Mail
Magazine 24
The
Benghazi Scandal
by Nonie Darwish
Americans
need answers as to why
the Obama administration had no response to the eight-hour terror
attack on the
US consulate in Benghazi and who was involved in the decision not to go
to
their aid despite their repeated requests for help. And why is the
producer of
the "Innocence of Muslims" video still in a California jail cell,
allegedly for violating his parole, while none of the people who
refused to
rescue Ambassador Christopher Stevens and these immensely courageous
former
Navy SEALS has been even been named and charged with negligent
homicide, or
even reckless endangerment?
From
the Muslim world's viewpoint,
the Obama administration's behavior makes perfect sense: The Muslim
world is
used to, and expects, victims of terror not to act. It is an
unforgivable
violation of Sharia law for non-Muslims to fight back against jihadi
assaults.
As Muslims interpret such passivity, those who want to appease the
Muslim world
and its Sharia law are expected to freeze when faced with Islamic
terror --
freezing is the only acceptable response.
Ask
Coptic Christians why they
often leave Islamic terror unpunished, and why their Muslim attackers
never go
to jail? Why, if a non-Muslim responds to terror, he becomes an enemy
of the
Islamic State? Ask Israel why defending itself after terror attacks is
never
understood by the Muslim world? Muslims consider Jews as subhuman apes,
pigs,
and enemies of Allah, who do not have the right to defend themselves.
Ask
Middle Eastern non-Muslims why, even though the the Muslim media
constantly
slanders them, they must stay silent before the slander? Sharia law
permits
Muslims to slander and lie about their enemies. Ask victims of Islamic
terror
why they rarely, if ever, responded to it? Or why Christians in Egypt
never
burn mosques when Muslim attackers burn churches?
The
answer to all of the above is
simple: Under Sharia law, non-Muslims as well as non-Muslim countries,
must
never dare to respond to jihad [war in the name of Islam] in kind --
not even
to terrorism. If they do -- if even one Muslim is killed in the process
-- they
become permanent enemies of the Islamic State, worthy of more and more
slander,
terror and jihad.
To
understand the current administration's
stance on Libya, it might help first to understand what seem to be
Obama's
views on "The Muslim World." U.S. President Barack Obama and his
administration have for years been insisting that Islam has nothing to
do with
terrorism. The President apparently chooses not to see, hear or say
anything
uncomplimentary about Islamic Sharia and jihad. Members of the current
administration even insisted that attacks, such as that of Maj. Nidal
Hasan,
who had "SOA" [Soldier of Allah"] on his business cards and who
shouted "Allahu Akbar!" ["Allah is Greater!"], were
"man-caused disasters or "workplace violence," not Islamic
terrorism. They instead blamed Islamic anger on previous American
foreign
policies, Israel, or even a YouTube video – a charge later discredited.
To
members of the current
administration, jihad seems to have nothing to do with terror; they
dismiss
statements by Muslims and the prophet Mohammed, such as: ""Paradise
lies under the shade of swords" Sahih Bukhari V4B5N73. Instead,
President
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised to punish the
producer of
the video -- in violation of the American right of free speech.
Obama,
perhaps from his experience
among Muslims during his childhood in Indonesia, seems to have believed
that
during his administration he could usher in a new era of peace with
Islam. But
as he appears to have narrowed the problem of Islamism down to only Al
Qaeda
and possibly the Salafists, he thought he could embrace as moderate
other
Islamic groups, such as the Muslim Brotherhood -- a tortured revision
which has
to entail dismissing the long history of terror of the Muslim
Brotherhood,
which gave birth to Hamas, Al Qaeda and hundreds of other terror
groups. In
2004, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, for example, made it a religious
obligation
[fatwa] to abduct and kill US citizens in Iraq; and Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, who
masterminded the 9/11attacks, was raised in the Kuwaiti Muslim
Brotherhood. The
current leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Badi', has said,
"Palestine
will not be liberated by hopes and prayers, but rather by jihad and
sacrifice." Not to mention that the Brotherhood's endlessly repeated
motto
closes with, "Jihad is our way. And dying in the way of Allah is our
highest hope." In Obama's world, however, nothing is ever the fault of
Islam.
If,
however, placing American
marines in US consulates in dangerous, terrorist-infested Islamic
countries
were going to spark a bloody confrontation between American security
and
Islamists, this uncooperative behavior would discredit Obama's theory
of Islam
having nothing to do with terrorism, and contradict the State
Department's
report of July 2012, which stated that, "Al Qaeda is on the run," and
reversals looked impossible.
If
there were going to be confrontations
with militant Muslim jihadists in Islamic countries, his whole fantasy
of
having brought in a new era of American/Islamic relations would fall
apart and
he would not be any different from his predecessors.
What
seems not to have been taken
into account in subcontracting security to local Libyans, Muslims, is
that,
according to Sharia law, it is a capital crime for a Muslim to shoot
another
Muslim to protect a non-Muslim. Anyone who did this would instantly be
considered a violator of Sharia law, and an instant apostate marked for
death.
When the US State Department in Benghazi subcontracted consulate
security to
Libyan Muslims, there was of course precisely such a probability. The
plan was
therefore useless from the start: Muslim guards would be required to
follow
Sharia law to run away and leave the Americans to be killed rather than
violate
Sharia law and kill other Muslims to save these "unbelievers."
The
name of the group which took
credit for the Benghazi terror, "Ansar Al Sharia," means in Arabic,
"Upholders of Sharia." To them, one is either an enemy of Islam, or
unresponsive to Islamic terror. Many cultures around the world possibly
even
consider their subservience and oppression as being peacemakers with
the Muslim
world, the "Religion of Peace" – meaning there will be peace over the
world after everyone has converted to Islam.
Obama,
since his inauguration,
seems to have chosen to be this kind of a peacemaker and friend of
Sharia, a
trap that Muslims always count on: a fantasy that goes something like,
I will
make the Muslims love and accept me by respecting and accepting their
Sharia
law, because anything less might make me seem to them a hostile,
anti-Islamic
enemy, worthy of slander, attacks and more terror. It is possible that
Obama
did not want to aggravate a war on terror, which he refused to
acknowledge
existed, by concluding it in Pakistan and Afghanistan by withdrawing
troops,
and therefore being reluctant to send any military aid to Libya, which
he
thought he had just liberated. After all, he was probably counting on
the end
of Osama bin Laden and Muammar Qaddafi to secure his legacy as the
peacemaker
with the Muslim world.
Obama
was willing to pay a heavy
price in the hope of receiving acceptance from Islamists who never
have, and possibly
never will, accord acceptance to any non-Muslim. The President may have
thought
that the best solution to win his upcoming election and appease a
war-weary
electorate was not to respond to Islamic terror, and cover up his
failure to
protect American lives by blaming his inaction as a justified response
to a mob
reaction to some video. Of course, such an evasion only invites an even
larger
attack later, which will cost even more in lives and treasure. The
President
may well have been hoping that at least this new assault would take
place after
he was safely re-elected.
Obama's
calculations were wrong. We
do not yet know what the American electorate will do, but as for the
Muslims
whom he is desperately trying to appease, evidently it did not even
occur to
them to put their 9/11 jihad on hold until after 11/6. To jihadists,
Obama,
whether appeasing them or not, is just another American unbeliever
president
who should not be trusted. With the terrorist attack in Benghazi,
Islamists and
jihadists made it clear that they could not care less about Obama, his
appeasement, his apology and even his apparent affection for Islam.
Not
only did Obama and his
administration never receive even a promise of peace from the Muslim
world; the
murder of the American ambassador and three other heroic Americans
never even
received an apology from any Muslim leader or cleric.
Source:
gatestoneinstitute.org
Read
this and other articles at Mail Magazine
24
|