Saturday, March 3, 2012

Soldiers Involved in Quran Burning Could Face Disciplinary Review

After ten bloody years in Afghanistan, it's come to this. U.S. soldiers are being punished for not following Sharia. Who conquered whom?

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — At least five American military personnel could face a disciplinary review over the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base in Afghanistan as conflicting accounts of what happened emerged Saturday, fueling more confusion over the incident that sparked six days of deadly riots across the nation.

A Western official told The Associated Press that a joint investigation by senior Afghan and U.S. military officials has convinced them that although mistakes were made, there was no intent to desecrate the Qurans and other Islamic religious texts.

The official, who has knowledge of the investigation, said it could lead to a disciplinary review of at least five U.S. military personnel involved. The official did not elaborate and spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case. It is unclear what such a review could recommend.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have apologized and said the Feb. 20 burning at a burn pit at Bagram Air Field outside Kabul was an accident. But the apologies failed to quell the anger, although protests over the burnings have now ebbed.

But Maulvi Khaliq Dad, a top Afghan religious leader who was on a different panel appointed by President Hamid Karzai to investigate the incident, claimed U.S. troops told Afghans at the base that the religious materials pulled from a detention center library were to be stored, but then they were sent for incineration.

"They are claiming that it was not intentional. Our investigative team says it was intentional," Dad said Saturday.

After Dad's panel presented its findings, Afghanistan's top religious leaders demanded on Friday that those involved be put on public trial and be punished, a position that Karzai backs. (Read more.)

Don't forget the hypocrisy:


Osama Abdallah said...

David Wood,

More and more you are drifting away into becoming a shallow-thinking person. Don't want to say bigot yet.
Let's analyze your statements in the video:

1- The US military didn't burn the Bibles because they considered them trash. The reporter was the one who called those Bibles trash, not the officials. And like you, I am against burning of Holy books with the intention to degrade them.

2- The US government is seeing 20,000 feet above the ground, while you can't seem to see past your nose.

3- Like it or not, the US military is obligated to follow the strict rules of not desecrating holy books. Otherwise, this will alienate the Muslim US soldiers.

3- Your dance on the fight the power, by the band "Public Enemy", wasn't suitable. You couldn't compare the bigotry and racism that openly existed in America against the "people of color" to the US government today trying to protect the Muslim minority against bigots. The US government can't afford to destroy its new image of a civilized country and turn it into a savage, hateful, barbaric, rednecked bigotted country that persecutes and harrases minorities, and disrespects even their Holy Books. Rednecks and their garbage from racism and KKKs don't belong in the government.

Now, whether this is some Zionist plot to take over your and my freedom here in the US, or not, through using Islam is something wouldn't surprise me. I know how despicable and dirty the US government can get, and I know how gullible and ridiculously naive the American people can be as well. So this is something we'll have to yet see. But the point I am making here is that you just can't compare the protection of minorities today with the fight against racism in the 70s and before. You're simply comparing apples to oranges, or Bibles to Qurans :).

You also have to be honest and state that the US government also did similar things, if not worse, in favor of the Jews. Websites in America were shut down because they were branded 'Anti Semetic'! Where were you when this happened? Why the double standards and the hypocrisy if you're ignoring this on purpose?

Osama Abdallah

Mary said...

Let's write to Congress (

Dear Representative:

Qur'ans were used in Afghanistan as a means of communications by the enemy combatants. Those ciphers/communiques were intercepted, confiscated, and destroyed so the enemy combatants could never have access to them. But, because Sharia law forbids the burning of Qur'ans, our President is apologizing and promising to follow Sharia law instead of U.S. law. The same tactic is used when enemy combatants hold up in mosques, and are assured of a safe place from which to shoot at U.S. troops. The same tactic is used when human shields are used and killed, and the responsibility is placed on U.S. troops instead of those who use human shields and the U.S. pays blood money (prescribed by Sharia law) to the families of human shields, accomplices, and jihadists themselves. Our troops were used like this for ten years with their hands tied and the enemy combatants protected by Sharia law. This weakening and killing off of our troops was only used to procure Islamic democracies with Islamic Constitutions enforced by Sharia law. Now, President Obama has sent our troops to Africa to fight against the only opposition force to the genocidal jihad conquering the oil-rich countries of Africa. This outrageous and seditious waste of the lives and health of U.S. troops must stop.

As a member of the United States Congress, I am asking and expecting you to put an end to enforcement of Sharia law by U.S. troops, to redefine the parameters when fighting against Islamic enemy combatants, to place the responsibility for using human shields, mosques, and Qur'ans squarely on the shoulders of those who use them, and to prohibit and forbid U.S. troops from being subjected to Sharia law, officially or unofficially. Let U.S. troops only be used to support the U.S. Constitution, let them only be answerable to U.S. law, and only be deployed when the safety of U.S. citizens is in eminent jeopardy. Station U.S. troops at U.S. borders and stop them from being used as pawns in the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad.

Traeh said...

In core Islamic texts, a system of discrimination akin to Jim Crow is imposed by Allah and Muhammad on non-Muslims

An example from Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:

Book 26, Number 5389

"Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him) as saying: 'Do not greet the Jews and the Christians before they greet you and when you meet any one of them on the roads force him to go to the narrowest part of it.' "

See also Qur'an 9:29:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth [Islam], out of those who have been given the Book [the Bible, given to "the people of the Book," Christians and Jews], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of [Muslim] superiority and they [Christians and Jews] are in a state of subjection [dhimmitude, i.e., second-class legal status for non-Muslims]."

In obedience to Qur'an 9:29 and other core Islamic texts, the infamous Pact of Umar, (Umar being one of the successors to Muhammad as leader of the Muslims) details many other forms of humiliation and discrimination Jews and Christians were required to submit to in order to save their lives. The only way to escape that discrimination was to die, or convert to Islam, or, if possible, emigrate beyond the expanding Islamic state.

Jim Crow at least was understood to be of merely human origin, and therefore we could get rid of it. By contrast, Islam's discrimination system of dhimmitude is rooted in the Qur'an and other core texts and thought by mainstream Muslim scholars around the globe to be valid (if not always enforceable) till the end of time. Even when not formally on the law books of Muslim-majority nations, the system of discrimination against non-Muslims is often present informally in the ethos and deepest assumptions of the peoples of those nations. A culture of Allah-mandated superiority to non-Muslims often informally pushes them into a lower social and legal status and deprives them of even the most basic human rights. In Islamic doctrine, there is no concept of general human rights equally possessed by all.

Traeh said...

Bernard Lewis, renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East, says Islam imposes, without limit of time or space, the duty to subjugate non-Muslims

In The Political Language of Islam, p. 73:

" is the duty of those who have accepted them [Allah's word and message] to strive unceasingly to convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

Traeh said...

On page 222 (326 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, he affirms that those who do not follow him will be "slaughtered":

"Abu jahl said to them: Muhammad alleges that if you follow him you will be kings of the Arabs and the Persians. Then after death you will be raised to gardens like those of the Jordan. But if you do not follow him you will be slaughtered, and when you are raised from the dead you will be burned in the fire of hell. The apostle [Muhammad] came out to them with a handful of dust saying: I do say that."

Traeh said...

On page 369 (554 in the Arabic) of the earliest Muslim biography of Muhammad, Muhammad says "kill any Jew who falls into your power":

It's a "charming" story of two brothers, Muhayyissa and Huwayyisa: (To avoid confusing the two brothers, keep in mind that the brother whose name begins with M is the Murderer in the story.)

"The apostle [Muhammad] said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.Thereupon Muhayyisa bin Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed [the Jewish merchant] Huwayyisa began to beat [his brother Muhayyisa], saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'...[Huwayyisa] replied, 'By God, if Muhammad had ordered you to kill me would you have killed me?' [Muhayyisa] said, 'Yes, by God, had he ordered me to cut off your head I would have done so.' [Huwayyisa] exclaimed, 'By God, a religion which can bring you to this is marvellous!' and [Huwayyisa] became a Muslim."

Traeh said...

In core Islamic texts, Muhammad says beat your wife, no questions asked

In Sunan Abu Dawud, a canonical hadith collection:

Book 11, Number 2142:

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab:

"The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: 'A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.' "

Traeh said...

Ibn Kathir, whose explanation of the Qur'an is likely the most widely used in the world today, wrote that manifold discriminations against non-Muslims are supported by Qur'an Chapter 9, Verse 29's command to put non-Muslims in a state of subjection