December 19, 2009
Al Qaeda Reaches Out To The Ladies
Mark Schone reports on ABC.com that Zawahiri's wife Omaima Hassan published a statement on Islamic websites encouraging women to mass murder in the name of Islam.
Of course, she's just recommending what is commanded of Muslims in the Quran, in The Verse of the Sword. Also, while the actions of people written about in the Jewish and Christian Bible are not meant to be emulated by believers of those religions, anything the child-molesting, warring thug Mohammed did is "sunnah," to be emulated by Muslims. So, the truth is, there is no such thing as "moderate Islam," only Islam that isn't practiced according to Islam's dictates.
Schone reveals that Hassan is quite the faithful Muslim:
In the seven-page letter, after assuring friends and family that she and her husband are safe and well, Hassan outlines the ways in which women can assist their men with jihad. Hassan suggests that women work side by side in defending Islam with their men, but underlines that the most important role for women is to support male mujahideen by caring for their children."Jihad is an obligation for every man and woman," wrote Hassan, "but the way of fighting is not easy for women."
"Our main role -- that I ask God to accept from us -- is to preserve the mujahideen in their sons, and homes, and their confidentiality, and to help them raise/develop their children in the best way."
But Hassan also suggests that women can become suicide bombers, which she refers to as "martyrdom missions."
Hassan also urges women to wear hijabs, or head coverings, and to ignore Western media. Zawahiri, an Egyptian-born doctor, is a polygamist who has had at least four wives, two of them widows. Fundamentalist Islamic doctrine allows men to have up to four wives at one time.
Comments
Zawahiri's wife would be more convincing as a role model if she would strap a suicide bomb to herself
and take out a few infidels and her own life. But suicide is reserved for other people's children, not her and certainly not her husband. Such hypocrisy! It is as though there is a caste system among jihadists: those who urge martyrdom for others and the easily persuaded who listen to Zawahiri's wife then seek martyrdom.
Posted by: Nick at December 19, 2009 7:59 AM
One day a frog was about to swim across a river. As he hopped to the water a scorpion asked "Excuse me, but could I ride on your back?"
*No, I won't let you ride on my back. You'll sting me and I'll drown.*
"Don't be ridiculous" said the scorpion. "I can't swim. If I sting you out there, I'll drown too."
So the frog let the scorpion hop on his back.
Halfway across the river, he felt a sharp sting, instantly became weak, and began to sink.
*You idiot! Now we'll both drown. Why did you sting me?!*
And the scorpion said, "Hey, I'm a scorpion. It's my nature."
Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 19, 2009 9:09 AM
"Zawahiri's wife would be more convincing as a role model if she would strap a suicide bomb to herself"
Just wait till Ayman gets tired of the old hag-in-a-bag & decides to trade her in for a newer, friskier Wife #4.
Love that fable, but in the real world, scorpions can swim. More importantly, they know enough to conserve their venom & never lash out blindly, stinging only to subdue their prey & in self-defense. It's a chicken-or-the-egg thing. What came first: the willingness of the suicide bomber to be brainwashed into blowing himself up in a crowd of children, or the eagerness of Al Qaeda to get others to do evil on their behalf?
Posted by: Martin at December 19, 2009 9:41 AM
"Love that fable, but in the real world, scorpions can swim."
Sorry about that. I meant to write "A scorpion sent his wife down to the river bank, properly dressed in a hijab, to seek out an infidel frog to destroy in a suicide mission ..."
Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at December 19, 2009 9:56 AM
what excellent advice for waging war 1000 years ago. haven't a clue how to get them into this century if they have no interest in being here...
Posted by: SwissArmyD at December 19, 2009 10:20 AM
If we are libertarians, then why is polygamy treated as a negative in this post?
I see nothing wrong with polygamy, or polyandry.
Both practices have been norms in many, many societies and cultures for time eternal, and will probably be so into the future.
This reminds me of people who condemned homosexuality in the not-so-distant past. But we will evolve (I hope) to allow consenting adults to choose their own paths.
I do think that attacking another's religion is okay, when that religion espouses violence. But simply attacking other, non-violent cultural norms is pinheaded.
Polygamists do me no harm--terrorist bombers, yes.
Posted by: Mr BS in the Sky at December 19, 2009 3:12 PM
Polygamists do me no harm--terrorist bombers, yes.
Actually, Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa, of the London School of Economics, makes a convincing argument that polygamy leads to suicide bombings. Older, richer, more powerful men in Muslim societies monopolize more than their share of women, causing angry young men to get shorted in the chick department, and have no positive outlet for their energy.
Here, I'll let him say it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature
What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.
However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.
The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.
It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.
Posted by: Amy Alkon 
at December 19, 2009 3:55 PM
> Actually,
As long as I'm having a day of backhanded critique, let me go after this one.
Amy's one hundred percent right about this. But it's not just the published scientists who noticed, OK? A scientist is a guy with a diploma that hasn't be paid for yet, or that was financed by the local plumber's union or Rotary club. Science is not some shining cathedral of human excellence where all the truth is finally revealed. It's a political and financial enterprise like everything else in human life.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 5:24 PM
Also - Go to this at about 19 minutes.
(It amuses me when Wright snarks that conservatives are always complaining about "evil" just seconds before acknowledging that doesn't know what they mean.)
Posted by: Crid [CridComment @ gmail] at December 19, 2009 5:37 PM
haven't a clue how to get them into this century if they have no interest in being here...
Fuck 'em. It's like the neo-nazi and militia morons here. They don't want to be in this time. And we can't make them want to. They can be as backwards as they want at home; all we can do is kill the ones who want to make an issue of it at home.
Posted by: Whatever at December 19, 2009 5:53 PM
Go to this at about 19 minutes.
Wright is a great whipping boy, but Goldberg is not exactly the guy I'd choose to defend the conservative cause. The readers of Ballon Juice have him pegged:
Doughy Pantload- A derogatory nickname for LA Times columnist and former National Review Online Editor Jonah Goldberg, who inflicted a book-length violation of Godwin’s law upon an unsuspecting (and, among his readers, undiscerning) public. Frequently mocked for statement he made about his book, entitled “Liberal Fascism”, roughly a year prior to its publication, that it was a very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care; see also this related follow-up post. Variations include Doughbob Loadpants, as named by Norbizness.
Awesome. Goldberg is a nitwit.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?page_id=28596
Posted by: Whatever at December 19, 2009 6:54 PM
This argument is a stretch.
If "guys without chicks" is a danger, then we need to teach girls to have lots of sex all the time, so men can blow off steam. Widely commercialized and subsidized sex industries are a good idea too.
Anyway, Islamic terrorism is a recent trend.
Polygamy is dying in Moslem nations--yet terrorism is rising (though still but a minute threat to the West, way overhyped by authorities). If we graphed it, I expect we would find less polygamy but more terrorism.
And you dodge the q: In a free libertarian society, if consenting adults chose polygamy, how is that any worse or any better than gay marriage, hetero marriage, or a life of playing the singles-mingles game? Or serial marriages for that matter?
Posted by: Mr BS in the Sky at December 19, 2009 7:19 PM
> Goldberg is not exactly the guy
> I'd choose to defend the
> conservative cause
And yet, his thinking means more to me that does yours, and has explained much more of the world than yours has. Have you been asked who should defend the conservative cause?
And yet you've found a blog on the internet where people don't like him! Izzinat sumthin'?
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 19, 2009 7:44 PM
Have you been asked who should defend the conservative cause?
Not by you. But since you asked I'm a huge fan of the following conservative/libertarian types. They, unlike the mediocrity that is Jonah Goldberg have insightful things to say: Daniel Larison, Conor Friedersdorf, Andrew Sullivan, Megan McArdle, Charles Johnson.
Posted by: Whatever at December 19, 2009 9:09 PM
And yet, his thinking means more to me that does yours, and has explained much more of the world than yours has.
I'm sorry for you.
Posted by: Whatever at December 19, 2009 9:10 PM
Did you hear that Trig isn't Sullivan's baby?
Your list is inane; you'd recommend Helen Keller as power forward for the Lakers, being a Boston fan.
Have you read Liberal Fascism? You'd get a real kick out of it! Devastating. Tight, bright and punchy, but deeply researched and exhaustively sourced. I've bought it as gift for readers of this blog....
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 20, 2009 2:34 AM
Your list is inane; you'd recommend Helen Keller as power forward for the Lakers, being a Boston fan.
Yeah, my list is inane! Cause I don't favor the torture apologists and Republican cheerleaders that pass for "conservative" thinkers at NRO.
Have you read Liberal Fascism?
The aforementioned book length violation of Godwin's Law? When there are plenty of good books out there written by intelligent and insightful people? LOL.
Posted by: Whatever at December 20, 2009 9:12 AM
I've never met a liberal who's read that book. BUT ALL OF THEM HATE IT. Their fear is just so transparent. 'La la la, I haven't had time to read it yet....'
Leftydom is endless childhood.
Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 20, 2009 10:26 AM
Their fear is just so transparent
LOL. Fear.
I don't read tripe. Life's too short to read nonsense; I know Goldberg's thesis, and he basically waters down the definition of fascism to the point where it's essentially "any policies enacted by Democrats that I don't like". At that point it's as meaningless a term as "judicial activism". I don't watch Michael Moore's movies either because there's nothing to be learned there.
Leftydom is endless childhood.
GFY
Posted by: Whatever at December 20, 2009 11:51 AM
