agree with the Malaysians in that “Allah” is too Qur’anic for use as the name for God. I’d prefer al-Ilah to stand in for the Hebrew El. (And al-Rabb for Lord / Adonai / the four letters.) But that's a distraction.

"Allah" is the translation that the Middle Eastern Churches demand of their Bibles, ever since they moved away from Aramaic. So it's not controversial. And I doubt that any Christians have sponsored a conference considering exactly what word they should use in Malay Bibles. It’s obvious that Something Else Is At Work in the Malays’ anti-Bible drive.

It's safe to say that what's at work is Malay and Muslim intolerance.

Labels:


posted by Zimri on 16:57 | link |

Lost battle


In 2003, Amir Taheri called out hijabis and niqabis as being political extremists, and not merely devout Muslims. I cannot find the original article but many clips survive. The upshot is that the head-cover first came into being in the late 1970s.

One rather hilarious expression came from Abol-Hassan Bani-Sadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He announced, "scientific research had shown that women's hair emitted rays that drove men insane". I'm not disputing the existence of insanity-inducing radiation from women, but I'd always assumed it was emitted from the cleavage. (Maybe Iranian women have different DNA.) At any rate the Hair Ray became part of the Right-wing lexicon over here, labeled a "Zionist hair ray" by LGF at the time.

Anyway that was in 2003. Nowadays the hijab is everywhere. I saw a black lady in line at the local Fadi's. She was wearing the black hood... and beneath it, a skin-tight and revealing outfit. Which, you know, I have no objection to. But it defeats the purpose of Islamic modesty. So why the hijab? Something Else Must Be At Work.

She was just showing off the numerical strength of Islam, even though she clearly did not believe a word of its moral injunctions. She was expressing "brave resistance" against the American cultural majority.

Labels:


posted by Zimri on 16:36 | link |

Thursday, May 11, 2006

By association


As of now, the New York Sun and Charles Johnson have noticed that Ahmadinejad's latest missive to the West follows the pattern of Muhammadan da'wah. The first to notice this was Robert Spencer.

(I'll have to defend my use of Mr Spencer, because I don't nowadays find him trustworthy. I lost respect for him - including as a human being - when he decided to publish his guide to Islam under the "Politically Incorrect Guide" label. This label has elsewhere run a "guide to science" which was a fraud. From this I must conclude that Spencer doesn't care by what means he gets his message published; his ethics are not much better than those of radical Islam. Spencer might have the excuse that the rival "Complete Idiot's Guide" imprint had tainted itself first, with its pro-Taliban guide to "understanding Islam"; but I wouldn't accept it. A better argument would be that it takes a thief to catch a thief - or a propagandist to catch a propagandist. We should disregard Mr Spencer's choice of associates, and evaluate Spencer's message.)

Spencer's argument is that the Iranian president lives in an area which believes in the Prophet's sira and which understands symbolism. And here we have a letter which parallels the sira.

Plus, even if Ahmadinejad isn't personally serious, he's backed up by a local and worldwide movement which is. Like that famous French demagogue: "he is their leader, he must follow."

Spencer may be overly careless, but in this case he's right. I should hope that other scholars come forward to support him on this.

Labels: ,


posted by Zimri on 22:43 | link |

On this site




Afield



Friends



Table 9

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of David Ross; All Rights Reserved