Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

At 11, Afghan boy Abdullah is world’s youngest Islamic terrorist

Posted by jagoindia on April 9, 2009


“when I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up, he said: ‘When I’m older I’ll kill non-Muslims. If I don’t, they’ll come to our homes and kill us’.”

Abdullah: the 11-year-old suspected suicide bomber who is Afghanistan’s youngest terrorist

An 11-year-old boy known only as Abdullah has been dubbed the world’s youngest terrorist after he was arrested wearing a suicide vest.
 
By Aislinn Simpson
Last Updated: 7:16AM BST 08 Apr 2009

The boy, who is originally from Peshawar in Pakistan, has become Afghanistan’s youngest terror suspect. He is being held at one of the country’s top security prisons, operated by Kabul’s Intelligence Service.

He is said to have chosen a Kalashnikov as a weapon because he found a pistol’s trigger too difficult to pull. He is an orphan and his voice has not yet broken.

 Abdullah learned about holy war, or jihad, at a religious school, where he studied the Koran in the morning and weaponry in the evening, as well as hearing how foreigners were killed women and children in Muslim countries.

He went to Afghanistan with his cousin, who visited him at school and invited him on an outing.

He walked over the mountains into the country with a group of men, and was given an oversized jacket to put on.

When he was arrested, the jacket was found to be packed with explosives.

Abdullah has been confirmed as Afghanistan’s youngest prisoner and is also being described as the world’s youngest terrorist.

He was interviewed in prison by ITV News’s International Editor Bill Neely, who wrote about the visit in the Daily Mirror ahead of a full report on tonight’s ITV News at Ten.

Mr Neely wrote of his visit: “When I saw him in the prison office which is now his cell, my jaw dropped. I’d been told I would meet a youth who had been arrested with a group of Taliban fighters – but I didn’t expect the picture of apparent innocence that confronted me.

“I watched this little boy speak, his high-pitched voice so innocent, pouring out the detail of an adventure he had clearly relished.”

Mr Neely asked the boy how he felt about being a suicide bomber: “He said he knew he’d be in pieces. But he also knew the difference between suicide, which God forbade, and sacrifice, which is what you become if you blow yourself up, killing the non-Muslims who want to kill your family.

“Afterwards you would go straight to heaven, with 70 girls. I suspect he didn’t care too much about the girls. But when I asked him what he wanted to do when he grew up, he said: ‘When I’m older I’ll kill non-Muslims. If I don’t, they’ll come to our homes and kill us’.”

5 Responses to “At 11, Afghan boy Abdullah is world’s youngest Islamic terrorist”

  1. S said

    This is hardly surprising since muslims make their kids behead animals (kurbani) at the age of 4-5. They are utterly desensitized in this way. This, along with the hate verses in the kuran makes a jihadi a perfect killing machine.Examples of hate verses in the kuran are –

    About Kafirs (Infidels)-

    Kur’an 9:123 “Murder them and treat them harshly”

    Kur’an 3.28 Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
    NOTE: By ‘guarding carefully’, a Muslim should deceive the infidel. Acting as a friend is fine as long as it is to benefit the Muslim and protect Islam.

    Kur’an 5:51 “Muslims, do not make friends with any but your own people.”

    Kur’an 8:12 cp. 8:60 “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers”; “smite above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them”

    Kur’an 2:191 “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them”

    Kur’an 9.33 “He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions.”

    NOTE – Here “Apostle” refers to Muhammad -ibn-abdullah, who founded islam.

    Kur’an 2:193 “And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah”

    The Kuran is filled with hate-verses, and the terrorists and jihadis are not misinterpreting islam in any way, they are merely following the Kuran.

  2. Dont quote out of context and between the lines. All these verses have verses before and after which you have deliberately omitted to serve your neferous wish. Quran is a peaceful book. It advocates war as a last resort and does not allow Muslims to attack peaceful and harmless people. On the other hand Gita is all about war and death. Krishna said, “dont have any feelings for your cousins, just kill them”.

  3. jagoindia said

    I love your quote, Islam is a peaceful religion. Visit
    TheReligionofPeace.com – Islam: Making a True Difference in the World
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

    Krishna told the warrior Krishna to fight the war and kill the enemies who are warriors. Don’t be misguided whether they are your friends or cousins. Duty must come first.

    But for Allah all non muslims are enemies and fit to be killed whether they be harmless, children, women. The Quran repeatedly sanctions killing of non believers which is a supremely commendable activity for every good muslims to pursue and a martyr is promised heavenly rewards which includes 72 virgins and young boys.

    Krishna promises karma retaliation if we kill innocent people. It does not matter whether they are Hindus or Muslims. So there is no comparison between Krishna and your god Allah who revels on the blood of non muslims.

  4. S said

    To The Kashmir Center,
    What do you mean that by context ? If you are talking about the Meccan verses and the Medinan verses, it is an islamic held view that the verses of Medina supersede all the verses of Mecca. Here are some more verses in context for you –

    Kur’an 2:106 “”None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?”

    Abrogation is a Kuranic principle. Here is another verse which supports it –

    Kur’an 16:101: “When We substitute one revelation for another, — and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), — they say, ‘Thou art but a forger’: but most of them understand not.”

    16:101, as well as 2:106, refers to the substituting of revelations — that is,these are supposed to be the words of Allah.

    People must be curious as to how abrogation works. Consider the verses about wine. In one place the Qur’an says that wine has “some profit” (2:219) for mankind, but elsewhere declares it an “abomination, of Satan’s handwork” (5:90). Muslim scholars generally agree that the wine verses are a relatively clear instance of abrogation. Without abrogation, a pious Muslim would have to declare that “Satan’s handiwork” offers “some profit” for mankind.

    Many traditional Islamic theologians and Qur’an commentators argue that violent material, such as sura 9, abrogates more relatively tolerant material such as sura 109. This is not a newly-minted view “cherry-picked” by Osama bin Laden; it is in fact a very ancient view. When discussing why Muhammad didn’t begin sura 9 with the customary invocation bismillah ar-rahman ar-rahim, “in the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,” an intriguing answer comes from a Qur’an commentary that is still highly valued today in the Islamic world, Tafsir al-Jalalayn. This is a fifteenth-century work by the renowned imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli (1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti (1445-1505). The invocation, suggests this tafsir, “is security, and [Sura 9] was sent down when security was removed by the sword.”

    Security’s removal by the sword meant specifically the end of many treaties the Muslims had made with non-Muslims. Another still-influential Qur’an commentator, Ibn Kathir (1301-1372) quotes an earlier authority, Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim, to establish that the Verse of the Sword, sura 9:5 (“slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”) “abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.” He adds from another authority: “No idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara’ah was revealed.” And yet another early commentator, Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340) agrees that one of this verse’s functions is “abrogating every peace treaty in the Qur’an.”

    This idea is crucial as a guide to the relationship of the Qur’an’s peaceful passages to its violent ones. Suras 16, 29, 52, 73, and 109 — the sources of many of the Qur’an’s verses of peace and tolerance — are all Meccan. That means that many Muslims, guided by commentators such as those above and the imams who teach from them, see these suras only in light of what was revealed later in Medina. Being the last or next-to-last sura revealed, sura 9 is generally understood as being the Qur’an’s last word on jihad, and all the rest of the book — including the “tolerance verses” — must be read in its light.

    Ibn Kathir states this explicitly in his commentary on another “tolerance verse”: “And he [Muhammad] saith: O my Lord! Lo! these are a folk who believe not. Then bear with them (O Muhammad) and say: Peace. But they will come to know” (Qur’an 43:88-89). The commentator explains that “say Salam (peace!) means, ‘do not respond to them in the same evil manner in which they address you; but try to soften their hearts and forgive them in word and deed.’” However, that is not the last word on the subject. As Ibn Kathir notes: “But they will come to know. This is a warning from Allah for them. His punishment, which cannot be warded off, struck them, and His religion and His word was supreme. Subsequently Jihad and striving were prescribed until the people entered the religion of Allah in crowds, and Islam spread throughout the east and the west.”

    In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.

    This view is also echoed by Muhammad’s first biographer, the eighth-century chronicler Ibn Ishaq, as well as by another Islamic theologian, Ibn Qayyim, who is invoked by the twentieth-century jihadist Sayyid Qutb in support of the same view. And a modern-day Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, has taught that in the Qur’an, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the Suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

    This understanding of the Qur’an isn’t limited to the Wahhabi sect, to which Sheikh ‘Abdullah belongs. The Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik’s 1979 book The Qur’anic Concept of War (a book that made its way to the American mujahedin Jeffrey Leon Battle and October Martinique Lewis, and which carried a glowing endorsement from Pakistan’s then-future President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who said that it explained “the ONLY pattern of war” that a Muslim country could legitimately wage) delineates the same stages in the Qur’anic teaching about jihad: “The Muslim migration to Medina brought in its wake events and decisions of far-reaching significance and consequence for them. While in Mecca, they had neither been proclaimed an Ummah [community] nor were they granted the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. In Medina, a divine revelation proclaimed them an ‘Ummah’ and granted them the permission to take up arms against their oppressors. The permission was soon afterwards converted into a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful.”

    The three-stage theory of the revelations about jihad, culminating in the command to fight to impose the Islamic social order over the world, is bound up with abrogation, as the earlier stages give way to the later. This is the view of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Qayyim, Ibn Kathir, the compilers of the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, and a host of other traditional and mainstream Muslim commentators.

    In any case, 90% of muslims cannot read or write Arabic, the language of the Kuran, and yet their behaviour through the last 14 centuries should be enough to inform us what their terror manual teaches. Here is the history of jihad –

    http://historyofjihad.org

    13,000 jihad attacks since Sept. 11, 2001 and counting –

    http://thereligionofpeace.com

  5. kokkli said

    The boy is brave soldier to defend his family and brothers and sisters from the attack of infidels who are still turmonising the country

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: