Remember Umm Nidal, a proud Palestinian mother (Mother From Hell – Robert Spencer), who sent 3 of her 6 sons to die (while murdering Israelis) and for that was honored by getting elected into Palestinian Legislative Council?
The same “culture” now brings the grateful humanity this: “Birds of Paradise” – Martyrdom Recruitment as Children’s Entertainment (IPT News)
The little girl’s dark brown eyes look heavenward as she sings,
When we seek martyrdom, we go to heaven.
You tell us we’re small, but from this way of life we have become big.
Without Palestine, what does childhood mean?
This is not a song from Hamas television in Gaza, nor is it a Hizballah anthem. “When We Seek Martyrdom” is the latest hit from a production house called Birds of Paradise.
My country and my blood are like its sands
Without Palestine, what does childhood mean?
Youtube has dozens of editions and edits of the video, ranging from Arab parents having their children parrot the lyrics to Jihadists using it as background music in terrorist videos. “[Birds of Paradise] is one of the most widely distributed children’s songs group in the Arab world, and it seems to have crossed the ocean to Canada and Britain,” wrote journalist Fawzia Nasir al-Naeem in the Saudi Arabian newspaper, Al-Jazirah.
“When We Seek Martyrdom” encourages children not simply to throw rocks, but to carry out militant attacks and to ambush Jews. It even broadcasts clips of the children carrying out practice attacks. Violence is not only the answer for children, but it is framed in a cute, kid-friendly way.
The Effect of Training Preschoolers in Hate
The message of the video is directed at toddlers up to elementary school ages, the precise period of a child’s life where they tend to copy educational materials as mental facts. Kids of these ages cannot process issues which contain subtleties and nuances. Thus, the material imprints itself into their memory as a part of ‘what is normal,’ said child psychologist Joan Lachkar. “Smaller children cannot organize the data of experience into concrete and abstract categories, as opposed to older children who possess abstract thought and wider varieties of mental decision making. This video is particularly dangerous in the shame/honor system of the martyrdom ideology, because it represses the child’s ability for freedom of thought, individuality, and creative thinking,” Lackhar said. “This society is teaching its youngest children that peace is linked to the destruction of non-believers and that violence is an acceptable and even preferred method of self-expression.”
The psychological effects of such encouragement are profound, even in at an age where the complexities of the message are not fully grasped, Lachkar said.
“Children in the ‘martyrdom culture’ become robotic and clone-like, so much so that they are compelled not to express genuine emotions or any sense of vulnerability,” she said. If they do so, they are shamed and punished. On the other hand, if they conform to the cultural standards set for them, they believe that they are good and that they will be loved.” This system of violence becomes self-reinforcing and it is more difficult to break the hate which is connected to the children’s earliest childhood memories.
The emphasis is mine. Maybe I am not “progressive” enough, but cultural equivalence and moral relativism just don’t work for me. If a culture does not promote individual freedoms, personal growth and creativity among kids, it is inadequate. If it turns its own children into suicidal robotic drones ready for mass murder and imperial conquests, it is perniciously sick. Any chance of protest from the UNESCO?
While some think that the Global War on Terror is happily over… Raymond Ibrahim has a great article in Pajamas Media (reprinted in ME Forum): Words Matter in the War on Terror explaining very relevant concept of Jihad (which as of recently also officially became an unmentionable, at least in the U.S.) Ibrahim picks apart a piece by Colonel Jeffrey Vordermark, who attempts to explain – or rather excuse – Jihad to the gullible Westerners. I recommend the entire thing, here’s a short excerpt:
“Jihad” has a very precise, juristic definition; more to the point, Sunni Islam — which accounts for nearly 90% of the Islamic world — is, in fact, “simple and monolithic,” thanks to the totalitarian nature of Islamic law (Sharia), which categorizes all possible human actions as being either forbidden, discouraged, legitimate, recommended, or obligatory. Indeed, of the major religions of the world, none is perhaps so black and white, so clear cut as Islam, which meticulously delineates to Muslims the correct “way” of living (“way,” incidentally, being the literal definition of the word “Sharia”).
The real problem here is that Vordermark’s assertion that the military “jihad” has been “traditionally” limited to “defensive warfare” is totally false.
Even so, Vordermark is to be excused; he warns us about accepting definitions of “jihad” from “pundits, academics, and laymen,” and surely his falls into this category. Thus let us dispense once and for all with infidel-based definitions — including my own — and see what Islam’s own most revered authorities have to say about what “jihad” really means:
First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”
The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)
In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?
Emph. added by me.
On Campus Anti-Semitism, Pro-Terrorism by Joe Kaufman
The Muslim Students Association (MSA), the extremist group which began as an American component of the violent Muslim Brotherhood (MB), once again has found itself sponsoring anti-Semite and terrorist supporter Abdul Malik Ali. The event is taking place this weekend, from the 10th through the 12th, at the University of California, Riverside (UCR).
In February 2004 at UC-Irvine (UCI), Ali declared that Israelis staged the September 11th attacks “to give an excuse to wage war against Muslims around the world.” In March 2006 at UC-Santa Cruz, he referred to the U.S., Britain and Israel as an “axis of evil.” In May 2006 at UCI, he praised Hamas and Hezbollah, whilst warning Israel, “We will fight you until we are either martyred or we are victorious.”
In October 2006 at UCI, he again threatened Israel, stating, “If history is any indication, there’ll be peace when you’re gone and we are in control again.” In May 2007 at UCI, he described Hamas as “freedom fighters, not terrorists,” Hezbollah as “people with a higher moral character,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as “a nice guy” and “an honorable person.” All this, while calling for the destruction of Israel.
In addition to the offending speaker, much of the blame for these outrageous statements must be shouldered by the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the group who continues to organize these events.
… it was the MSA who was guilty of bringing Taliban senior advisor to Mullah Omar, Syed Rahmatullah Hashimi, to the University of Southern California (USC) to speak in March 2001. It was the MSA who was recently responsible for using a USC website to propagate Islamic religious statements calling for the murder of Jews. And it was the MSA at UC-Los Angeles (UCLA) who referred to Osama bin Laden, in its July 1999 edition of its publication Al-Talib, as a “freedom fighter,” “philanthropist” and “great Mujahid.”
In addition to Ali, also featured as a speaker at this weekend’s event will be the Civil Rights Coordinator of the Los Angeles office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Los Angeles), Affad Shaikh. Like his ‘keynote’ speaking counterpart, Shaikh has a history of antagonism against Jews, Israel and the United States.
In December 2008, Shaikh posted onto a blog, which he is affiliated with, a picture of an individual holding a sign with the words, “DEATH TO ALL JUICE” [read JUICE meaning JEWS]. This, whilst in the same post, he demeaned Israel and stated that Muslim groups should end their full participation in interfaith gatherings with Jews…
Ultimately it is the schools themselves who allow this environment of hate to enter their institutions and who provide absolutely no accountability towards violence-inducing infractions committed by their radical Muslim students.
However, who is there to hold the schools accountable?