This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/778
London Mayor hosted Imam who declared : ' The blood and property of the Domain of Disbelief is not protected'
July 11, 2005
London Mayor Ken Livingstone proudly hosted Qaradawi and invited him back
Qaradawi is known for his fatwa (rulings) on women becoming suicide bombers.
"When necessary, she may even take off her hijab in order to carry out the operation, for she is going to die in the cause of Allah and not to show off her beauty or uncover her hair."
He has also issued a fatwa which explains the Islamic justification behind the bombings the took place in London on Thursday.
"...It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property."
MIM: As the article below points out, not only is there total denial about integral role of Islam in terrorism, the people who are encouraging terrorism are being accorded respect and deference as was Qawadawi in London. The Imam is banned from entering the United States because of his ties to Hamas and Al Qaeda.
July 9, 2005
Jihad Is Knocking
Another Episode in the War between Christendom and Islam
by Bruce Thornton
The slaughter in London is another grisly wake-up call that likely will go as unheeded as earlier ones. Already the standard narrative is being trotted out: evildoers created by what the New York Times predictably called the "root causes of terrorism": autocracy, or economic stagnation, or Palestinian suffering, or globalization's dislocations, or Western historical sins, or the war in Iraq (the cause will depend on the political prejudices of the pundit) have "hijacked" Islam and distorted its peaceful message. And now they are using Islam to justify murder in order to further their own ambitions or dysfunctional psychic needs. Given this explanation, so the story goes, we must be careful not to demonize all Muslims and assure them that we respect their religion and culture. The tale is then wrapped up with fierce threats against the terrorists and protestations of admiration for Islam.
Believing this delusion requires that one ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jihad against the West, a war of conquest and colonization ratified by centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence. Indeed, what we call Islamic radicals are in fact Islamic traditionalists; it is the so-called "moderates" — those wanting to compromise Islam so it can coexist with Western ideas such as secular government, separation of church and state, and human rights — who are the radicals and innovators. The terrorists are simply fulfilling the traditional and orthodox command of their religion to battle the infidels who resist the revelation of Mohammed and the global socio-political order mandated by Islam.
Listen to one of the most respected and influential of Muslim clerics, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi, on the legitimacy of jihad: "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property." (See Andrew Bostom:).This interpretation is entirely consistent with fourteen centuries of Islamic theology and jurisprudence, which in turn is based on the Koran's injunction to "slay them [infidels] wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter . . . . Such is the reward of those who suppress faith." And this jihad is to continue "until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah."
Islam's divinely sanctioned entitlement to global domination explains the symbolic value of the London attacks: one day after London was chosen to host the 2012 Olympics, and right in the middle of the G8 summit in Scotland. For both the Olympics and the G8 represent a global order that rivals Islam, one based on Western ideals and institutions, a social and political order in which Islam has no exalted position but is simply one religion among many. And, we should add, a global order whose notions of individual rights and secular government are incompatible with Islamic law.
So much is obvious — facts of the historical record. Yet listen to a respected historian in a conservative magazine: "Muslim holy wars ("jihads"), as taught in the Koran, were first and foremost a personal inner struggle for moral purity" and only secondarily a war against infidels. So all those Muslim armies that conquered the Christian Near East, North Africa, Egypt, Spain, Sicily, the Balkans, all that plunder, slaughter, rape, enslavement, kidnapping, and destruction were only the "secondary" jihad. How could such blindness to the obvious, masquerading as sophisticated "tolerance," not arouse contempt in the minds of our adversaries? They tell us over and over that they are waging jihad in order to establish the global hegemony of Islam, and we tell ourselves that these Muslims don't understand their own religion. Millions and millions of Muslims all over the world cheer for the jihadists and support them materially and psychologically, millions idolize bin Laden and celebrate the murder of Westerners, but we tell ourselves that they are a minority of confused souls whose minds have been addled by poverty or autocracy or anger over the Palestinians.
In any conflict it's a good idea to take seriously the motives the enemy professes and not rationalize or explain them away in terms of your own cultural assumptions. The murderers we call terrorists are traditional jihadists, as much as were the first Islamic armies that swept away the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman civilizations of the Mediterranean. They are not going to be bought off with votes, a free press, more cable channels, Wal-Mart, or any other material good that to us constitutes the good life. They are fighting for a spiritual cause, the establishment of Islam as a global order in fulfillment of the will of Allah, and the reduction of all those who will not become Muslims to dhimmi, inferiors who acknowledge the superiority of Islam and the rightness of their subjection to it.
The next few weeks will show whether the British have advanced as far down the road of dhimmitude as have the Spaniards, who responded to the murder of their citizens not with the force and resistance their ancestors showed for seven centuries, but with fear and appeasement. As for us, we'd better discard our illusions that the jihadists, as Thomas Freidman put it, are "a cancer within the [Islamic] body politic" and accept instead that jihad just may be a vital organ. Then maybe we can see this war for what it is: one more episode in the long struggle between what used to be called Christendom and a religion of aggressive conquest and colonization.
MIM: The writers above concluded that "weeks will show whether the British have advanced as far down the road of dhimmitude as the Spaniards, who responded to the murder of their citizens not with force but with fear and appeasement. This statement by Tony Blair indicates the latter , and bodes ill for the fight against terrorism by identifying Israel and not militant Islam as the cause. Blair's response also implies that the terrorists have a legitimate grievance which will only encourage terrorists to keep perpetrating attacks . What is also worth noting is that Blair is basing his assessment on a list of grievances which were reported to have been put out by the terrorists. Which implies that Blair and the UK law enforcement do know who is behind the attacks. If this is not the case then Blair is indulging in reckless speculation and has ignored the fact that 'someone who will kill you will also lie to you'. By giving credence and voice to the terrorists claims that "they will calm down" only when the conflict with Israel is 'solved' Blair has effectively signaled to the terrorists that it would help their cause to strike again.
|Blair Blames Terror on Arab-Israeli Conflict Sunday, July 10, 2005 / 3 Tammuz 5765|
British Prime Minister Tony Blair sees the Arab-Israeli dispute as one of the main reasons behind the London bombings. The group claiming responsibility puts it third on a list of grievances.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has attributed last week's bombings in London to the Arab-Israeli dispute and lack of democracy in the Middle East. At least 70 people were estimated to have been killed in bombing attacks that gripped London last Thursday, with hundreds more wounded.
Blair told the BBC that precluding terrorist attacks was not necessarily a question of taking preventative security measures. "The underlying problems have to be dealt with," he said.
"We need to create the circumstances in which some of the critical issues in the Middle East are dealt with and sorted out, and where people can see out there in the Middle East that there is a perfectly good path to democracy if people want to take it," said Blair.
According to some Israeli observers, Blair's analysis differs from that of the Bush administration which views an all out war on terror combined with preventative security measures in the United States and abroad as the most effective means of combating terrorism. Blair's comments are significant because they represent a shift in emphasis away from using the military as the primary means of fighting terrorism, as in the war in Iraq and Afganistan, toward a policy that would address the preceived political and economic roots of terrorism.
Some commentators have suggested that Blair's approach may have been a factor in the decision of the G8 industrialized nations meeting in London to allocate $3 billion in aid to the Palestinian Authority. Uzi Arad, who served as an advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu when Netanyahu was prime minister, said on Israeli radio Sunday morning that the allocation was tantamount to paying "protection money" to terrorists as a means to forestall future attacks.
A group calling itself the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which many analysts believe to be associated with Al Qaeda, took responsibility for the London attacks.
"A group of mujahedeen from a division of the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades piled blow after blow on the infidel capital, the British capital, leaving dead and injured," said the group in a statement posted on the Internet. The authenticity of the statement could not be verified.
The group, whose connection to Al Qaeda is not clear, according to U.S. officials, cited a number of grievances for carrying out the attack. Reference to the Arab-Israeli dispute appeared third on the list. "We will only calm down when security is a reality in the land of Islam and for Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine," read the group's statement.
Statements from Al Qaeda after the attack on the World Trade Center in New York suggested that the United States presence in Saudi Arabia, not the conflict in the Middle East, was the main reason behind the attack.
Abu Hafs al-Masri, which took responsibility for the 2004 Madrid train bombings, in which 191 people were killed, and the twin bombings in Istanbul that killed 25 people in 2003, has promised to carry out more attacks.
"The beginning was in Madrid and in Istanbul. Today, it's London and tomorrow the mujahedeen will express themselves again," read the group's statement.
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/778