Another misunderstander of Islam?

'An American supporter of al-Qaeda has pleaded guilty to trying to blow up the Pentagon and US Capitol with explosives-laden remote-controlled model planes.

US citizen Rezwan Ferdaus, 26, was arrested after a sting operation in which federal officers posed as al-Qaeda members to supply explosives.

Prosecutors and defence lawyers agreed to recommend a 17-year jail term.

Ferdaus had been planning "jihad" since 2010, according to prosecutors.

He pleaded guilty to two charges: attempting to supply materials to al-Qaeda, and seeking to damage US government buildings with explosives.

Ferdaus said he would accept the 17 years' imprisonment term under a plea deal with the prosecution. He could have faced 35 years for the two charges together if the case had gone to trial.'

This is from the BBC's report of the case but the bit that struck me as oh so revealing was this:

'Asked about the possibility of killing women and children, Mr Ferdaus allegedly said all non-followers of Islam were his enemies.'

Now where have I heard that language before? Oh yes:
1. the words of Sheikh 'Ahed Ahmad 'Abd Al-Karim Al-Sa'idani:

'"If by 'innocent people' the inquirer means Jewish or Christian civilians [who live] in the country [where the jihad operation is to take place], then he should know that these people are fundamentally not innocent. Rather, they are aggressive combatants who are party to [the deeds of their leaders] in money, opinion, and counsel. Even if some of them are innocent, but cannot be separated from the aggressors whom the mujahideen aim to target – the [Muslims] scholars have ruled that, in the case of a surprise attack, it permissible to kill all of them [i.e., the bystanders along with the targets]...

"If by 'innocent people' the inquirer means Muslims who may be accidentally hurt during a military operation, [he should know that] it is neither permissible nor reasonable to refrain from fighting the infidels out of fear of hurting some Muslims, because this would mean stopping the jihad. Most of the infidel countries that are fighting Islam have some Muslims living in them. It is inconceivable [to stop the jihad on their account], especially in the current situation, when most Muslim countries are waging defensive jihad."'

2. the words of Anjem Choudary:

'"When we say innocent people we mean Muslims, as far as non-Muslims are concerned they have not accepted Islam and as far as we are concerned that is a crime against God... As far as Muslims are concerned, you are innocent if you are a Muslim, then you are innocent in the eyes of God. If you are a non-Muslim then you are guilty of not believing in God"

"I must have hatred to anything that is not Islam"'

 3. the words of the Muslim Brotherhood's Kamal Al Helbawy from 1998:

'"Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: I condemn the targeting of any civilian, but incidentally, I believe that every Israeli civilian is a future soldier.

Interviewer: He is what?

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: A future soldier.

Interviewer: Even if he is two years old?

Dr. Kamal Al-Hilbawi: A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that [the Arabs] are like contemptible sheep, and that this is a land without a people, and they are a people without a land. They have very strange concepts. In elementary school, they pose the following math problem: “In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?” This is taught in the Israeli curriculum. What would you say about that? Should a child studying this be considered a civilian? He is a future soldier."'

The western media, I fear deliberately, allows Islamic leaders to state their opposition to the murder of innocents without asking the question 'who do you consider to be innocent and who do you not consider to be innocent?'. As I blogged over five years ago:

'Inayat Bunglawala is the media secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain and as such is often interviewed by British media outlets at times such as this. Mr Bunglawala has a set phrase that he uses whenever he is asked for his opinion or that of the Qur’aan on acts of terrorism. This phrase is along the lines of "We condemn the killing of all innocent people wherever they are". This sounds nice and simple but the one follow-up question that is never asked is "are those people who don't pray to Allah five times a day and who don't follow the tenets of Islam, innocent?". We heard during the trial of the thwarted terrorist Jawad Akbar who planned to commit slaughter on the Ministry of Sound's dance floor "No one can turn around and say, 'Oh, they were innocent', those slags dancing around. Do you understand what I mean?" So in his view these were not innocent people, how about in the view of Inayat Bunglawala?

I see in The Guardian that Muhammad Abdul Bari, the MCB secretary general, used a similar form of words when he said "Those who seek to deliberately kill or maim innocent people are the enemies of us all. There is no cause whatsoever that could possibly justify such barbarity." Once again there is the use of the word innocent.

I am not saying that Muhammad Abdul Bari or Inayat Bunglawala are terrorists, I am not saying that they support terrorism within the UK; however I am saying that the question "in your view and in the word of the Qur’aan, what types of people are innocent and what types of people are not innocent?" should be asked of, and answered, by them.'

Why do the British and American media deliberately miss this point when allowing Islamic spokesman to hide behind the word 'innocent'? Are they naive, stupid or actually and deliberately enabling the deception to take place?