August 08, 2006
Siddiqui, Haq and "Sudden Jihad Syndrome"
Here's another recent op-ed by Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui, the local Muslim leader who wrote the not-very-sympathetic letter to the Jewish Transcript regarding last month's deadly terrorist attack at the Seattle Jewish Federation. From the Everett Herald, July 19, just 9 days before the Seattle shooting "West stands by as Arabs are slaughtered".
I grieve that once more Muslims will sit it out and watch the slaughter of Muslims and Arabs (many are Christians) and only grumble among ourselves.
I fear there may be some idiotic Muslim who will decide to take matters into his own hand and perpetrate some terrible act on people whose only guilt is inaction (just like the Muslims themselves). This will only fuel more fire against us.
This sounds like a kind of veiled threat. At best it's a pathetic self-portrait of Muslims as perpetually enraged victims who cannot control themselves, and deserve a free pass for committing violent acts. (to paraphrase, " 'Sudden Jihad Syndrome' is a real phenonmenon, but don't blame us, it's not our fault!"). It's not unreasonable to wonder if Naveed Haq, who lived in Everett
, read this op-ed and drew inspiration from it. It certainly renders as disingenuous Siddiqui's statement to the Jewish community that Haq's terrorist act should be "recognized for the grievous crime that it is, rather than an event that calls for an explanation or apology by Muslims"
Hat tip: Dan Sytman.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at August 08, 2006
10:24 AM | Email This
1. It's not unreasonable to wonder...
That's quite a loaded sentence there, which you try to soften with the 'it's not unreasonable...' preface. I could attribute his killing spree to a million different things using that structure. That's kind of low, Stefan.
In case you missed it, you should read comment #40 on your last post below.
2. I can see how someone would read the first sentence about grieving that Muslims just sit by and watch and then read the second sentence about someone taking matters into his own hands and think that Siddiqui was trying to subtly encourage some act, but that seems like a really heinous misreading of what he was actually saying. In fact, he was predicting (correctly, apparently) that an act by some 'idiot' would cause people like you to start piling on against Muslims in general.
3. At best it's a pathetic self-portrait of Muslims as perpetually enraged victims who cannot control themselves, and deserve a free pass for committing violent acts
At what point do his comments seem like that? You really seem like you only skimmed it and got a very distorted reading.
It certainly renders as disingenuous Siddiqui's statement to the Jewish community that Haq's terrorist act should be "recognized for the grievous crime that it is, rather than an event that calls for an explanation or apology by Muslims"
Siddiqui is the same chucklehead who came on John Carlson's show and was all up in arms because is "wasn't proven" that the 9/11 hijackers were muslim.
He refuses to accept that the "religion of peace" might actually be the motivation for the terrorists.
5. You're gonna look better without a head, Gabriel. Clearly, you're not using it anyway.
6. You're gonna look better without a head, Gabriel. And it's not like you're using it...
7. I hate it when I change my mind after writing something and can't stop the "double post"...
8. libertarianobserver, how kind of you. I'm surprised Stefan allows those kinds of comments here.
9. "It is disgusting to me that Israel can get away with mass slaughter and all our Western "leaders" can ask for is "restraint" from Israel."
Jeff, what mass slaughter are you talking about?
With Hizballah using the building and area as a launch site, the time differential from attack to collapse, the staged photos, the possibility that bodies were brought to the site, or that Hizballah rounded up crippled and retarded children and blew it up.
The blood of the children of Qana is on Hizballah hands, not the West or Israel.
Or the attack on the funeral, the reports of which have been retracted. Is that your beef?
Where is your condemnation of the Arabs attacking the Newly formed Jewish State in '48.
Where is your condemnation of Hizballah firing on civilian populations?
Jeff, STFU until you understand the morality of hiding behind civilians so they become causalities and intentionally targeting civilians.
Until you have the moral clarity on that issue you have no place to criticize a nation defending it self from your members of your religion killing its citizens.
10. Yes, libertarianobserver, the two comments have such subtly different wit.
Gabriel, when acts of terror are perpetrated against western infidels, by the perpetrators own admission-
in the name of islam, and no-one in the islamic community stands up to roundly condemn these acts, then I have to assume that all muslims are complicit in acts of terror. Or scared sh*tless to voice a dissenting opinion.
I don't think I have to list all the individual terrorist acts performed by lone, bipolar, pissed-off, victimized self-admitted jihadists.
Remember, they want you dead, regardless of your
sensitivity to their so-called plight.
I am not sure I agree with the implications made in this post. I think they draw attention to the wrong things and misdirect the debate as to the comments made by Mr Siddiqui.
He references the "slaughter of Muslims and Arabs" and that the Muslims and others "do nothing". Does the deliberate falsification of information depicting the damage in Lebanon constitute "nothing"? Does the staged photos of dead people supposedly pulled from the rubble of a building constitute "nothing"? Then I say the Arab world should do less "nothing". If one talks abuot using civilians as human shields, if one talks about deliberately firing inaccurate rockets into civilian population centers as doing "nothing", then we need less of that "nothing" coming from the Arab world.
If by doing "nothing" he refers to the failure of the Arab world to condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of civilans as human shields, then Yes, most emphaticaly, yes, the Arab world is doing nothing. But since those aren't Arabs dying, that is NOT the "nothing" Mr Siddiqui is referring to.
However, when it comes to Arab deaths, not only are there denounciations by the Arab world, and the United Nations AND the western world, I wonder what "nothing" means to Mr. Siddiqui. For the world so strongly WANTS to do something to highlight the Arab deaths that they would go to great lengths to tell that story, even if it means ignoring any inconvenient truths, or failing that, to invent fact to tell the "fake but true" story.
If you look at the coverage and outrage of accidental civilian death by a group purposely trying to AVOID those deaths verses the dearth of outrage aganst those DELIBERATELY targeting civilians, then "nothing" means nothing.
When Mr. Saddiqui has the courage to stand up and proclaim in a loud voice that he will no longer tolerate the "nothing" that currently exists in the Arab world and instead insists that ANY deliberate targeting of civilians, YES, even Jewish civilians, then he will have the moral authority to denounce the accidental deaths of civilans. When he can say that he not only thinks Islamic terroism is wrong but that he repudiates any and all individuals, groups, organizations, governments and Imams who preach practice and support Islamic terrorism, then maybe he can whine about the "nothing" being done today.
Haq didn't have to read that specific op-ed piece. The bigoted and self-serving excuses Jeffy uses exist nearly everywhere. Go look at the evil nonsense coming out of CAIR sometime.
When the Imans and Muslim community start turning in these fanatics and openly supporting Israel's right to exist, then one can consider that there are "moderate" (read "rational") Muslims. Until then, the religion simply appears as just a silent enabler of these genocidal fanatics (as well as being incredibly misogynistic and bigoted).
There has been far more mass slaughter of Jews and Westerners by Muslims, than the opposite. But that's really irrelevant because Jeff Siddiqui wants us to believe that it's OK, or at least fair for Muslim leaders to stand by while Jews and Westerners are slaughtered, but it's not OK when Westerners fight back and Arabs are killed.
By any rational metric, the disciplined rules of engagement for the West are far more strict and restrained than anything seen from Muslims. Many on the left basically make the argument that since the Muslims are outmanned and outgunned, they have a right to fight using uniniformed combatants, postioning themselves amongst civilians, and using terrorism and other civilian killing techniques as part of a legitimate fight on their side. Meanwhile, if even one laser guided Western bomb misses its target by a small amount, and a strategiacally placed Arab civilian is killed, it's labeled a slaughter, and the West is vilified as equal in moral depravity to terrorists. Nevermind that leaflets were dropped telling civilians to leave before the Israelis attacked. Nevermind that the Israelis are uniformed combatants. Nevermind that the targets are military targets where the Israelis make every effort to be exact.
No, all that Western hating, Sudden Jihad Syndrome believers like Siddiqui are capable of understanding is that there is a "unjustified" response to Muslim violence from the West.
The only thing accepatable to Western haters like Siddiqui is that we take all terrorim and Muslim hatred lying down. No response from the West is ever justified in the minds of these appeasers. And any Muslim attack is immediately justified.
The left always demands not only the pacifism and restraint of the West as victims of terror, but the moral sanction of the West in accepting that terror as our own fault.
The moral bankruptcy of the left is appalling.
15. then I have to assume that all muslims are complicit in acts of terror
That's a very dangerous attitude, and I think that's why he debated whether or not to put out a statement regarding the shooting. Because all Muslims shouldn't be under suspicion until they put out such a statement.
And these are dangerous times that require us to step up and face reality.
When they start killing someone important other then those pesky Jews I'm sure you'll be appropriately outraged.
So let me make sure I understand the liberal and/or Muslim outrage.
Israel retaliates for indiscriminate rocket attacks or suicide bombing of its citizens - not okay
Saddam kills hundreds of thousands of his own citizens - okay
It's true, as long as you kill your own people, liberals don't care. As soon as you kill someone next door, warranted or not, well then something must be done.
No, no no! If you kill Arabs next door then something must be done. If you kills Israelis (or Americans) next door...well, they probably deserved it. I am sure if Iran or Korea nuked one of our cities these witless apologists would reach back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a justification for opposing our response.
It is, I know, a nuanced narrative gabe and the MSM/TSM promote. We will just have to wait for the movie from Michael Moore to spell it out for the rest of us.
20. Dan, dangerous times don't mean that you sell your soul and your sense of decency.
21. Gabriel: I think that when your head is cut off, your soul escapes. [sarc] Get serious. My own personal sense of decency does not embrace the many attacks perpetrated by muslim fanatics against my country and its citizens. How about yours?
I guess it's only ok to sell your soul and sense of decency in the name of jihadi terrorism huh?
Like it or not, this is going to be a long fight.
Check out this Yahoo Group.
It's getting lots of activity.