Evil Academy

Full Version: Kenya mall fight, what's going on?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Keep hearing about the recent Al queda / Kenyan government battle at a mall in Nairobi. It's been all over the news, even very early on. It's sad that assumedly innocents have been slaughtered but given that news like this can easily slip through the cracks, I'm wondering if there's not more to the story? Anyone care to enlighten?
I've only seen headlines, but the MSM made it sound like muslims extremists were slaughtering christians.

This is a classic example where Obama should be worried what is happening in his own country of Kenya, and do something, but no, he's still harping on about Syria.
(09-24-2013 06:47 AM)wizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Keep hearing about the recent Al queda / Kenyan government battle at a mall in Nairobi. It's been all over the news, even very early on. It's sad that assumedly innocents have been slaughtered but given that news like this can easily slip through the cracks, I'm wondering if there's not more to the story? Anyone care to enlighten?

Wizzlr, it's not Al Queda but Al shabab, a group that is too extreme for even al Queda.

This is payback by al shabab for the Kenyan government doing an all out assault on them, clearly not removing them all from their incursions into Somalia. The same group that tend to pirate any ships that enter in and around the Indian Ocean.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Freedom
Wouldn't obama's son be in that mall if he had one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Freedom
(09-24-2013 09:45 AM)what one Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldn't obama's son be in that mall if he had one?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Freedom

Yeah, slaughtering Christians.
Jerome Delay/AP

Al-Shabab, the Somali group that has claimed responsibility for the attack on a Nairobi mall, began as a group fighting inside its homeland. But it has evolved into an al-Qaida affiliate that draws members from other countries and views Somalia as a front in the war against the West.

Here are some key things to know about the group:

Who Are Al-Shabab?

Al-Shabab, or the Youth, is a Somali Islamist group that the U.S. regards as a terrorist organization.

The group grew out of the two decades of turmoil in Somalia following the overthrow of the military dictatorship in 1991. By 2006, the Somali Council of Islamic Courts, the group to which al-Shabab was allied, controlled much of the southern portion of the country.

The council then set its sights on Somalia's weak transitional government. This deeply concerned Ethiopia, which backed the transitional government. Ethiopia sent in troops, defeated the council and took control of Mogadishu.

This was a turning point for al-Shabab.

"The only military force willing to resist the Ethiopians following the collapse of the ... [council], al Shabab was able to play on deep-seated Somali antipathy toward Ethiopia to recruit thousands of nationalist volunteers," wrote Rob Wise of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The National Counterterrorism Center notes the group continued its violent tactics in southern and central Somalia, where it held large swaths of territory.

But, it said, its "insurgency has been challenged over the past year by in-fighting and military pressure that has liberated key towns from al-Shabaab."

That military pressure comes in the form of a U.N.-backed African Union force that includes troops from Kenya and Uganda.

Nonetheless, said Mary Harper, the BBC's Africa editor and author of Getting Somalia Wrong? Faith, War and Hope in a Shattered State, al-Shabab "still has the capacity to strike not just in Somalia, which it does regularly, but also across Somalia's borders."

What Does The Group Want?

The BBC's Harper told NPR's Tell Me More that the group's ideology has evolved since it "basically imploded" a few months ago. One faction wanted to keep the fighting inside Somalia; the other had global ambitions.

The latter faction is now dominant, Harper says, and therefore she was not surprised that its first major attack was outside Somalia.

The National Counterterrorism Center noted that the group isn't "centralized or monolithic" in its agenda or goals.

"Most of its fighters are predominantly interested in the nationalistic battle against the [transitional government] and not supportive of global jihad," it said.

Why Attack Kenya?

Kenyan troops entered Somalia in 2011, resulting in a loss of key territory for al-Shabab. The group had warned that it would target Kenya.

"The attack at Westgate Mall is just a very tiny fraction of what Muslims in Somalia experience at the hands of Kenyan invaders," al-Shabab said on Twitter.

In 2010, al-Shabab also took credit for two bombings in Uganda — which has also contributed to the AU force — killing more than 70 people.

As NPR's Frank Langfitt noted in his series from Somalia in 2010, al-Shabab's ideology was gaining ground among Somali refugees in the Nairobi neighborhood of Eastleigh, which is known as Little Mogadishu.

"The intelligence we have, we know there are elements sympathetic to al-Shabab," George Saitoti, head of Kenyan Internal Security, told Frank at the time. "And there may be some of them [al-Shabab operatives] around here."

U.S. Links

NPR's Dina Temple-Raston has reported on a "jihadi pipeline" for recruiting and sending Somali-Americans to the battlefields of Somalia. The head of Britain's MI-5 also warned of Britons training in al-Shabab camps.

The potential reach of the group was underscored by Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, who told NPR this in an interview Sunday: "They don't have borders. Somalia might be where they have training centers or bomb-making factories or things like that, but, you know, the top leadership of Shabab, including those who have been killed recently ... was American citizens, British citizens who are the leading figures in the leadership of al-Shabab."

There are unconfirmed reports that some of the militants involved in the Westlake Mall siege were foreign nationals.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Freedom
Fuck these music hating savages.
saw this on CCTV.

the reporter got scared and ducked for a bit when he heard gunshots.
Yeah, was gonna post about this. They yelled for the Muslims to get out of the way and then commenced slaughtering infidels.
They seem like promising potential allies in the Anglo Saxonic powers' anti-Christian offensive. I'm sure AIPAC took note of this!
Suicide Bombers Kill 81 At Church in Pakistan

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Choir members and children attending Sunday school were among 81 people killed in a suicide bombing at a Protestant church in northwest Pakistan.

It was one of the deadliest attacks ever on the Christian community in Pakistan.

The attack took place at the All Saints Church of Pakistan, in the violence-plagued city of Peshawar, about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the country's capital, Islamabad.

A congregation of about 500 people was attending the church. Two attackers struck right as services concluded.

"Suicide bombers entered the church compound from the main gate and blew themselves up in the midst of the people," a statement posted on the diocese website read.

The outside of the church was peppered with debris. Crowds of men and rescue officials were covered in blood.

The attack left 120 people wounded, with 10 of them in critical condition, Dr. Arshad Javed, chief executive of Peshawar's Lady Reading Hospital, said Monday.

'Total failure'

The Rev Humphrey S. Peters, Bishop of Peshawar, expressed condolences and called for prayers, but he also struck a defiant tone. In a statement, Peters condemned the local government, calling the attack a "total failure" of official efforts to protect minorities.

His criticism was echoed by hundreds of people who took to the streets in largely Christian areas of Pakistan, calling for better protection of minority groups.

The All Saints Church was built in 1883 inside the old walled city of Peshawar. It was built to resemble a mosque from the outside, not for security reasons but to symbolize unity.

Christians make up less than 3% of the population in the South Asian nation of 193 million. Militant groups have also targeted other minorities including Shiite Muslims, who are significantly outnumbered by Sunnis in Pakistan.

Attack claimed by Taliban offshoot

A splinter group of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the church attack, blaming the U.S. program of drone strikes in tribal areas of Pakistan.

"Until and unless drone strikes are stopped, we will continue to strike wherever we will find an opportunity against non-Muslims," said Ahmed Marwat, a spokesman for TTP-Jandullah.

The main Pakistani Taliban, known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), distanced itself from the attack.

"We refuse to take responsibility for the church blast. This is an attempt to sabotage peace talks between the TTP and the government," said spokesman Shahidullah Shahid.

Earlier this month, Pakistani officials announced plans to pursue peace talks with Taliban militants and withdraw troops from parts of the volatile northwestern region, which borders Afghanistan.

'No religion'

Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Sunday condemned the church attack and in a statement said he was praying for the recovery of those injured. Sharif said terrorists have "no religion" and that targeting innocents is against Islam.

But Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, of which Peshawar is the capital, is rife with Islamic extremists and has been the site of clashes between Pakistani security forces and militants.

Earlier this month, a roadside bomb in the province killed a top Pakistani general, just a day after the announcement of the plans for peace talks.

By Saima Mohsin and Emma Lacey-Bordeaux

Jihad in Kenya

As of Sunday afternoon, Islamic jihadists in an upscale Kenyan mall have murdered 59 people and wounded 175, and were still holding at least 30 hostages. All (or at least most) of the victims have been non-Muslims, for as witness Elijah Kamau reported: "The gunmen told Muslims to stand up and leave. They were safe, and non-Muslims would be targeted."

The murderers didn't just take the word of those who were trying to leave that they were Muslims. One of the hostages, a non-Muslim named Joshua Hakim, recounted that the jihadists were "firing indiscriminately, they shot a lot of people" -- hence the possibility that some Muslims may have been hit. Hakim himself covered his Christian name on his ID card and showed it to the jihadists, who were apparently satisfied that he was Muslim. However, Hakim said, "Then an Indian man came forward and they said, 'What is the name of Muhammad's mother?' When he couldn't answer they just shot him."

Non-Muslims who wish to prepare for the future of the United States and other non-Muslim nations may wish to commit to memory the factoid that Muhammad's mother was Amina bint Wahb; however, the most noteworthy aspect of these jihadists' selection process was that it forced the mainstream media, which generally ignores, denies, and/or obfuscates the Islamic identity and motives of jihad murderers, to report about the jihadists' desire to kill only non-Muslims, not Muslims.

This was singular. Remember that before the Boston Marathon jihad murderers were identified, the mainstream media was full of hope that they had finally witnessed a violent terror attack by Bible-quoting Christian killers, as they had hoped for for years.

Media reports were full of speculation about how the bombings appeared to be the work of "right-wing extremists," "Tea Partiers," and the like. On the day of the bombings, Charles P. Pierce in Esquire was one of the first of many to caution people against thinking that the Marathon had just been the site of a jihad attack ("foreign terrorism") and to try to link the bombings to the Right: "Obviously, nobody knows anything yet, but I would caution folks jumping to conclusions about foreign terrorism to remember that this is the official Patriots Day holiday in Massachusetts, celebrating the Battles at Lexington and Concord, and that the actual date (April 19) was of some significance to, among other people, Tim McVeigh, because he fancied himself a waterer of the tree of liberty and the like."

Likewise, CNN's national security analyst, Peter Bergen, speculated that if "conventional explosives" had been used, "that might be some other kind of right-wing extremists," as opposed to Al Qaeda. He reminded viewers that "we've also seen other extremist groups attacking, right-wing groups, for instance trying to attack the Martin Luther King parade in Oregon in 2010."

Most egregiously of all, David Sirota of Salon hoped that the bomber would turn out to be a "white American."

Sirota, of course, got his wish. Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were indeed white -- indeed, veritable Caucasians -- and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was a naturalized American citizen.

The Tsarnaev brothers' motivations quickly became clear. CNN reported a week after the bombings that "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, wounded and held in a Boston hospital, has said his brother -- who was killed early Friday -- wanted to defend Islam from attack."

Also, just before he was captured, when he was hiding out inside a pleasure boat, Dzhokhar wrote a long self-justification on the inside of the boat, including the line: "When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims."

Tamerlan also said, "I'm very religious." His friend Donald Larking affirmed this: "Tamerlan Tsarnaev was my friend and we talked about everything from politics to religion. He was very, very religious. He believed that the Qur'an was the one true word and he loved it." Tamerlan noted that he did not drink alcohol because Allah forbade it: "God said no alcohol," and that his Italian girlfriend had converted to Islam, as his American wife did later. Even his name indicated the world from which he had come: Tamerlan Tsarnaev was apparently named for the warrior Tamerlane, the fourteenth-century conqueror of much of Asia, who was as noted for his Muslim piety as he was for his bloodlust: in 1398, he massacred 100,000 Hindus in Delhi, and killed 90,000 more people in Baghdad in 1401, all the while his devout adherence to the religion of Muhammad. This was the figure for whom Tamerlan Tsarnaev was named.

Combine all that with the fact that the Boston Marathon bombs were similar to IED's that jihadis used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a jihad car bomb in Times Square in the summer of 2010, used a similar bomb, and that instructions for making such a bomb had been published in al-Qaeda's Inspire magazine, and the motivations of the Tsarnaev brothers were abundantly clear.

Yet despite all this, the mainstream media continued to obfuscate the truth. On July 15, 2013, three months after the bombings and long after the Tsarnaev brothers' motivations had become clear, PBS -- without mentioning Dzhokhar's statements or any other evidence of the bombers' motivations -- expressed hope that the surviving brother's trial would "shed more light on the motive behind the bombing."

NBC made only scant mention of the brothers' connections to Islam in their profile of them, noting only eight paragraphs down in a lengthy story that "Tamerlan had a YouTube page that featured videos about Islamic radicalism." CNN's initial profile of the bombers never mentioned Islam at all, and suggested instead that the bombers had decided to blow up the Marathon because Americans had not extended to these two immigrants a welcoming hand, quoting a comment Tamerlan made on a social media site: "I don't have a single American friend. I don't understand them."

When journalists deigned to examine the brothers' Islamic identity, they downplayed it. The Atlantic ran a piece entitled "The Boston Bombers Were Muslim -- So?" It complained that "we confuse categories -- 'male,' 'Muslim' -- with cause," and cautioned against stereotyping all Muslims, painting them with a broad brush.

Meanwhile, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had on an FBI agent who asked about the bombers, "Where was their inspiration? Where did they get the guidance?" To that Matthews responded: "Why is that important? Why is that important to -- is that important to prosecuting? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it if they did it? I'm being tough here." Also on MSNBC, Martin Bashir lamented about how these Muslim bombers were "burying the 'peace, compassion and kindness of the Qur'an.'"

The jihad murderers in Kenya, unbeknownst to themselves, did not allow for this kind of media obfuscation. With their single act of freeing Muslims and murdering non-Muslims, they did more to raise awareness of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat than anyone in recent memory in this age of denial, obfuscation, and misinformation. The media couldn't ignore their selection process. And now thousands of people know that they've been lied to, and lied to for years. We can only hope that these newly enlightened will be moved to act for justice before yet another jihad mass murderer makes his bloody arrival on the scene.

By Robert Spencer

Killing In the Name of Islam

Denial is the first stage of coming to terms with the unthinkable.

In Westgate, a Kenyan mall oriented toward expats, terrorists separated Muslims from non-Muslims before killing them. The Muslims were allowed to go free if they could recite a Muslim prayer.

During the attack, Al Shabaab's Arabic Twitter account quoted the Koran, "Plant firmly our feet and give us victory over (Al-Kafireen) the disbelieving people." (Koran 2:250). The Kuffar, the non-Muslims of Westgate, included small children.

"I don't understand why you would shoot a five-year-old child," one of the survivors said. But the five-year-old was not a Muslim.

Moments like these put the Clash of Civilizations into bloody context. This isn't abstract politics. It's not about economics, the environment or foreign policy. It's about a worldview in which a five-year-old who can't recite the Islamic confession of faith deserves to be killed.

The crime is not being a Muslim.

Or as Al Shabaab put it on Twitter, "Only Kuffar were singled out for this attack. All Muslims inside #Westgate were escorted out by the Mujahideen (Islamic Holy Warriors) before beginning the attack."

Not getting the message, UK Prime Minister David Cameron declared, "These appalling terrorist attacks that take place where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion -- they don't."

"They do it in the name of terror, violence and extremism and their warped view of the world," he elaborated. "They don't represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world."

Considering the number of British Muslims who have joined Al Shabaab or support it financially, including reportedly at least one of the attackers, that is not the case.

Cameron, hardly an expert theologian even on his own religion, describing himself as a "committed," but "vaguely practicing" Christian, is in no position to expostulate on Islamic theology. But that hasn't stopped him before.

When a British soldier was beheaded in London, Cameron called it "a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country." Demonstrating again his utter ignorance, he added, "There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act."

The attackers who had quoted the Koran during their butchery clearly disagreed. But every politician becomes an instant expert on Islam when it comes to giving it a clean bill of health after every attack.

Challenged on the Islamist orientation of the Syrian rebels, Senator McCain claimed that Allahu Akbar was just like "Thank God." Allahu Akbar originates from a Hadith describing Mohammed's attack on a Jewish settlement; a chain of atrocities culminating in the Muslim ethnic cleansing of Jews and Christians from what is today Saudi Arabia.

The Syrian rebels screaming Allahu Akbar are living up to its original use as a battle cry by Mohammed in the Khaybar Massacre. Syria is low on Jews, so the Allahu Akbarers are ethnically cleansing Christians from places like Homs using weapons supplied to them by the CIA.

It's an authentic war crime overseen by John Kerry, who had built his political career on falsely accusing American soldiers in Vietnam of having "cut off ears, cut off heads… blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."

Now Kerry is helping run guns to the Genghis Khans who cry Allahu Akbar before cutting off a head. And they don't mean "Thank God." They mean Allah is superior to your god because he enables me to cut off your head.

In July, Al Shabaab terrorists burst into the African Inland Church in Kenya and opened fire. Among the eleven dead was a nine-year-old boy. Twelve other children were injured.

"The Mujahideen punished with their hands those believing and worshipping other than Allah," Sheikh Hassan Takar, an Al Shabaab leader, explained.

In Nigeria, Boko Haram, another Al Qaeda linked group that cooperates with Al Shabaab, explained its motivations after the simultaneous bombings of three churches. The first of these bombings had targeted the children's section of a church on Father's Day.

"Today Almighty Allah has given us victory against Christian Churches in Kaduna and Zaria which led to the deaths of many Christians." The Boko Haram spokesman added that Allah had commanded Muslims to kill Christians and Jews citing the Koran.

"Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

(Koran 9:29 -- the Hilali-Khan translation which is sponsored and distributed by the Saudi government)

The message of the Koran here is not subtle. Accept Islamic law and Muslim rule or die.

It's not an artifact of a previous savage era that Muslims have left behind. The dead bodies in Kenya and Nigeria make that all too clear. As do the dead bodies in Syria, Egypt and Pakistan. And those murdered in the United Kingdom and the United States.

Cameron and every Western leader can insist that there is nothing in Islam that justifies violence, but Muslims know better. A quarter of British Muslims were willing to endorse the Al Qaeda 7/7 bombings in the UK where such opinions are all but illegal. What then is the true number?

The true number is much too frightening. That's why denial is easier.

When Cameron wrote before his election that "it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around", he was, in his own way, getting at the same message as that of the terrorists.

Islam is not going to integrate into the UK. So the UK must integrate into Islam.

That same message was behind the election of Barack Hussein Obama to handle our foreign affairs. When he said that America is one of the world's largest Muslim countries, he was demonstrating our willingness to integrate into the Islamosphere.

Islam in its most compact form is best represented by Aslim Taslam; "Accept the Religion of Peace and You Will Have Peace." It was the offer that Mohammed made to the Jews before he killed them. It was the offer he made to Byzantium.

After September 11, Osama bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people. "In the Name of Allah," it began. Explaining what he wanted, "The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam," he wrote.

America and Europe have accepted Mohammed and Osama bin Laden's call. Islam is praised incessantly. Its mosques have a special status, its Mohammedan icons are sacred and its Korans are protected by distortions of the law.

But none of that will be enough.

Ask the five-year-old murdered at Westgate. To believe that anything short of total and absolute submission will suffice is denial. And to hope that even that will be enough is wishful thinking.

At the Khaybar Massacre and the birth of the battle cry Allahu Akbar, Mohammed's cousin asked why he meant to massacre the Jews. "Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his Messenger," he replied.

That message in one form or another permeates Islam. It is the essence of the Jihad.

The five-year-old at Westgate, like the Jews of Khaybar, like the 3,000 dead on September 11 wouldn't or couldn't testify to that. So they were murdered for the glory of Islam and in the name of Islam.

By Daniel Greenfield

Blaming the Crusades for Jihad

The cultural relativists on the Left and apologists for radical Islam like to blame the Crusades for almost everything. The Muslim extremists are only responding to the deeds of Christian extremists, the argument goes. In his new book, Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies, former Muslim Ibn Warraq takes on this misleading theme intended to blame the West for the Muslim world's troubles.

The claim that the Crusades are the starting point of Islamic jihad is basically the political application of, "For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction." It equates the Christian beliefs driving the Crusades with the Islamic beliefs driving jihad.

Ibn Warraq's new book tackles this misconception. Islamic atrocities were not provoked by the Crusaders' own reprehensible acts, but preceded them. Islamic jihad was not triggered by the Crusades; it preceded them.

In fact, as explained by Warraq and in books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and What's So Great About Christianity, the Christian world was reduced to about one-third of what it was by the sword of jihad. The Crusades were launched with the objective of, without any exaggeration, saving Europe and Western civilization from Sharia.

My personal experience in school is that the opposite was taught. The Crusades were framed as offensive and the jihads as defensive. The Crusaders were depicted as barbarians, particularly to Jews. I cannot recall hearing about a single Islamic atrocity before or during these wars.

This is a common phenomenon, Warraq explains, and it's part of an overall trend when it comes to education about the history of Islam.

"What are seen as positive aspects of Islamic Civilization are ecstatically praised, even exaggerated, and all the negative aspects are imputed to the arrival of the pestilential Westerners, and where the Arabs, Persians and Muslims in general are seen as passive victims," Warraq said in an interview.

As proof, Warraq and the other authors mention the countless mass killings and persecutions of Christians and Jews before the Crusades. The destruction of over 30,000 churches during a 10-year period starting in 1004 AD is little-known. So is the burning of crosses, the beheading of converts to Christianity from Islam, the destruction of Christian holy sites like the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the forced tax for non-Muslims (the jizya) and the list goes on and on.

Modern-day Islamists and their apologists point to these times as proof of the historical tolerance of Islamic civilization. Islam-ruled Spain (Andalucia) and the city of Cordoba are held up as the golden examples of interfaith coexistence. For example, the Islamic Society of North America's official publication included an article in its March-April issue titled, "Andalucia: Paradise Still Lost?"

One of the most interesting claims made in Waraq's book is that the Crusades did not have a permanent impact on the Muslim psychology. Part of the reason is because the Muslim world viewed the wars as an overall victory.

"Many believe that modern Muslims have inherited from their medieval ancestors memories of crusader violence and destruction. But nothing could be further from the truth. By the fourteenth century, in the Islamic world the Crusades had almost passed out of mind," Warraq said.

This begs the question of what revived the relevancy of the Crusades in how the Muslim world views the West.

Warraq says that the Crusades were reentered into the discourse by Europe. Imperialism was purposely framed as a continuation of the Crusades; something particularly agitating for the growing Arab nationalist movement.

"Nineteenth, and even early twentieth century Europeans unashamedly used crusader rhetoric and a tendentious reading of crusader history to justify their imperial dreams of conquest," according to Warraq.

The Arab world's insecurities over its falling behind were blamed on the European colonists that were viewed as Crusaders. This theme "eases the guilty consciences of the Arabs themselves: it is not their fault that they are such abject failures--it is all the fault of the Crusaders."

In addition, attributing the backwardness of the Muslim world to the "Crusaders" allowed Sharia Law to escape responsibility. At the same time, complaining about the Crusades actually provided Muslims with hope in the face of Western superiority.

As Dinesh D'Souza explains, "So the Crusades can be seen as a belated, clumsy and unsuccessful effort to defeat Islamic imperialism."

However, Warraq emphasizes that his point isn't to blame the West for its use of Crusader rhetoric. The jihad existed before the Crusades and during the period when they "had almost passed out of mind" of the Muslim world.

"My point is that Islamic jihad did not end with the defeat of the Crusaders. On the contrary, in Islamic doctrine all the later Islamic conquests were seen as a part of the religious duty of carrying out jihad until the entire world submits to Islam," he said.

Blaming the Crusades is a way of denying the Islamic supremacist ideology that has driven the conflict from the beginning.

By Ryan Mauro

Wahabism is not Islam comrade.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's