The grieving widow of the Bataclan terrorist
Samy Amimour, aged 28, was one of the three shooters who killed 90 people at the Bataclan. Three days after the massacre, his wife, named as Kahina, emailed an old friend in France saying: “Did the attacks shock you? LOL,” before boasting that her husband had been one of the assailants.
“I encouraged my husband to leave in order to terrorize the people of France who have so much blood on their hands […] I’m so proud of my husband and to boast about his virtue, ah la la, I am so happy,” the emails uncovered by investigators said.
The woman is 18 years old and based in Iraq, where she recently gave birth to a child. She had also sent threatening messages to the friend before the attacks took place, saying “France and the whole coalition will know what it’s like to have war at your home. You kill us, we kill you, the equation is simple.
“As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.”
Why am I spotlighting this? Mainly because this woman was apparently (as far as I can tell from the article, anyway) born and raised in France, or at the very least raised in France. She and her husband met there.
Note some of the modernisms that make her sound like the French equivalent of a Valley Girl, the “ah la la” and the “LOL.” Eighteen years old and very happy about the slaughter. Note, also, the inclusion of “cops” along with Jews as an obvious target, reflections of a sort of Muslim Lives Matter mentality that sees police (and Jews, of course) as the most natural enemy in the world.
She is warning the friend to whom she’s writing that all French people are now fair game, because of a “you kill us, we kill you” mentality. But she has also made it clear that killing will be the remedy for all offenses, not just for killing—“as long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims” you will be killed. And it’s Muslims who will decide what is offensive.
This young widow adds a pro-welfare-state mentality as she goes on to describe her apartment in Iraq under ISIS:
I have a furnished apartment with a fitted kitchen, two bathrooms and three bedrooms, and I don’t pay rent, electricity or water bills. What a great life!”
So she’s touched several leftist bases: revenge killings against the evil West, the right to declare what offends you and to act on it, hatred for police, and free stuff. Is it any wonder that the Left sometimes displays certain sympathies with radical Islam and jihadis, and that many leftists make excuses for it and strive to “understand” it?
Fanaticism sows the seeds of its own destruction .
This woman reminds me of something interesting I observed over the weekend. I escorted a woman friend of mine to a high-end shopping mall where we unsuccessfully tried to see the new and sold-out STAR WARS movie at the mall’s metroplex. Stymied, we decided to go window shopping, and my friend went into a high-end woman’s clothing store while I waited outside in the Bored Guy’s section. The only other customer in the store was a woman in full head-to-toe Islamic woman regalia. Only her eyes, bridge-of-nose and eyeglasses were visible. Hanging outside the store, in another part of the Bored Guy section, was the woman’s apparent husband, who wore one of those ugly, scraggly, “jihadi” style beards similar to this guy’s:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492864/The-surprising-truth-Rage-Boy-Americas-hated-poster-boy-Islamic-radicalism.html
Hubby also had the kids. I thought since Islam seems to be so strict, he’d keep a tight rein on the kids; but instead he let them run around screaming inside and immediately outside the store. But what interested me most was the woman. What could she be possibly interested in at that kind of fashionable woman’s store? “Excuse me, do you think this gown would cover a dynamite vest? Just curious.”
They do more than excuse and sympathize with it. The vigorously oppose the actions needed to counter it.
Bilwick:
It depends on the country of origin and the background, but I’ve heard that under the burka some women dress quite elegantly and stylishly.
Allah willing there’s a laser guided bomb in her near future.
The self righteousness is amazing for one so young. She could give the Pharisee in the parable lessons in self righteousness.
“We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us.”
— Prime Minister Golda Meir
When I read the translation of her e-mail I thought maybe the “ah la la” is a rough translation of the ululating sound prevalent in celebration and mourning in Arab culture, rather than teen-age emotion, but what do I know?
Rufus T. Firefly:
Actually, the “LOL” was the Valley Girl part, and the “ah la la” was the French part. I saw it as a variant of “ooo la la,” which I thought was a sort of a stereotypical joke until I went to France and heard a lot of people actually say it.
She is merely the 21st century version of all those German, French, and British women who went all romantically ga-ga over those handsome manly and daring men in their spiffy uniforms … who were doing unspeakable things whilst wearing those uniforms.
But they were so brave and determined and alpha-male … a poor young starry-eyed romantic girl just couldn’t help falling for them!
On a mattress with their legs wide apart, usually.
Afterwards, when the objects of their teenaged infatuation had lost a war, the luckiest were stripped naked and had their heads shaved.
I hope that I live long enough to see it happen to these ISIS-infatuated t*ats. Heck, I’d even help with the razor.
Certain sympathies… that’s not very accurate.
Ymarsakar:
Well, it’s certainly not very specific—but it’s accurate, if vague 🙂 .
““As long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims, you will be potential targets, and not just cops and Jews but everyone.””
I used to dread the day when the combined attacks from these animals cause the West to throw off restraint and start killing these Muslims wholesale.
Now I find myself more and more looking forward to it.
Neo said:
“So she’s touched several leftist bases: revenge killings against the evil West, the right to declare what offends you and to act on it, hatred for police, and free stuff.”
Two additional traits which both the left and the Islamist share – first the lust for power over other people. The second is a shared narcissistic pseudo-morality which makes unending moral demands on other people and condemns them endlessly but which imposes no limits on themselves. This inversion of morality is probably the most pernicious shared trait since people who project their own evil on other people have no internal conscience which could limit their crimes towards other people.
“She is warning the friend to whom she’s writing that all French people are now fair game, because of a “you kill us, we kill you” mentality. But she has also made it clear that killing will be the remedy for all offenses, not just for killing–“as long as you continue to offend Islam and Muslims” you will be killed. And it’s Muslims who will decide what is offensive.”
Giving offense constitutes an attack on Islam.
Surah 2:191 Al-Baqarah (The Cow)
“And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”
Fitnah can be translated into English a number of different ways. It can mean causing civil strife, becoming too westernized (thus leading to the honor killings of young women in the West who would rather wear jeans and t-shirts than a hijab [“and fitnah is worse than killing”]), it can mean proselytizing to attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity, drawing a Muhammad cartoon, pointing out a truth about Muhammad that Muslims want to hide, such as he married six year old Aisha and consummated the marriage when she was nine; essentially anything the Muslims consider trouble making. Non-Muslims offending Muslims can and usually does definitely fall within this category.
Also Muslims have a very broad interpretation of what constitutes an attack. Chapter 9 of the Quran tells Muslims why they must make war on Jews and Christians. Among the reasons:
Surah 9:32 At-Tawbah (The Repentance)
“They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it.”
Speaking can easily constitute an attack on Islam. Even speaking politely and factually will be considered an attack on Islam if it “spreads doubt” among Muslims. As well some things should. For instance, ISIS was widely condemned as un-Islamic when they burned that Jordanian pilot to death. A number of noted Islamic scholars such as Barack Obama said so. But is it? In fact, Islam is incoherent and often contradictory, and this one of those cases. The Sunnis have six canonical hadith collections (all the madhabs or schools of jurisprudence agree on five of those texts, there is minor dispute about which hadith collection should be the sixth).
In Sahih al Bukhari there is a hadith about the fourth rightly guided caliph, Ali. He burned some apostates to death. When one of Muhammad’s other original companions, ibn Abbas, hears about it he says he wouldn’t have done it as Muhammad forbade the practice (Muhammad also engaged in the practice, at least as far as using fire as a means of torture, and Muhammad says he wanted to burn people to death for failing to show up at the mosque for prayers).
On the other hand in the hadith collections of both Sunan abu Dawud and Sunan ibn Majah (of the five extant Sunni madhabs, the Maliki school replaces Sunan ibn Majah with Muwatta Malik; the other four accept ibn Majah’s collection) Muhammad commands Muslims to adhere to both his Sunnah and the example of the rightly guided caliphs who would follow him.
As we’ve already seen, the fourth rightly guided caliph, Ali, burned apostates to death. And ibn Abbas’ protest is pretty weak, amounting to “I wouldn’t have done it that way.” More importantly, during the reign of the first rightly guided caliph many people who became Muslim only so Muhammad wouldn’t kill them tried to break away. So the first and major task of his caliphate was to fight the wars of apostasy. He sent an envoy with a letter and an army to the rebels. The letter said that entire matter would be forgotten as long as people pledged loyalty to the caliph and fulfilled the same obligations to him as they did to Muhammad.
Anyone who refused would be burned with fire and killed in “all possible ways.”
That caliph was Abu Bakr, and he was a man of his word. He burned people alive. And the leader of ISIS chose the nom de guerre Abu Bakr al Baghdadi for this very reason. He is modeling his caliphate on Abu Bakr’s, and his first task is to purge the ummah of apostates, hypocrites, and heretics.
So is burning people alive is un-Islamic or Islamic? That depends on which contradictory command from Muhammad you want to follow. The one found in Sahih al Bukhari that says he forbade the practice. Or the one found in Sunan abu Dawood and Sunan ibn Majah that says to adhere to the example of the rightly guided caliphs. At least two of whom burned people alive.
This confusion also invites the question; if Muhammad really forbade the practice, wouldn’t the rightly guided caliphs, Muhammad’s close companions, have known about it?
But back to the subject at hand, pointing out these contradictions most definitely can constitute a criminal offense such as offending Islam and the prophet. Pointing out how Islam so often refutes itself puts Muslims in a dilemma, can cause them to doubt their faith, and their religious leaders can’t explain these away. If you don’t believe me go to Saudi Arabia where the pet Muftis are declaring ISIS un-Islamic and publicly disagree by pointing out this contradiction. See how many lashes you get, if you escape the beheading.
There’s also a subtler point at play. Under Islamic law only the caliph can declare an offensive jihad. There hasn’t been a universally accepted caliph since Ataturk abolished the caliphate in 1924 during his modernization drive. But there’s no need for anyone in particular to declare a defensive jihad. All anyone has to do is declare that the ummah or part of the ummah is under attack. Since almost anything can constitute an attack, that’s very easy to do. It’s almost impossible not to do it. As Kahina is demonstrating, not even the campus #BLM crowd has the advanced sense of falsified victimhood as the Muslims. And how could they? The Muslims have been cultivating that particular sense of victimhood for 1400 years.
As an aside, this is another reason Obama is a fool. He apparently believes that if he addresses all the grievances of the Islamic world then they’ll be at peace with us. His appeasement of Iran and his hard line against Israel in favor of the Palestinians seems to indicate he actually believes this. He loves to spike the football and show us Americans how we’ve been doing it wrong since 1787.
But the Muslims will keep inventing grievances because they need a pretense to wage jihad until there’s another recognized caliph. Or, extract concessions from Obama, the useful idiot.
Nice post Steve57. So much for so called radical Islam vs good moderate Islam. All Islam is radical.
The best part of your post was this:
“Pointing out how Islam so often refutes itself puts Muslims in a dilemma, can cause them to doubt their faith, and their religious leaders can’t explain these away.”
I’ve pointed out this myself and was told that I’m arrogant and ignorant because I pointed out that Islam is extremely vulnerable because of it’s inherent contradictions. The intellectual foundations of Islam are very weak and can not stand up to honest criticism. Islam is viable only because the left carefully protects it and nurtures it.
Fighting Islam through force is absolutely necessary but force alone can not win the war. In addition, we need to understand the fundamental intellectual flaws in Islam and we need to point them out as loudly and as often as we can. Only after Muslims realize that their faith is built on shifting sand will they be freed from their mental shackles to pursue something better.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-rule-of-law.html
Something interesting about current day IS, the Islamic Caliphate, plus some of my comments there.
“It depends on the country of origin and the background, but I’ve heard that under the burka some women dress quite elegantly and stylishly.”
I’ll have to investigate that more thoroughly!