441 Die moslim-terroristen, wie heeft die gemaakt?

( Deze blog is nog lang niet klaar) 

Het is niet zo dat 'het Westen' altijd aardig was voor de moslimlanden.

In 1907, 1921, 1941, 1953 en 1979 hebben we ijskoud de regering in Iran verdreven en vervangen door ònze vrienden.  ( Blog 22 ) 

In 1948 namen we Palestina af en gaven het aan ònze vrienden.
De lijst is lang.

Dan komt 11 september 2001, en verklaart Amerika de oorlog aan de moslims.

De hele wereld strijdt tegen het moslim-terrorisme.
De oorzaak zit in hun religie, zo wordt gezegd.

Maar die religie is toch niet veranderd in de laatste 20 jaar ?
Wat is er dan wel veranderd? 

Ik ga op  onderzoek uit.

Groen: Soennitisch.  Rood: Shiitisch. ( Blauw: Ibaditisch)

Korte definitie van de namen:
Soennieten

De Islam   http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Soennieten:

geloven dat de moslim Mohammed zo getrouw mogelijk moet navolgen in onder meer eet- en leefgewoonten en ethisch gedrag.

Substromingen:

Salafisten: ze willen zo zuiver mogelijk islamiet zijn, zoals in de tijden van Mohammed.

Wahabieten:  Dit is de staatsgodsdienst van Saudi Arabië.  

                        Ze zijn in feite Salafisten, in SaudiArabië.

Sjiiten (Shiiten)  

De schoonzoon van Mohammed was Ali. Hij is volgens de Sjiiten een belangrijk moslimleider.

De imam is de leider. 

Subastromingen:

Alawieten. ( In Syrié.  Assad is alawiet.)

Alevieten.

Druzen.

Soefisten zijn meer mystieke islamieten die zowel Soenniet als Sjiiet kunnen zijn.

Takfiri: dit zijn Wahabieten / Salafisten

  die vooral andere moslimstromingen afkeuren en zelfs aanvallen, omdat ze niet correct in de leer zouden zijn. Al Qaida en veel andere moslimfundamentalisten en strijders zijn Takfiri.  Ook Al Zarkawi.

Jihad = streven.

De innerlijke jihad, ook wel grote jihad genoemd, is de strijd tegen verleidingen en de strijd tegen het ego.

De uiterlijke of kleine jihad is met name in oorspronkelijke betekenis, de gewapende strijd tegen degenen die de islam of de eenheid van de islamitische heerschappij bedreigen, waaronder begrepen uitbreiding van deze heerschappij door de strijd tegen ongelovigen. De uiterlijke jihad wordt beschouwd als een collectieve verplichting onder verantwoordelijkheid van een islamitisch heerser (kalief). Dat wil zeggen dat er, wanneer een moslimstaat wordt bedreigd of aangevallen, voldoende mankracht wordt gemobiliseerd om het land te verdedigen. Groeperingen buiten de islam gebruiken wel de term heilige oorlog, een begrip dat in het vocabulaire van de klassieke sharia niet voorkomt en zeer waarschijnlijk is overgenomen uit de geschiedenis van het christendom; iets op aarde kan door moslims niet als heilig gezien worden, omdat het een unieke eigenschap van God is. Het uiteindelijk doel van de uiterlijke jihad wordt door deze groeperingen wel als de verwezenlijking van een moslimsamenleving door het invoeren van de sharia gedefinieerd.

Het geweld van deze gewapende jihad richt zich op drie groepen mensen[1]:
1. Tegen de afgodendienaren en ongelovigen, die weigeren zich aan het moslimgezag te onderwerpen, hetzij door de islam te aanvaarden hetzij als dhimmi de jaarlijkse jizya (belasting) te betalen.
2. Tegen diegenen die (als dhimmi's) onder moslimgezag staan maar weigeren de jizya te betalen of opstandig zijn.
3. Tegen diegenen die tegen de geestelijke leiding (de imam) van het land opstaan, ook als

het moslims zijn (bijvoorbeeld afvalligen), en tegen diegenen die een oorlog beginnen tegen moslims.

Vervolg in Wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#Bepalingen_voor_de_gewapende_jihad

Verschillende islamitische denkers als  keerden zich in de twintigste eeuw af van de universele mensenrechten en seculiere westerse waarden. Vooral het gelijkheidsbeginsel tussen man en vrouw, de vrijheid van meningsuiting en godsdienstvrijheid, en dan met name verlaten van de islam (ridda), is voor hen niet bespreekbaar of totaal onaanvaardbaar. Zij willen zich hiervan afkeren en richtten zich op een terugkeer naar de normen en waarden van de vroege islamitische gemeenschap.

Het moslimfundamentalisme wordt door analisten als Karen Armstrong als een in wezen moderne stroming beschouwd. Zij stelt dat dit fundamentalisme, net als het christenfundamentalisme, gezien moet worden als een tegenreactie op het dwingende karakter van de secularisering. De gelovigen die zich tot het fundamentalisme keren zijn vaak teleurgesteld in het moderne experiment. Ook zijn zij bang dat de secularisatie tot beperkingen van hun mogelijkheden tot uitoefening van hun religie zullen leiden. In het Midden-Oosten waren in de jaren 60 en 70 van de twintigste eeuw diverse seculiere leiders aan de macht (waaronder Nasser in Egypte en de Sjah in Iran) die de politiek-fundamentalistische stromingen soms hardhandig onderdrukten, terwijl zij de maatschappij naar westers model trachtten te hervormen.

Wie zijn deze gevaarlijke terroristen? 

Eerst drie 'bekenden':  Qutb,  Al Awlaki en Bin Laden.

 De 19 daders van 911 waren grotendeels ( 15 man) Saudi's. Zover ik weet waren het geen religieus gemotiveerde lieden. Ze dronken alcohol en bezochten striptease tenten, zegt James Corbett.

Enkelen hadden contact met een 'gevaarlijke moslim imam' Anwar al-Awlaki.
Het is interessant over Awlaki te lezen, en ook over zijn inspirator, Sayyid Qutb. En over de Muslim Brotherhood, die in 1928 in Egypte werd opgericht. Haar slogan was "Allah is our objective; the Qur'an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish."

Die wens om voor Allah te willen  sterven werd volledig door de VS benut: om de moderne Nasser dwars te zitten begon de VS deze Muslim Brotherhood te steunen, en de bedoeling was om middels aanslagen het land van Nasser te ontwrichten. ( Pro Memorie: De VS steunt moslim terrorisme, dit is het 1e voorbeeld.) 

Nog lang voor 9-11 heeft de VS de mujaheddin in Afghanistan gesteund. Dat waren strijders voor wie  de stam van het grootste belang was, en de  heerschappij over hun gebied. Ze vochten zeker niet uit naam van de Koran.  Osama bin Laden was een van de mensen die in Afghanistan tegen de communistische regering vocht, en later tegen de Russen.
Osama heeft later de strijd voortgezet, maar niet meer vóór de Amerikanen vechtend, maat er tegen. Osama was erg boos dat het Amerikaanse leger in 1991 bases in Saudi Arabië mocht  vestigen, het heilige land van de moslims.
Ik geloof zeker dat Osama zich heeft ontwikkeld tot een vroom moslim, maar ik betwijfel of hij dit al was toen hij naar Afghanistan trok om te vechten.

We zien een patroon: Qutb, Awlaki en Bin Laden waren alle drie goed bekend met de VS.  De eerste sloot zich aan bij de Muslim Brotherhood, die in feite de VS zou helpen om de moderne Nasser te verdrijven. Osama hielp in Afghanistan ook de VS, maar zou zich later tegen de VS gekeerd hebben. Awlaki was in 2001 nog te gast op het Witte Huis, vermoedelijk om de mensen daar te vertellen over moslim-terroristen en hun motieven. Maar later zou hij dan zelf die terreur tegen de VS hebben uitgevoerd door de  onderbroek-bomber vanuit Yemen op pad te sturen. Opvallend was wel dat zeer knullig te werk ging en onvoldoende explosieven mee kreeg om een deuk in hun vliegtuig te veroorzaken. Ook werd hij uitvoerig geholpen in Amsterdam toen hij moeite had om zonder paspoort (!) in zijn vervolgvlucht te kunnen stappen. ( Haskell)(Jones)

Wat is er met Awlaki en Bin Laden gebeurd? Zijn ze door de CIA benaderd om voor hen te werken?  Hebben ze dat gedaan? All the way, of kregen ze op een bepaald moment spijt en keerden ze zich toen tegen de VS ?   Ik heb geen idee.
Sayyid Qutb leefde en studeerde eind jaren 40 in de VS, maar hij knapte af op de Amerikaanse cultuur en de zeden. Het stimuleerde hem om juist voor verdieping en religie te kiezen, en voor de strijd tegen ver-westersing.
Ik kan deze mensen wel een beetje begrijpen. Ik was mijn hele leven een fan was van Amerika, maar nu ik niet meer in hun leugens geloof, en zie wat ze werkelijk doen, verafschuw ik Amerika, en zeker haar leiders.

Wie zijn deze gevaarlijke terroristen? 

                                                                     Wie zijn Zawahiri, Al-Baghdadi ?

Wie zijn deze gevaarlijke terroristen? 
                                                                      Wie betaalde hun opleiding tot terrorist? 
Ik baseer mij op Wikipedia: en de litteratuur aldaar.

Gilles Keppel schrijft in 2002: De Salafisten die hij in de jaren 80 in Europa ontmoette waren volledig a-politiek.  Maar in het midden van de jaren 90 ontmoette hij er enkelen die vonden dat jihad ( strijd, streven) in de vorm van 'geweld en terreur' toegestaan waren om 'politieke doelen te bereiken'.




Hier een artikel van iemand die het weer op een andere manier uitlegt:

WEEKEND EDITION JANUARY 9-11, 2015                      Counterpunch.

The West is Manufacturing Muslim Monsters

Who Should be Blamed for Muslim Terrorism?

by ANDRE VLTCHEK

A hundred years ago, it would have been unimaginable to have a pair of Muslim men enter a cafe or a public transportation vehicle, and then blow themselves up, killing dozens. Or to massacre the staff of a satirical magazine in Paris! Things like that were simply not done.

When you read the memoirs of Edward Said, or talk to old men and women in East Jerusalem, it becomes clear that the great part of Palestinian society used to be absolutely secular and moderate. It cared about life, culture, and even fashion, more than about religious dogmas.

The same could be said about many other Muslim societies, including those of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Indonesia. Old photos speak for themselves. That is why it is so important to study old images again and again, carefully.

Islam is not only a religion; it is also an enormous culture, one of the greatest on Earth, which has enriched our humanity with some of the paramount scientific and architectural achievements, and with countless discoveries in the field of medicine. Muslims have written stunning poetry, and composed beautiful music. But above all, they developed some of the earliest social structures in the world, including enormous public hospitals and the first universities on earth, like The University of al-Qarawiyyin in Fez, Morocco.

The idea of ‘social’ was natural to many Muslim politicians, and had the West not brutally interfered, by overthrowing left-wing governments and putting on the throne fascist allies of London, Washington and Paris; almost all Muslim countries, including Iran, Egypt and Indonesia, would now most likely be socialist, under a group of very moderate and mostly secular leaders.

***

In the past, countless Muslim leaders stood up against the Western control of the world, and enormous figures like the Indonesian President, Ahmet Sukarno, were close to Communist Parties and ideologies. Sukarno even forged a global anti-imperialist movement, the Non-Allied movement, which was clearly defined during the Bandung Conference in Indonesia, in 1955.

That was in striking contrast to the conservative, elites-oriented Christianity, which mostly felt at home with the fascist rulers and colonialists, with the kings, traders and big business oligarchs.

For the Empire, the existence and popularity of progressive, Marxist, Muslim rulers governing the Middle East or resource-rich Indonesia, was something clearly unacceptable. If they were to use the natural wealth to improve the lives of their people, what was to be left for the Empire and its corporations? It had to be stopped by all means. Islam had to be divided, and infiltrated with radicals and anti-Communist cadres, and by those who couldn’t care less about the welfare of their people.

***

Almost all radical movements in today’s Islam, anywhere in the world, are tied to Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative, reactionary sect of Islam, which is in control of the political life of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other staunch allies of the West in the Gulf.

To quote Dr. Abdullah Mohammad Sindi:

“It is very clear from the historical record that without British help neither Wahhabism nor the House of Saud would be in existence today. Wahhabism is a British-inspired fundamentalist movement in Islam. Through its defense of the House of Saud, the US also supports Wahhabism directly and indirectly regardless of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Wahhabism is violent, right wing, ultra-conservative, rigid, extremist, reactionary, sexist, and intolerant…”

The West gave full support to the Wahhabis in the 1980s. They were employed, financed and armed, after the Soviet Union was dragged into Afghanistan and into a bitter war that lasted from 1979 to 1989. As a result of this war, the Soviet Union collapsed, exhausted both economically and psychologically.

The Mujahedeen, who were fighting the Soviets as well as the left-leaning government in Kabul, were encouraged and financed by the West and its allies. They came from all corners of the Muslim world, to fight a ‘Holy War’ against Communist infidels.

According to the US Department of State archives:

“Contingents of so-called Afghan Arabs and foreign fighters who wished to wage jihad against the atheist communists. Notable among them was a young Saudi named Osama bin Laden, whose Arab group eventually evolved into al-Qaeda.”

Muslim radical groups created and injected into various Muslim countries by the West included al-Qaeda, but also, more recently, ISIS (also known as ISIL). ISIS is an extremist army that was born in the ‘refugee camps’ on the Syrian/Turkish and Syrian/Jordanian borders, and which was financed by NATO and the West to fight the Syrian (secular) government of Bashar al-Assad.

Such radical implants have been serving several purposes. The West uses them as proxies in the wars it is fighting against its enemies – the countries that are still standing in the way to the Empire’s complete domination of the world. Then, somewhere down the road, after these extremist armies ‘get totally out of control’ (and they always will), they could serve as scarecrows and as justification for the ‘The War On Terror’, or, like after ISIS took Mosul, as an excuse for the re-engagement of Western troops in Iraq.

Stories about the radical Muslim groups have constantly been paraded on the front pages of newspapers and magazines, or shown on television monitors, reminding readers ‘how dangerous the world really is’, ‘how important Western engagement in it is’, and consequently, how important surveillance is, how indispensable security measures are, as well as tremendous ‘defense’ budgets and wars against countless rogue states.

***

From a peaceful and creative civilization, that used to lean towards socialism, the Muslim nations and Islam itself, found itself to be suddenly derailed, tricked, outmaneuvered, infiltrated by foreign religious and ideological implants, and transformed by the Western ideologues and propagandists into one ‘tremendous threat’; into the pinnacle and symbol of terrorism and intolerance.

The situation has been thoroughly grotesque, but nobody is really laughing – too many people have died as a result; too much has been destroyed!

Indonesia is one of the most striking historical examples of how such mechanisms of the destruction of progressive Muslim values, really functions:

In the 1950s and early 1960s, the US, Australia and the West in general, were increasingly ‘concerned’ about the progressive anti-imperialist and internationalist stand of President Sukarno, and about the increasing popularity of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI). But they were even more anxious about the enlightened, socialist and moderate Indonesian brand of Islam, which was clearly allying itself with Communist ideals.

Christian anti-Communist ideologues and ‘planners’, including the notorious Jesuit Joop Beek, infiltrated Indonesia. They set up clandestine organizations there, from ideological to paramilitary ones, helping the West to plan the coup that in and after 1965 took between 1 and 3 million human lives.

Shaped in the West, the extremely effective anti-Communist and anti-intellectual propaganda spread by Joop Beek and his cohorts also helped to brainwash many members of large Muslim organizations, propelling them into joining the killing of Leftists, immediately after the coup. Little did they know that Islam, not only Communism, was chosen as the main target of the pro-Western, Christian ‘fifth column’ inside Indonesia, or more precisely, the target was the left-leaning, liberal Islam.

After the 1965 coup, the Western-sponsored fascist dictator, General Suharto, used Joop Beek as his main advisor. He also relied on Beek’s ‘students’, ideologically. Economically, the regime related itself with mainly Christian business tycoons, including Liem Bian Kie.

In the most populous Muslim nation on earth, Indonesia, Muslims were sidelined, their ‘unreliable’ political parties banned during the dictatorship, and both the politics (covertly) and economy (overtly) fell under the strict control of Christian, pro-Western minority. To this day, this minority has its complex and venomous net of anti-Communist warriors, closely-knit business cartels and mafias, media and ‘educational outlets’ including private religious schools, as well as corrupt religious preachers (many played a role in the 1965 massacres), and other collaborators with both the local and global regime.

Indonesian Islam has been reduced to a silent majority, mostly poor and without any significant influence. It only makes international headlines when its frustrated white-robed militants go trashing bars, or when its extremists, many related to the Mujahedeen and the Soviet-Afghan War, go blowing up nightclubs, hotels or restaurants in Bali and Jakarta.

Or do they even do that, really?

Former President of Indonesia and progressive Muslim cleric, Abdurrahman Wahid (forced out of office by the elites), once told me: “I know who blew up the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta. It was not an attack by the Islamists; it was done by the Indonesian secret services, in order to justify their existence and budget, and to please the West.”

***

“I would argue that western imperialism has not so much forged an alliance with radical factions, as created them”, I was told, in London, by my friend, and leading progressive Muslim intellectual, Ziauddin Sardar.

And Mr. Sardar continued:

“We need to realize that colonialism did much more than simply damage Muslim nations and cultures. It played a major part in the suppression and eventual disappearance of knowledge and learning, thought and creativity, from Muslim cultures. Colonial encounter began by appropriating the knowledge and learning of Islam, which became the basis of the ‘European Renaissance’ and ‘the Enlightenment’ and ended by eradicating this knowledge and learning from both Muslim societies and from history itself. It did that both by physical elimination – destroying and closing down institutions of learning, banning certain types of indigenous knowledge, killing off local thinkers and scholars – and by rewriting History as the history of western civilization into which all minor histories of other civilization are subsumed.”

From the hopes of those post-WWII years, to the total gloom of the present days – what a long and terrible journey it has been!

The Muslim world is now injured, humiliated and confused, almost always on the defensive.

It is misunderstood by the outsiders, and often even by its own people who are frequently forced to rely on Western and Christian views of the world.

What used to make the culture of Islam so attractive – tolerance, learning, concern for the wellbeing of the people – has been amputated from the Muslim realm, destroyed from abroad. What was left was only religion.

Now most of the Muslim countries are ruled by despots, by the military or corrupt cliques. All of them closely linked with the West and its global regime and interests.

As they did in several great nations and Empires of South and Central America, as well as Africa, Western invaders and colonizers managed to totally annihilate great Muslim cultures.

What forcefully replaced them were greed, corruption and brutality.

It appears that everything that is based on different, non-Christian foundations is being reduced to dust by the Empire. Only the biggest and toughest cultures are still surviving.

Anytime a Muslim country tries to go back to its essence, to march its own, socialist or socially-oriented way – be it Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, or much more recently Iraq, Libya or Syria – it gets savagely tortured and destroyed.

The will of its people is unceremoniously broken, and democratically expressed choices overthrown.

For decades, Palestine has been denied freedom, as well as its basic human rights. Both Israel and the Empire spit at its right to self-determination. Palestinian people are locked in a ghetto, humiliated, and murdered. Religion is all that some of them have left.

The ‘Arab Spring’ was derailed and terminated almost everywhere, from Egypt to Bahrain, and the old regimes and military are back in power.

Like African people, Muslims are paying terrible price for being born in countries rich in natural resources. But they are also brutalized for having, together with China, the greatest civilization in history, one that outshone all the cultures of the West.

***

Christianity looted and brutalized the world. Islam, with its great Sultans such as Saladin, stood against invaders, defending the great cities of Aleppo and Damascus, Cairo and Jerusalem. But overall, it was more interested in building a great civilization, than in pillaging and wars.

Now hardly anyone in the West knows about Saladin or about the great scientific, artistic or social achievements of the Muslim world. But everybody is ‘well informed’ about ISIS. Of course they know ISIS only as an ‘Islamic extremist group’, not as one of the main Western tools used to destabilize the Middle East.

As ‘France is mourning’ the deaths of the journalists at the offices of the satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo (undeniably a terrible crime!), all over Europe it is again Islam which is being depicted as brutal and militant, not the West with its post-Crusade, Christian fundamentalist doctrines that keeps overthrowing and slaughtering all moderate, secular and progressive governments and systems in the Muslim world, leaving Muslim people at the mercy of deranged fanatics.

***

In the last five decades, around 10 million Muslims have been murdered because their countries did not serve the Empire, or did not serve it full-heartedly, or just were in the way. The victims were Indonesians, Iraqis, Algerians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iranians, Yemenis, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and the citizens of Mali, Somalia, Bahrain and many other countries.

The West identified the most horrible monsters, threw billions of dollars at them, armed them, gave them advanced military training, and then let them loose.

The countries that are breeding terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are some of the closest allies of the West, and have never been punished for exporting horror all over the Muslim world.

Great social Muslim movements like Hezbollah, which is presently engaged in mortal combat against the ISIS, but which also used to galvanize Lebanon during its fight against the Israeli invasion, are on the “terrorist lists” compiled by the West. It explains a lot, if anybody is willing to pay attention.

Seen from the Middle East, it appears that the West, just as during the crusades, is aiming at the absolute destruction of Muslim countries and the Muslim culture.

As for the Muslim religion, the Empire only accepts the sheepish brands – those that accept extreme capitalism and the dominant global position of the West. The only other tolerable type of Islam is that which is manufactured by the West itself, and by its allies in the Gulf – designated to fight against progress and social justice; the one that is devouring its own people.

Andre Vltchek is a novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. The result is his latest book: “Fighting Against Western Imperialism”. ‘Pluto’ published his discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. His critically acclaimed political novel Point of No Return is re-edited and available. Oceania is his book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book about post-Suharto Indonesia and the market-fundamentalist model is called “Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear”. His feature documentary, “Rwanda Gambit” is about Rwandan history and the plunder of DR Congo. After living for many years in Latin America and Oceania, Vltchek presently resides and works in East Asia and Africa. He can be reached through his website or his Twitter.