Ome addition: Great Satan.
Oh, and you do not connect the dots on that score either, busboy. For a devout Muslim, the general fatwa would be equivalent to a declaration of war against the US, and it would be a direct, long-term amplifier to the apparently evolving Islamic stresses on Hasan to do something...something jihadic!
Someone has to explain to me why this so-called "snapped" person elected to assuage his demons by performing a jihadic act, as opposed to any of a million or so other possible "snapped" reactions available to him...including suicide. The simplest answer is that he wished to fulfill his Islamic teachings in the most direct way.Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 14:15
You are bending yourself into a convoluted pretzel to try to avoid calling Hasan's actions those of a jihadist, which he quite obviously is. And to exaggerate the fact of jihadist organization and management down to each individual at all times is a big leap from what I wrote. Pretselization! There is no sentence of mine that says Muslims are passive sheep, either, merely that they are in general under some constraints from their leadership, or we would have far more jihadic actions going off all around.
It is obvious that a single individual, isolated to a large degree from his kin and leadership, and being subjected to the serious internal stress I spoke of (the Islamic command to accept and perform jihad versus US law, military law and custom, and surrounded by infidels)might well elect to perform a jihadic act with little external input of command except Email or verbal contacts with imams and other Muslims (whose full extent is not yet known for Hasan and his imam, but the possibility of his imam exerting a influence on Hasan's mental state and the idea of a jihadist action is not to be taken lightly). So this jihadist "snapped", you say. Right! He snapped exactly in the way that a jihadist would. With all deliberate speed he got rid of his possessions early in the week, bought his guns and ammo, then took them home to load them, slept on it for some time, perhaps days, and them marched to his selected shooting gallery and killed and killed while shouting AA! We will drown in PC yet!
You bend my words again to your ideas of jihad or non-jihad in that I was addressing the general fact that jihad is a controlled--planned and executed-- action in most cases but certainly not all of them. Did you pick up on the word MOST in my previous post, or not? It would not have suited your ideas to do so! It should not trouble your mind so to consider HASAN to be following the inner teachings of Islam to kill infidels, to perform a jihadic action, when he "snapped" and shot US soldiers with all deliberation.
It is noteworthy that the incidents of jihadists making a TV display of beheadings and torture, which were small group actions probably not under control of a higher authority, have been largely suppressed by the Islamic powers of late, because they recognize their negative impact on other major Muslim activities in the West, especially in Europe. That is a clear instance of control being applied from "higher authorities" in Islam to suppress jihadic actions of small groups.
Your reference to Christianity is totally misplaced unless you are an apologist for Islam. Do you not understand the imperatives of ANY organization to control their members by one means or another, direct or indirect?
That comment of yours is a misdirection.
You desperately need to read up on Islam if you think that every act of jihad requires a fatwa. It doesn't. But, that is coverd anyway by the general fatwas against the US--the Greast Satan.Comment Posted By mannning On 14.11.2009 @ 13:50
You miss a most important point. Individual Muslims are not free jihadist agents for the most part. There is organization at the tribal, religious and political levels involved, and, it would seem, a degree of advanced planning and coordination for just how and when the jihad action against a given target or targets is to be undertaken and by whom, and also, management of the masses on a short term basis. How do you think they roll out mass demonstrations? It isn't through happenstance.
Your idea of a jihad appears to be that they are all "on" all the time, once a jihad is declared by the leadership, and this just isn't so.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.11.2009 @ 21:05
My background reading shows that the vast majority of both Sunnis and Shiites believe in jihad as defined in the founding documents, which accounts for by far the most Muslims out of the billion. They have a number of differences in details of worship, but not on that point.
The number of sects in Islam is variously reported to be 52, 76, and 150, take your pick.
I suggest that, so far, most of the remainder appear to have jihad in their dogma as well.
It is jihad that represents the main threat to us, along with, of course, their imposition of Shari'a Law over us if given the chance. The rest of their dogma and rituals are not as important to us, so I do not comment on them.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.11.2009 @ 17:27
A suggestion: Try reading the New Testament, but skip Revelations. I believe Rev. is incomplete and redacted too far. The Old Testament is heavy going, sometimes tedious and indeed has its share of gore.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.11.2009 @ 16:45
It makes me very happy that an atheist and leftist is so familiar with the Christian religion. Perhaps some day that familiarity will grow into something more worthwhile. Yes, The Holy Trinity is a tenet of Christians.
The focus I have is on Jesus the Son of God and his gospel. The gospel of Jesus and his desciples is to be contrasted with the unabrogated, latter parts of the Koran of Muhammed. Try it some time.
But, then, I am sure that reading the gospels for an atheist is simply not the same as for a believer. The words just don't stick in the mind and align in the same way, so meaning is lost.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.11.2009 @ 08:54
Yes, I guess ole Jehovah was indeed a bloody bastard, but, to me, the effective contrast is between Muhammad and Jesus.
To the extent that Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet it is a good thing. But they do not carry Christian ideals far enough in their own religion. It appears that Jesus, to Islam, is someone that said a few good words that could be coopted for use within the Muslim community, but not necessarily elsewhere. An infidel is still an infidel! All of the nasty statements in the Koran and elsewhere regarding infidels remain in effect amd have not been abrogated since the 7th century.
And, yes, I surely recognize that Islam has quite a number of sects. I assert, however, that the majority of Islamic sects accept the Koran, the Haddith, and Shari'a Law, which means that they accept their responsibilities to perform jihad; but, most do remain passive and leave it largely up to their tribal and religious leaders to decide the "who, what, when and where" of the next jihad--if ever! The "why" has long since been settled for them. So, many Muslims can spend a lifetime without being called directly to perform jihad by their leaders.
I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators.Comment Posted By mannning On 13.11.2009 @ 08:36
Jehovah = Old Testament
Jesus = New Testament
(God, the Son)
Muhammed went from sort of benign in the first (abrogated) Suras, to a raging killer in the latter ones, from the Sword Sura on, all in the name of Allah.
No comparison!Comment Posted By mannning On 12.11.2009 @ 20:53
Sheer nonsense. Muhammed has no comparable Biblical person that has the same bloodthirsty characteristics and ultimate importance.
The tension I spoke of was a continuing one for the life of Hasan. For that matter, it is present in every Muslim all the time. I suspect that a looming event, such as being assigned to a combat zone just may have been the final trigger...Comment Posted By mannning On 12.11.2009 @ 19:25
Seems that everyone has an authority to quote about Islam.
There are the (a) sources that are apologists that somehow refuse to believe the founding documents of Islam or the daily drum of Muslim abominations, or the incitations of imams across the nation. Because they seem so nice and peaceful, it just can't be that these good people are insipient jihadists!
Then there are the (b) sources that try very hard to tell it like it is, quote the Koran and Haddith, cite many papers written by Islamic clerics, and then try to warn the public of the short and long term dangers of Islam to the US.
Then there are those who attempt to explain the Koran by comparing it to the Bible, which is sheer nensenseComment Posted By mannning On 12.11.2009 @ 19:18