Is there anything Islamic about Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps? On what basis does Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda’s leader, formerly the head of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, claim to be a jihadi — an Islamic warrior? Do groups that justify terrorism on the basis of Islam have a doctrinal leg to stand on?
Let’s not start by answering these questions. Let’s start by agreeing that such questions need to be asked — not suppressed. Yet right now suppression seems to be the goal of senior officials in the Obama administration. A report by the Westminster Institute’s Katharine C. Gorka notes: “Key national security documents have already excised all terminology that associates terrorism with Islam or Islamic concepts such as jihad.”
Advertisement
She cites evidence that those who persist in using such terminology are being blacklisted — disqualified from working with federal agencies. Gorka asks: “If counter-terrorism professionals are not allowed to acknowledge that a person motivated by jihadist ideology, or by such Islamist ideologues as Sayyid Qutb or Abu’l-A’la Mawdudi, may be inclined towards acts of violence against Americans, how will they be able to identify and deter potential attackers?”
Qutb, of course, was the “intellectual godfather” of modern Islamism. He proclaimed that “a Muslim has no nationality except his belief,” and that Islam is “not a ‘religion’ in the sense this term is commonly understood.” Instead, Islam is meant to encompass “all fields of living,” emphatically including politics and economics. He opposed democratic systems of governance because they replace God’s laws with man’s laws, thereby blasphemously diminishing the former and elevating the latter. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Qutb was executed in Egypt in 1966.
Mawdudi was a Pakistani who argued that “the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.” He advocated that Muslims begin by transforming the states in which they live into “Islamic states.” Once those Islamic states have “power and resources,” their obligation is to “fight and destroy non-Islamic governments and establish Islamic states in their place. . . . Their ultimate objective is none other than world revolution.” It’s worth noting that while Mawdudi did not suffer most infidels gladly, he wrote admiringly of the “ingenious and mighty leadership of Hitler and his comrades.”
I have encountered senior government officials who were unfamiliar with Qutb, Mawdudi, and other radical Muslim voices. That’s disturbing. But how much worse if it has now become the policy of the U.S. government to demand ignorance, to insist upon it as a matter of principle and strategy?
During a hearing earlier this month, Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) repeatedly asked Assistant Defense Secretary for Homeland Defense Paul Stockton whether America is “at war with violent Islamist extremism.” Stockton repeatedly insisted that America is at war only with “al-Qaeda and its allies” and “violent extremism.” An exasperated Lungren stressed that he understood — that he was making a distinction between “violent Islamist extremism” and Islam. Stockton replied: “Sir, with great respect, I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.”
Gorka comments: “The Obama administration is right to assert that America is not at war with Islam, but to deny that a violent strain of Islam is inspiring a wave of terrorist attacks against Americans and American targets is to invite disaster.”
Shhhh, don't tell 9/11 truther Ron Paul and his pro-jihadist followers there are dangerous Muslims out there. They think it's our fault fanatical and theologically inspired Muslims attack the US.
Even more frightening than our denial of international Islamic imperialism is our utter unwillingeness to address the threat of Islam in the US. A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshiper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited guest imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite guest imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.
In the next Republican administration and Congress we need to agressivley deal with this religious and political obamanation of hate and evil.
To forbid American officials, etc, from even discussing such matters is neither appeasement nor madness. It is, in fact, part of a calculated and deliberate attempt by the president and his subordinates to weaken America as much as possible in one (please, God!) term. The closer we come to dhimmitude, the less powerful our capitalist dynamo can be.
Why is it so hard for Mr May and others to see that Obama's people do not have the best interests of America at heart?
"Why is it so hard for Mr May and others to see that Obama's people do not have the best interests of America at heart?"
because they are constantly bombarded by the progressive msm that anyone who even thinks a bad thought about islam is a racist (as they have turned a religion into a race) and that republicans are evil demons
Lot of this is actually the fault of the American people.
Most modern people don't like to fight. Oh, they will mix it up in a show of fists every once in a while. An honest fact is most Americans run like cowards from a fight and always look for a peaceful way out of a situation.
Weirdly, this situation was known about years past with some very terrible murder trials. Many on the jury would try to reach some sort of "empathy" with the killers. Some of the old fashioned jury members would want to rightfully lynch these cold blooded killers. However, cowards du jour dominate our court rooms, our politics, and our media.
We're the sick man of the west. Like the Ottoman Empire our time is running out.
" Muslim liberals and reformers should be our allies in the war "
ok so we need to support dr. zuhdi jasser, dr. tawfik hamid and irshad manji. a very small list who receive daily death threats from the "muslim world" and have absolutely NO influence in the muslim communities in the usa or the “muslim world” at large. doesn’t say much for your liberals and reformers now does it
During the 2008 election cycle, the middle name Hussein was essentially whitewashed from the public genre in a naked effort to help otherwise suspicious voters feel comfortable with a muslim monniker.
Three years into the mission, the question remains unanswered as to whether this man is a useful idiot for the Muslim Brotherhood or if he truly was the Manchurian Candidate.
If nothing else, the nation is unquestionably suffering the effects of the second term of Jimmy Carter. We can only speculate as to the content of propaganda currently under distribution via the VISTA program.
It's quite possible that low- to mid-level intelligence bureaucrats are constrained in their use of "pejorative" terms, but the issues that May highlights are certainly discussed at higher levels. I'm sure they pay close attention to his analyses and those of other experts. Public statements on matters of foreign affairs reveal very little about actual policies and strategies. I'm confident that true threats are not being dismissed or ignored. The mullahs and other jihadists know that.
And this should reassure us how? Even if “higher level” folks are handling the truth while “mid-level intelligence bureaucrats are constrained,” we are faced with the same problem of not dealing with the elephant in the living room. Firstly because your “higher level” folks are not the folks who do the actual intelligence analysis. And secondly because intelligence is not action; the intelligence community could be presenting decision makers with a crystal clear picture and it would make no difference if the decision makers were determined not to see the Islamic component therein. As it stands, presenting a picture that highlights Islam in a less than positive light is detrimental to one’s career.
The Intelligence Community today is like a system of hospitals and medical research facilities in which the idea that bacteria cause infection is considered not just wrong, but bigoted. “Researchers” with elaborate non-bacterial theories of infection get promotions, prestige, and funding. And “hospitals” have strict policies forbidding “doctors” from “demonizing” bacteria, and sometimes even requiring them to pretend that all bacteria are good. There are practitioners who know that some bacteria cause infection, but they must keep that quiet or they’ll be drummed out the profession not just for malpractice, but for malpractice motivated by bigotry. (BTW, before thoughtful sensitive souls scream “BIGOT!” at me for the bacteria analogy please not that it isn’t people I’m comparing to bacteria, it’s ideas.)
When you put restrictions on yourself that threaten your ability to defend yourself then you ensure that your country will cease to exist. I don't think that the West has the will to survive and do what is necessary to ensure that survival. It is incredible how far we have descended in my lifetime. It defies common sense but yet it exists. This is just one of many examples of how stupid we have become.
The peoples of Islam and Christianity have been at war with each other since the 7th Century of the Christian calendar. Start getting your history books out and reading them!! Now!! Both religions are missionary religions and have a long history of violence between each other. The events in the last few years are not even the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the long duel between Muslims and Christians.
I have no preference for any religion that promotes violence of any kind to prevail!!! Since both religions (to include what passes for Christianity these days and in the past) have both promoted violence for so many centuries, and since I detest violence, then what side do you think I want to prevail?! Again, start cracking open some history books and you will find that Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism also have a record of violence. All five religions yap about peace all the time but the record of history shows otherwise. For example, let's take all those Muslims and Hindus who slaughtered each other during the partition of India in 1947. Want another history lesson that is neither Conservative or Liberal, but Factual?
The concept of "Holy War" did not exist in Christianity until Islam reared its ugly head, Mohammed was a bandit who led raids on caravans and oversaw the massacre of the adult males of entire towns and the enslavement of the women and children. He was a pedophile who kept sex slaves. He instructed his followere (if we accept the koran and the hadiths as being authentic) to kill those who would not embrace Islam. His followers who engage war in the name of Islam are following in his footsteps.
Contrast that with the actual teachings of Christ and his example to his followers.
In contrast to Humpty Dumpty's display of applied ignorance, there's this summing-up quote from Gregory Davis's book _Religion of Peace? Islam's War Against the World_:
“Of course, Muslims (like Christians, Jews, and members of any religion) often fail to understand or live up to the standards of their faith. But what distinguishes Islam from other religions is that when it is correctly understood and practiced, Islam actively seeks the subjugation or destruction of everything that is not itself. Non-Islamic religions may seek the conversion or evangelization of others, and their devotees may employ force against others from time to time. But Islam is the only religion whose basic animating principles pit it against the rest of the world, ensuring that war is the natural and obligatory state of affairs.”
There is no equality of outcome when it comes to philosophy. Humanity has proven to be flawed and violent, and yet it has also proven to be altruistic, generous and merciful. Human beings need guiding principles.
Institutionalized secularism in the form of communism killed over 100,000,000 people in the last century. Stalin had killed more people than Hitler ever would by 1933. Hitler himself was a secularist. He felt that Christianity weakened its adherents. He urged people to wish each other a happy solstice trying to return the Germans to their mythic beliefs of old.
Mother Teresa was a Catholic, lived in poverty and managed to feed and care for thousands of people of all faiths and lifestyles in numerous parts of the world while creating a lasting institution to carry on her work after her death. For my money I think that I will always live most comfortably in a society governed by Judeo-Christian ethics. In order for those ethics to exist the population must be predominantly Jewish and Christian.
I don't believe any country actually lived under Communism in the 20th Century. Socialism is what they lived under, though they promise Communism in the next generation. Hence, it is actually Socialism that has killed 100,000,000 in that time.
