« Sound and fury | Herb Meyer radio appearance »
July 11, 2007

Andrew Bostom on the terror docs (updated)

By Thomas Lifson
AT contributor Andrew G. Bostom has a column in today's New York Daily News on the terrorist medics, a subject he covered for AT readers earlier.
Doctors who justify the murder of innocents are disturbingly common in radical Islam. And there's a case to be made that the Koran itself encourages their crimes. [....]

I do not suggest that we have anything to fear from the vast majority of American doctors whopractice Islam. I do, however, urge all Americans - and Muslims - to look unflinchingly at the Koranic injunctions for war on non-Muslims (9:5; 9:29; 9:111; 47:4), and their embrace by far too many men who call themselves physicians.
He cites the disturbring Koranic passages in context. I am not aware of any Muslim medical society in the United States, but I suspect there is one. Certainly, it would be helpful for such a group to take a strong public stand that any Muslim physician supportive of terror is neither a good Muslim nor a legitimate physician, and calling on its membership to cooperate with authorities in their investigations.

Seperately, N.S. Rajaram emails that Australian and British police are now working in Bangalore (India's hi tech capital) because several of the medics and others, including the one who drove the explosive Jeep in the Glasgow blast, are from Bangalore. And these are relatively well-heeled people.

This shatters the myth that Indian Muslims are not part of international Jihad.

Update: Ethel C. Fenig cites Debbie Schlussel's article on the terror docs, covering the oath taken by Muslim doctors, well worth a read. A brief excerpt:
Compared to the other Oaths and Declarations, the Oath of a Muslim Physician appears to be unique in its possibly more conditional nature. The phrase, "not in liew of another human being nor because of mischief on earth," suggests, licenses, allows or can certainly be interpreted or misinterpreted as to give understanding to a physician taking this Oath and who "killeth a human being," that the killing is okay as long as it is "in liew of another human being" or "because of mischief on earth."

"Mischief on earth" has also been translated as "corruption" on earth.

So who are the corruptors and mischief-makers?

We have guidance from some apparent experts:

"Non-Muslims 'cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.' said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the 'martyrs' of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88)."

"The non-Muslims are [like] those animals that graze, chew their cud, and cause corruption."

[DS: And there are numerous other well-known Islamic precepts and statements against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians. For brevity's sake, I've omitted them here.]
Update: Doug Edwards calls out attention to Gabriel Schoenfeld's Why do some Muslim doctors want to kill? And Tawfiq Hamid's A Jihadist's Mind


AT contributor Andrew G. Bostom has a column in today's New York Daily News on the terrorist medics, a subject he covered for AT readers earlier.
Doctors who justify the murder of innocents are disturbingly common in radical Islam. And there's a case to be made that the Koran itself encourages their crimes. [....]

I do not suggest that we have anything to fear from the vast majority of American doctors whopractice Islam. I do, however, urge all Americans - and Muslims - to look unflinchingly at the Koranic injunctions for war on non-Muslims (9:5; 9:29; 9:111; 47:4), and their embrace by far too many men who call themselves physicians.
He cites the disturbring Koranic passages in context. I am not aware of any Muslim medical society in the United States, but I suspect there is one. Certainly, it would be helpful for such a group to take a strong public stand that any Muslim physician supportive of terror is neither a good Muslim nor a legitimate physician, and calling on its membership to cooperate with authorities in their investigations.

Seperately, N.S. Rajaram emails that Australian and British police are now working in Bangalore (India's hi tech capital) because several of the medics and others, including the one who drove the explosive Jeep in the Glasgow blast, are from Bangalore. And these are relatively well-heeled people.

This shatters the myth that Indian Muslims are not part of international Jihad.

Update: Ethel C. Fenig cites Debbie Schlussel's article on the terror docs, covering the oath taken by Muslim doctors, well worth a read. A brief excerpt:
Compared to the other Oaths and Declarations, the Oath of a Muslim Physician appears to be unique in its possibly more conditional nature. The phrase, "not in liew of another human being nor because of mischief on earth," suggests, licenses, allows or can certainly be interpreted or misinterpreted as to give understanding to a physician taking this Oath and who "killeth a human being," that the killing is okay as long as it is "in liew of another human being" or "because of mischief on earth."

"Mischief on earth" has also been translated as "corruption" on earth.

So who are the corruptors and mischief-makers?

We have guidance from some apparent experts:

"Non-Muslims 'cannot be called human beings but are animals who roam the earth and engage in corruption.' said Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati last week at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran to commemorate the 'martyrs' of the Revolutionary Guards and the war against Iraq (1980-88)."

"The non-Muslims are [like] those animals that graze, chew their cud, and cause corruption."

[DS: And there are numerous other well-known Islamic precepts and statements against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians. For brevity's sake, I've omitted them here.]
Update: Doug Edwards calls out attention to Gabriel Schoenfeld's Why do some Muslim doctors want to kill? And Tawfiq Hamid's A Jihadist's Mind