Saturday, July 28, 2007

That Which We Call a Rose




“That’s not what ‘gay’ means.”


“That’s the 1921 edition of Webster’s Unabridged!”



“Really? What does it mean now?”



“Baron, you need to get out more.”











- - - - - - - - - -















What do they really think jihad means?

Refutation by Redefinition



The obfuscators for Islam are following a three-pronged strategy:








Walid’s Unabridged Dictionary




Noah Webster could only approve.


Vol-in-Law said...

Since Islamnist 'peace & justice'
style redefinitions of jihad in accordance with cultural Marxist dialectic are simply taqiyya, the interesting question is:



What do they really think jihad means?"

1. I think the typical secular-liberal-nihilist view is that jihad can mean whatever you want it to mean - if we all agree it means 'peaceful inner struggle', then that's what it means.

2. I think Bush takes as a primary axiom that all religions are good, and combines that with the desire of all people for freedom. Since all religions are good, jihad can't mean anything bad, ergo...

3. I think for nihilist-realists like (I think) Cheney, they know fine well what it means, but don't care, since their goals are entirely short term acquisition of wealth and power, and a polite fiction can be useful.

I'm not sure which of these fits Condi Rice - I suspect that talking to Bush she professes #2, talking to Cheney #3, but that her own view is probably closer to #1, with a bit of #3. She's not an intellectually curious person and I doubt it keeps her awake at night. I don't get the impression that anyone in the US leadership actually takes Islam and Islamism seriously as a threat, so they either think they have the luxury of deceiving the public, or in Bush's case actually believe the rhetoric about a small group of 'extremists'.

Unknown said...

It's important to understand that jihad, like all other fundamental muslim beliefs, mirrors the life of mohamed in its forms.

The result is that when westerners are told that sometimes jihad is a 'personal struggle', they assume its just another form of takkiyeh (aka: bald-faced lies to promote islam), when in fact, the personal struggle jihad was just as big a part of the concept of jihad as the military side.

If you follow the life of mohamed, you will see that he did in fact commit a personal struggle jihad which he called the jihad al-leesan before he moved onto violent military jihad. mohamed committed jihad in 2 phases, commonly known as the Meccan and Medinan phases. The first phase (Meccan), lasted 13 years and was simply a 'call to islam' jihad where he preached that it was a personal struggle to find and understand islam and to grow its strength. This is the form of jihad that muslims conveniently cite when they try to tell you that jihad isn't violent.

The second phase, aka the Medinan, lasted 10 years. This is the violent military jihad which is also the end phase of jihad. Military jihad is not to be waged until the muslim population is superior in power.

The reason so few westerners understand this nuance is because it is almost never explained in english and so few of us speak or read arabic.

However, there is one resource available by Abu Usamah which clearly lays it out. And, with a little reading between the lines, it is even more sinister. After the UK's channel4 investigation caught the islamic preachers speaking for jihad red-handed, the MPACUK gave a 30 minute rebuttal on google video. In it, abu gave a rare explanation into jihad which is amazingly explicit.

Google video is nice enough to host this islamist trash, feel free to listen to it yourself (it starts at about 20 minutes in):

For those who would rather read it, here is the transcribed text. Please note that what he is actually saying is that the only reason they don't call for an outright military jihad in England is simply because they aren't prepared yet:

Abu Usamah

"But what jihad? What jihad are we going to make do in this time as muslims in terms of a military campaign? And I believe that the people who are screaming "jihad jihad" from the muslims meaning the military campaign, those people are actually cowards because of the reality of our situation. The reality, the weakness of the muslim ummah right now clearly shows us that those people have lost the plot. And the ayat was revealed in the koran. Make the big jihad with it. With 'it' means with the koran. With the koran. While he was in mecca, and his condition was the condition of weakness, his jihad was the jihad of spreading al islam and being patient. It wasn't the jihad of the sword even though the ayat revealed that, this ayat was revealed in mecca. He is the one, allah, who sent his messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth to declare it over all other religions, even though the disbelievers may detest it. All surah was reading that surra in mecca. And yet he didn't have a military campaign for 13 years. The jihad he had in mecca, was the jihad of leesan, calling the people to the religion. So an imam al-islam, another point that I have re-emphazised over and over again. This imam of al islam, he told the muslims. There is some wisdom in being in mecca for 13 years and then in medina for 10 years. There's some wisdom in that. So the muslims whenever they find themselves at any time or any place, when their conditions resembles the condition of all surra in mecca, then they should take on board and embrace the methodology of the meccan period. And when they find their situation resembles his life in medina, then they should take on board and embrace what he did and the methods of the medina period. A person who is in the meccan period right now, but he is going to deal with the situation as if he is in the medina period is only going to bring fithnan. And so we are in the meccan period right now, it's the period of weakness. So therefore we have to make the jihad of leesan, or The period of weakness."

PapaBear said...

A lesson can be derived from Communism. Remember when the Communists declared over and over that they were for "peace". Even as they were killing millions?

Well, they were for peace. By their definition. Karl Marx defined peace as "the absence of opposition to socialism". So by the definition they were using, they really were for peace.

And today, similarly, the radical Muslim is also for peace -- which he similarly defines as the state where all submit to the will of Allah. So, in his mind, he is slaughtering for the cause of peace.

Brings a new viewpoint to what is really meant when a Muslim greets you with "Peace be upon you", doesn't it?

Harrison said...


Yet the Islamists consider any fellow Muslim who does not commit violence or condone terrorist acts against the kuffar guilty of takfir and therefore not practising "true jihad" , according to their perspective. Thus, one can see that both groups deny each other's existence and their allegiance to the "true" faith and its doctrines, thereby allowing them a fair amount of obfuscation and absolution of responsibility on their part.

Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri both were convinced of the warped concept of takfir and sought to justify the killing of fellow co-religionists simply by labelling them as something other than "true Muslims" - the practice of "refutation by redefinition", as you spoke of.

You know the Pillars of the Progressive: Muslims can insult other religions and their gods in cartoons, run anti-Semitic articles and basically spew venomous invective calling for the heads of their enemies - but when that type of behaviour is done unto them, it's 'racism', 'xenophobia' and 'anti-Islam'; cultural relativism which rationalises and legitimises suicide bombings, stoning and honour killings as 'natural', but condemns the incarceration of blood-thirsty terrorists as 'barbaric'; the Fairness Doctrine according fundamentalist and ideologically-charged commentaries that rant about 'Western imperialism' and 'oppression of Islam' equal value with rational analysis, while dismissing the need to respond to contradictions in their tirades by accusing critics of 'anti-Muslim bigotry' and the 'Western impulse to cow the inferior peoples'.

Without a CAIR

Profitsbeard said...

Islam is a secret society.

One definition of "jihad" for the insiders.

One for the gullible infidel dogs.

Meanwhile, back in reality, where Islamic carbombs are exploding and mass-murdering daily, anyone awake knows that Jihad means:
"kill all those who will not submit to our theocratic tyranny until the all world is Muslim?"

MSM must then mean:

Mainly Sleepwalking Media.

Athos said...

I recommend people listen very carefully to what the good padre says here.

Namely, "The mainstream media likes to paint a picture that Islam is peaceful and that it is just extremists who hold this point of view," he continued. "But that simply is not true. While I was working on my Doctoral Dissertation, I spent a year in Egypt and other Muslim countries. During that time I got to see first-hand what the Muslim children were learning. And it was pretty enlightening! Parents would teach their children songs about killing the infidel -- songs about death and destruction. Cars, with loud speakers attached, would drive through the streets repeating the message, 'Let their women be raped, their men be killed, and their children enslaved...'

"To be able to accurately judge a religion, we have to pay attention most importantly to what it teaches its children, not to what it says to the outside world."

Jack Lacton said...

Read The Legacy Of The Jihad, a collection of works by Islamic scholars.

If you still hold the view that either Islam is a religion of peace or jihad involves anything other than violent conflict then you're beyond reason.