Just one catch: he turned out to be a terrorist mastermind. My latest in FrontPage:
In the aftermath of the September 11 jihad terror attacks, many Americans, being decent people, were concerned that innocent Muslims would be victimized. George W. Bush said on September 17, 2001: Moms who wear cover must be not intimidated in America. That’s not the America I know. That’s not the America I value….Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don’t represent the best of America, they represent the worst of humankind, and they should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.” Numerous media outlets also showcased Muslim moderates in an effort to demonstrate that not all Muslims were jihadis or approved of 9/11. One of these was National Geographic, which published an article called “Attack on America: An Islamic Scholar’s Perspective,” featuring an imam they presented as a voice of reason and moderation: Anwar al-Awlaki, who turned out to be an international jihad mastermind.
National Geographic’s feature, published on September 28, 2001, is instructive reading. It epitomizes the post-9/11 anxiety, which so many shared, to demonstrate that they weren’t “Islamophobic,” and their inability to distinguish Muslims who rejected jihad violence and Sharia oppression from those who were feigning that rejection to lull infidels into complacency.
Awlaki, who is identified as “imam of Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia, and the Muslim chaplain at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.” He immediately struck a victimhood pose that has become drearily familiar in the years since then: “Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki says many people view all Muslims as guilty of terrorism ‘by association’ with suicide bombers from the Middle East and expect Muslims to apologize even when they are blameless.”
Regarding 9/11, Awlaki claimed: “First of all, many of us, as soon as we saw what happened, hoped that the ones doing this were not Muslim or Arab because we had already experienced a backlash in the Oklahoma City bombing and the earlier attack on the World Trade Center. There is still this guilt by association. We are viewed as guilty even though we might not have anything to do with [a bombing]. There is an expectation that Muslims should apologize for something that they never did. That was something I heard echoed by a few Muslims.”
Awlaki claimed that Muslims suffered even more than others because of the attacks: “For Muslims, I think it was a very complicated issue because we suffer twice. We’re suffering as Muslims and as human beings because of the tragic loss for everyone. And then in addition, we suffer the consequences of what will happen to us as an American Muslim community since the perpetrators are, so far, identified as Arabs or Muslims. I would also add that we have been pushed to the forefront because of these events. There has been huge media attention towards us, in addition to FBI scrutiny. In some places they have been going through some difficult times.”
The imam flatly rejected the idea that Islam had anything to do with the attacks: “Islam does not approve of this. There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.” He defined jihad in a way that minimized its violent component, and omitted all mention of the Islamic concept of offensive jihad, summed up in the Qur’an: “Fight them until there is no more fitna [persecution] and religion is all for Allah” (8:39). If Muslims must fight until “religion is all for Allah,” there is no end to the war until all are Muslim or have submitted to Muslim hegemony. But Awlaki said: “The linguistic meaning of the word [jihad] is ‘struggle.’ The jihad of the individual would be to struggle against the evils of oneself. Therefore, it’s a continuous process of improvement. It is striving to become closer to God. That’s jihad for the individual.” He went on to discuss defensive jihad, but never gave a hint of the existence of offensive jihad.
In the ensuing years, Awlaki was involved in numerous jihad plots and was ultimately killed by an American drone strike. He was not a moderate at the time of his death, or at the time of his National Geographic interview, or at any other time. His National Geographic interview stands as an object lesson in what can happen when non-Muslims are so avid to find a moderate Muslim that they grab the first claimant to the title without knowing enough about Islamic theology or law to be able to make a sober assessment of the claimant. When it comes to the unseemly rush on the part of many organizations to give their anti-terror efforts the appearance of legitimacy among Leftists by showcasing a “moderate,” sobriety has nothing to do with it.
Wellington says
The extreme reality is that the Awlakis of the world, though certainly a menace, are not as much of a menace as the Bushes of this world.
The exculpation of evil is worse than evil. Bush 43 still has not learned this.
I voted for Bush 43 twice, both because the alternatives were so much worse and because I had then a fairly high opinion of the man. I was correct about the alternatives. I was wrong about Bush.
What a disgrace he has revealed himself to be and I don’t know how the man sleeps at night, authorizing as he did in perpetual ignorance mode the continued sacrificing of American lives and body parts and all the while doing NOTHING to educate himself about what Islam is really all about. Shame on him forever.
I freely admit I have come to despise the man I voted for twice as President. Will haunt me to the end of my days.
mortimer says
Bush is a perfect example of virtue signalling. Rather than just make his point that anti-Muslim bigotry is unreasonable and mean, he laid it on thick.
Bush trusted the colossal liar SHEIKH ANWAR AWLAKI, but he insulted ordinary Americans who feared that many Muslims might be disloyal to the US constitution and carry values in sync with Islamism.
Bush did nothing to satisfy Americans’ reasonable concerns about Muslim disloyalty, but he scolded people for having such inconvenient suspicions. Even when the suspicions about Muslims being a potential fifth column are now well-founded, Bush continues to insult ordinary, loyal, patriotic Americans, many of whom had placed their confidence in Bush.
After 9-11, opinion surveys subsequently came out PROVING that Americans’ concerns about Muslim sympathy for jihadism were well founded. Worldwide, there were several years in which Osama bin Laden retained high support levels in Muslim countries of between 30% and 50%.
However, Bush has not backed down, even when repeatedly being proved wrong time and again by poll-surveys and by jihadic actions worldwide with many thousands killed in jihadic attacks every year since 9-11.
Bush was widely criticized for his naïve remarks about his imaginary ‘religion of peace’ by people who had studied Islam in depth. Bush did not seem to know that many of the Muslims he met lied ‘sincerely’ to his face.
Here is one such criticism:
-“It seems our President (Bush) and his advisors are clueless as to the desires, doctrines, and distinctives of Islam. While I feel a little audacious in giving advice to national leaders, it is necessary since no one else is doing it.”
-“Muslims lie, not because they are liars by nature, but by choice. Systematic lying as a religious policy is deadly, and if our politicians do not understand this, thousands could die.”
-“Muslims have no hope for eternal salvation without their good works, so they must keep working to advance Islam. If a few lies will accomplish that goal, then lying is not bad but good. If they can get good publicity for Islam by lying, then lying is acceptable, even desirable.”
-“Muslims may appear very sincere; in fact, they are sincere, when they lie for their own protection or in the cause of Islam. They have permission to lie. Yes, Christians have also lied but never are they given permission to lie. However, a Muslim has no guilt since the Koran and Hadith permit his deception.”
-“Muslims lie when it is in their interest to do so and “Allah” will not hold them accountable for lying when it is beneficial to the cause of Islam. They can lie without any guilt or fear of accountability or retribution. A lie in the defense of Islam is approved even applauded in their “holy” books.”
-“To resurrect an old slogan: You can trust the Muslims to be Muslims. They are lying their way to world domination!”
– Don Boys, PhD, former Indiana politician, pastor, educator, writer and political commentator
Infidel says
Wellington
On this particular issue and another, Obama happened to be better than Bush. He hunted down Anwar in Yemen w/ a drone strike, leaving some people bitching about him doing that to an ‘American citizen’, and the other was to keep Pakistan in the dark while authorizing the bin Laden raid
Unfortunately, on the issue of islam, most of our congresspeople are more similar to Bush than they are to either Trump or Ben Carson. I just wish we had at least 30 Marjorie Taylor Greenes in the senate, and some 150+ in the house. When can we get some Tom Tancredos?
gravenimage says
Infidel, think that as with Osama bin Laden Obama realized that *not* taking Awlaki out would bring too much bad press.
As for Bush, I’m afraid that many in 2001 considered Awlaki to be a “moderate”.
fadeye@yahoo.com says
So many of us agree with you and could have written the Exact same comment!…tho maybe not as eloquently. #HatsOffToWellington!
gravenimage says
Hear, hear!
gravenimage says
A Moderate Muslim Explains How 9/11 Affected His Community
…………………
Yes–Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki. Just one in a long line of “moderate” Muslims who have turned out to be anything but.
mortimer says
Just after 9-11, the late Anwar Awlaki, mentor to notable terrorists, said, “There is no way that the people who did this (9-11) could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.”
Awlaki’s later terrorism and education of terrorists worldwide proved he did not believe his own definition.
Westman says
He well understood Muhammad’s method: Islamic war relies on deceit.
gravenimage says
“War is deceit”.
Eleanor says
Simple rule :: Never believe any Muslim, and you won’t go wrong.
mortimer says
“You can trust the Muslims to be Muslims. They are lying their way to world domination!”
– Don Boys, PhD, former Indiana politician, pastor, educator, writer and political commentator
– “Taqiyya permeates almost all the activities and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslim societies…” – former sheikh Sam Solomon
– “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and LYING, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by LYING, but NOT telling the truth, IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO LIE if attaining the goal is PERMISSIBLE … and OBLIGATORY TO LIE if the goal is obligatory.” source: Abu Hammid Ghazali
-Allah is the greatest deceiver – “Allahu khayru al-makireena” – K. 3:54; cf. 8:30
mortimer says
Robert Spencer’s account of Anwar Awlaki’s years of deception and career as a jihad mentor are summarized here admirably.
gravenimage says
+1
Egor says
Equally, everybody has to be aware of Islamic deceit. It has got to the stage with me, where I do not believe anything that comes out of their mouths. This is because they are either very ignorant or they are being deceitful. For all you infidels, kafirs etc etc there are a number of words in the Islamic text you should be aware of. These words all refer to deceit in various forms in Islam. They are (1)taqiyya (Shia) and (2)Muda’rat (Sunni) which are the tactical forms of deceit for spreading Islam. This is going on all of the time. Then we have (3) tawriya, which is deceit by ambiguity. (4) Kitman which is deceit by omission. (5)Taysir which is deceit through facilitation. (6)Darura is deceit through necessity (doing something haram). (7)Maruna is the temporary suspension of the Sharia by Muslims in the West to make them look moderate. (8)Hudna is the temporary truce which the Muslim might make but which can be broken at a moment’s notice. (9) Hijrah which is Muslim immigration to peacefully occupy and then take over a kafir country. My advice is look up the meaning of these words and that will give you a better idea of what you are dealing with. I have only given you a brief overview.. To give you an example of “kitman”. How often do we hear Islamic apologists telling us that jihad is nothing but an internal struggle while the rest of the world sees what these so called people immersed in “inner struggle” are actually doing around the world. We even have these naive politicians that tell us it is an inner struggle and that terrorism is not indicative of the true Islam. Bullshit Theresa May. In the Quran it uses jihad and its derivatives 59 times. Of these, only 16 or 27% could be considered “internal” with no object as target of the struggle based on the context of the surah. So you know what to say the next time a Muslim tells you the “true meaning” of jihad. A good example of maruna is the pilots who flew in 9/11. They allegedly went to a strip club the night before their mission to obliterate the Twin Towers. They were blending in by doing something real Muslims would not do under the Sharia. An example of Hudna might be Yasser Arafat and his peace with Israel (for which the Left awarded this terrorist scumbag a Nobel Peace Prize). When he was making his speech in a Johannesburg mosque in 1994 he let his supporters know that it was only Hudna by referring to exactly the same thing that Muhammad did to the Quaraish. I listed below Surah from the Quran and Ahadeeth from the Sunnah which support this use of deceit.
Quran
Quran (16:106) – Establishes that there are circumstances that can “compel” a Muslim to tell a lie.
Quran (3:28) – This verse tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to “guard themselves” against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim may appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel friendly. Quran (9:3) – “…Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters…” The dissolution of oaths is with pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway. (The next verse refers only to those who have a personal agreement with Muhammad as individuals – see Ibn Kathir vol 4, p 49) Quran (66:2) – “Allah has already ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths…”
Quran (40:28) – A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to “hide his faith” among those who are not believers.
Quran (2:225) – “Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts”
Quran (3:54) – “And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.” The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means ‘deceit’. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same. (See also 8:30 and 10:21) Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be “compelled” to deceive others for a greater purpose.
Sunnah
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) – “The Prophet said, ‘War is deceit.'” The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad’s men after they were “guaranteed” safe passage
Sahih Bukhari (49:857) – “He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.” Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.
Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) – Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an “enemy.” The Quran defines the ‘enemy’ as “disbelievers” (4:101).
Sahih Muslim (32:6303) – “…he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them).”
Sahih Bukhari (50:369) – Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka’b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad’s insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka’b’s trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.
So there you have it, the “Religion O Peace” in all its glory and honesty for people to see. So my advice when listening to a Muslim being interviewed, rather than simply believing what he or she is saying I would suggest you see what form of deceit they are actually using.
john smith says
Excellent post Egor
gravenimage says
Thank you for that grim list.
Michael Copeland says
“There is still this guilt by association. We are viewed as guilty even though we might not have anything to do with [a bombing].”
Straightforward hypocrisy. Islam IMPOSES guilt by association: it is part of the Pact of Umar. This is the reason why, when someone burns a Koran in USA muslims in Pakistan attack the nearby Christian community, burning their houses, smashing their shops, and so on.
gravenimage says
So true, Michael.