The New York Times reports on Muslims living in European countries who hear the calling to fight for their religion.
FRANKFURT — Before Abi left her parents’ house in northern Germany last year, she asked her father, “Daddy, what can I bring you from my journey?” He looked up from his book and answered, “Some perfumed oil.” “Will do,” she said, hugging him goodbye.
Abi and her husband decided to take a walk on the wild side and join up with the Mujahideen. Apparently many other European Muslims are doing the same.
He is still waiting, more than a year later, for her to return.
Abi, now 23, and her husband never made the trip they said they had planned to Saudi Arabia to visit Mecca and Medina. Instead they became part of a growing number of young Muslims from Germany and other European countries who travel to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region, eventually ending up in the camps of groups affiliated with Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Is this a problem? Islam's values are not compatible with Western values. Look at it on the bright side: Some Muslims are leaving Germany for good. European countries should encourage this sort of thing. Then make sure more do not arrive to take their place.
The article says that Muslims who return to Germany remain associated with "more militant Muslims". But Muslims see themselves as embracing a religion of peace. In their view if everyone submits to Islam then there'll be peace. So then are the Jihadists militants? Or are the Germans who refuse to submit to Islam the real militants? After all, if they would just submit then there'd be no reason for holy war. Seems like it is a value judgment to decide which is the right viewpoint. Did the New York Times reporter fail to respect the diverse values of Muslim holy warriors by calling them militants?
Mind you, I think the values of the Germans are superior to those of the Muslims. But then I do not pretend to embrace multi-culturalism or diversity clap-trap.
Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie told deputies that wearing a face-covering veil "amounted to being cut off from society and rejecting the very spirit of the French republic that is founded on a desire to live together."
"At a time where our societies are becoming more global and complex, the French people are pondering the future of their nation. Our responsibility is to show vigilance and reaffirm our commonly-shared values," she said.
I had been wondering whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden's right hand man Ayman al-Zawahri? Seems like he has become a one-hit wonder. But he's trying to get back into the game by coming to the defense of veil-wearing Muslim women in France.
In the 47-minute recording, Ayman al-Zawahri said the drive by France and other European nations to ban the veil amounted to discrimination against Muslim women.
"Every single woman who defends her veil is a holy warrior ... in the face of the secular Western crusade," he said.
My take: If Muslims in France want to wear the veil then the French government should pay for airplane tickets to allow those Muslims to move to a country where veil-wearing is accepted and even celebrated. Why should Muslims have to live oppressed among heathens when they can move to a country which is majority Muslim? Then the French should ban all Muslim immigration in order to protect Muslims from teh French veil ban. It is only fair.
Jihadists in America have been foiled so far. But for how long?
The Times Square plot marked the second time in less than six months that a local group whom it was believed lacked the capability to operate outside its traditional battleground had struck. On Christmas Day, a young Nigerian student acting at the behest of another close al-Qaeda ally, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), nearly succeeded in bringing down a Northwest Airlines flight in the skies over America. As a senior Obama administration official responsible for counterterrorism explained shortly afterward, “AQAP was looked upon as a lethal organization, but one focused [only] on the Arabian Peninsula. We thought they would attack our embassy in Yemen or Saudi Arabia” —and not in the United States. The Obama administration has now twice been caught either underestimating or dismissing the possibility that local terrorist groups may harbor grander international aspirations—that is, to attack in the United States itself as well as against overseas American targets. It was of course the Bush administration’s similar dismissal of al-Qaeda’s ability to strike at the United States in this country that led to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2010 August 01 12:50 PM Civilizations Clash Of|