Bin Laden’s Burial at Sea: Are We Undermining ‘Moderate’ Muslims?
Ever since 9/11, so-called moderates in the Muslim world have been telling us that the murderous behavior of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not justified by the Quran. The Saudi-funded Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has taken great pains to make this point (while allying itself with terrorist “charities”). They claim that they, not the terrorists, represent Islam, which is a religion of peace. Such people have reportedly rejoiced in the death of Osama bin Laden, as a man who has murdered tens of thousands of Muslims and created a huge rift between Muslims and Westerners.
Others have claimed, with significant justification, that historically, it is the bin Ladens and Ahmadinejads of the Muslim world who truly represent the religion and the dictates of Mohammed’s supposedly holy revelations. This question, still unresolved, is crucial to understanding the way forward in this war. If a “moderate” Islam exists — one that does not, despite its history, wish to establish a world-wide caliphate in which women and unbelievers are subjugated — then encouraging its growth is the least violent way to win.
If, on the other hand, those supporting bin Laden or the radical Shias of Iran are correct, the only ultimate victory for the West will be as bloody, or more bloody, than that over Nazism and Japanese imperialism. This would be a tragic end, killing millions of its adherents and completely discrediting the belief system, which is as much, or more, political ideology than religion. Thus it is in our interest to make every effort possible to nurture those who want to reform a religion badly in need of a Reformation, and to weaken the claims of those who hold a more traditional violent view.
As a point of contrast, let us consider a religion that did go through a successful reformation. During the Middle Ages the Christian church had a violent history. Even ignoring the Crusades, which can be viewed as a response to Muslim aggression in the Holy Land, the persecution of the Jews and others such as Huguenots (and particularly, the Inquisition), the numerous inter-faith wars in Europe, and the enslavement and forced conversion of the Native-Americans that the Spaniards found in the New World were acts that most modern Christians would have trouble defending. As James Lileks noted years ago, if he were sitting in a Lutheran Church in Minnesota, and the pastor started to call for beheadings of the infidels, most congregants would sit up, startled, and think, “Well, that was certainly different.”
Imagine that a man today had murdered thousands in the name of Christ (and lest anyone ignorantly cite Timothy McVeigh, he was an avowed agnostic). Would any significant number of Christians defend his actions? More to the point, would most Christians demand, or even think it proper that, after his unrepentant execution, he be given Christian service and burial? Would that not be viewed by many as an insult to Christianity itself?
“When will we learn that there is no pleasing these people”
My friend “spot on”.
Whatever we do, it will be wrong. Which proves how sick fundamentalist Islam is. Judaism has extensive teachings on understanding the context and meaning of prayer –not whether the prayer itself is okay. Christianity teaches us to love and understand the sinner, not the sin.
Islam teaches submission. The difference couldn’t be more stark.
Still, I wish them the peace of love and understanding. If attacked, we’ll have to defend ourselves, but we would rather not get in to that situation in the first place.
…..”It is long time for us to stop spending so much time worrying about incurring the wrath of those who make war on us. We need to spend a lot more time working on ways to get them to fear our own wrath.”
Thank you, Mr Simberg.
Exactly!
Yesterday I was teaching English to a Frenchman over Skype. He kept talking about “not inciting the terrorists”, and “wasn’t I now afraid that there would now be an attack in retaliation”. He seemed to think that every move we make should be considered in light of how the terrorist might react.
Perhaps this way of thinking explains the passivity and paralysis that plague much of the world when they face evil.
Reminds me of a passage from Winston Churchill’s memoirs. In the winter of 1939-40, he proposed attacking German river-based logistics by floating mines down the Rhine. The French refused, on the grounds that the Wehrmacht might then do something warlike… sounds like business at the old stand.
Seems to me that the French have a bad habit about their freedom,they didn’t pay for it WE did,they would be speaking German right now if not for us,they take their freedom for granted,they didn’t even pay their war debts to us ,not at all,Enland did so did the Canadians and Israelis.But not the French,high and mighty snobs Jealousy and arrogant,they don’t like us and wish we were beneath them.
……”It is long time for us to stop spending so much time worrying about incurring the wrath of those who make war on us. We need to spend a lot more time working on ways to get them to fear our own wrath.”
Thank you, Mr Simberg.
Following strict muslim tradition, a person who comes in contact with a pig before he dies is denied entry into heaven. I think OBL should have been basted in pig fat before being executed. All muslim terrorists should be treated the same way. If they think they are going to heaven, take that away from them.
We respect the customs of others not because of their civilization, but because of ours. An honest effort to satisfy the forms is not a submission to others’ beliefs, it is a consequence of ours. And no serious person is motivated to do right for the approval of others, especially when they are strangers.
I have to agree. If Muslims view the burial at sea as just another insult to Islam, fine, so much the better, nobody in the civilized world really cares. Burying bin Laden at sea while observing traditional Muslim funeral rites demonstrates to ourselves and our mealy-mouthed Western detractors, that we are a people big enough to show respect to our enemies. It does not mean we won’t kill our enemies wherever we find them..
We seem to forget ,these are terrorists ,no sense of honor orsympathyor compassion.They should be dealt with the same amount of ferocity and force as they deal out ,.more if it means to end the assault .We didn’t start the WW2 but we ended it,it may not have been to many peoples liking but we did the right thing for they also were in the process of developing a nuclear bomb which by the way was detonated and proven effective ,we lucked out by dropping ours first and if anyone thinks they wouldn’t drop the bomb ….think about how they conducted the war.The terrorists are worse they kill innocents in the name of allah and torture and treat us as garbage and we’re to fgeel sorry for them and treat them with respect,if they act like a savage and merciless animal you put him or them down what ever way possible and you don’t have to bury them unless it’s in a dung pile or septic field,they are not human
There is nothing wrong with taking the moral high ground. Just because we are fighting an “uncivilized” enemy, does not mean we have to become like them, and relish in our baser instincts. In fact, I think it show our superiority, we just shot Osama in face, one of our greatest enemies, and we are powerful enough to show respect in burial. However, I think it is worth thinking about appeasing not just our enemies, but our friends. We just performed an attack in Pakistan a very heavily Muslim country, why not have some damage control, even in it is a small amount of people who are appeased by our symbolic action. You seem to have no ability to analysis international affairs or think in the long term.
You seem to overlook that Pakistan has a lot to answer for.
Brian N,
That was one of the most inane things I have ever read.
There is no moral high ground when you are dealing with jihadists. They are commanded by their holy book to lie, cheat, steal, torture and kill to advance Islam. In their world, you have no morals. You are beneath them, and to make you submit or kill you is their goal.
They don’t recognize any other political system or religion outside of Islam. It is both to them. In their eyes, you will never be superior to them in any way.
And I’m pretty much done with the idea of appeasing anyone anymore, friend or enemy. Screw damage control! The United States had over 3000 people killed in the largest mass murder in history, perpetrated by a twisted “religion” that promises if it can’t convert you, you will be a slave or dead.
They should have taken a picture of OBL’s body holding a football and a copy of Penthouse before pitching his carcass in the ships’ wake.
Don Juan de Austria took care of them in Lepanto, killed, captured and enslaved many of them (while Germany and France looked the other way). That whack kept them quiet for 500 years. But things have changed. Now the West is no longer slightly stronger than Caliph. Now the technological distance between the West and the barbarians has increased thousandfold. That is why we have to take the high road. The idea is to do it seriously and without a trace of appeasing. Like the Roman “gravitas cum dignitate”. Yes, he deserves to be fed to wild pigs but we are better than that.
How do you folks think this all went down? I would like to know who was the highest ranking military or government official who gave the order to throw OBL in the drink. I hope the seals posed with the corpse and got some pics prior to tossing him. Kinda like Abu Graib.
There is no joy in Mudville tonight and I DO mean Mudville. You’re right – Islam, the eternally offended. No one in the middle east is rejoicing that Bin Laden is dead, even so-called “moderates” whatever the hell they are being laconic and kinda offended like we slapped them in a face.
If you think there is one single muslim in the middle east watching the celebrating in the U.S. and going, “Right on!”, you’re crazy.
Your right about that ,but they were dancing and cheering as the Twin Towers went down taking thousands of innocents,all of these people were innocents none were warriors or soldiers they were civilians and workers with families and these animals were dancing and celebrating in the streets and yelling death to the Americans and we’re supposed to treat them humanely ,we’re supposed to say forgive and forget,it didn’t happen,like the Holocast didn’t happen ,the killing and genocidal destruction of Jews didn’t happen,thats what they have planned for us total annihilation of our people because we’re not islamists,not pedophiles and torturers and destructors of nations and practitioners of hate and evil,fight fire with fire.Granted we’re not God ,but even Christ said sell your robe and buy a sword to protect your loved ones,I don’t think we’re looking to spend 5000 years in slavery before we find freedom again and not by someone who smells as bad or worse than the camels he owns
“the enslavement and forced conversion of the Native-Americans that the Spaniards found in the New World were acts that most modern Christians would have trouble defending.”
I know this is an accepted “fact” but the truth is–and anyone can find it in so many good books–that the Spaniards ruled and enormous empire extending all over the Americas without ANY significant army. Until the wars of independence the Spaniards ruled the Americas without much force. That is because Cortez was much easier to bear than Montezuma, and Pizarro much more appealing that the Stalin-like Inca rulers.
There were plenty of barbarians in Europe: read about the death of Edmund Campion, the kangaroo courts of Henry VIII condemned him (an many others) to be hanged and quartered by horses but not before they would cut him open while alive and his entrails dropped in cauldron of boiling water (merry ol’ England at her best!).
Nine million Nahuatl became Christians voluntarily after 1531. It is hard to believe that less than 10,000 Spaniards had the power to bend the will of such a huge number of people by mere force.
Let us begin the saving of the West by learning to study history honestly. Let us discard the old political canards of centuries past.
Please!
Before one lectures on history, one should study history. The Spaniards, to the Aztecs and Incas, were like someone landing from outer space. The Spanish had guns and horses and steel armor. In Peru, Montezuma’s army had fiber padding and feather plumes and volcanic glass spears. Fewer than 150 men, 2 cannons and a dozen horses slew more than 10,000 Inca warriors in one day. To claim that the natives of middle America became christians almost overnight because the Europeans were nicer than their own priesthood displays an astonishing ignorance of history.
With all due respect, sir YOU have to read some history yourself. Read R.C. Padden (and the cronicles of Cortez himself) on the subject of the conquest of Mexico and how the locals oppressed by the Triple Alliance joined the Spaniards to fight their oppressors who used them like fodder for human sacrifice and slave labor. The same story (without that much human sacrifice) is repeated in Peru a few decades later when Pizarro arrives. It was the unbearable cruelty of the Inca dynasties what put most of the people on the side of the Spaniards.
Nine million natives converted to Christianity after 1531 in Mexico–it was nearly impossible to convert them before that–something happened in Mexico on December 12, 1531 (at the exact same time that Pizarro arrived in Cajamarca many miles to the south) and that something moved millions to abandon their old beliefs and convert rapidly to Christianity. Read about it. It will do you a lot of good and inform you.
Ad for the 10,000 killed you report: the most exaggerated accounts say about 2,000 were killed by the two Spanish cannons in Cajamarca. While that is impressive one can easily see how huge number of natives could have overpowered the Spaniards. The major reason for their defeat was their centralized chain of command that went all the way to the Inca himself, not to mention that their ranks have been ravaged by smallpox (brought by Columbus to the Caribbean the disease reached Peru a few years before Pizarro arrived) and the ensuing Civil war that debilitated that society even further.
I will be happy to refer you to a few books that will illustrate you on the subject. It is obvious you have read only tendentious history or no history at all. Go and educate yourself before calling someone ignorant, my friend.
The first stop out of pakistan should have been the nearest pig farm. they should have fed him to the hogs. They also should have let the whole world know about it. then again they could have told everyone they buried him at sea
Wonder why Obama felt it was so important to disclose how Osama was discarded. But it burns my ass that he felt we should announce it to the world. Islam the peaceful religion is not to blame for terror however terrorists should be laid to rest in accordance to Islam. As to not anger the peace loving Muslims which could lead to more terror.
They love to say McVeigh was a christian, but i don’t remember any news reports mentioning how we disposed of his corpse. If i was king, people who killed civilians would be fed to pigs.
o
McVeigh was buried in a simple grave in Potter’s Field, marked with a headstone baring his name and the dates of his birth and death, but no epitaph.
I guess sharks are not on the endangered species list, lucky for us he’s not a lizard, we couldn’t kill him.
What exactly is a ‘Moderate Muslim’?
And I don’t agree that any piece of pig filth that celebrates, much less causes, the beheading of anyone deserves the title of a practitioner of any religion.
Where were these ‘muslim spokespeople’ when Bin Laden’s people were beheading civilians? Flying airplanes into the ground or buildings? Launching rockets into cities? Killing children? Blowing themselves up?
Now that OBL is assuming oneness with the Red Sea, lets find all of his enablers, starting with these cretins, and add them to the primordial ooze down there.
hallelujah amen
and thanks for expressing the rage i have felt all day
and if i may i would like to share the thoughts of DR Tawfik Hamid
US Could Have Used bin Laden’s Death to Expose Sympathizers
Monday, May 2, 2011 01:05 PM
By: Tawfik Hamid
The issue of burial is very important in the Muslim mind. There is a special prayer over the body which is typically followed by burial in the dust.
Burying in the Islamic way gives the close relatives and friends (or followers in case of bin Laden) psychological comfort that the person died as a Muslim and will go to the paradise. This concept has roots in the following verse “Quran 12:101 . . . O Thou Creator of the heavens and the earth! Thou art my Protector in this world and in the Hereafter. Take Thou my soul (at death) as a Muslim . . . ”
The punishment for early Muslims who refused to share in jihad was to forego the funeral prayer and not to bury them as Muslims (see Quran 9:84 Nor do thou ever pray for any of them [who refused to do Jihad] that dies, nor stand at his grave; for they rejected Allah and His Messenger, and died in a state of perverse rebellion).
Furthermore, according to shariah, if a Muslim is considered to be an apostate, he must not be buried as a Muslim. Indian Muslims, for example, refused to bury as Muslims the Islamic terrorists who committed the Mumbai attacks in 2008, as refusing to bury them as Muslims is the most powerful sign of rejecting terrorism.
After killing bin Laden the United States should have asked leading Islamic organizations such as the OIC, Muslim Brotherhood, and leading Islamic institutes & scholars whether or not they would consider bin Laden a Muslim and thus wanted to give him a Muslim funeral or not.
If these groups, which claim to be peaceful, consider bin Laden a Muslim and asked for a Muslim burial for him, then their sympathy and support for bin Laden would be exposed.
On the contrary, if these groups refuse to give him a funeral prayer and reject considering him a Muslim, then this would have been a stronger blow to al-Qaida ideology and its supporters than the killing bin Laden itself.
Asking Muslim groups and organizations if they wanted to bury bin Laden as a Muslim would have been a win-win situation for the U.S.
Yes, asking that question would have been clever. Opportunity lost. Nonetheless the attempt to follow Islamic burial rites was not necessarily appeasement. Perhaps it was just “Do as you would be done by.” We would want them to bury us in accordance with our traditions, so we try to bury them in accordance with their traditions. The fact that we cannot ever do things the way they want is a different issue. We are not trying to please them. We are trying to live up to our ideals. Wherever you are in life depends on two things: the ideals you have chosen for yourself and the efforts you have made to live up to those ideals.
As for the issue of the nature of Islam, how to reform it, and who to support so it becomes more peaceful – let us stand back and be truthful.
1) The terrorists are much closer to Muhammed’s final version of the religion than his early version of the religion. The religion itself insists that the later revelations cancel an earlier revelation, if there seems to be a contradiction between two revelations.
2) Christianity was once handed down by word of mouth, just as Islam is today. The written texts were once owned by the self appointed experts, as in Islam today. But in Christianity the authoritative texts were gradually democratised. Slowly at first the people read the books. Eventually when enough people in a society read the books for themselves the hatred died. Christianity slowly became more peaceful, liberal and moderate. The politics of the Reformation and Counter Reformation may be more newsworthy, but the printing press, the translators and the greater affordability of Bibles are the key to the growth of civilised Christianity in our civilisation.
3) In Islam the democratisation of the sacred texts has never happened because it is more difficult. For political/historical/religious reasons the texts are jumbled up so it is harder to learn about how the religion started. We have a timeline for Moses and Jesus and all the Bible characters. The texts say what happened first, then what was next, etc, to the end. In Islam the texts do not.
4) If we can get people to read the story of Muhammed in the privacy of their own homes then Islam will be more peaceful, liberal and democratic. Not because that is the message of Muhammed’s life. It isn’t. It is just how people want to be. Hatred has to be taught. It is not natural. When Muslims can see the religion (ie understand the life of Muhammed) without having to defer to some person in authority they will stop the hatred. Common sense and common decency will thrive. Whether they remain Muslim or not does not matter. The important thing is that they understand their religion by reading the texts for themselves, without an authority figure telling them how to think and what to believe.
5) So what we need is a version of the sacred Islamic texts that is both halal and in chronological order. If that is not possible then at least we need a version in chronological order. It is a matter of editing. The question of who to support then fades away, because the religion will be more widely understood without interpreters and spokesmen.
So you think the problem with Islam is that the Quran is not assembled in chronological order?
I need a stiff drink.
I don’t think we should worry one whit about what any Islamic “scholars” thought. Simple rule: quit worrying about what the barbarians think — they are, after all, barbarians.
Feeding Bin Laden to the fishes is OK with me. Some may have preferred that more physical evidence of his death be made available. To those, I suggest that his head on a pike in front of the White House, with the remainder of his dismembered body fed to some hungry hogs, might be sufficient evidence.
Well-reasoned Leciat. I wish they would have asked you. (When pigs fly, eh?)
This article by Tawfik Hamid is absolutely Brilliant, thanks for sharing it.
As UK ex PM , and many others, have pointed out
America and the UK are not at war with Muslims
–we are only at war with terrorists who kill American and British civilians.
AQ was OBL–OBL is dead AQ is dead, Gen Petraeus said last week that there are less than 200 AQ left in Afghanistan
Time to declare victory, get out of MENA and focus upon solving our US national debt, dealing with the failed state of Mexico on our border and dealing with the economic and future military threats from China.
MENA is euro-NATO, the Arab Leagues and the UNs problem.
Apart from KSA which is buying $ 60 Billion + of American products the rest of the ME is irrelevant to fundamental American interests
Meh! I think they just wanted him to be fish food – and they did! Nyuk! Nyu! Nyuk!
Western civilization is doomed. They attack us and we bend over backwards to try not to offend them? Three thousands souls ground to hamburger by glass and steel not leaving bodies that could be given proper burials, and we’re worried about the reactions of people who get murderous at the sight of second rate cartoons? Don’t even get me started on making our troops put on gloves so as not to contaminate their precious Korans, which, oh by the way, we provide for them. What is wrong with this namby pamby hand wringing? We cannot defend our culture and beliefs by acting as though theirs is superior.
I heard they were soaking bullets in pig fat before they use them. If not, why not?
It is against American fundamental interests to demonize Muslims.
Our fight is against AQ and other people who threaten American interests–not Muslims.
There are anti Americans of all faiths and no faith.
If they use violence or are traitors we WILL destroy them-where ever they try to hide out.
The US Special Forces/CIA/ DIA looks like a better investment than drones to further American interests.
Yassir Arafat was at least as evil as OBL yet not only was he protected by America, Europeans (especially the French) and Israel, he is buried in Ramallah where his grave is considered a shrine by Arabs and visiting foreign dignitaries. Shame on those who allowed this outrage against humanity and who perpetuate his legacy of hatred.
Meira:
Arafat the beginning. bin Laden not the ending. All of the West has supported these terriosts with money and weapons since their inception.
And then gave them protectionism for the rest of their lives. Saddam and all the ilk of the middle east that cause chaos in the rest of the world have lived well until old age. All are terrorist and petted and pampered by the whole world. See the make up of the UN and the members that accepted these men into the ranks of lawmakers of the world. Corrupt.
Even ignoring the Crusades, which can be viewed as a response to Muslim aggression in the Holy Land, the persecution of the Jews and others such as Huguenots (and particularly, the Inquisition), …
–
Here is an interesting article about conditions during the Spanish Inquisition; it is not so cut and dried as people think, in fact according to this historical perspective the church was a force of moderation compared to how secular society acted:
http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/the-real-spanish-inquisition/
The Western apologists who prattle about “we have to be bigger than they are” are obviously mired in torpid binary thinking. The choice was not simply between burying him as a Moslem versus basting him in pigfat, instead the third choice was to let him slip-slide into the sea without ANY ceremony whatsoever. That would have demonstrated a consistent position that we do not consider an Islamist to be a true Moslem (BTW, I will not be a dhimmi and use the term ‘Muslim’), while simultaneously not attempting to stoop to petty vindictiveness.
The other good suggestion was offered by ‘leciat’ above… however, the Vile Obama administration never misses an opportunity to bend over and cravenly supplicate Islam.
This country will never make headway in this existential conflict until we come to a realization that Islam is the threat, not just Islamists. Here is some reality to ponder:
- Islam is a fixed set of beliefs… many Moslems decide not to follow all those beliefs, but that just makes them bad Moslems.
- The only thing that separates peaceful Moslems from radical Moslems is their actions, not their beliefs.
- There may be those we call moderate Moslems, but there is no moderate Islam.
..and finally…
“Mundus vult decipi”, transl: the world wishes to be deceived (attributed to the first century Roman satirist Petronius).
The only good fallout I can see from all this is that now we can point back to this burial and quite clearly demonstrate the left’s hypocrisy if they ever again claim that Islamists are not really Moslems.
If there are Muslims who view being buried at sea as a form of insult, even after undergoing their various rites, then might I humbly suggest they not make war upon us?
Likewise, I imagine if being vaporized by laser-guided high explosives complicates important, paradise-opening ceremonies, then perhaps getting into situations where vaporization is possible is… to be avoided?
Responsibility where responsibility is due and all tha… oh–whatever: calling Dr. Pershing!
–JC
http://neuropolitik.blogspot.com/2011/05/obamakilladen.html
Under the assumption that Bin Laden was a heretic against the Religious of Peace, we should have fed his body to swine.
Sorry, fsliber, we don’t desecrate bodies; even those of our enemies. It’s an American thing. You wouldn’t understand.
I don’t see any problem is saying bin Laden is not a true Muslim while still giving him a Muslim burial. There’s no need to focus on how this might please our most implacable foes. It’s more useful to focus on the large persuadable population who are not violent but not necessarily “nonviolent” who would prefer the corpse be respected. In any “hearts and minds” campaign, these are the hearts and minds we are fighting over and showing respect for our fallen enemy will help with this crowd.
Don’t give fodder to those Muslims who say America is fighting against Islam. It’s irrelevant that they may say it anyway–it matters with the audience that sits between us.
Very excellent article!
There is one thing I would add. Everyone tries to make comparisons between the Protestant (Christian) Reformation and any current efforts (however so minimal) to “reform” Islam.
The problem is that, when Christians get violent, they are contradicting their founder and the teachings of the early Church. When Moslems get violent, they are actually FOLLOWING the example of their founder and the steadfast constant teachings of Islam down through the centuries!
In general, the Protestant Reformation called on Christians to judge all beliefs, teachings and practice by the Bible (“Sola Scriputura”). It was recognition that the current state of the “Church” (e.g. “Catholicism”) had strayed from scriptural teachings, and needed to be returned to them.
But, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what needs to be done with Islam. Does anyone really want to hear “Moslem Reformers” cry “Sola Quran” ?
Isn’t that EXACTLY what OBL and his terrorist cohorts were/are doing?
In actual fact, in order to “Reform” Islam so that it is no longer violent and supremist, it would have to eliminate the pedophile rapist/murderer Mohammed as its prophet, the blood-thirsty “Allah” as it’s god, and render its central teachings moot.
Reformed Islam would in fact no longer be Islam.
So, even though these reformers may be attempting to do something good, the best that they can hope for is to create a completely new religion. And I doubt after all these centuries that the true violent supremist Jihad-oriented Islam will just go away once an alternative “moderate” Islam has been proposed.
Also, Islam has already had its “Reformation”. Which is why we are where we are.
Look up Sayyid Qutb. An Egyptian Muslim scholar, he came to the West in the 1950s, having made himself unpopular enough in Egypt that even Nasser wanted his head. He spent enough time in Western fleshpots (notably Atlantic City) to convince himself that Western civilization was depraved and evil. He then returned to the MidEast, and became a noted leader in “reforming” Islam- by “de-Westernizing” it, and returning it to its fundamentalist roots.
The rise of Islamic terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism track exactly with each other. As Islam has returned more and more to its original interpretations, it has become more aggressive and violent toward not only non-Muslims, but any Muslims that the Islamist “true believers” define as “insufficiently Islamist”.
This is what “reformation” means in Islam. Don’t think Martin Luther; think the Council of Trent. Except, as they would say on Monty Python, Even More Violent.
But this lot isn’t kidding.
clear ether
eon
Regarding the Islamic burial:
After years of being told by Obama, his leftist and moslem friends that OBL and other terrorists were not “true” moslems, but rather had “hijacked” Islam, the over-zealous concern for an Islamic burial exposes them all as hypocrites.
It proves once-and-for-all that Obama and his cohorts do indeed view terrorists as true moslems, no matter what B.S. they state repeatedly in public.
As the saying goes: “Actions are stronger than words”.
While Christianity has been guilty of cruelty, forced conversions, violence and other horrors, it has never been Christian doctrine to do those things. Christian tradition, as put forth in accepted scripture and the stories of the early church, was a tradition of kindness and love. It was, in fact, a tradition of suffering for the cause of Christ in the face of powerful oppressors. Cruelty towards ones enemies was never codified in doctrine; it was a perversion of doctrine. Whereas, cruelty towards, and disregard of, ones enemies is clearly codified in Islam, that glorious ‘religion of peace’ so highly regarded by politicians and academics. The burial at sea of one of Islam’s great heroes and modern civilization’s greatest villains, in order to respect Islamic tradition, certainly flies in the face of the way terrorists ignore Christian traditions, like not torturing prisoners, not abusing women, not oppressing others for their beliefs. The whole affair suggests still more genuflection towards Islam by our president.
> It was, in fact, a tradition of suffering for the cause of Christ in the face of powerful oppressors
Absolutely! This points to a very significant difference in the terminology, and its underlying theological basis, used by Christians vs that used by Moslems.
Early Christianity was known to be a “martyr” relgion. That meant that, following the example of their Founder, Christians were frequently “martyred” through sometimes very horrific means (crucifixion, torn apart by wild animals, etc.) This obviously was never considered something one “volunteered” for. But many stalwart Christians accepted this fate in the hopes of witnessing through their love and sacrifice, in the hopes of turning others to the Truth of Jesus Christ.
In contrast, “martyrdom” in Islam means strapping an explosive belt on and detonating it (or crashing a jet plane) in such a way as to destroy as many Infidel men, women, and children as possible, with the goal of obtaining entrance into a hedonistic “heaven” populated with subservient whores dedicated to your own personal sexual satisfaction.
(And there is likely a bonus if the “Infidels” are actually Jews!)
Quite the contrast!
We should do what we believe is right. We do not desecrate corpses. We believe that as long as it is practical to do so we should respect the formal religious adherence of the person who has died and his family. The opinions of those Muslims who opposed OBL and want to treat his body like dirt are irrelevant.
I disagree, one who shows no respect deserves none. Showing OBL such undeserved respect legitimizes his cause and is thereby undermining our own! I think wrapping him in pig skin is an undeserved insult to pigs. By the same token holding the remains in the condition they were recovered is in keeping with the rules of maintaining evidence. Then we could produce the body if needed, while at the same time putting a finger in the terrorist eye.
Just as a speculation.
What if Bin Laden didn’t die as advertised and was subjected to a little persuasion to the extent that producing the corpse would expose this and cause all kinds of problems.
A sea burial seems an excellent idea.
“We should do what we believe is right. We do not desecrate corpses. We believe that as long as it is practical to do so we should respect the formal religious adherence of the person who has died…”
This is an utterly stupid statement. There is a HUGE gulf between “descrating corpses” and meticulously following the “religious” rites of a mass murderer… especially one who has so frequently been declaimed as outside the faith by his fellow muslims.
We have/had NO moral obligation or ethical compulsion to provide religious rites to any such person, especially since the religion itself is the inspiration for the mass murder!
My happy thought for the day: Even as we speak, Osama bin Laden is in the process of being converted to crab excrement.
I only wish the Navy had wrapped him in bacon before dumping him out the garbage shoot.
The Obumer did it again!! He ordered the US military to bow down before a vile murderous enemy. Of course the Lame Scream Media is all agog over their Obamasiah! By the way what have pigs done that their skin should be clothes for such a beast?
“While feeding Osama to the hogs might be viewed as too barbaric (though for many of the people who make war on us, barbarism is all they understand),”
Problem with that is that I don’t want to eat any bacon that may at one point have been that scumbag. Leave the pigs out of it, at least the living ones. Bury him at the bottom of an outhouse.
The smartest thing to do might have been to ask CAIR to decide. They supposedly represent moderate Muslims in the US. Was Bin Laden an apostate, who deserved no respect in his burial, or was he a Muslim, who did. It would have been interesting to see their answer, and I would have had our gov abide by it. If they say, no he was an apostate, and did not deserve a Muslim burial, then we have their endorsement to treat him how we wish. If they say he does deserve a Muslim burial, than we know the moderates real views. It would have given us an opprtunity to either seperate CAIR from the terrorists, or know that they are not really seperate.
This is just proof that we have a Muslim president. Only another Muslim would be concerned about making sure that a monster like bin Laden gets a proper Muslim signoff.
If dumping a corpse into the ocean is an insult to the disciples of a desert-dwelling thug, what did the pirates of the Barbary Coast do with the corpses of their properly-executed partners in crime? Somehow, I doubt they kept them on board to rot.
Would just dumping his dirty, robed body in the Atlantic be defiling his body? Of course, it should all be filmed for posterity.
The body was shrouded when it went into the drink. Bet they replaced the head with a melon from the mess deck, so that Dubya could have Osama’s skull for his club’s collection. Hope the swabbies chummed up the water until the dorsal fins showed, and got some video of the frenzy.
There are no good outcomes when dealing with the Saracen, only bad and worse. I’m glad they took him out Old School man-to-man instead of with an overgrown hobby kit from half a world away. Even more glad he wasn’t taken alive, which I think was OBL’s life goal.
Can you imagine the three ring circus that would have emerged once Binny got lawyered up by CAIR? It would become not Osama, but America put on trial for finding OBL using information extracted by enhanced water sports. Add to that that we violated Pakistan’s sovereign soil and you have a fruit-of-the-poison-tree-defense, as well as a bully pulpit for the “America is the REAL terrorist” activist meme.
Why is it that those who think we need to prove that we’re “better” always want to set us up in situations that make us look worse?
I heard skull/head was left intact, just peed on and bacon wrapped before going overboard.
Hopefully, as he was drifting down as fish food, a friendly BIG octopus found that booty somewhat appetizing and decided to try some poking.
Moderate Muslim? Where are they? Is that similar to a Moderate Democrat? Muslims and Democrats equal tyranny–in fact, Muslims, Democrats, and RINOs want to destroy the Constitution while many are already pushing Sharia and Dhimmitude.
Islam, born of a illiterate warlord, the “prophet” Mohammad was a murder, rapist, slaver, thief , liar and a pedophile. If alive today he would be put on trail for crimes against humanity.
Many have broken moral compasses.
He should have been dropped overboard wrapped in a pigskin!
I wonder if the Navy men strapped a cement block to OBL before dumping him. There is always a chance that he will wash onshore somewhere. That would be ironic, for sure. It is possible that a shark would take a sniff of that scum and lose it’s appetite real quick, don’t you think?
I say , treat them the same way they treat us, the hell with what they think.
I believe it was a kill mission from the start, our seals are better shots than that. Why did he shoot the woman in the leg and then blow off osama`s head? Something is not right with how or what happened killing osama. Do you think somebody was afraid osama would tell the world things that our government did not want us to hear. Why did they throw the body away so fast and say it was because of muslim tradition, which is a straight up lie. If I can watch the President of the US get his head blown off, I surely could handle seeing a picture of osama no matter how bad he looks. Something stinks with that too. Why wash his body if your going to throw him in the ocean. I would have packed him a ham sandwich in his body bag. Please do not say to me it is because of our principles, just look at our history.
I guess one has to be my age or older to realize how disgraceful it is to the US Navy of John Paul Jones, to give a burial at sea to an enemy.
Funny, most any claiming to be ‘Moderate Muslim’ are merely practicing ‘taqiyya’. (Hope I I spelled it correctly, seems like all Islamic words have a variety of possible spellings in English).
On the other hand, *if* we really do have some ‘Moderate Muslims’, they should proudly be speaking out. The ONLY real Moderate I’ve heard is:
M. Zuhdi Jasser, M.D.
http://www.aifdemocracy.org/about/members.php
I’ve seen him a few times on FoxNews, he’s just about as redneck as myself.