My thoughts on Bush's anti-terror speech from last Thursday -- the first time he discussed the goals of the jihadists. From FrontPage:
Last Thursday, October 6, was a momentous day in the war against Islamic terrorism: President Bush went farther than he ever had before in naming the enemy. While on most occasions previously he had generally limited himself to calling them “terrorists” and “evildoers” — names so general that they can apply to multitudes besides those who are actually warring against the United States today — this time he pointed out that the terrorists’ attacks “serve a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs and goals that are evil, but not insane. Some call this evil Islamic radicalism; others, militant Jihadism; still others, Islamo-fascism.”Daniel Pipes has praised this speech for moving “from the superficial and inadequate notion of ‘terrorism’ to the far deeper concept of ‘Islamic radicalism.’” Pipes sees hope in this speech that the senseless avoidance of the Islamic element of modern terrorism, and the unwillingness to appear to be “targeting Muslims,” may now come to an end: “immigration authorities and law enforcement can take Islam into account when deciding whom to let enter the country or whom to investigate for terrorism offences. Focusing on Muslims as the exclusive source of Islamists permits them finally to do their job adequately.”
If Bush’s new forthrightness does indeed enable law enforcement officials to pursue jihadists in America more openly than they have up to now, it is all to the good. But in practically the same breath Bush assured his audience that “whatever it’s called, this ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom. These extremists distort the idea of jihad into a call for terrorist murder against Christians and Jews and Hindus -- and also against Muslims from other traditions, who they regard as heretics.”It is good to see the President speaking openly about the totalitarian supremacist ideology of the jihadists. But in fact they hope to establish not only, as Bush put it, a “radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia,” but one that spans the entire globe. And while it is true that jihad in traditional Islam does not call for terrorist murder of Christians, Jews, and Hindus, it does call for their conversion to Islam or subjugation as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law. The third alternative is war, as delineated by the Muslim Prophet Muhammad himself (Sahih Muslim 4294). Indeed, as Pipes points out, “his comment about extremists distorting “the idea of jihad” unfortunately implies that jihad is a good thing.”
What’s more, Bush’s reference to “Chapter 5, Verse 32 of the Koran, which states that killing an innocent human being is like killing all humanity, and saving the life of one person is like saving all of humanity,” indicates that he hasn’t considered the implications of the fact that jihadists contend that no Americans or Israelis are innocent, and thus the verse doesn’t apply to their actions. Nor did the President apparently read on to Qur’an 5:33, which stipulates that “the punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter” – a mandate for mayhem that jihadists have skillfully deployed the world over, and an indication that Bush’s reading of 5:32 may be a trifle superficial. Bush has not confronted the deep roots that the jihad ideology has within both Islamic tradition and the contemporary Islamic world. This could lead and has led to policy misjudgments.
But why quibble with the President when his new willingness to speak of the Islamic element of global terrorism is so positive? After all, many insist that by maintaining his pretense that the jihadists are not working from a broad tradition within Islam, Bush is preventing what the terrorists want so badly: an American war against the entire Islamic world. And they may be right. However, it remains an open question whether he would be even more effective in preventing that general war by declining to say anything about the nature of Islam at all; there is, after all, no real need for him to do so. He could simply call the terrorists what they call themselves – mujahedin or jihadists, warriors of jihad – and announce that we are at war with their supremacist, expansionist ideology, which arises from Islam. Then he could call the purported American allies in the Muslim world on their self-professed moderation by announcing that American aid will end to all countries – such as Egypt and Pakistan – where the ideology of violent jihad is taught in schools or mosques, and where non-Muslims are subjected to officially sanctioned or tolerated persecution and harassment, and do not enjoy full equality of rights with Muslims.
Domestically he could call on groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council to renounce all intention to bring Sharia to the United States even by peaceful means, and to demonstrate their loyalty to American pluralism by cooperating actively with anti-terror efforts, instead of trying to obstruct them at every turn. Their response to this would demonstrate whether or not these groups share the jihadists’ goals, if not their methods – a question that has so far been obscured by the dogma that Islam is a religion of peace and the official unwillingness to discuss those goals at all.
The force of events has brought the President far. Before he is done, he is likely to have gone farther still.
I have to disagree with Mr. Spencer on one important point. Robert states that "jihad in traditional Islam does not call for terrorist murder of Christians, Jews, and Hindus..."
The verse in the Qur'an stating "and when the sacred months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found, besiege them, capture them...." is doing precisely that. Perhaps this is not a call for 'terrorism' per se, but insofar as I can discern it is an institutionalization of killing of all non-Muslims, which IS in fact calling for the slaughter or murder of non-Muslims (Jews, Christians, Hundus, etc.). In fact, this passage may well be the reason for the existence of many Islamic terrorism organizations (such as the 'international death battalion').
Islamic history, with its jihads, conquests, genocidal pogroms against Jews, Christians, Buddhists (YES,BUDDHISTS), animists and Hindus, is so blood-stained that it's beside the point whether or not traditional Islam calls for killing of Christians, Jews, Hindus and other 'infidel' groups. But, the fact of the matter Islam has done so relentlessly. That did not happen by accident; it was part of the overall plan to target these people and their religions for extermination (partly through forced conversions, partly through 'Holy War' pogroms). Islam is designed to slaughter the 'infidels.' I see no reason to make qualifications on this point.
Is there not a single Democrat who is willing to state something even remotely like the truth about the tenets of Islam? Is there a single Democrat willing to use his time now, before the elections of 2006 and 2008, to study up on Islam -- and I don't mean by consulting John Esposito, but rather both of those compendia of information that Robert Spencer has compiled (forget who published or promoted them, if the word "conservative" as in "Regnery" or "Conservative Book Club" offends, and for god's sake just read them, and acquire some sense of what is in Qur'an, Hadith and Sira) and offered to the world. I would start with the least -- "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" -- keeping in mind that "politically" here is an equal-opportunity adverb, and applies to almost all Republicans (but not Tancredo, and not Romney) and for now, to all Democrats. There is nothing "conservative" or "liberal" about opopsing Nazis, Communists, or for that matter, those whose acts, or words, or money, or silences, promote the Jihad that, if successful, would spread Islam and rule by Muslims, and if everything went right, would also impose the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, on Infidels everywhere. Instead of dismissing this as fantastic, look at the demographic conquest of Western Europe, and figure out what will happen if nothing is done in 10 years, in 20, in 30?
Does anyone worry about that? I assume that Teresa Heinz Kerry, despite having sold her house at Laglio, on Lago di Como (the tourist boats plying their lacustrine path now give that houise more attention than they do the Villa Carlotta or Bellagio), would like Europe to remain Europe -- perhaps she can influence her husband, who has been so remarkably silent about Islam (no, having a brother who converted to Judaism does NOT give you a pass on studying, understanding, and then worrying about the encroachments, the doctrines, the menace of Islam).
C'mon. Somebody. Anybody. Make a speech. Show how Bush has it wrong -- has it wrong because he is far too easy on Islam, not because he is far too touch. For god's sake. Change the terms of the debate about Islam from being terms of endearment. Tancredo can do it -- oh, but he's a history teacher. He cares about things like history. My, how irrelevant can he get?
An appropriately sober assessment Robert.
I know it was a sop to the Muslims in an otherwise pretty tough speech, but I too was disappointed at his recitation of 5.32. And you're spot on in pointing out how he failed to acknowledge the global aspirations of jihad; Americans are so psychologically insular that the nightmare of a Spain-to-Indonesia superstate does not come off nearly as menacing world government.
Ahhh, and what a government it may someday be. I look at my daughter...with all her intellectual and artistic promise...and I shudder.
I agree with the criticism and his use of that edited version of 5:32 got me thinking. Who is writing this? Is there not a Qur'an laying around the WH to check a verse? Or are there Muslim agents like Grover Norquist who are the inhouse 'expert' on verses. Or was it a cut and paste from some CAIR news release? Whatever, it shows ignorance.
John Sobieski, PI
The Pedestrian Infidel Blog`
Robert Spencer wrote: Domestically he could call on groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council to renounce all intention to bring Sharia to the United States even by peaceful means, and to demonstrate their loyalty to American pluralism by cooperating actively with anti-terror efforts, instead of trying to obstruct them at every turn.
I have posted on this before
So let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable koran ie the "canonical texts" as Hugh puts it.They will even praise this generation of muslims for having done what was necessary to protect islam.
DP111: had a flash of a similar thought, but dismissed as being paranoic or Islamophobic, but maybe not.
The only sane course at present seems to be that it is their problem.
All Muslims are suspect until they resolve it, hopefully away from us. Rushdie included.
dgene posted: had a flash of a similar thought, but dismissed as being paranoic or Islamophobic, but maybe not.
Not paranoid but realist. Islamic ideologues take the long view - in several decades or more. It is only right that we as well consider options keeping in mind islam's long-term goals.
Hugh,
I disagree with you. Sorry, but now is not the time for any public official to speak the truth about Islam. Why? We have 130,000 troops in Iraq.
I can't imagine the backlash that would occur if the Muslim world became inflamed. You saw their reaction to the Newsweek story. And that was quickly retracted.
Wait until the troops come home. Press for a speedy withdrawl.
DP111 is correct.Islam will only become a wolf in sheep clothing.We will have to see the bigger picture that is the only reason they aren't as violent here in the U.S. than in Europe is they the muslims don't have the numbers also you can't get away from the fact that mohammed is their perfect man.The man that is the example for muslims.That they must live their life the way mohammed did.
"Press for a speedy withdrawl."
--- from a posting above
Well, I agree -- but why do you want to limit it to soldiers from the South?
Hugh,
I disagree with you. Sorry, but now is not the time for any public official to speak the truth about Islam. Why? We have 130,000 troops in Iraq.
I can't imagine the backlash that would occur if the Muslim world became inflamed. You saw their reaction to the Newsweek story. And that was quickly retracted.
Wait until the troops come home. Press for a speedy withdrawl.
Posted by: lonely_soul at October 14, 2005 07:44 PM
Why isn't it the time to speak the truth? Muslims know what Islam teaches; surely they don't think they have the entire infidel world fooled with their taqiya, obfuscation, and nebulous double speak. It has been over four years since 9-11 and George Bush just PARTIALLY acknowledged who the enemy is. That is inexcusable, not to mention his four year mantra: "Islam is a religion of peace."
Hugh's idea is excellent. The Democrats condemn and belittle everything that the Bush administration does, yet they offer no viable alternatives. If Bush is wrong and they have all the answers, I'd love to hear a few of them. This would be the perfect opportunity for an ambitious Democrat to step up in defiance of the Gods of political correctness and spit it out---tell the American people the truth. It would be a bold and courageous maneuver and no matter how ugly the truth may be, Americans would much prefer to know it than to be deceived.
It won't happen because no politician, Democrat or Republican, would risk his career for something as amorphous as the truth, especially if it is politically incorrect. Better to stay on the safe side and ignore a nasty reality, pretend it isn't there, and if all else fails, keep lying. AFter all, reality is relative.
Muslims respect one thing: strength. They are contemptuous of diplomacy, concessions, compromise, or "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." The only way to deal with muslim predators is to acknowledge them for what they are, give them one warning, and then lower the boom. We should begin with the seditious traitors right here in the U.S., instead of playing charades with them. Lay the cards on the table. Forget about muslim votes; there aren't enough of them to matter except maybe in Michigan. Our security is far more important than the sensitivities of people who hate us.
But I won't hold my breath waiting for that selfless, intrepid hero to do what should have already been done. I don't expect anyone to have the courage to dispense with the platitudes, the euphemisms, the outright lies about Islam. It is impolite to be honest; someone might be offended. I'll be very offended when a muslim serpent slithers out of a mosque with a nuke strapped to his body and blows himself up in the middle of Chicago, or Miami, or NY, or LA.
Hugh asks:
"Is there not a single Democrat who is willing to state something even remotely like the truth about the tenets of Islam? Is there a single Democrat willing to use his time now, before the elections of 2006 and 2008, to study up on Islam". At the level of national politics I fear not, and why should they save for Tancredo and Romney, you don't see any Republicans speaking out about Islam, do you?
And as you well know, if you read Sperry's Infiltration, the GOP is the Muslim political tool, it's entry into American Politics (ask Grover Norquist).
Here is Bush's speech at the National Endowment for Democracy.
Digest this (it irks me that no one has commented on it, not Robert not Pipes even)
Quoting the President:
"t should be clear to all that Islam -- the faith of one-fifth of humanity -- is consistent with democratic rule. Democratic progress is found in many predominantly Muslim countries -- in Turkey and Indonesia, and Senegal and Albania, Niger and Sierra Leone. Muslim men and women are good citizens of India and South Africa, of the nations of Western Europe, and of the United States of America."
Source: "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031106-2.html"
Big news to me, big news to all the Jihad watchers, that Islm is consistent with democracy.
Except that strictly defined Democracy means Majority rule, in that case the rule of Shari'a is indeed democratic.
What irks me is that I heard Bush's speech and no one, not Spencer, not Pipes has mentioned that he said the above or he said "These militants are not just the enemies of America, or the enemies of Iraq, they are the enemies of Islam and the enemies of humanity."
Source: "http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/10/20051006-3.html"
Why Hugh do you expect the Democrats, whom the conservatives punch, thump, burn in effigy and demonize with such venom, to stand up to and denounce Islam, when Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, Bush and the RNC are in bed with them.
Millions of Arab/Muslim money and votes flow into the RNC, and you expect the Democrats to go against such wealth and power.
Take a look at John Conyers, whom Jihad Watchers love to hate..What is his district, who does he represent? He represents one of the highest concentration of Muslims in the U.S.
Clinton was chum buddies with the Saudis, Bush is not only buddies but business partners and beneficiary of their financial largess (helped Arbusto Oil, that failed enterprise, get up and running for starters).
Why expect more out of the Democrats than the Republicans? I don't, there are no dividends earned, especially when the supporters of Islam is a religion of peace Bush, hate and villify the Democrats.
The real problem are the Manichean morons of America, who think in terms of my side v your side, Red Team v Blue team, liberal v conservative, right v left, up v down, in v out.
And the b*stards who really run this world and our country, don't give a rats arse about us and our well being, only their own comfort, power and wealth.. and that comfort, power and wealth is gained by international trade, finance, markets, stock prices and all of which are dependent on the lowest labor cost they can get, and the most market exposure they can garner.. and the biggest untapped market is Dar al Islam, which also holds most of the oil reserves.
Marx was correct..The Capitalist will sell the rope that is used to hang them, and the capitalist is so involved in economics, markets, trading and spreading his corporations influence, that he doesn't have time to study Islam, and frankly could care less, since he doesn't believe or care that it will affect him.. Money can always buy a Carribean Island when the going gets tough.
Cornelius are you a RNC operative or insider, you are as adamant and adept at apologetics for Bush and the RNC as Muslims are for their screed and as Moveone.org was for Clinton.
The business is too serious, for such mindless team spirit and partisanship.
I hate Apologists and apologetics, and Rationalization is the Original and only sin.
(W)ahabbster, with record low approval ratings - 37% by some polls - gives a speech in which he promises nothing and which is followed by no action...and people are absolutely panty soakers over it. Unbelievable.
Good God, is this the new level of expectation?
The Gipper, John Wayne, and many others are spinning and puking in their graves.
Send the damned (W)ahabbster to Mecca to service the saudis properly and replace him with someone who will seal the borders, kill muslim terrorists, and actually WIN a war.
`Muslims respect one thing: strength. They are contemptuous of diplomacy, concessions, compromise.....` posted by Susanp
And that is the way to deal with them:
`where he was guilty of atrocious cruelty towards the Mohammedan population, and in Kashmir. Finally, Phula Singh and his Akalis contributed to, or rather virtually won for Ranjit Singh, the great Sikh victory over the Yusafzais at Teri in 1823. In this battle Phula Singh met with a heroic death, and his tomb at Naushehra is now an object of pilgrimage to Hindus and Mohammedans alike.`
http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/movements/Nihangs/Nihangs.htm
Lonely soul: First of all, my understanding is that we have 148,000 troops in Iraq.
Second of all, we are going to be engaged against Muslims in one way or another for some time now. If not in Iraq, then in Afghanistan. Perhaps conflict with Sryia is around the corner. And if Assad opts for the 'Qaddafi solution' i.e., acquiesence to American/Western demands, then perhaps war with Iran over nuclear weapons lies on the horizon.
The spectre of the frenzied Muslim mob will always be with us. We better take our chances and start speaking the truth.
Nariz,
Your analysis is a joke. If the GOP is the "Muslim political tool," then why have so many Muslims turned against it in the last 4 years? As for Grover Norquist, he's not the insider you think he is.
And as for your sop to Karl Marx, it was Lenin who actually made the quote.
And yes, Capitalism IS INDEED color-blind. It is non-ideological (though some leaders of capitalist countries may be ideological in the extreme, the market economy itself is not). That is one of its great strengths and a principle reason it has created the most affluent, egalitarian, democratic society in the history of planet earth. Look what ideology did for the Russian people.
As for me being a Republican operative, I can only laugh at the assumption. I reside firmly in the domain of the Republican Party only by default; the Democrats are the purveyors and prime beneficiaries of multiculturalism and political-correctness, constructs that are ruining my country.
Then again, when looking at George Bush, Joe Lieberman suddenly doesn't appear so bad.
Cornelius says:
"; the Democrats are the purveyors and prime beneficiaries of multiculturalism and political-correctness, constructs that are ruining my country."
Really, but it was political correctness and muliticulturalism that served as protection for Jews and blacks. So what do you suggest that we go back to the good old days of demonizing, marginalizing and excluding Jews and blacks, or lets go back to the good ole days of the 19th Century and the anti Irish, Anti Italian, anti East European socially acceptable bigotry of the "Nativists".
Do you care to relegitimize anti semistim and Jim Crow?
I don't.
"The real problem are the Manichean morons of America, who think in terms of my side v your side"
-- posted by Nariz
You want Manichaeisms? Ok, I'll give you Manichaeisms:
Islam vs. Balance of World
Moslem vs. Infidel
Dar al Islam vs. Dar al Harb
Insanity vs. Rationality
Subhuman Animal vs. Modern Man
Evil vs. Good