Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > History of the World
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-19-2008, 12:31 AM
Israeli's Avatar
Israeli Israeli is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 84
Israeli is on a distinguished road
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultra Requete View Post
Exelent work Papa, your threats about iSSlam are briliant.
Footage Thinks to our cheer Paparock





Yes i know, i am not regular here but i visit as possible as i can.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-21-2009, 04:32 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow How to combat the global jihad & The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Global Jihad

Spencer: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Global Jihad"



Spencer: How to combat the global jihad



Here are a couple of talks given Saturday morning, July 18, 2009, at the Reagan Ranch Center in Santa Barbara, California, to a group of college students attending the Young America's Foundation Summit on Radical Islam.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-28-2009, 03:16 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Fitzgerald:The worldwide Jihad is simply the sum of all the local Jihads

Fitzgerald:
The worldwide Jihad is simply the sum of all the local Jihads



The worldwide Jihad is simply the sum of all the local Jihads. Each local Jihad receives automatic support from Muslims worldwide, who are quick to identify, always and everywhere, with other Muslims. For a century and a half the pursuit of Jihad was largely abandoned, not because the doctrine of Jihad had been changed, or had fallen into permanent desuetude, but because Muslims were too weak, vis-a-vis others, and they were fully aware of that weakness. 



After World War II, the main objects of Jihad were the State of Israel and Kashmir. The former, in particular, received so much attention because, as Bernard Lewis so dryly put it, expressing what we all know to be true, disputes involving Jews were certain to attract attention, not least from antisemites (who found a new, more politically and socially acceptable outlet for their antisemitism, now that Mr. Hitler had temporarily dampened the open delight one could take in it). Others who were feeling, often unaware, an intolerable civilisational guilt, found it quite a relief, eventually, to accept the Arab narrative about those terrible Israelis and thus to have the psychic consolation, in the most extreme form of this mental illness, of allowing themselves to believe that it was Jews who were now behaving like Nazis. This was utter nonsense, but what a boost, not least in Germany and other parts of Europe. The cult of "Palestinianism" could be tied in -- quite wrongly -- with a hypertrophied sense of embarrassment about anything that might, however implausibly, be linked to European "colonialism."

In remote Asia, in the first several decades after Partition, the Pakistanis had so much else to worry about, including holding the country together, that the Jihad against India was largely behind the scenes. That Jihad begins but does not end with the attempt to force all Hindus out of Kashmir, and to claim Kashmir and then all of India for Islam. Only in recent decades has the war against the Hindus has been carried on by Pakistan itself, and by individual Muslims and Muslim mobs in Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan), Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan), and India proper, where terror attacks have been conducted in Mumbai, and on the Indian Parliament in Delhi, and elsewhere.



Meanwhile, the Jihad against Israel was carefully camouflaged after the Six-Day War, which taught the Arabs two lessons. The first lesson was that Israel could not so easily be destroyed through military means, and that it first had to be weakened, through diplomatic isolation, economic boycotts, and steady international pressure to force Israel to disgorge all of its territorial gains, including the very territories which had originally been assigned to Israel by the League of Nations Mandates' Commission. The second lesson was that the Western world would have to be cultivated, and that the way to cultivate its support would be to re-present the conflict as one between "two tiny peoples" rather than as one between tiny Israel and the large Arab world, as Nasser and all other Arab leaders, including Shukairy, the predecessor of Arafat as head of the local Arabs, had presented it.

The most important task would be to change the designation of the local Arabs so that they now suddenly became what they had never been before, and certainly were not when in Gaza they were ruled by the Egyptians or, in the "West Bank," by the Jordanians. From here on out those local Arabs would be known as the "Palestinian people," and everything would be done to reinforce, mainly by dint of constant repetition of the phrase (and the attendant, almost comical "construction" of a "Palestinian identity"), the belief in this "Palestinian people" who had, it was also absurdly claimed, always inhabited a place -- unknown as a political unit to the Arabs -- that was called by the Western world, for quite a while, "Palestine."

As long as Israel (and distant, remote Kashmir) was the main victim of Jihad, receiving 99% of the attention, the Western world could, it seems, afford not to pay attention to what Islam was all about, to what Islam had meant historically for vast Infidel lands and many different Infidel peoples. And in ignoring what Islam was all about, in a fit of colossal and criminal civilisational negligence, the countries of Western Europe, starting about forty years ago, began to admit into their midst large numbers of Muslims, supposedly because they could be workers. But actually they were not needed, and insisted upon coming. The British did not import the Pakistanis, the Pakistanis simply came. The French did not encourage the Algerians and other Maghrebins to arrive, but could not, it seems, prevent them, or monitor their arrival and swelling numbers with the vigilance that was necessary. The only place where some Muslims were invited to come was in West Germany, where Turkish males were allowed in as Gastarbeiter, Guest-Workers, who were supposed to work, remit sums home, and eventually return home themselves. It did not work out that way.

And now, three developments that coincide in time have made the threat of Muslims and of Islam to the entire West no longer a matter of Israel alone, as may once have appeared. First, there has been the unhindered movement of millions of Muslims into the countries of Western Europe, where they greatly outbreed the locals, and conduct constant and aggressive campaigns to change the ways, and the laws, of Infidel societies. Second, there has been the transfer of fantastic sums -- more than twelve trillion dollars since 1973 alone -- to Muslim members of OPEC, which has disguised the economic underdevelopment that Islam, in the absence of unearned oil wealth, almost always guarantees (unless, as in Turkey and in Tunisia, Islam has been systematically constrained or, as in Malaysia and Lebanon, a large economically active class of non-Muslims spurs development). Third, there has been the appropriation of Western technology by Muslims who use that technology, in audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and the Internet, to spread propaganda for Islam and against non-Muslims. 

All of this is now becoming more and more understood in the Western world, though it has taken a while for that understanding to spread beyond the forthright apostates (Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ali Sina, Magdi Allam, and many more) and those who were never fooled and understood the threat of Islam (Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders). Now this understanding, still resisted by so many in the political and media elites, spreads and spreads, not so much because of what Infidels say or do, but because of what Muslims say and do. That can no longer be hidden, nor explained away, just as the canonical texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- can no longer be hidden, nor explained away. 



And that is why it is so important to Arabs and Muslims to keep pretending that Jihad is a Western fabrication, or that its goal is misunderstood, or that this or that local Jihadist group is limited in its desires to this or that localized goal. So we are asked to believe that Lashkar-e-Toiba only wants to put Indian-held parts of Kashmir under Muslim control, or that a similar group in Indonesia only wishes to bring Shari'a to the country and possibly drive the Australians and other Western tourists out. Or we are asked to believe that Hamas and Hezbollah care only about destroying Israel, but have absolutely no interest in a Muslim takeover of the countries of Western Europe or, ultimately, North America. 

But this is nonsense. Islam does not tell Believers that they should be concerned only with this, or with that, small sliver of land. It tells them that the entire world belongs to Allah, and to his people, the "best of peoples," and that as Believers, as members of the Umma, they have a duty, not tangential but central, to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad -- not necessarily through violent means, if violence at this point would not be effective -- to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. And those obstacles include the laws and customs of the Infidels, or any laws and customs that violate the Shari'a, or otherwise prevent Muslim life from being conducted according to the Shari'a, and preventing the unhindered conducting of campaigns of Da'wa, or preventing non-Muslims from yielding to Muslim demands for changes in accord with what Muslims want, in lands built by, and peopled by, Infidels. 



Thus it is important that any whiff of the most obvious promoters of the worldwide Jihad, members of Al Qaeda, be kept from public view if they end up, as of course they have, in Gaza or in the "West Bank." In the same way, the Uighurs have a vested interest in making sure that any Arab fighters or Arab funds or Arab propaganda (or Pakistani, or Iranian) are not found in Xinjiang. And the same is true for those Muslims conducting jihad in southern Thailand, or the southern Philippines. And so on, everywhere that Muslims are fighting against non-Muslims. Since North America and Western Europe are still, militarily, overwhelmingly more powerful than Muslim states, wiles and guiles must be employed to prevent Western Infidels from recognizing the truth about Islam. And a delay in the day or date of recognition will also serve to allow Muslims to enlarge their numbers in the states of Western Europe, making it ever more difficult, in democratic societies, to undertake the kind of measures that will be necessary to halt all Muslim immigration, and then to halt the advance of Sharia in Europe, in the first place by making the conduct of Muslim life, where it violates Western laws (as for example in the public slitting of throats of animals during Eid al-Fitr), more rather than less difficult. 

But this is exactly what the Western world will, in order to survive, sooner or later have to do.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-05-2009, 03:04 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation "In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad"

"In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world"
An American branch of this group met recently in Chicago. No one seemed to mind. Note also that when non-Muslims point out that according to mainstream Islamic teaching, "in principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world," thuggish pseudo-moderate groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations charge them with "bigotry" and "Islamophobia." But don't hold your breath waiting for CAIR's Honest Ibe Hooper or Brave Ahmed Rehab to charge Salah Al-Din 'Adhadhda or Muhammad Ibrahim with "bigotry" and "Islamophobia."

"Lebanese Islamists in Favor of 'Offensive Jihad' to Conquer the World and Impose Islam," from MEMRI, July 21:

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by members of the Islamist group Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 21, 2009.

Salah Al-Din 'Adhadhda, member of the press bureau of Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon: We have come here to talk about the pinnacle of Islam – Jihad for the sake of Allah. Since Jihad – like other precepts of the Shari'a - has been subjected to distortion and perversion, due to the ideological and cultural invasion from which our nation continues to suffer, and since the nation has lost the true meaning of Jihad, and in the mind of many of us, Jihad has become tantamount to resistance, conducted by a group of young Muslim men with some capabilities – the Jihad of a nation over 1.5 billion strong has been reduced to the killing of an American in Iraq, a Briton in Afghanistan, a Jew in Palestine, or a Russian in Chechnya. Thus, the nation takes to the streets of its cities to celebrate the killing of a dozen here or a hundred there.

The nation has lost sight of the fact that it should not really celebrate, even if Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are liberated, because these occupations resulted from the nation's negligence and silence, in the face of these corrupt regimes. Although the crimes of these collaborating rulers are obvious – as is their assistance in the occupation of our countries by the infidel countries – our nation has forgotten that true celebration should only occur with the conquest of the capitals of the world by the message of Islam, in order to save and liberate humanity, by pulling the people out of the darkness and tyranny of capitalism into the light and justice of Islam.

[...]
Muhammad Ibrahim, member of the advisory council of Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon: Jihad in Islam is two-fold. The first type is the offensive Jihad, in which the Muslims engage the infidels in fighting in order to bring the message of Islam to them, and to pull them from darkness and into the light. This type of Jihad has suffered the most violent ideological and cultural campaign by the West, because of what the infidels viewed as the shattering of their earthly interests – interests that exploit human beings, sucking their blood. Jihad is the path to save mankind from the deprivation and hardship of their lives. The West has directed its arrows intensively against the Jihad, because it realized how dangerous Jihad is to Western civilization and culture. The West has distorted Jihad, presenting it as a blatant attack against people, by shedding their blood, subjugating them, oppressing them, plundering their resources, and so on. It has distorted the true meaning of Jihad.

It is sad that some Muslims have clung to the West and been influenced by its culture. Such people went as far as to repeat the claims of many Orientalists – that Jihad is a defensive war only, and that there is no truth in what is being spread about offensive Jihad or offensive war. Thus, they aligned themselves with Western culture. Worse are those who bleat like the enemies of Islam, and consider Jihad to be aggression and terrorism.
[...]
Some people tried to interpret Jihad to mean nothing more than self-defense. Thus, the Muslims abandoned the pinnacle of their glory, and relinquished their responsibility toward the world, as a result of their ideological weakness and their lack of understanding of the laws of the Shari'a of the Prophet Muhammad. In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-12-2009, 03:10 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Lebanese Islamists Favor 'Offensive Jihad' to Conquer the World, Impose Islam

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD248509


Special Dispatch - No. 2485



August 12, 2009
No. 2485


On Al-Jazeera TV:
Lebanese Islamists Favor 'Offensive Jihad' to Conquer the World, Impose Islam

Following are excerpts from a public address delivered by members of the Islamist group Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon. The address aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 21, 2009.


To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2190.htm.

"The Jihad of a Nation Over 1.5 Billion Strong Has Been Reduced to the Killing of an American in Iraq, a Briton in Afghanistan, a Jew in Palestine, or a Russian in Chechnya"


Salah Al-Din 'Adhadhda, member of the press bureau of Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon: "We have come here to talk about the pinnacle of Islam – Jihad for the sake of Allah. Since Jihad – like other precepts of the shari'a – has been subjected to distortion and perversion, due to the ideological and cultural invasion from which our nation continues to suffer, and since the nation has lost the true meaning of Jihad, and in the mind of many of us, Jihad has become tantamount to resistance, conducted by a group of young Muslim men with some capabilities – the Jihad of a nation over 1.5 billion strong has been reduced to the killing of an American in Iraq, a Briton in Afghanistan, a Jew in Palestine, or a Russian in Chechnya.

"Thus, the nation takes to the streets of its cities to celebrate the killing of a dozen here or a hundred there."

"The Nation... Should Not Really Celebrate [Liberation]... Because These Occupations Resulted From the Nation's Negligence and Silence"
"The nation has lost sight of the fact that it should not really celebrate, even if Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are liberated, because these occupations resulted from the nation's negligence and silence, in the face of these corrupt regimes.

"Although the crimes of these collaborating rulers are obvious – as is their assistance in the occupation of our countries by the infidel countries – our nation has forgotten that true celebration should only occur with the conquest of the capitals of the world by the message of Islam, in order to save and liberate humanity, by pulling the people out of the darkness and tyranny of capitalism into the light and justice of Islam."[...]


"The West Has Distorted Jihad"

Muhammad Ibrahim, member of the advisory council of Hizb Al-Tahrir in Lebanon: "Jihad in Islam is twofold. The first type is the offensive Jihad, in which the Muslims engage the infidels in fighting in order to bring the message of Islam to them, and to pull them from darkness and into the light. This type of Jihad has suffered the most violent ideological and cultural campaign by the West, because of what the infidels viewed as the shattering of their earthly interests – interests that exploit human beings, sucking their blood. Jihad is the path to save mankind from the deprivation and hardship of their lives.

"The West has directed its arrows intensively against the Jihad, because it realized how dangerous Jihad is to Western civilization and culture. The West has distorted Jihad, presenting it as a blatant attack against people, by shedding their blood, subjugating them, oppressing them, plundering their resources, and so on. It has distorted the true meaning of Jihad.

"It is sad that some Muslims have clung to the West and been influenced by its culture. Such people went as far as to repeat the claims of many Orientalists – that Jihad is a defensive war only, and that there is no truth in what is being spread about offensive Jihad or offensive war. Thus, they aligned themselves with Western culture. Worse are those who bleat like the enemies of Islam, and consider Jihad to be aggression and terrorism." [...]

"Jihad is an Offensive Jihad, Which Was Instated in Order to Spread Islam Throughout the World"
"Some people tried to interpret Jihad to mean nothing more than self-defense. Thus, the Muslims abandoned the pinnacle of their glory, and relinquished their responsibility toward the world, as a result of their ideological weakness and their lack of understanding of the laws of the Shari'a of the Prophet Muhammad. In principle, Jihad is an offensive Jihad, which was instated in order to spread Islam throughout the world."
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-12-2009, 04:22 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The ideology of RADICAL ISLAM is widespread in Indonesia

The ideology of RADICAL ISLAM is widespread in Indonesia


__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-28-2009, 04:49 PM
rubintheartist rubintheartist is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
Posts: 5
rubintheartist is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you for posting this thread. The truth about Islamic terrorism must remain an important topic if we are to ever see an end to it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-30-2009, 08:26 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Decoding the Language of Jihad

Decoding the Language of Jihad

by Brig Barker
Middle East Quarterly
http://www.meforum.org/2405/decoding-language-of-jihad


Local law enforcement is the first line of defense to counterterrorism in the United States. The task of recognizing and identifying terrorists in the local jurisdiction is, however, challenging. While law enforcement officers are trained to respond to suicide bomb attacks or other terrorist events, little training and few resources are available for the preventative and preemptive side of security work. Preemption is controversial and carries inherent risk. However, it may also prove to be the most effective form of protection in the frenetic and ambiguous world of terrorism,[1] and so the question remains: What are the flags and indicators that suggest someone is involved in terrorism-related activities?

Developing an understanding of basic linguistic patterns can assist officers to identify extremists in their territory prior to rather than after an attack. Familiarity with terrorists' linguistic indicators—when combined with simple interview and field interrogation techniques—can help law enforcement to identify militant believers. Linguistic analysis follows a two-pronged approach, looking at phraseology and recurrent themes. Indeed, surveys of twelve important Islamist documents, fifty-eight Al-Qaeda statements, and the Hamas charter, show consistent reference to eight themes and eight texts. Of the seventy statements analyzed, all were originally in the Arabic language, excluding the Hamas Charter, which is readily accessible in English.

Background

Radical Muslims worldwide respond to fatwas and other calls for action by iconic leaders. For example, in a February 23, 1998 statement, Osama bin Laden declared, "To kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate Al-Aqsa Mosque [in Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [in Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."[2] Shortly afterwards, his followers detonated two truck bombs outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, killing 257 and injuring more than 5,000. Bin Laden is not alone in inciting followers to terrorism. His lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri and Los Angeles-born aide Adam Gadahn regularly issue messages calling followers to jihad or issuing demands for surrender.

Many Americans may write off figures such as bin Laden, Zawahiri, or Gadahn as psychopaths. Law enforcement officers may see them as criminals inciting violence. To the violent Islamist, however, whether they are financiers, empathizers, or potential suicide bombers, these individuals are recognized as spiritual advisors who convey God's word. Too often, U.S. authorities neglect the impact verbal statements make in the world of Islamic militancy.

To the average American, the Arabic language is just another foreign language. To Muslims, however, it is the language of God. Islamic culture places a premium on literary expression.[3] The inherent power of the Arabic language within the culture amplifies the import and power of the fatwas issued by individual radical scholars to potential jihadists. While Islamist advocacy groups argue that jihad is a peaceful, internal struggle, many classical Muslim theologians as well as today's radicals understand it to mean holy war. Michael Bonner, a professor of medieval Islamic history at the University of Michigan, explains:
Most accounts of the jihad agree that it has both an external and an internal aspect. The external jihad is an activity in the world, involving physical combat against real enemies in real time … Most modern Western writings on the jihad consider that the external jihad, the physical combat against real adversaries, was the first to arrive in history and has priority in most ways. In this view, the internal jihad, the spiritualized combat against the self, is secondary and derivative, despite all the importance it eventually acquired in Muslim thought and society.[4]
Indeed, most comprehensive compilations of Islamic law and hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad) contain sections on jihad, often describing it in the violent sense. To the militant, it does not matter how advocacy groups or media networks define jihad. What matters is what teachers and philosophers believe. Here, the militant will find much to support his views. Muhammad bin Isma'il al-Bukhari (810-70), the most famous compiler of hadith, dedicated one-third of his fourth volume to jihad as physical holy war.

While U.S. authorities often defer judgment on jihad in response to some advocates who say that true jihad is not violent, extremists adhere closely to the teachings of radical scholars. Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiya (1263-1328) provides inspiration for many Sunni radicals, notably the Salafis. So, too, does Muhammad ibn 'Abdul Wahhab an-Najdi (1703-92). More recently, Syed Abul A'la Maududi (1903-79) argued, "The objective of Islamic jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of state rule."[5] Sayyid Qutb (1906–66), an important Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, said,
It is not the function of Islam to compromise the concepts of Jahiliya [pre-Islamic ignorance or barbarism extended to the present day] which are current in the world or to coexist in the same land together with a jahili (barbaric) system. Jahiliya, to whatever period it belongs, is jahiliya; that is, deviation from the worship of one Allah and the way of life prescribed by Allah.[6]
Street level police officers should recognize that such historical references remain significant; the commentaries of Bukhari, Ibn Taymiya, Maududi, and Qutb provide a baseline understanding as to jihad's motivation or justification. Islamist believers utilize these scholars and the standard Islamic texts, the Qur'an and the hadith collections, as part of their daily justification for attacks in the name of Islam.

These references are also significant for the operational value of the linguistic themes. Islamist theologians and terrorist leaders often use common linguistic themes. Terrorists provide overt indicators of extremism, often unintentionally and subconsciously. There are only so many variations upon the radical theme. Moderate Muslims and those without violent propensities and understandings of jihad may refer to some of the same texts—certainly the Qur'an and Bukhari—but seldom in the same context or in conjunction with other linguistic indicators of radicalism. Militant exegesis appears to be significant as a first indicator of a puritanical belief system. While some common references between moderates and radicals may lead to occasional confusion, such uncertainty can be resolved within the context of the breadth of investigative capacity.

Linguistic Determinants of Militancy

U.S. law enforcement officials and concerned citizens can benefit from awareness that moderate Muslims do not use the same linguistic patterns and references as Islamic radicals. A basic understanding of the linguistic patterns of militancy coupled with an investigator's normal interviewing techniques can assist in determining an individual's ideology and religiosity. With a general understanding of these techniques, the individual officer or agent can better evaluate on close to a quantitative basis the flags and indicators of those individuals potentially involved in terrorist activities.

Susan H. Adams, a retired FBI agent who has focused much research in the field of evaluating veracity and deception in criminal statements, argues that statement analysis can be an important investigative tool and should also aid law enforcement interviewing approaches. If such analysis is effective in criminal cases, then it can be useful in counterterrorism as well. While many terrorists and militants may seek to cloak their beliefs as they infiltrate society, Adams shows that, nevertheless, linguistic behavior is subliminal.[7] All but the most professional terrorists may have difficulty hiding their radicalism. Word choice matters.

Statements from bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Gadahn provide a useful baseline, albeit one that can be expanded by sampling the statements of other terrorist leaders. Bin Laden and Zawahiri continue to employ periodic statements calling for continued global jihad and justifying attacks in the name of Islam, which Gadahn also reworks for an American audience.

Four statements from each of the three individuals were analyzed to evaluate the factors of phraseology and recurrent common themes.[8]

Common themes and phraseology in these statements are limited, a finding consistent with those of James W. Pennebaker and Cindy K. Chung, psychologists who have carried out a computerized text analysis of Al-Qaeda transcripts evaluating the linguistic and content-related styles of both bin Laden and Zawahiri.[9]

Osama bin Laden's statements are consistent in theme and phraseology even if the news hook accompanying each audio or videotape may differ. Bin Laden focuses his content on the United States and its allies and provides absolute statements ostensibly accepted by the mainstream Islamic community, although he appears to construct these statements carefully to reach different constituencies.[10] Table 1 outlines bin Laden's phraseology and themes.

Bin Laden blends politics and theology. Catalyzing each statement is a noteworthy event such as a political campaign, a shift or attack in either Iraq or Afghanistan, or the publishing of cartoons about Muhammad in a Danish newspaper. A disorganized treatise sprinkled with unvarying phrases and themes often follows each statement. Analysis reveals an air of insecurity and a belief in conspiracy. Phrases aimed to "convince" rather than "convey" are replete throughout the texts. Bin Laden attempts to convince the Muslim people as well as American citizens to rise up and question their rulers. Some of the phraseology reveals apparent "strain" as he presents his case against certain regimes. He also appears to exploit the Islamic texts to justify his arguments, often in the context of admonishing Muslims not to disobey God. He further attempts to argue that the "apostate governments" have worshipped others apart from God, which would constitute shirk.

Zawahiri, bin Laden's chief deputy, also uses a number of consistent words and themes (see Table 2) to explain the conditions that will end jihad against the West. These include repentance to God, accepting Islam, implementing Islamic law, participating in jihad, and finally, breaking apart the United States.

Gadahn has issued many lengthy statements, both independently and jointly with Zawahiri, which together provide a sense of common words and themes (see Table 3). While Gadahn may not be a household name as are bin Laden or Zawahiri, he is important as a reflection of a radical American convert who learned the language of jihad from Muslim extremists. As such, he reflects the trickle-down theory that argues that a radical Islamist is not always an extremist but learns militancy because of the linguistic and ideological environment in which he is immersed.

The example of Gadahn brings home the reality of radicalization regarding Western converts. Gadahn is an American who stumbled onto Islam, was radicalized, and adopted the "language of jihad" without effort. He also has learned the political and military intent of the organization and virulently stands for the cause. As such, Gadahn will sometimes provide a list of "demands" that in his estimation would lead to the end of violent jihad against Western civilization, including the withdrawal of all non-Muslims from Muslim lands, a termination of all aid and support to "apostate" countries and Israel, allowing Muslims to establish a pan-Islamic state, a cessation of any interference in education and media in the Islamic world, and the freeing of all Muslim prisoners.

Islamist terrorists often adapt consistent themes and phrasing that they justify through Islamic text references (see Table 4), which followers then use to justify terrorism. This does not mean that the themes represent the content of certain Qur'anic verses, but rather that they are interwoven throughout the text with provided Qur'anic references.

In "Computerized Text Analysis of Al-Qaeda Transcripts," Pennebaker and Chung examine fifty-eight Al-Qaeda transcripts, looking specifically at statements made by bin Laden and Zawahiri. While their findings focused on relational nuances and changes between bin Laden and Zawahiri, their identification of high-frequency words, the co-occurrence of words, pronouns, usage, and emotive words also can enhance the understanding of word usage as a single indicator of militancy. Pennebaker and Chung specifically focused on certain themes to include the Islam/Israeli conflict (Factor 3) and geographical co-occurrence (Factor 5). The words listed in Table 5 co-occurred often with each other. Such findings reinforce the conclusion that the analyses that sampled bin Laden's, Zawahiri's, and Gadahn's speeches are representative.

The Hamas charter, like the Al-Qaeda leaders' statements, uses an Islamist patina to justify the group's actions. Article III, for example, reads, "In all that, they fear God and raise the banner of jihad in the face of the oppressors, so that they would rid the land and the people of their uncleanliness, vileness, and evils." Article VIII states that "God is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Qur'an its constitution: Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of God is the loftiest of its wishes," and Article XIII argues that, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights, and fate toyed with."[11]

The Hamas charter and Al-Qaeda speeches enable derivation of a template consisting of eight common words and nine common themes that can aid law enforcement to identify Islamists who, if speaking with candor, might be at risk of straying into terrorism.

Operationalizing Linguistic Indicators

The above analysis highlights eight common words or variants and nine themes (see Table 6). Iconic believers may pick and choose among such themes, but, regardless of how they dress their treatise, such themes recur. Indeed, they are necessary to weave the underlying logic of militancy. The primary tones are manipulative, coercive, and sometimes threatening. In many of the statements, the speaker talks about the Day of Judgment, God's favor, and His actions.

In an interview setting, interrogators differentiate between the concepts of conveyance and convincing. When an individual is unequivocally telling the truth about a particular incident, he will "convey" the facts of the situation to the interrogator. In general, if an individual is guilty or seeking to obfuscate information, he will try to "convince" the interrogator of his innocence.

Islamist extremist tracts, whether they sympathize with Al-Qaeda or Hamas, often try to convince rather than convey. Potentially, this derives from the militant believers' intent to convince those outside the extremist faction to follow their exclusionary belief system. It may also be the result of a lack of assuredness in one's own beliefs. Nevertheless, a factor of questionability appears present in most of the militant statements evaluated. This, in turn, presents an opportunity for the officer or agent who is interviewing a Muslim in their community who may be conflicted about Islam. If they are not yet sold on following the way of violent jihad, this may be an opportunity for the officer to recruit him to assist law enforcement. Various Islamist terrorists—including 9/11 hijackers Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah—have been conflicted in their belief systems in the past.[12]

Disambiguation, or establishing a single semantic interpretation, is another common factor. Extremists provide numerous statements leaving their audience with little doubt as to the speaker's beliefs. There is no question that non-Muslims or those from Western societies should be the primary target of jihad. These nonbelievers are conceptually divided from the "true believers." This transcends the remainder of the statements where comments are made frequently about the unequivocal purity of Islamic law and how it should be followed by all countries. Mujahideen, on the other hand, are those that are fighting for Islam in the truest sense of the term. It is essential that the officer or agent understand this binary thinking. Listening for and recognizing this assumption in the interviewee's comments may prove an important factor in trying to identify the individual as a militant believer. Not only will the Islamist terrorist see the world in black and white, but he may view the interrogator as a nonbeliever and as a result carry out the interview in a certain manner. Overall, the militant believer sees the world with no gray areas. (See Table 7.)

In line with this binary associative thinking, some in the psychoanalytical realm may relate this to the borderline personality theory in which the patient "splits" everything in the world they come into contact with into good and evil.[13] Although splitting may be a Western characteristic of a psychological disorder, it cannot be concluded that all militant Islamic believers have such a malady. Nevertheless, it is important for the interrogator to recognize the modal characteristic as it may pertain to the overall evaluation of a potential militant believer.

Conclusion

Investigators face a challenging compendium of issues when countering terror. Techniques and approaches abound, yet it little compares to the benefit of obtaining reliable information from an individual within a certain community. Today, investigators find themselves conducting interviews and interrogations in the Arab and Islamic culture, which brings with it great challenges and nuances. One technique to be utilized is that of listening for and identifying indicators of Islamic militancy. As identified above, there are specific themes and text words that are common among true militant believers. Knowing what they are and listening for them may assist the investigator in the totality of his investigation. Also, simply listening for various Islamic texts and the references to them may be indicators as well for the agent or officer.

Nevertheless, investigators should not limit their statement analysis to studying those that are included in this paper but should continue their evaluation of exegesis on a long-term basis. The more knowledge and experience gained, the better prepared the investigator will be to thwart terrorist activities and planning in his community. Overall, if investigators work together, sharing knowledge and techniques that are proven to be effective, a synergistic benefit will be realized throughout the global war on terror.
Brig Barker is a supervisory special agent in the FBI. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


Table 1: Bin Laden's Phrases and Themes
Table 2: Zawahiri's Phrases and Themes
Table 3: Gadahn's Phrases and Themes
Table 4: Text Themes/Phraseology
Table 5: Factor 3 Words/Factor 5 Words
Table 6: Common Words and Themes
Table 7: Militant Worldview

[1] K. Shiek Pal, "Racial Profiling as a Preemptive Security Measure in the Post-9/11 World," Kennedy School Review, Spring 2005, pp. 119-29.
[2] Jeffrey Goldberg, "Inside Jihad U.; The Education of a Holy Warrior," The New York Times, June 25, 2000.
[3] Raphael Patai, The Arab Mind (New York: Hatherleigh Press, 2002), p. 51.
[4] Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006), p. 14.
[5] A.A. Maududi, Jihad in Islam (Beirut: The Holy Koran Publishing House, 2006), accessed Feb. 20, 2009.
[6] Sayyid Qutb, "The Right to Judge," quoted on IslamWorld.com, accessed Apr. 8, 2009.
[7] Susan H. Adams, "Statement Analysis: What Do Suspects' Words Really Reveal?" FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, Oct. 1996.
[8] "Bin Laden's Speeches 2003-2006," Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Special Dispatch, no. 1286, Sept. 8, 2006; "Osama bin Laden," MEMRI, Special Dispatch, no. 838, Dec. 30, 2004; "The Full Version of Osama bin Laden's Speech," MEMRI, Special Dispatch, no. 811, Nov. 5, 2004.
[9] James W. Pennebaker and Cindy K. Chung, "Computerized Text Analysis of Al-Qaeda Transcripts," in Klaus Krippendorff and Mary Angela Bock, eds., A Content Analysis Reader (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc., 2008).
[10] Denis McAuley, "The Ideology of Osama bin Laden: Nation, Tribe and World Economy," Journal of Political Ideologies, Oct. 2005, pp. 269-87.
[11] "Hamas Covenant 1988," Yale Law School Avalon Project, accessed Feb. 25, 2009.
[12] MSNBC, Nov. 24, 2008
[13] Marcia Kraft Goin, M.D, "Borderline Personality Disorder: Splitting Countertransference," Psychiatric Times, Nov. 1, 1998.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-03-2009, 04:56 AM
Nathan's Avatar
Nathan Nathan is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 43
Nathan is on a distinguished road
Default

Hi I am an Indian I just wanted to say that because USA's Jihad war on USSR which turned Pakistan and Afghanistan into hardcore Jihadies like Jamatud Dawa and many more we India and Israel are paying the price now that USA is also paying the price for sometime now they should realize funding Pakistan's government or funding it's military is nothing but funding Jihad that means they are funding the own downfall.

Please guys wake up it your nuke which is you gave to Pakistan which is being turned against you by same Jihadies.

Think before doing anything to Pakistan because your soldiers and our soldiers are paying price out here.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-03-2009, 01:43 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Default

I believe it is Islamic fanaticism to act as Muhammad did to subjugate all non-believers to Islam and Allah that makes them jihadists and not contributions to Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, the USA does often turn a blind eye to how its funding of governments like Pakistan is used until it is far too late. The USA often chooses the lesser of two evils in a world where there are few good choices. The friend of today may be the enemy of tomorrow as Iraq was between Iraq and Iran years ago. Some in the US warned that such would happen but were ignored. Such are the realities of world politics and the world’s populations pay the consequences for misjudgments.

Your nations need leadership with the foresight to end the endless cycles of appeasement toward Islamic fanatically motivated governments and stand against this evil in a united way. When or if such leaders are to lead our nations are up to the people of our nations. So far at least in the USA we have not shown the ability to pick such a leader to be our President nor elect such leaders to our Congress.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-18-2010, 05:42 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The single best resource for understanding Islamic teaching about jihad

The single best resource for understanding Islamic teaching about jihad




Patrick Sookhdeo's book Global Jihad: The Future in the Face of Militant Islam came out in 2007, and no book before or since has rivaled it as a single-volume resource for Islamic teachings on jihad. That makes this book truly essential reading for anyone who is tired of the politically correct fog of misinformation that envelops us everywhere about the threat we are facing, and who wants to know the truth.

The scope and range of this book is unique. Sookhdeo, who has won justified renown in Britain for his stands in defense of human rights against Islamic supremacism, opens the book with an evaluation of some of the fashionable explanations for Islamic jihad terrorism: the legacy of colonialism, poverty, demographic pressures, local political conflicts, Israel and the Palestinians, a loss of identity among alienated and marginalized youth, honor and shame, the Western invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terror and other issues relating to Western foreign policy, the corrupt secular West and its polluting impact, and many others. Then he reproduces a question that a Muslim journalist in the U.K. asked after the July 7, 2005 jihad bombings in London: "Why was it four Muslims who blew themselves up? Why have other marginalised communities not produced suicide bombers?"

Then Sookhdeo answers the question: "The answer to this question lies in the legitimacy that the Muslim source texts, classical Islamic theology, and paradigmatic early Muslim history give to violence against non-Muslims and to the ways in which modern Islamists, drawing on these sources, have formed ideologies which justify violence in a modern context."

Global Jihad then supplies key extracts from the Qur'an and Hadith, as well as from the teachings of early Islamic scholars and jurists from the various Sunni and Shi'ite madhahib -- and they teach, with a remarkable unanimity, the necessity for Muslims to wage war against unbelievers and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. Sookhdeo also explains key Islamic doctrines related to that of jihad, including the dar al-Islam/dar al-harb division and the idea that the whole world belongs to Muslims and is only rightly ruled by an Islamic state. He traces the historical development of the theology of jihad, delineates the types of jihad and their objectives, and relates the jihad doctrine to both Sunni and Shi'ite eschatology. This book even contains expositions of Islamic theology regarding matters attendant to jihad, such as the treatment of prisoners and the acceptability of beheading. There are also illuminating sections on the doctrine of taqiyya, the sufferings of dhimmi populations subjugated within the Islamic state, and the Islamic justification for suicide bombing.

But this is much more than simply a book of illuminating Islamic theological and legal texts, however useful these are. Sookhdeo surveys the contemporary Muslim debate on the nature of jihad, profiles modern-day reformers (and some who claimed the title with less than convincing justification for doing so), and explores various responses to modern-day jihad activity.

So this book is a uniquely useful resource for anyone who wants to understand what we are up against, right? Right. So it was no surprise when Sookhdeo began to be attacked by those who want to make sure that non-Muslim Westerners do not come to a clear understanding of the threat we face. The venomous antisemite and historical revisionist Ben White attacked the book in an odd review that noted correctly that Sookhdeo contended that "the primary motivation of terrorists and suicide bombers is theological" and then purported to refute that contention not by showing that Sookhdeo had misrepresented Islamic theology, but that jihadists cited political issues in their communiques -- thus demonstrating only that Ben White has no clue whatsoever about the inherently political character of Islamic theology.

This was enough, however, for the Islamic supremacist blogger Yusuf Smith (Indigo Jo), who showed up here a few years back in a most illuminating exchange (read the comments), to dub Sookhdeo "the Sookhdevil" -- resulting in Sookhdeo being threatened with death by some of Indigo Jo's coreligionists. Yusuf did not, of course, call them devils.

It was all par for the course -- and showed in a particularly vivid manner that Global Jihad, as meticulously researched and exhaustively documented as it is, is right on the mark.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-09-2010, 04:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Jihadism's War on Democracies

Jihadism's War on Democracies
By Walid Phares

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010/04/jihadisms_war_on_democracies.php


Following is a chapter titled "Jihadism's War on Democracies" published in the book Debating the War of Ideas edited by Eric D Patterson and John Gallagher (Palgrave Macmillan). The chapter summarizes the three wars of ideas waged by Salafists, Wahabis, Muslim Brotherhoods and Khomeinists against liberal democracies and offer strategic suggestions for future counter radicalization policies. I do argue that under the previous US Administration there was a failed attempt to reach out to democracy forces in the Arab and Muslim world, while under the current Administration there are efforts to partner with the Islamists and engage the Jihadists at the expense of the Muslim Democrats.



Debating the War of Ideas

The term "War of Ideas" began appearing in the years following al Qaeda terror attacks against the United States on 9/11. In the days following the massacres, the mainstream media displayed a stunning lack of determination in indentifying where aggression was coming from and why. In the hours following the bloodshed in Manhattan, Pennsylvania and Washington where about three thousand- mostly civilians- were killed, the main question raised by networks, publications, and commentators was, "Why do they hate us?" Incredibly revealing, this slogan told the world and public at home that America did not know who the "they" (i.e., the attackers, who they represent, and what they wanted) were. It also underlined another stunning revelation: that what mainstream intellectuals understood from 9/11 was that sheer "hate" was the reason, and worse, the roots for this so-called hatred were unknown. Al Qaeda's onslaught on American soil signaled the start of what was called the "War on Terror". But historical precision tells us that in reality the jihadi war on the United States and other democracies began several years earlier. The sudden post-Cold War rise of combat Salafists (al Qaeda and others) against American and western targets in the 1990's and the actions taken by Khomeinists (Iran and Hezbollah) since the early 1980's preceded America's campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq two decades later. Popular and media reactions to the 9/11 attacks in the United States revealed a dramatic reality. The public - let alone the Government did not know that the jihadists have been at war with America and other democracies for many years before the Twin Towers attacks.

During the summer of 2004, the 9/11 Commissions asked the tragic question repeatedly: "How come we were at war for years before the attacks and we did not know it? How come the U.S. government - multiple administrations - did not know it, nor did it inform the people and take action?" The Commission's hard question was warranted as al Qaeda declared war against the United States, "the infidels, Crusaders and the Jews" at least twice during the 1990's in tandem with terror attacks in 1993, 1998, and 2000. The other major question that sprung from the Commission's long and painful hearings was: How come Americans and other democracies did not know about the jihadi wars being waged for decades? These two grand lines of inquiry puzzled many citizens since 2001 as they realized that there was indeed a war waged by Jihadists and that for too long the public and most of its representatives did not realize it was happening. As a result, two types of literature expanded in the United States, and later in Europe and the West. One set of books, articles, and panels insists that terrorism is waged by segments of Arab Muslim societies frustrated with Western policies in general and U.S. foreign policy in particular (e.g., economic disenfranchisement and in some cases racism). The second type of literature links the violence performed by the terrorists directly to Islamic theology. The wedge between the two explanations was wide and has grown larger. Both literatures, though, failed to see or explain the jihadi threat as a movement with global strategies, tactics, and rational steps.

In 1979, fourteen years before Professor Samuel Huntington published his famous article (turned into a book in 1996) "The Clash of Civilizations" in Foreign Affairs (1993), I published my first book al taadudiya (Pluralism) with a second volume dedicated to the analysis of the "relationship between Civilizations," focusing in some chapters on the worldwide ramifications of historical jihad. During the 1980's I published more books and articles projecting the rise of jihadism and arguing that its ideologues were camouflaging its strategic intentions. Unluckily, perhaps, the body of my work was mainly in Arabic and went unnoticed in the West, as probably was the case with similar intellectual efforts during the Cold War. During the 1990's, this time from the United States to where I relocated, I published a few pieces, testified to and briefed Congress and nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) about the rising and forthcoming threat of jihadi terror. My warnings - as were those of other intellectuals and journalists in this field - were not heeded. Most of the arguments and points I made long before the official start of the "War on Terror", but they had not impacted the debate, let alone the decision making process back then. In my later findings I established that one major reason why neither the American public was aware of basic realities in the region nor the U.S. government was acting to counter the rising threat was a full fledged campaign waged by the jihadi forces, both financial and militant, to disable American and western abilities from perceiving, understanding and eventually countering the expanding menace. In short, what allowed the jihadist campaign to strike surprisingly at Western interest provoking incoherent debates about the so-called war on terror was in fact a "War of Ideas" unleashed by the very ideological forces standing behind the jihadi militant networks and regimes. Not only were the United States and the West targeted by a jihadi war since the 1980's (Khomeinsts) and the 1990's (Salafists), but more importantly, democracies were submitted to a War of Ideas since the 1970's at the hands of a bloc of regimes and ideological circles, whose main characteristics were and continue to be sympathizing with the jihadist ideologies and practicing authoritarianism domestically.

In 2005 I wrote my first post 9/11 book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West, outlining what I established as past and future strategies by the global jihadist movements. In 2007 I wrote another book titled The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracies in which I demonstrated how jihadi forces were able to win their first and second Wars of Ideas against liberal opponents. Last, I followed up with a third book, The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad, suggesting how to defeat their totalitarian ideologies and support democratic forces in the Arab and Muslim world. This chapter is an additional contribution to the discussion as to the conditions for success against radicalization. One major condition for advancement in the confrontation is for the public of liberal democracies to understand the actual equation and the essence of the so-called War of Ideas. Indeed, eight years after 9/11 and after successive attempts by the U.S. government, by most European institutions, and by NGOs on both sides of the Atlantic, the definition of this War of Ideas is still unclear, and in many cases utterly wrong.

To most architects of the Western War of Ideas waged as of 2004, the issue has been one of public relations and "American image abroad." The U.S. government's various agencies in foreign policy and defense have invested significant time and funds to develop what they deemed "strategic communications" aimed at "swaying the hearts and minds" of Arabs and Muslims. More recent efforts in the United States and Europe focused on what they coined "counter radicalization" efforts. But the essence of both Campaigns was still short of determining the actual threat in the War of Ideas: it is the ideology that produces radicalization and thus the swaying of opinions. Therefore, I have been arguing, and continue to do so, that first we need to identify the "ideology" and what constitutes a threat within the components of this ideology. Then, we must understand the strategies used by the doctrinaires and followers of this ideology across its various streams and branches, before we design the counter-strategies. Historically, the campaigns by jihadi forces to win their own battle inside the Arab and Muslim world before taking it to the West and beyond can be categorized into three "Wars of Ideas"

The First War of Ideas (1950's-1990's)

A historical observation of systematic efforts on behalf on Islamist regimes and networked to spread their ideology shows that while their attempts to expand began with their rise in the 1920's, their strategic expansion took place during the latest parts of the Cold War. The Wahhabis, not very influential in their first stages, concentrated on rooting their doctrine inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia until oil revenues allowed them to begin the process of ideological export in the mid 1950's. The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in the late 1920's also attempted to spread across the region with little success. The penetration by the Ikhwan of Arab societies was slow and suppressed by authoritarian regimes. Taking advantage of the East-West confrontation fro decades, global Salafists (Wahabbis, Ikhwan, and others) focused on expanding Islamist ideology inside the Arab and Muslim world. I term these efforts as the first War of Ideas engaged by the Islamists within their own societies while the West and the Soviets were waging their mutual ideological and propaganda wars at each other. In a sense, the first War of Ideas launched by the world's jihadists - first the Salafists and followed later by the Khomeinists - profited from the capitalist - Marxist clash of ideas to score advances within Muslim societies and assert the slogan often chanted "la sharqiya, la gharbiya, umma wahda Islamiya" (No East, No West, one and unique Islamic Umma). It took the Salafists and the Khomeinists the bulk of the twentieth to organize their movements and rise to influence. Sheikh Yussuf Qardawi, leading ideologue of the modern jihadist movement and top commentator on al Jazeera for more than a decade, often asserted that "Islamist awareness" was moving forward and upwards after the collapse of the Caliphate, taking advantage of the titanic clashes taking place within the infidel world (kuffar), first during World War II and then during the long Cold War. In his estimate, the spread of the Islamist ideology - at the expense of its liberal and secular competitors - was possible partly because the powers on the same side were destroying each other: fascists versus Allies then democracies versus Communists. Khomeinism had a similar assessment of the success. Ideologues such as Sheik Hassan Fadlallah, an ideological mentor of Hezbollah, often theorized that the Islamist forces were able to surge dramatically in the Muslim and Arab world because of the failure of the West to attract youth and the public to "progressive and liberal ideals."

But this global ideology of Islamism-jihadism, emerging between the two postwar giants, had its own rivalries and difficulties. Sunni-backed Salafism and Shia-rooted Khomeinism were at odds on doctrinal, theological and political levels. Wahabbis and Ikhwan framed Iran's Islamism as "unorthodox". The mullahs in turn accused the Sunni Islamists of reinstating the oppressive Muawiya Caliphate at the expense of the Shia. Jihadism's two branches did not rise to merge; that is a firm finding. But both trees developed common grounds, even though not in coordination: the culture of jihadism against all infidels, liberal and progressive Muslims, the West, Communism, Israel, India, Russia, as well as against any polytheist Asian and African cultures. Global Jihadism had more in common against the rest of humanity than differences within the ranks of the jihadists. Hence the ideological efforts by the Wahhabis, Ikhwan, Deobandis (branches of Salafism), and the Khomeinists converged into the creation of the vastest pool of indoctrinated jihadists in modern times. The radicalization within Muslim societies and its Diaspora that the international society began to discover and worry about as of 9/11 began decades ago at the hands of a long-range, patient, and relentless double network of Islamist -jihadists, backed by significant financial resources made available by oil revenues. The first War of Ideas was essentially ideological and educational. The jihadist networks concentrated most of their efforts on widening the pool of indoctrinated youth via madrassas, mosques, Hawzas, orphanage, hospitals, state propaganda, and religious policies, in addition to political movements.

The forces of radicalization differed in their strategies on confrontation with the foe. The Salafists designated Communism as their main enemy, relegating Western capitalism to the position of future enemy. Hence Wahabis and Ikhwan escalated the fight against the Soviet Union and its satellite regimes and parties, culminating in the clash in Afghanistan after 1979. For that purpose the Salafi web accepted a tactical alliance with the United States and the West to achieve the immediate goal. This attitude was explained - wrongly by western apologists - as a real long term alliance the Islamists against the Marxists. The price of such an interpretation was for America and its allies to abandon liberals, human rights activists, and minorities to the advantage of the Islamists. This abandonment was the first strategic failure of the United States to predict the future: scrambling after 9/11 to find moderates is really too late after decades of laissez-faire. However, there was another reason for this abandonment of democratic forces in the region. Indeed, the 1973 oil shock sent a strong message to Western industrialized democracies: hands off domestic affairs of the region's regimes, which also translated in forbidding the free world from assisting liberal causes under authoritarian regimes as was the case with the Kurds, Berbers, Southern Sudanese, dissidents, Arab democrats and so on. On their part, the Iranian jihadists condemned both "infidel powers" equally. Ayatollah Khomeini blasted the USSR and the United States simultaneously as "Satan" but his regime and its ally Hezbollah targeted America intensely. The slogan al mawt li amreeka (Death to America) was shouted twenty two years before the planes of the al Qaeda blasted the Twin Towers. In short, Western concessions to the Islamists during the Cold War allowed the later to expand their ideology geometrically and irreversibly.

The Second War of Ideas (1990-2001)

With the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the rapid democratization of central and Eastern Europe, the fall of the apartheid regime in South Africa, the crumbling of the last militarist regimes in Latin America and with the signal sent by the Tiananmen Square protest, the earthquake produced by the explosion of democratic revolutions at he end of the Cold War shifted priorities for the global jihadist web. On the one hand, the examples of huge marches in the streets of downtowns formerly ruled by secret polices were too menacing for sister regimes in the Arab and Muslim world. Khomeinists, Wahabbis, Baathists, and other dictatorships in the region felt compelled to preempt potential democratic copycats in their own midst, costing power and wealth of the ruling elites. On the other hand, the Islamist networks, particularly those turned violent jihadists during the war in Afghanistan, realized their calling to replace the discredited authoritarian establishment in the Arab Muslim world. Hence a convergence of strategic interests came to life between traditional Islamists in power and surging Jihadists across the region. The new direction of the global wed targeted the West and its liberal democracies, but each stream had a different interest. The Wahabbis and other Islamists in power in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Sudan and other countries, the Iranian regime and the vast network of Muslim Brotherhoods with branches within Europe, North America poured sizeable funds, diplomatic influence, media and cadres into the most powerful battle of ideas in modern history. Their aim was to block the rise of awareness in the West regarding the necessity of backing the spread of democracy in the Greater Middle East and beyond. The main thrust of the second War of Ideas took place mostly in Europe's western democracies, the United States, Canada, and within other democracies. It was embodied by an immense investment of hundreds of millions of petro dollars in the educational, media, and intellectual institutions in the West specializing in foreign policy, national security, and other related academic fields. The goal was to delay the rise of a consciousness vis a vis the rise of jihadi ideologies and the severe problem of human rights in the region. After the West intervened on three continents to "back democracy," towards the end of the Cold War, many of the Muslim World's regimes feared a similar repeat in their countries. The best strategy employed by the elites was to take refuge under "religious legitimacy," and the best defense of this legitimacy was to create a barrage within the West obstructing any criticism of jihadism and its derivatives.

Accordingly, the chain of financial and lobbying moves in most influential liberal democracies was very successful. The petro dollar regimes, forming a consortium closer to cultural imperialism, targeted departments of Middle East studies, international relations, history and other political entities on American, European, and other Western campuses seizing control of setting the curriculum, determining the issues to research and teach and in many cases selecting the instructors and scholars. Oil funding practically eliminated the study of human rights, democratization, minorities, feminism, and jihadist ideologies from Western academia. Graduates of corrupted Middle East studies and its related fields populated the realms of the Foreign Service, mainstream media, and teaching. The 1990's witnessed the eradication of Western capacity to produce an independent knowledge of the region's multiple dramas and threats. The Second War of Ideas, mostly via soft power, subverted national security expertise in America and other democracies and took out its ability of lending support to civil societies south and east of the Mediterranean. While NATO intervened twice in Yugoslavia and the United States exclusively in Panama and Haiti, and East Timor was miraculously saved, the oppressed peoples of Southern Sudan and Lebanon, as well as ethnic communities in jeopardy such as in Darfur, the Kurds, the Berbers of North Africa, and many more were left to their fates. Women were abandoned to gender apartheid in Afghanistan and Iran and students and intellectuals were facing suppression across the region with little interest in Western capitals. The reason behind this general abandonment of the underdogs in the Arab and Muslim world was none other than the victories scored by authoritarian petro powers in America and Europe. Since the only "Middle East conflict" recognized by the public debate in the international arena was the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, all other "tragedies" were dismissed at interference in the region's affairs. Equally lethal to international investigation into the region's ideological debate was the more dangerous dismissal by petro lobbying of the nature of jihadism. The latter was framed as a spiritual enterprise, a theological question, and in best conditions, a mere reaction to U.S. policy and past European colonialism. The western public was deprived of a scientific - even - basic understanding of the jihadi doctrines, movements, and aims. The most efficient success of the second War of Ideas was to take out Western abilities to see the strategic expansion of the ideology at the roots of many terrorist movements and regimes.

Any investigation of either the mass human rights abused of the peoples inside the realm of the "Muslim world" or the nature of jihadism was met by a campaign of demonization and guilt imposition via concepts such as "Islamophobia," "Zionism", or "legacy of colonialism". The push by the petro regimes and their supporters during the 1990's was the shield under which pools of radicalization continued to grow in the East and public opinion was neutralized in the West. However, there were other, even more lethal, consequences of the second War of Ideas. The more radical jihadists, including al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Salafists, and Hezbollah found the most fertile grounds in their own recruitment not only in the region but also within the West. The short ten years separating the end of the Cold war from the War on Terror were very dense in ideological warfare waged by the global jihadist web. But the latter has morphed into three large creatures, two of Salafi nature and one Khomeinist. The classical Salafi mainstream continued to include the Wahabbis, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Deobandis. Their strategy was to resume the thrust of the first War of Idea into the post-Soviet era. Their efforts doubled inside the Muslim world, creating more media networks such as al Jazeera and expanding the madrassas, and also accelerated throughout the West by widening the funding of Middle East studies and backing the apologist lobbies. The essence of this group's war plans was to delay western awareness of the ideological threat while seizing the political culture in the regions as a permanent fact. However, the classical Salafists had no intentions on clashing openly and violently with liberal democracies, but on taking it from the inside, or at least paralyzing its counter-action for a long as needed until the war was won by ideological penetration. But the second generation of Salafists, led by the rise of al Qaeda, broke away from the stealth War managed by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahabbis. Bin Laden and his ilk shattered the camouflage by issuing two major declarations of jihad in 1996 and 1998 and by disseminating the corresponding fatwas throughout the radicalized pools. Al Qaeda's priority in the 1990's and beyond was to recruit for the military war and engage in it, not to expand jihadism silently among followers within the West. Hence 9/11 the changed the equation.

The Third War of Ideas (2001-2009)

By striking hard and at the heart of American society, al Qaeda shattered the "silent strategies" of the classical Salafists. The U.S. public rose to question the existence of a threat and thus demanded to know who that "enemy" is and what it wanted? Hence the debate about the existence of a foe was wide open in America leading to a debate about what to do about it. The Western War of Ideas began as a result of the shock of 9/11 but that war was not really won in eight years. Across the Atlantic the jihadists shook off the European public opinions by striking in Madrid and London and rising in France, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The third War of Ideas was in fact triggered by sensational jihadi actions in the West prompting two schools to clash: on the one hand, scholars claiming U.S. foreign policy is the trigger of terrorism. Gradually, more citizens were convinced that there was a threat coming from the Arab and Muslim worlds that they did not know enough about but there was a debate about its nature. Some literature focused mostly on the idea of the Islamic religion attempting to link violence to theology. Other research determined that the issue had more to do with ideology rather than strict religion.

That is the debate inside the West. But the most dramatic dynamics of this third War of Ideas was the explosion of dissidence inside the Arab and Muslim world. Gradually since 2001 and increasingly since the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, counter-jihadi forces and democracy voices expanded. Profiting from western debates, seizing opportunities on the battlefield to organize their own democratic agenda, and maximizing the use of alternative media such as Internet chat rooms and blogging, Arab, Middle Eastern, and Muslim dissidents and human rights activists shattered their side of the wall by bringing the story of oppression to the international arena. Former slaves from Sudan, ex-political prisoners, reformists, opposition leaders, exiles and other figures from democracy activism in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the region entered the discussion as to the battle of ideas. The issue was not reduced to being "Extremist" in the Arab and Muslim world or not; it became about being active in the struggle for democracy or being against it. Unlike its two predecessors, the Third War of Ideas widened in multiple directions:

First, by mean of a campaign by the classical jihadi powers (backed by oil producing regimes) to suppress two narratives in the West - one that jihadism is behind terrorism, and the second that democratic dissidence in the Middle East is the response to radicalization. Wahabbi and Khoeminist funding and influence have been fiercely attempting to counter the rise of consciousness about these two issues in liberal democracies. One of the main tools used by classical jihadi lobbying is the so called charge of "Islamophobia". Any investigation of Islamism - even as an ideology - is being met by attacks accusing the counter-jihadists and the democracy dissidents as anti-Islamic.

Second, a campaign by the international jihadists, al Qaeda, and its nebulous allies to further mobilize the body of militants into terror: This campaign runs parallel to the classical jihadi efforts to block the debate about jihadism. Hence, the combat jihadis are profiting from the shield provided by their competitors. In this third War of Idea, al Qaeda and Hezbollah recruit and radicalize using a lethal ideology, while the Wahabbis, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Iranian Khomeinists secure the protection of this ideology.

Third, western governments have been deploying efforts to de-radicalize the jihadists "after" they have been indoctrinated, which presents tremendous difficulties. The results have been meager and rarely show success, for short of responding to the ideological claims and delegitimizing them, western efforts are useless and costly.

Fourth, counter-jihadist NGOs and intellectuals in the West are attempting to awaken their own societies regarding the mounting threat. They hope to provoke a mass awareness of the menace leading to strategic measures. But the community of experts, commentators, and activists is divided as to the arguments and strategies. While some narrow their focus on theological debates, others concentrate on single issues. No global strategies in the War of Ideas have been duly set up.

Finally, democratic dissidents have continued to be active, but as for the counter-jihadi community, it is very divided and often focused on particular local causes.

The State of the War of Ideas 2009-

Under the Bush administration, the War of Ideas witnessed mutations and changes. While discourse at the level of the president, his main spokespersons and Congressional leaders from both parties regarding jihadism and democracy was moving in the direction of encouraging pluralism and isolating radicalism, the trickling down within the bureaucracy was not followed through. While the directives from the top levels aimed at encouraging an intellectual confrontation with the jihadist ideology and backing the pro-democracy forces, the body of experts tasked with the mission acted against the aforementioned goals leading to the collapse of U.S. backed efforts. Most projects, including media production, funded by the American taxpayer deviated from their original aim by pressure groups sympathetic to either Salafi or Khomeinist lobbies. Eight years after 9/11, government expertise in the domain of strategic communications was unable to define the ideology behind the threat and in many cases framed it as a socio-economical or political reaction to U.S. policy, not a sui generis doctrinal construct. The Bush administration's push to wage a campaign against the radicals was not followed by its own bureaucracy. Across the layers of the executive branch and agencies, including defense, intelligence, homeland security, and diplomacy, a compromised expertise halted the process of support to democracy forces, blocked public intellectual awareness of the jihadi threat, and moved to partner with Islamist movements at the expense of Muslim democrats. But the Bush administration's declarations in support of democracy in the region encouraged many NGOs, dissidents, and democracy activists to become bolder and engage in their own struggle on the frontlines against terror and extremism. Even if the Third War of Ideas from 2001 to 2009 did not produce strategic successes due to the influence of the oil producing regimes and their influence inside the West, the most successful results were ironically achieved by non supported segments of Middle East societies. In Lebanon, the Cedar Revolution took advantage of Franco-American pressure to engage in a democracy uprising. In Iran, the Green Movement, against all expectations in Western chanceries, showed tremendous popular representation particularly among youth and women in 2009. In Sudan, the Darfur human rights activist pushed for the cause of genocide to be heard. Iraq's democratic parties, although coming second after the traditional parties in elections (in 2010 elections they actually scored the highest numbers), rose again. In Afghanistan, women made strident advances in political integration. Minorities across the region became louder in their quest for cultural rights as the Berbers, Kurds, Assyrian-Chaldeans, and Liberals at large from the Peninsula to the Maghreb organized. The War of Ideas waged by the U.S. government was stymied by the combined efforts of international jihadi lobbies and hostile bureaucratic circles within the administration. But oddly the "freed" civil society forces in the region moved up and consolidated their gains.

In response to the rise of democratic and human rights elements in the Greater Middle East, jihadists and militant Islamists in the region and the Diaspora reverted to deterrence against liberal democracies to preempt the most dangerous menace against terror ideologies: an alliance between progressive forces in international society and liberal forces in the Muslim world. Hence a multi-pronged strategy was developed by regimes affiliated with the OIC and OPEC (mainly Iran, the Wahabbis, Muslim Brotherhoods, Qatar, Syria, Sudan, etc.) to block the realization of the alliance between the West and democrats in the Muslim world. The gist of this campaign is to deter the United States and its allies from backing the liberal forces in the region under the charge of "unilateral intervention in the affairs of other countries" while simultaneously blocking the democracy forces in the Muslim world from reaching out to the international community under the accusation of "serving the interests of imperialism and colonialism." The ultimate objective of the authoritarian and jihadi forces it to preemptively break the alliance between the free world and the suppressed civil societies in the region.

Inside the Arab and Muslim Diaspora in the West, the jihadists - both Salafists and Khomeinists - have been winning the battle of political socialization, simply because governments have been seeking the expert advice of an academia sympathetic to the Islamists. Both in Europe and in North America, jihadophiles do not exceed 12 percent of the communities but they control the "microphone" and relationship with authorities. Hence the representation of the silent majority is hijacked by the radicals. While the counter-jihadists, progressives, liberals, and human rights activists reach around 15 percent, their outreach to the majority is limited because of the failed policies of western governments, themselves relying heavily on an expertise compromised by the jihadi financial power.

With the Obama administration taking over, chances for going either direction are equal. The first African American presidency should be inclined to assist minorities in jeopardy worldwide and particularly in the Arab world. In principle, an Obama presidency cannot avoid coming to the rescue of Darfur, Mauritania's slaves, Algeria's Berbers, as well as assist the Kurds, the Lebanese, women, students, and other suppressed segments of Middle Eastern societies. But the Obama administration's engagement in dialogue with the Iranian and Syrian regimes and potentially with the Taliban and other jihadists can have significant consequences on the state of democracy forces in the region. In addition, the adoption of a lexicon by the U.S. and European bureaucracies calling for a ban on the use of terms indicting the jihadists will also strengthen the influence of the radicals instead of curbing their appeal. The next few years will better show in which direction the U.S. government and the West will go in terms of the War of Ideas. Most evidence indicated that the authorities will withdraw from this ideological confrontation, leaving the arena to the jihadi lobbies. But there is evidence that democracy forces in the region, even if abandoned by the west, will continue to struggle in their own War of Ideas against the jihadists and authoritarians.

Conclusion

If the U.S. government (both the administration and Congress) would change course from engagement with the authoritarian regimes to engagement with civil societies, and if other liberal democracies would come together in shaping a joint strategy of confronting radicals by allying themselves with the democrats in the Greater Middle East, I would make the following policy recommendations to win the third War of Ideas.

First, identify the counter-jihadi and liberal activists and intellectuals within the Muslim, Arab and Middle Eastern communities in the West and empower them so that they can present an alternative to their communities in the battle of ideas and let the debate take place naturally. If given equal opportunities, the democratic will win these debates.

Second, identify the progressive, liberal and democratic forces as well as human rights activists in the Muslim and Arab world and across the Greater Middle East and extend enough help to enable them to engage in their own battle of arguments and ideas. The most powerful response to radicalization is democratization, not in terms of political progress only (election and vote) but in terms of political culture. When individuals choose democratic political culture, they opt for pluralism and the respect of human rights as recognized universally. And when they do so, they reject Salafism and Khomeinism and the latter's interpretation of conflicts and international relations.

Third, engage in mass public education and information of civil societies in the West and throughout liberal democracies about the threat of jihadism as an ideology and the challenge faced by the region's democrats. Without a full understanding of the confrontation by the public in the United States, Europe and other democracies, no international support can be sustained to win the War of Ideas.

Fourth, address the ideological roots of terror as a prelude to addressing its political grounds. One needs to remove jihadi terrorism from the equation to allow Palestinians and Israelis to reach peace, the Lebanese to reach security, and the Iranians, Syrians, Sudanese, and other societies achieve social peace.

But above all, regardless of where government policies will head and the choices to be made by leaders and politicians in the years to com, it is crucial to continue the debate and develop platforms for an ongoing discussion of the problem. The ideologically rooted threat cannot be dismissed as a side effect of politic as usual. It has and will continue to have a profound and dramatic effect on human history. The goal of any War of Ideas must be to advance freedom and equality as solid for stability and peace.

************
Professor Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an advisor to the Counter Terrorism Caucus of the US House of Representatives. He is the author of the The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy

<
April 9, 2010
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-12-2010, 01:51 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Jihad the Political Third Rail

Jihad the Political Third Rail
The Freedom Defense Initiative conference "Jihad: The Political Third Rail -- What They Aren't Telling You," held at the site of the Conservative Political Action Conference 2010, was the only event at this most pivotal of conservative gatherings to discuss the single greatest threat our nation faces today: that of the global jihad.


The crowd was standing room only; many had to be turned away at the door. But now this ground-breaking event is available in its entirety on DVD! This professionally shot DVD includes all the dynamic and eye-opening talks in crisp video and clear audio.

This DVD is an extraordinary teaching tool: you can use it to awaken your civic or church group, or even your family and friends, to the reality of jihadist activity -- both violent and stealthy -- in the U.S. and around the world, and to how seriously our freedoms are imperiled.

Learn from the courageous ex-Muslim Wafa Sultan about the everyday miseries to which Muslim women are subjected as a matter of course; from ex-Pentagon official Steve Coughlin about the appalling extent of Muslim Brotherhood infiltration in the U.S. government, and how it hamstrings our ability to head off terror attacks; from Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of Austria and Anders Gravers of Denmark about Europe's rapid abandonment of the freedom of speech in the face of Islamic infiltration; and from Simon Deng about the final outcome of the jihad: the complete subjugation and even outright enslavement of non-Muslims. Then Allen West delivers a speech for the ages -- an informed, passionate indictment of the politically correct fog that blankets us today, and a ringing call to defend our freedoms before it's too late.

All of it is hosted by the directors of FDI and SIOA: Pamela Geller, one of the most dynamic, charming, and well-informed speakers on the scene today, and the scholar of Islam and jihad Robert Spencer.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-13-2010, 12:14 AM
WABA WABA is offline
Dragon
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,394
WABA will become famous soon enough
Default

That is the most brilliant presentation of the threat that fundamentalist sharia Islam is to the free world, that African-American speaker hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the disgusting servitude of dhimmitude.

Send a copy of this dvd to Obama and Clinton.

Better still put it on the 60 Minutes media outlet all over the Free World.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-11-2010, 03:24 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The Grand Jihad

The Grand Jihad
How Islam and the Left sabotage America
by Jamie Glazov



Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a columnist for National Review. His book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008), has recently been released in paperback with a new preface. Check out a description from Encounter Books. His newly released book, which has just become a New York Times bestseller, is The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

FP: Andrew C. McCarthy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Tell us about your new book and what inspired you to write it.

McCarthy: Jamie, as always, it’s a pleasure to be here.
My first book, Willful Blindness, which you kindly allude to in introducing me, was really focused on the terrorist aspect of the Islamist threat. Although I did argue that terrorism was the direct result of Islamist ideology, based undeniably on an accurate and mainstream construction of Islamic doctrine, my main purpose was to explain why prosecution in the criminal justice system, standing alone, was an inadequate response to a profound national-security challenge.

The Grand Jihad is an effort to dig deeper into what that national security challenge is, and in particular, to stress that terrorism is only a small subset of it. Islamists consider themselves to be in a “civilizational jihad” — their words, not mine — against the West. They use terrorism to great effect, but the battle proceeds on every conceivable front in our society: the media, the academy, and our politics, law and culture. And their aim is nothing less than the “destruction of the West” — as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual guide (and probably the most influential Sunni cleric in the world), puts it, “to conquer America” and “conquer Europe.”

FP: Why is a book like yours necessary?

McCarthy: The reason a book like this is necessary is that, in the U.S. and the West, we don’t seem to grasp — some of us expressly deny — the dimensions of the threat facing us. When they hear someone like me talking, they tend to dismiss these warnings as some sort of far-fetched theory: “He says they plan to destroy the West — how crazy that is!” So it’s important to be able to point out that I am not theorizing here. I am reporting to you what they are saying about what they are so obviously doing. You can ignore it, at your peril, but to deny it is happening is just preposterous.

FP: And the origins of your very title shows that denying it is just preposterous, right?

McCarthy: Exactly. The very title of the book, “The Grand Jihad” and the invocation of “sabotage” in the subtitle, is taken from a 1991 internal Muslim Brotherhood memorandum in which the group’s leadership in the U.S. explains to its global leadership in Egypt that the Brothers (or the Ikhwan) consider their work in North America as a “grand jihad” aimed at “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within” by “sabotage.” They are telling us outright what they are about. And while this 1991 memo is quite blunt, it’s not materially different from what they’ve been saying outright for 80 years. The Brotherhood’s motto remains, to this day, “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Koran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope. Allahu Akbar!” It doesn’t get much less subtle than that.

FP: Why is emphasis on the Muslim Brotherhood so important?

McCarthy: The Brotherhood is the font of modern Islamist ideology, which is deeply rooted in Islamic doctrine and scripture and which is far more mainstream among the world’s 1.4 billion Muslims than we’d like to acknowledge. To hear the official government fairy tale, we are confronted by a fringe handful of “violent extremists” who just happen to be Muslims and are so unrepresentative of Muslims that we must not refer to them as “jihadists” or “Islamo-fascists” or “Islamic terrorists” or make any connection whatsoever between their atrocities and what we are incessantly told is one of the world’s great religions.

In point of fact, Islamist ideology is the dominant and dynamic belief system among the world’s Muslims. It is true that support for terrorism is a minority position in at least some (but by no means all) of its uses. But what we need to grasp is that this represents a disagreement among Muslims about tactics, not about the bottom line. The desire to convert free societies into sharia societies is a majority position, not a fringe position.

FP: Why is this fact so rejected in our media and culture?

McCarthy: It is sometimes difficult to decipher this because:

(a) the doctrine of taqqiya, or deception, encourages Islamists to lie about their aims in order to achieve their aims (obviously, you can’t use a sabotage strategy without that), and

(b) when Islamists and Westerners speak about “freedom,” they are not speaking about the same concept.

In Islam, “freedom” means perfect submission to Allah and His law (sharia). So an Islamist has no trouble looking you in the eye and saying he is all for freedom. It owes to our own ignorance that we don’t grasp that he really means the antithesis of the concept we think we are hearing.

Same thing with “terrorism”: Islamists do not accept that what they call “resistance” – which includes mass-murder attacks against people they have decided are threatening or insulting Islam, or “occupying” territories they have decided are Islamic – is “terrorism.”

So they have no trouble looking us in the eye and saying, in all apparent earnestness, and telling you they condemn “terrorism,” even though they know full well that they don’t believe suicide-bombings in Israel constitute terrorism.

As I relate in the book, this also explains how Qaradawi could “condemn” the 9/11 attacks but then issue a fatwa calling for the murder of American troops operating in Iraq. The former, a sneak attack targeting civilians – including Muslims – in a non-Muslim country is, for him, a tactical blunder because it provoked a forcible response that was a net loss for the Islamist project. The latter involves a Western military force “occupying” an Islamic country; Islamist ideology demands violent jihad to drive them out – and it doesn’t matter a wit that the Westerners view themselves as doing humanitarian work to make life better for Muslims; Islamists view the planting of Western ideas and Western institutions in Islamic lands as an act of war.

FP: You mention “violent jihad.” What do you think of the fact that John Brennan, President Obama’s top counterterrorism advisor, just explained to us that jihad is an “internal struggle” and a noble calling?

McCarthy: Ah, yes, the internal struggle to “purify oneself or one’s community.” It is remarkable that we’ve been under jihadist siege for 17 years – and you could say it’s a lot longer than that, but I’ll count from the WTC bombing – and we still hear this blather.

At the highest levels of government, we don’t want to come to grips with what jihad is. It is a very simple concept. In Islam, jihad is always and everywhere the divinely ordained mission to establish, spread or defend sharia, the Muslim political and legal system. Sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition to Islamicizing societies – the central, supremacist imperative of Islam being to place all the world under the dominion of Allah and His law. Thus jihad can be, and often is, violent. But it can also be nonviolent, though not in the syrupy way Brennan and other apologists suggest. To hear them tell it, jihad is totally benign – the internal struggle to brush after every meal, or to rid one’s neighborhood of drug-dealing, etc. That’s not it at all. When Islam speaks of jihad as the command to “purify oneself or one’s community,” it does so in a very narrow sense. The idea is not to become a better person but a better Muslim – i.e., to be more faithful to sharia. And to “purify one’s community” does not mean to make it a better place in some objective sense; it means to rid one’s community of non-Muslim influences.

If we understand the elemental fact that jihad is, in fact, a bedrock tenet of Islam and that it is entirely about establishing sharia, then we are on road, finally, to understanding the civilizational threat we face.

FP: How is Sharia a threat to us and our way of life?

McCarthy: Sharia, in many salient particulars, is antithetical to Western culture and American constitutional republicanism. Sharia rejects our foundational premise that people have a right to make law for themselves, irrespective of any religious code (and sharia is not just a religious code but a full-scale socio-economic and political system that has spiritual elements). Sharia rejects freedom of conscience (apostasy from Islam is a capital offense). It denies equal protection before the law to women and non-Muslims. It denies private property (it claims to protect private property but it really doesn’t – all property is deemed to belong to Allah and its human “owner” is regarded merely as a custodian who is obliged to use it for the good of the umma). It abhors capitalism. It endorses violence as a means to settle political disputes. In short, it cannot tolerate individual liberty, which is the building block of our society.

FP: Sounds like something the Left would embrace. That’s why you argue that Islamists work together with the Left to sabotage America, right?

McCarthy: Correct, that is a huge part of it.
I should be clear about what I mean by “the Left.” I would have thought this obvious – a subtitle is always something of an overgeneralization – but I am not talking about all liberals or all progressive people any more than I am talking about all Muslims. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who do not subscribe to Islamist ideology (the problem, of course, is that there are hundreds of millions who do, and they appear to have the better case in terms of fidelity to Islamic doctrine). And not all of what might generally be called “the Left” is part of what I am homing in on: the hard Left – in America, the Obama Left or the Alinskyite Left – pushing to change our society radically. I think they are a minority, but they are a dynamic, effective minority – just as Islamist ideology (which I suspect is not a minority if you take the tactic of terrorism off the table) is the dynamic and assertive movement among the world’s Muslims.

Nor am I saying, as someone asked in one of my first interviews, that Barack Obama wants to impose sharia. This is an alliance, not a merger. Islamists and Leftists have significant points of departure – mostly on civil rights. If it were just the two of them, they would fight to the death. Indeed, that historically is what has happened: the two sides join in marriages of convenience that always end badly once they have achieved the goal that pushed them together in the first place. After taking help from the communists to topple the Shah, Khomeini repressed them. After Nasser’s socialists aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood to overrun the British-backed Egyptian monarchy (an entente in which Nasser personally solicited a skeptical Sayyid Qutb), Nasser declined to install sharia, the Brotherhood tried to kill him, and Nasser responded by brutally suppressing the Brotherhood – such that Qutb was ultimately executed and the Brotherhood was driven into the arms of the Saudis (the unintended deadly consequence we are still living with today).

I’ve been surprised, Jamie, that when I’m asked about this aspect of the book, people imply that I am concocting a theory. I would have thought that not only the historical instances of Islamist/Leftist collaboration but the innumerable examples all around us (e.g., the radical Center for Constitutional Rights jumping in to become al Qaeda’s lawyer after 9/11; the collaboration between the ACLU and CAIR against the post-9/11 national-security measures; the Muslim Public Affairs Council taking a lead role in the push for Obamacare; the Muslim Brotherhood’s very easily accessible economic and social program – you can glean it from their website, Ikhwan.net – which is plainly socialist; etc.) would have made the fact of the alliance undeniable. Yet I am constantly asked, “Doesn’t the Left have as much or more to lose than anyone if Islamists come to power?” Sure, as I’ve said, they’d have a lot to lose if there were a situation where all that was left were themselves and the Islamists. But we’re not in that situation. We are in the situation where, historically, they are most apt to confederate: namely, where they have a common obstacle that makes their differences seem less important. To me, the interesting question is why the two sides collaborate, not whether they collaborate. There’s no question that they’re collaborating.

FP: So, in your view, why exactly do they collaborate?

McCarthy: Well, it’s mostly about the common enemy. But I argue that, their significant differences notwithstanding, they are in harmony on a few big-picture matters. Both ideologies are authoritarian, in the sense that they want a powerful central government to impose their alternative utopias. Both are totalitarian, in the sense that each of those alternative utopias involves controlling life down to its granular details. And, again, neither can tolerate a freedom culture: if individuals are free, Leftists and Islamists must fail. As I demonstrate in the book, Rousseau, who is the father of all modern radical movements and despised the notion of individual liberty, was an admirer of Islam – especially its holding that the spiritual and secular realms are indivisible. And when one compares Rousseau’s thought with that of Qutb (who, along with Banna, is the most important Brotherhood thinker), the similarities are startling.

FP: In describing the Obama Left, you invoke David Horowitz’s notion of “neocommunism.” Tell us why.

McCarthy: I am obviously very influenced by David’s insights about the radical Left, and, with respect to the themes in this book, by his Unholy Alliance, which I think is one of the most important – and too often overlooked – books of the last several years. David’s description of neocommunism seems to me a perfect analysis of the phenomenon we’re seeing. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many on the Right heaved a sigh of relief and though, “Thank God that’s over.” But it wasn’t the end of communism at all. Indeed, it turned out, as David points out, to be a boon for Leftists. In arguing for their utopia, they no longer had to explain away a huge, execrable, concrete example of what happens when their lofty ideas get applied in the real world. Now it’s all “social justice” – and who doesn’t want social justice, right? – without the inconvenience of the gulags, the purges, the mass-murders, the collapsed economy, the resulting degradation and hopelessness....

__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-11-2010, 03:49 PM
Little Rock Little Rock is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 413
Little Rock is on a distinguished road
Default

Shalom.

It really helps their cause to have a Muslim president in the White House too.

Cheers from Peter
__________________
"Next year in Jerusalem!"
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:06 PM
theafroman's Avatar
theafroman theafroman is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6
theafroman is on a distinguished road
Default

i hope the world wakes up to the reality of islamic ideology and its inherent danger to the free world , before its too late, and for goodness sake i hope kenya does so quickly.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-16-2010, 02:16 PM
Forums_Addict's Avatar
Forums_Addict Forums_Addict is offline
Dragon
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,097
Forums_Addict is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theafroman View Post
i hope the world wakes up to the reality of islamic ideology and its inherent danger to the free world , before its too late, and for goodness sake i hope kenya does so quickly.
Hi Afroman and welcome to the forum. Apparently Kenya has an estimated 10% of the population as muslims.
From about 2 minutes and 45 seconds of the video below is an estimate of what happens when countries have that percentage of muslims as citizens, although of course the whole video is worth watching, but horrifying nonetheless.

__________________
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Albert Einstein

Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-01-2010, 02:51 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Why do Muslims wage jihad?

Why do Muslims wage jihad?




You can find them all over the Internet: windy, pseudo-intellectual diatribes purporting to establish that I misunderstand and misrepresent Islamic teaching about jihad. Fairly often I receive emails asking me to answer these farragos, but I think sufficient refutation lies in the obvious fact that so many Muslims worldwide misunderstand Islam in exactly the same way that I do. Ah, but there you go again, say the critics: you're committing "selection bias," emphasizing the views of Islam held by "extremists," and all the bad sections of the Qur'an, in prejudice to all the marvelous moderate Muslims and wonderful passages of the Islamic holy book.

And here indeed is an explanation of jihad from an "extremist," Muhammad Al-Munajjid, a Saudi Wahhabi sheikh. I offer it here because of its closely argued Qur'anic exposition, with an invitation to Muslim "moderates": show where al-Munajjid is wrong on Islamic grounds. The world wants to see you refute the version of Islam of the "extremists." The "extremists," after all, aren't getting their ideas from me, but from the likes of al-Munajjid. So instead of spending all your time trying to prove me wrong, why not spend some time trying to prove them wrong -- if, that is, you really oppose what they're doing? Go ahead. We're watching, and waiting.

"The reason why jihaad is prescribed," from Islam QA:
Why do Muslims wage jihad?.

Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah has enjoined jihad for His sake upon the Muslims, for the great benefits that result from that and because of the harm caused by abandoning jihad, some of which are mentioned in Question no. 34830.

Some of the reasons why jihad for the sake of Allaah is prescribed in Islam are as follows:


1 - The main goal of jihad is to make the people worship Allaah alone and to bring them forth from servitude to people to servitude to the Lord of people. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allaah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allaah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zaalimoon (the polytheists, and wrong-doers)"
[al-Baqarah 2:193]

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allaah), then certainly, Allaah is All-Seer of what they do"
[al-Anfaal 8:39]

Ibn Jareer said:

So fight them until there is no more shirk, and none is worshipped except Allaah alone with no partner or associate, and trials and calamities, which are disbelief and polytheism, are lifted from the slaves of Allaah on earth, and religion is all for Allaah alone, and so that obedience and worship will be devoted to Him alone and none else.

Ibn Katheer said: Allaah commands us to fight the kuffaar so that there will be no fitnah, i.e., shirk, and the religion will all be for Allaah alone, i.e., the religion of Allaah will prevail over all other religions.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ""I have been commanded (by Allaah) to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah, and they establish regular prayer and pay zakaah, then if they do that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning will be with Allaah." Narrated by al-Bukhaari (24), Muslim (33).

And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "I have been sent just before the Hour with the sword, so that Allaah will be worshipped alone with no partner or associate."
Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami', 2831.

This purpose of jihad was present in the minds of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) during their battles with the enemies of Allaah. Al-Bukhaari (2925) narrated that Jubayr ibn Hayyah said: 'Umar sent people to all the regions to fight the mushrikeen... so 'Umar recruited us and appointed al-Nu'maan ibn Muqarrin to lead us. When we were in the land of the enemy, the representative of Chosroes came out to us with forty thousand troops. An interpreter stood up and said: "Let one of you speak to me." Al-Mugheerah said: "Ask whatever you want." He asked, "Who are you?" He (al-Mugheerah) said: "We are some people from among the Arabs. We used to lead a harsh and miserable life, sucking on animal skins and date stones because of hunger, wearing clothes made of camel and goat hair, worshipping trees and rocks. While we were in this state, the Lord of the heavens and the earth, exalted be His name and glorified be His greatness, sent to us a Prophet from amongst ourselves, whose father and mother we know. Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), commanded us to fight you until you worship Allaah alone or pay the jizyah. Our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us the message from our Lord, that whoever among us is killed will go to Paradise to enjoy delights such as no one has ever seen, and whoever among us is left will become your master."

This is the truth that the Sahaabah and leaders of the Muslims proclaimed in their military campaigns.

Rab'i ibn 'Aamir said, when Rustam the commander of the Persian armies asked him, "Why have you come?": "Allaah has sent us to bring forth whomsoever He wills from the worship of man to the worship of Allaah.

When 'Uqbah ibn Naafi' reached Tangiers, he rode his horse into the water until the water was up to its chest, then he said: "O Allaah, bear witness that I have done my utmost, and were it not for this sea I would have travelled throughout the land fighting those who disbelieve in You, until none is worshipped except You."


2 - Repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims.

The scholars are unanimously agreed that repelling the aggression of those who attack the Muslims is fard 'ayn (an individual obligation) upon those who are able to do that.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allaah likes not the transgressors"
[al-Baqarah 2:190]

"Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allaah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers"
[al-Tawbah 9:13]


3 - Removing fitnah (tribulation)

Fitnah is of different types:

(i) That which is caused by the kuffaar who persecute the Muslims or apply pressure to them to make them give up their religion. Allaah has commanded the Muslims to fight in jihad in order to save those who are weak and oppressed. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And what is wrong with you that you fight not in the Cause of Allaah, and for those weak, ill-treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from You one who will protect, and raise for us from You one who will help"
[al-Nisa' 4:75]

(ii) The fitnah of the kuffaar themselves and their preventing others from hearing and accepting the truth. That is because the kaafir systems corrupt the innate nature and reason of people, and make them get used to worshipping and submitting to things other than Allaah, getting addicted to alcohol, wallowing in the mire of sexual licence, and losing all characteristics of virtue. Whoever is like that can rarely tell truth from falsehood, good from evil, right from wrong. So jihad is prescribed in order to remove those obstacles that prevent people from hearing and accepting the truth and getting to know it.


4 - Protecting the Islamic state from the evil of the kuffaar.

Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered that the leaders of the kuffaar be killed, those who incited the enemies against the Muslims, such as the Jews Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf and Ibn Abi'l-Haqeeq.

Another aspect of jihad is to protect the borders against the kuffaar. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) encouraged that as he said: "Guarding the border for one day for the sake of Allaah is better than this world and everything in it." Al-Bukhaari, 2678.


5 - Frightening the kuffaar, humiliating them and putting them to shame.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"Fight against them so that Allaah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people,
And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allaah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allaah is All-Knowing, All-Wise"
[al-Tawbah 9:14-15]

"And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allaah and your enemy"
[al-Anfaal 8:60]

Hence it is prescribed to fight in a manner that will strike terror into the heart of the enemy.

Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah - may Allaah have mercy on him] was asked whether it is permissible for a soldier to wear silk or gold or silver when fighting or when the envoys of the enemy come to the Muslims.

He replied:

Praise be to Allaah. With regard to wearing silk in order to frighten the enemy, there are two scholarly views, the more correct of which is that it is allowed. The soldiers of Syria wrote to 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab saying: "When we met the enemy we saw that they had covered their weapons with silk and we found that this struck terror in our hearts." 'Umar wrote back to them saying: "You should cover your weapons as they do." And wearing silk is a kind of showing off, and Allaah likes showing off at the time of fighting, as it is narrated in al-Sunan that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "There is a kind of showing off that Allaah likes, and a kind of showing off that Allaah hates. The showing off that Allaah likes is when a man shows off at the time of war. The kind of showing off that Allaah hates is showing off for the purpose of pride and boasting." On the day of Uhud, Abu Dujaanah al-Ansaari showed off among the ranks, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "This is a kind of walking that Allaah hates except in this situation." Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 28/17


6 - Exposing the hypocrites

Allaah says (Interpretation of the meaning):

"But when a decisive Soorah (explaining and ordering things) is sent down, and fighting (Jihaad -- holy fighting in Allaah's Cause) is mentioned (i.e. ordained) therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy) looking at you with a look of one fainting to death"
[Muhammad 47:20]

At times of ease and plenty, the Muslims may be joined by those who seek to make worldly gains, and they do not want to make the word of Allaah prevail over the word of kufr. These people may conceal their real nature from many of the Muslims, and the most effective means of exposing them is jihad, because jihad means sacrificing oneself but these hypocrites are only indulging in hypocrisy in order to save themselves.

Exposing the hypocrites was one of the major purposes that Allaah wanted the believers to achieve on the day of Uhud.
Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"Allaah will not leave the believers in the state in which you are now, until He distinguishes the wicked from the good"
[Aal 'Imraan 3:179]

Ibn al-Qayyim said:

This means: Allaah will not leave you in the state in which you are, where the believers are indistinguishable from the hypocrites, until the believers are made distinct from the hypocrites, as they were distinguished by the test on the day of Uhud, and Allaah will not disclose to you the unseen matters by which the one group is distinguished from the other, for they are distinguished from one another in the knowledge of the unseen that He has, but He wants to distinguish them from one another in a clear and visible manner, so that His unseen knowledge will become known and visible.


7 - Purifying the believers of their sins and ridding them thereof

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"And so are the days (good and not so good), that We give to men by turns, that Allaah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allaah likes not the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).

And that Allaah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers.

Do you think that you will enter Paradise before Allaah tests those of you who fought (in His Cause) and (also) tests those who are As-Saabiroon (the patient)?"
[Aal 'Imraan 3:140-142]


8 - Acquiring booty

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "I have been sent ahead of the Hour with the sword so that Allaah will be worshipped alone, and my provision has been placed in the shade of my spear, and humiliation has been decreed for those who go against my command, and whoever imitates a people is one of them." Narrated by Ahmad, 4869; Saheeh al-Jaami', 2831.

Al-Haafiz said:

This hadeeth indicates that war booty is permissible for this ummah, and that the provision of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has been placed in war booty and not in other kinds of earnings. Hence some of the scholars said that it is the best kind of earnings.

Al-Qurtubi said:

Allaah sent provision to His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by means of his striving and He made it by means of the best kind of striving which is earning it by means of force and strength.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out for the battle of Badr to meet the caravan of Abu Sufyaan.

Al-Qurtubi said: The fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to meet the caravan indicates that it is permissible to take booty because it is a halaal source of income. This refutes Maalik's view that this is makrooh, when he said that this was fighting for worldly gains.

Al-Shawkaani said: Ibn Abi Jamrah said: The scholars of hadeeth are of the view that if the primary motive is to make the word of Allaah supreme, it does not matter what else is also achieved.


9 - Taking martyrs.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"If a wound (and killing) has touched you, be sure a similar wound (and killing) has touched the others. And so are the days (good and not so good), that We give to men by turns, that Allaah may test those who believe, and that He may take martyrs from among you. And Allaah likes not the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers).

And that Allaah may test (or purify) the believers (from sins) and destroy the disbelievers"
[Aal 'Imraan 3:140-141]

Martyrdom is one of the highest statuses before Allaah, and the martyrs are the closest of His slaves to Him. There is no status higher than that of siddeeq apart from martyrdom.

Allaah loves to take martyrs from among His slaves, who shed their blood for His love and to earn His pleasure, preferring His pleasure and His love above themselves. There is no way to attain this status except by circumstances that may lead to it such as enemies coming against the Muslims.

This was said by Ibn al-Qayyim in Zaad al-Ma'aad.

This is the great wisdom and those who try to put the Muslims off jihad and make them fear it, and say that jihad is no more than death, and making women widows and children orphans, pale into insignificance.


10 - Ridding the world of corruption.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

"For had it not been that Allaah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, wherein the Name of Allaah is mentioned much would surely, have been pulled down. Verily, Allaah will help those who help His (Cause). Truly, Allaah is All-Strong, All-Mighty"
[al-Hajj 22:40]

"And if Allaah did not check one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed be full of mischief. But Allaah is full of bounty to the 'Aalameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists)"
[al-Baqarah 2:251]

Muqaatil said:

Were it not that Allaah checked the mushriks by means of the Muslims, the mushriks would have overrun the earth and killed the Muslims and destroyed the mosques.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Jawaab al-Saheeh, 2/216:

So the kuffar are repelled by means of the Muslims and the worse of the two parties is repelled by the better, just as the Magians (Persians) were repelled by the Christian Byzantines, then the Christians were repelled by the believers of the ummah of Muhammad.

Al-Sa'di said: The world would be corrupted if the kuffaar and evildoers were to prevail.

These are some of the reasons why jihad is prescribed.

We ask Allaah to bring the Muslims back to their religion. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.
__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-01-2010, 05:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Dragon
Photobucket
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow ‘Taqiyya’ (Islamic art of deception) and Jihad



__________________
O Israel
The LORD bless you and keep you;
The LORD make His face to shine upon you and be gracious to you;
The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.

Asymmetric Warfare It’s not just for the “Other Guys”

Reply With Quote
Israel Forum
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum