Al-Qaida rejects Saudi ultimatum--Everyone needs to read this

[NewGuy]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39444

Al-Qaida rejects Saudi ultimatum
'Oh demonic rulers, there will be no surrender!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 15, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

An online magazine tied to al-Qaida responded to Saudi Arabia's ultimatum to terrorists with an emphatic rejection, referring repeatedly to the kingdom's leadership as "demonic rulers."

Saudi Crown Prince Abd Allah ibn Abd Al-'Aziz declared June 23, on behalf of Saudi King Fahd ibn Abd Al-'Aziz, a month-long period of clemency during which al-Qaida members could surrender.

In response, the magazine Sawt Al-Jihad, which is identified with al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, published an article by Sheikh Ubay Abd Al-Rahman Al-Athari bin Bajad Al-'Utaybi, titled "Oh Demonic Rulers, There Will Be No Surrender!," rejecting the Saudi offer, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which provided a translation.


"Praise be to Allah, and prayer and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and all his family and companions. Now to the matter:
"We have heard the speech of the Traitor of the Two Holy Places, which was written by one of his black servants and read by the stupid one, his crown prince [Abdallah ibn Abd Al-'Aziz], which states that the Mujahideen must turn themselves in within one month from the date of the speech.

"We want to tell these demonic rulers [Tawaghit] and their rabble hangers-on, their black servants, their army, and their rabbis, monks, and agents: We did not take this path [of Jihad] because someone misled us or for the sake of some person. Rather, we read in the Book of Allah [the Quran] 'Oh you who believe, what is it with you, that when you are asked to go forth to fight for the sake of Allah you cling heavily to the ground? Are you more satisfied with this world than with the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life as compared with the Hereafter [Quran 9:38].'

"We went forth to fight for the sake of Allah, and we saw the lands of the Muslims conquered and their holy places defiled by Jews, Christians, Shiites, and polytheists, and especially the land of the two holy places [the Arabian Peninsula], and so we undertook Jihad in it.

"Oh demonic rulers! Jihad for the sake of Allah is one of the religious obligations of Islam, which has been practiced by the heroes of the Islamic nation, as a way of removing injustice to them, slaughtering their enemies, and aspiring towards rightly guided caliphate. Jihad is a principle of faith that flows in our blood and gushes from our hearts.

Far more in the article, but this makes the same point that Christians have known for a while now.

This is a HOLY war, not a political one.

-DESPITE WHAT IS PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED.

 

[dilloduck]

As is the current election process.

 

[TheOne]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39444
Far more in the article, but this makes the same point that Christians have known for a while now.

This is a HOLY war, not a political one.

-DESPITE WHAT IS PUBLICLY PROCLAIMED.

So, you are proposing we accept the rantings of a small group of radical religious lunatics as the word for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and use those words to incite peace loving Christians into a crusade against Islam?

It seems you may be playing right into the radical's hands. What better way to incite a peaceful Muslim into war than by inciting a peaceful Christian to take up arms against him?

Perhaps we could have the fundamentalist Christian church leaders in the US who believe in your theory use church funds to send their flocks into battle and spare the rest of us American taxpayers the financial and human burden. This way, we can have the radical Muslims and the radical Christians face off and hopefully, destroy each other while the peaceful ones on both side ignore them and practice loving our neighbors.

Sound good?

 

[Annie]

TheOne. Not saying your wrong, just show me convincing evidence of peaceful Muslims. Somewhere that there is condemnation for terror, without saying it's the fault of the joos!

 

[NewGuy]

So, you are proposing we accept the rantings of a small group of radical religious lunatics as the word for the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and use those words to incite peace loving Christians into a crusade against Islam?

Define radical, define lunatic.

The majority follow the koran's teachings. The koran's verses are listed. YOu would do well to research this section to know that the topic has been brought up numerous times. If you want to claim this point, you will lose.

It seems you may be playing right into the radical's hands. What better way to incite a peaceful Muslim into war than by inciting a peaceful Christian to take up arms against him?

It might be you have no clue what you are about to encounter if you want to debate these points. Being a muslim propagandist, I suggest you prep yourself. You will need it.

Perhaps we could have the fundamentalist Christian church leaders in the US who believe in your theory use church funds to send their flocks into battle and spare the rest of us American taxpayers the financial and human burden. This way, we can have the radical Muslims and the radical Christians face off and hopefully, destroy each other while the peaceful ones on both side ignore them and practice loving our neighbors.

Perhaps you ought to explain why "fundamentalism" is bad, why "radicals" are in the same category, and why you think islam is peaceful. -And Gop_Jeff would appreciate you doing so in the appropriate religious section.

You would seem to pit Christianity and islam against each other as peaceful religions with different extremes and call one fundamentalist and the other radical.......yet you side with islam......the "radical".

 

[NewGuy]

As is the current election process.

Prove it.

Remember, you claim it a "holy war".

 

[TheOne]

Define radical, define lunatic.

In the context I was using the terms, they refer to Al Qaeda and the individual who wrote the article, Sheikh Ubay Abd Al-Rahman Al-Athari bin Bajad Al-'Utaybi. Radical in the sense of extreme; marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional. And lunatic in the sense of wildy foolish or insane.

The majority follow the koran's teachings. The koran's verses are listed. YOu would do well to research this section to know that the topic has been brought up numerous times. If you want to claim this point, you will lose.

I have seen the koran verses. I have also seen barbaric passages in the Bible. The literal interpretation of these texts is very limited on both sides. I am not apologizing for Christians or Muslims, just making the point that both of these holy books were penned in more violent times and only fundamentalists from either side adhere strictly to them. It is my experience, from talking with several religious people on both sides, that the Koran and the Bible are predominately filled with teachings which instruct it's readers to be good to others and to lead peaceful, loving lives.

It might be you have no clue what you are about to encounter if you want to debate these points. Being a muslim propagandist, I suggest you prep yourself. You will need it.

I am not a muslim propagandist. I am not even a muslim. I am a practical person who believes people should try and live peacefully together. I find Christians who attempt to persuade other Christians that Islam is "evil" and that they are justified in wanting it destroyed no better than the radical Islamists who are doing the same.

Perhaps you ought to explain why "fundamentalism" is bad, why "radicals" are in the same category, and why you think islam is peaceful. -And Gop_Jeff would appreciate you doing so in the appropriate religious section.

Breifly, and I alluded to this earlier, in my opinion, "fundamentalists" take a more literal interpretation of religious texts which were written many centuries ago. As we have evolved as humans, and our technology has evolved, we must be very careful to control the outbreak of "holy wars" which civilizations were able to withstand in the ancient days void of devastating weapons. I think I already described why I think Islam is peaceful, but I will re-iterate: The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and deserve the same rights to enjoy their lives and faiths as Christians or Atheists for that matter.

You would seem to pit Christianity and islam against each other as peaceful religions with different extremes and call one fundamentalist and the other radical.......yet you side with islam......the "radical".

I side with neither. If you were a Muslim telling me that Christianity was a barbaric religion, I would argue that point as well. As it stands, all I can see here is people vilifying Islam, and unjustly I might add. The bottom line is that both sides need to take steps to avert a "Holy war" and be accepting of each other's right to worship and live. I am quite certain that the spirit of both religions condone that.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm tired of doing all your research for you !! Get off your butt and find it yourself.

 

[Merlin1047]

Newguy, I thought you were making that camel jock's name up till I read the article.

"Sheikh Ubay Abd Al-Rahman Al-Athari bin Bajad Al-'Utaybi" wow - didn't know that "asshole" was such a long word in Arabic.

Long-winded bastard, isn't he.

:chains:

 

[NewGuy]

I have seen the koran verses. I have also seen barbaric passages in the Bible. The literal interpretation of these texts is very limited on both sides. I am not apologizing for Christians or Muslims, just making the point that both of these holy books were penned in more violent times and only fundamentalists from either side adhere strictly to them.

Oh, that makes sense.

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the basic foundations of the ideal. You claim a fundamentalist would be an extremist by this point.

Contradictory.

Also, you defile the word Holy as you claim both books are. You have read parts, but have no clue about either. The problem is that if you claim them both HOLY then BOTH ARE OF GOD. IF ONE is of God, IT is HOly and the other is not. More contradictions because you are uninformed.

It is my experience, from talking with several religious people on both sides, that the Koran and the Bible are predominately filled with teachings which instruct it's readers to be good to others and to lead peaceful, loving lives.

Again, you are uninformed. You listen to muslims who mislead as commanded by the koran, and then defend them as a megaphone for their propaganda. Their text claims they need to kill infidels, Jews, and Christians.

I am not a muslim propagandist. I am not even a muslim. I am a practical person who believes people should try and live peacefully together. I find Christians who attempt to persuade other Christians that Islam is "evil" and that they are justified in wanting it destroyed no better than the radical Islamists who are doing the same.

That is because you don't know what the book says. It is a bad thing to let yourself be used as a megaphone for muslims by defending their text which defines their religion, when you don't even know what it says. It IS a terrorism handbook, and by letting it stay on par with a Holy book of peace, you now defile the Holy book, and make the unHoly normal.

The only extremist in this improper juxtaposition is you as being in favor of islam over Christianity. -And pushing it.

Radical is when you are not the norm, right?

PEACEFUL muslims are the radicals. -As defined by their text.

Breifly, and I alluded to this earlier, in my opinion, "fundamentalists" take a more literal interpretation of religious texts which were written many centuries ago. As we have evolved as humans, and our technology has evolved, we must be very careful to control the outbreak of "holy wars" which civilizations were able to withstand in the ancient days void of devastating weapons.

Your flaw is in seeing things "literal" or "figurative".

Try IN CONTEXT.

I think I already described why I think Islam is peaceful, but I will re-iterate: The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and deserve the same rights to enjoy their lives and faiths as Christians or Atheists for that matter.

In America, religious freedom is allowed and acceptable. The practice of violating the "inalienable" rights is not. Terrorism is a violation of those rights.

Islam as practiced peacefully is acceptable. -As stated, you are wrong in assuming what the norm is. Saudi Arabia is proof. The majority is in sync with AQ and it is the root of most worldwide terrorism.

I side with neither. If you were a Muslim telling me that Christianity was a barbaric religion, I would argue that point as well. As it stands, all I can see here is people vilifying Islam, and unjustly I might add. The bottom line is that both sides need to take steps to avert a "Holy war" and be accepting of each other's right to worship and live. I am quite certain that the spirit of both religions condone that.

Then you are wrong. You claim certainty and haven't read.

You side with one by not denouncing the other.

 

[NewGuy]

I'm tired of doing all your research for you !! Get off your butt and find it yourself.

The difference is YOU made the claim.

I asked no defining or opinionated referencing questions.

If you cannot prove your opinion, it is a worthless one.

 

[dilloduck]

The difference is YOU made the claim.

I asked no defining or opinionated referencing questions.

If you cannot prove your opinion, it is a worthless one.

So I guess i'm so asssume that you don't think this election has anything to do with secularism VS. religion .

 

[TheOne]

TheOne. Not saying your wrong, just show me convincing evidence of peaceful Muslims. Somewhere that there is condemnation for terror, without saying it's the fault of the joos!

OK. Sounds fair.

Muslims Against Terrorism

"It's not the Islamic Way"

Saudi Clerics Denounce Terror

Muslim American Groups Denounce Terrorist Attacks

American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism

I could go on and on. Here's a link that lists several links to the information you desire

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Is that enough to sway you?

 

[NewGuy]

OK. Sounds fair.

Muslims Against Terrorism

"It's not the Islamic Way"

Saudi Clerics Denounce Terror

Muslim American Groups Denounce Terrorist Attacks

American Muslims and Scholars Denounce Terrorism

I could go on and on. Here's a link that lists several links to the information you desire

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

Is that enough to sway you?

Is the koran enough to sway YOU?

 

[dilloduck]

So I guess i'm so asssume that you don't think this election has anything to do with secularism VS. religion .

I must have phrased this poorly.

Do you think that the secular vs. religious points of view will be a factor in this election, New Guy?

 

[TheOne]

Is the koran enough to sway YOU?

I am sorry NewGuy. I think you are an extremely religious person who really has no desire to make rational, logical arguments. I will no longer waste our time continuing this debate. You belief in things you can't prove and I don't have the patience or desire to get on the gerbil wheel of circular disagreement with you.

I will urge you though, in the spirit of whatever religion you practice, to look a little deeper into the true heart and nature of your faith. If you can, think of peaceful, productive ways of loving all people and respecting their right to exist here. I think whatever supreme being you worship will smile on you and reward you for your mercy and compassion.

 

[dilloduck]

I must have phrased this poorly.

Do you think that the secular vs. religious points of view will be a factor in this election, New Guy?

My bad----I forgot you don't answer direct questions.

 

[NewGuy]

I am sorry NewGuy. I think you are an extremely religious person who really has no desire to make rational, logical arguments.

If going to the source is not rational or logical, then you are right.

I will no longer waste our time continuing this debate. You belief in things you can't prove and I don't have the patience or desire to get on the gerbil wheel of circular disagreement with you.

Prove?

You don't deem the koran proof of a muslims belief and can very easily search the forums on this issue. It is not I who is unwilling to prove or unable to prove.

I will urge you though, in the spirit of whatever religion you practice, to look a little deeper into the true heart and nature of your faith. If you can, think of peaceful, productive ways of loving all people and respecting their right to exist here. I think whatever supreme being you worship will smile on you and reward you for your mercy and compassion.

Matthew chapter 10
King James Version

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

 

[NewGuy]

My bad----I forgot you don't answer direct questions.

From you, it would be pointless. You did your normal bait and switch.

First you claim this election is a Holy war and now you claim religion is a factor and think I disagree.

Answering your questions is a waste of time.

Why should I answer a direct question when you cannot furnish a direct interest in answers?

 

[dilloduck]

From you, it would be pointless. You did your normal bait and switch.

First you claim this election is a Holy war and now you claim religion is a factor and think I disagree.

Answering your questions is a waste of time.

Why should I answer a direct question when you cannot furnish a direct interest in answers?

No bait and switch. Being as religious as you are I thought that you could expound on how the dems are attacking religion . It's real obvious to me. I just compared our elections to the war in Iraq and find them quite similar in ways. Maybe you would be more interested in the similarity if one of your guys had a chance to win it,