The above photo is a dime a dozen, and of much younger kids. As you will see in this and upcoming posts, if we were to go by their rules…these young children are fair game. Thank God we don’t operate under Jihadist guidelines.
Here we have part 1 in a series I plan to write, having to do with the fact that Jihadist have done everything in their power to either, ignore the Quran teaching, that it is prohibited to kill women, children and the elderly….Or to come up with various rulings giving them permission to kill the above groups.
Killing Women, Children, and the Elderly is Permitted
One of the elements of annihilation in these Islamist writings is the permission given to kill women, children, and the elderly. Some Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad forbid killing them, as in the Hadith from the compilation by Abu Daoud according to which the Prophet told Khaled Ibn Al-Walid during one of the Islamic raids, “Do not kill a woman or an oppressed person.” Also, in the compilation of Hadiths by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the Prophet said, “Do not kill the children [of the polytheists].” This is why Islamist clerics struggled with the question of how to justify attacks by Islamist organizations in which women, children, and the elderly were killed.
One Islamist writer actually based his justification for killing these noncombatants on the conduct of the Prophet Muhammad himself. In an essay published in September 2001, titled “The Truth of the New Crusader War,” the writer, who calls himself “The Crusader Vanquisher Salah Al-Din” after Salah Al-Din Al-Ayyoubi, the 12th-century sultan who took Jerusalem from the Crusaders, set out the circumstances under which killing infidel women, children, and elderly is permitted according to Islam.
Make a note of that first paragraph and the word “raid”, we will be dealing with that in a future post, on this subject matter.
“The second case: It is permitted for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels in the event that they [the Muslims] attack them and cannot differentiate between those with immunity and the warriors or fortifications and, accordingly, they are permitted to kill them as a result [of inability to distinguish] and NOT WITH PREMEDITATION. This is because of what the Messenger said when asked about the offspring of the infidels [whom Muslims attacked] in an ambush and [during it] harmed their women and their children and said: ‘They [the children] are of them [the warriors].’ This proves that it is permissible to kill women and children because of [the deeds of] their fathers when it is not possible to distinguish between them [and the infidel warriors]…
No matter how you slice it, they violate their own laws of conduct. They give rulings that are suppose to make it easier for Jihadist to kill women and children….but I just don’t see it. How is it on 9/11 they didn’t know there would be women and possibly children in those towers. The planes certainly had women and children on them along with elderly people. We can also debate the fact that the men in the planes and WTC, were not fighting any Muslim, or at war with any Muslim country.
I don’t know how, with any stretch of imagination, you can call a bus boy at a restaurant, or a janitor, or an office worker, a “warrior”. The only way that any of those guys in the WTC were “warriors” were on their PlayStation at night. Some may have been in the reserves, but the fact still remains, we were not at war with anybody.
And lets not forget all those premeditated bombings around the world. Killing women, children and elderly willy nilly. Its been a feeding frenzy of violating the rules of “combat”. I guess you only have to follow some of the rules…What of the recent genocide in Iraq, over 500 deaths, according to some reports. That was premeditated, try telling me that they didn’t know, women and children were in that village. And how were those people fighting against their attackers??
In Iraq, they kill Muslims all day and all night. A multitude of women and children. And in Darfur, where they not only kill women and children, but in the women they don’t kill, they rape to plant “tomato’s”.
Oh, but these guys are soooo self righteous so pious. “We are TRUE Muslims”. Way to go fella’s. Give me a break. What a bunch of sanctimonious baloney.
The third case: It is permissible for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they are aiding the fighting in deed, word, opinion, or any other way. This is because of the Prophet’s order to kill Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who was 120 years old and went with the Hawazin tribe [to fight against the Muslims] to give them counsel.
I wonder who gets to make that decision….”We killed them because they were ‘thinking’ about going against us….Do we have any proof…no, but they are a kufar, so you know they were thinking it.” You can imagine that happening right??
“The fourth case: It is permitted for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels when there is a need to burn the fortifications or the fields of the enemy in order to weaken his strength, to breach the ramparts, or to topple the country, even if the inviolable ones die as a result, such as the Prophet did in the case of Banu Al-Nadhir.
Hmmm, now let me think, were the attackers on 9/11, planning on storming the World Trade Center?? No. Did they think that flying the planes into those buildings would cause the country to topple?? No. As a matter of fact, there was some word that came out later that Osama Bin Lyin had first thought of attempting to blow up a nuclear reactor, but that decision was nixed because they didn’t know how that would effect the world as a whole.
How much support would he have gotten had he created a few nuclear meltdowns that effected the whole world. As it was he didn’t think that the U.S. would respond the way that we did. (Can’t imagine why he would get that idea.) (thanks Clinton)
“The fifth case: It is permitted for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if they need to use heavy weapons that cannot differentiate between those who are inviolable and the warriors, as the Prophet did at Taif.
They have an excuse for everything don’t they. Maybe you should look at rule number one…the fact that none of the targets on 9/11 were military, except maybe the Pentagon. So, all the other attacks should have been void. Especially when you remember that we were not at war with anybody when we were attacked.
“The sixth case: It is permitted for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if the enemy uses women and children as a human shield and it is not possible to kill the warriors except by killing this shield. In such a case it is permitted to kill them all.
We don’t make a habit of using ANYONE as human shields, however, there are various Jihadist groups that do, and cry to high heaven when a civilian gets killed. Just a little more of that…”Do as I say, not as I do” thing. No one wants a civilian killed, and unfortunately civilians do sometimes get killed during war. But, there is still a bit of hypocrisy here as well. Why would you set off a IED when you know there are a bunch of kids around??
“The seventh case: It is permitted for Muslims to kill inviolable infidels if the latter had an agreement with the Muslims and broke the agreement, and the imam had to kill the inviolable ones to make an example of them, like the Prophet did with Banu Qurayza.”
Can’t see that one applying at all.
In one upcoming issue, it is basically one of these self righteous Jihadist, going after another Muslim, for the crime of disagreeing with him. This seems to be the standard fare, either you agree with me, or you are not a Muslim, you are all kinds of things, but not a Muslim.
This will be coming from a different website, than where I have gotten some of my stuff, but the theme is the same. These radicals make it clear on this and other websites, that Shiite Muslims, are not Muslims and are worthy of death.