This morning I am in the Belly of the Beast, the Capital of the Great Satan, for a day-long symposium hosted by the America's Truth Forum, "The Underlying Roots of Terrorism: Terrorism's Threat to World Peace and National Security." Security is very high, and with good reason: speakers include Walid Shoebat, Walid Phares, David Horowitz, Paul Williams, Brigitte Gabriel, and Andrew Bostom. I have had the honor and pleasure of meeting many Jihad Watch readers, including Catherine, the squirrel hunter and spider killer who has often posted here, TES, and others.
Unfortunately, however, the proceedings got off on an exceptionally sour note last night when Richard Miniter, author of Losing bin Laden and Shadow War, demonstrated once again that he doesn't have the first foggiest idea what Islam or the global jihad are all about. Miniter challenged the crowd head-on, saying at the outset of his speech that many of those listening would not like him in four or five minutes. And he was right -- at least in terms of this listener's agreement with his assertions.
To say that the war on terror had anything to do with Islam, he asserted, was to agree with Osama bin Laden and to foreclose any possibility of cultivating allies among Muslims. He said that there were no more than 50,000 or so Salafis worldwide, and that we are at war with them, not with the billion-plus Muslims in the world. We should take note, he said, of a Yemeni program that used the Qur'an to turn mujahedin into lambs.
There were, in fact, so many false assumptions and erroneous assertions in his twenty-minute address that I don't have time to unpack them all here. But I am writing this because Miniter's is an influential voice, and his perspective is still mainstream. And because his kind of thinking has led the U.S. into numerous policy blind alleys -- witness the Abdul Rahman case in Afghanistan, which happened because the wonks at State were (and are) insufficiently concerned about the Sharia provision in the Afghan Constitution.
The Yemeni program, as you can see from the link above, was a sham. The "rehabilitated" terrorists told the judge what he wanted to hear, got their early release, and went back to the jihad. To agree with Osama bin Laden that Islam is at the core of the global conflict today is not to endorse his jihad, but merely to recognize why his appeal has such power in the Islamic world today. Nor is recognizing the role of the Islamic jihad ideology in inciting violence today tantamount to writing off peaceful Muslims and foreclosing on any alliances with them. Rather, it focuses the hard questions we need to ask them in order to make sure that their moderation is genuine and not feigned. This is being done virtually nowhere in the world today. No one seems to care whether or not a Muslim holds to the overall goals of Osama bin Laden -- to institute Sharia in the Muslim world and ultimately over the non-Muslim world as well -- as long as the Muslim in question doesn't pursue that goal by violent means. Yet the many non-violent, sub-radar, subversive ways in which this goal is being advanced today are ultimately much more important than the violent ones. And it is being advanced by a much larger group than Miniter's 50,000 violent Salafis.
If Miniter and those who agree with them don't want to get their intellectual pockets picked, and end up being made into useful idiots of the jihad, they need to make sure that the moderates they are so avid to work with don't share those goals. They need to ask them: do you believe in the indefinite peaceful coexistence of Muslims and non-Muslims as equals? Do you accept Western constitutional pluralism? Would you like to see Sharia someday adopted in the West? They need to examine the actions of these moderates to make sure that the answers given weren't deceptive.
There is so much deception among self-proclaimed moderates, and it is only abetted by wishful thinking, fuzzy thinking, and half-truths. To ignore the problem within Islam is only to allow it to grow and metastasize. How can we prevail over a challenge we won't confront?
It was disappointing to see dhimmi self-deception even in a conference devoted to speaking realistically about terror issues, but ultimately, given the fog that envelops us, it is not surprising. Anyway, I will be speaking to these issues when my turn comes at the symposium this morning. And reporting back here when time permits.
Way to go, Catherine ! ! !
I'll bet Hugh Fitzgerald is present, under a pseudonym amongst the audience, in keeping with his Eternal Man of Mystery role.
Looking forward to updates, Mr. Spencer. I'd especially like you to drop some more JWer names - it make you look like you know "all the right people". ; - )
A summer spent reading would do Miniter, so detemined not to see things as they are, or perhaps believing -- which is just as bad -- that it is better to pretend that they are not as they are, and somehow things will come right (not when the main problem in Europe is demographic conquest and Da'wa, they won't).
Here's an even dozen for Richard Minister to start with. Perhaps he thinks these are all about silly old history. History doesn't count. Things change. What St. Clair Tisdall or C. Snouck Hurgronje wrote about Islam in 1910 or 1920 couldn't be relevant -- after all, America has changed so much. But it can; Islam's texts remain the same. All that has changed is the ability to conduct Jihad, and the new or more varied instruments of Jihad. The duty to do so, the tenets that divide, for Believers, the world between those Believers and all Infidels, the attitudes and atmospherics that affect Muslims even when they do not necessarily accept all of those tenets -- those remain the same.
Here's a dozen books for Miniter to spend the next month reading and studying. He owes that redaing and that study to all those who might still be inclined to listen to him:
"Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "A Politically Incorrect Guide" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" (Spencer), "The Dhimmi," "Islam and Dhimmitude," "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam," "Eurabia" (Bat Ye'or), "The Legacy of Jihad" (Andrew Bostom), "While Europe Slept" (Bruce Bawer), "The Losing War Against Islam" (David Selbourne), "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and "Leaving Islam" (Ibn Warraq).
Catherine, the squirrel hunter and spider killer...
Gold star for you.
What is a squirrel hunter/spider killer? Why not the other way round? And do you have to wear a short skirt to be one?
Interested:
Those terms have to do with old posts/articles. Catherine is a hunter (of more than just squirrels, by the way) and there was some discussion about that, especially surrounding armaments and weaponry, and the advocacy of being "armed and prepared". The spider killer appellation is in reference to a story posted on JW about an imam in Iraq, I believe in Fallujah, telling his congregation that he had witnesed "allah" sending giant spiders the size of humans that had defeated Coalition troops and that he had it on videotape (which was never produced - apparently the claim was enough. Would an imam lie?) The article is in the JW/DW archives somewhere.
Spencer writes: "the many non-violent, sub-radar, subversive ways in which this goal is being advanced today are ultimately much more important than the violent ones."
This gives the impression of implying that non-violent Islam could remain non-violent and still be a threat. This is not only illogical, it flies in the face of history.
Logic: an inhumane & intolerant political system cannot gain power without the threat of violence and, at some point, actual violence, being exerted. While it is conceivable that a tiny polity of non-Muslim dupes could willingly transmogrify their entire system and allow Islam to become dominant, it is highly improbable that any Western nation would do so -- without a sufficient pattern of threats of violence in collusion with actual violence occurring.
History: wherever Islam has spread throughout its 1450-year history and wherever it has become dominant, it has always done so in a context of actual violence (whether a series of razzias, piracy, mob violence, terrorism, belligerent threats, or most commonly, all-out military invasion).
While I agree with Spencer's concern about the sub-radar non-violent insinuation of Islam, I do not agree that this poses a threat without being strategically linked to violence in its myriad forms.
Give them nothing but the truth, Robert.
Fools and appeasers like Miniter will either learn by methods as Hugh has described or they will be shamed into silence when the reality finally reaches the mainstream like a torrent.
Either Robert Spencer was not in the room or he was not paying attention.
In my reference to lessons that can be learned from Yemen, I specifically referred to a program of putting moderate imams onto to tv and radio every time al Qaeda releases a tape. That way the terror group does not have a monopoly on the meaning of islam and it forces al Qaeda to debate the veracity of their statements. It is called putting the enemy of the defensive--and it works.
Mr. Spencer is quite right that the terrorist rehabilation program is a failure-- but I did not refer to that one.
Indeed there are two key differences from the one that Mr. Spencer said I cited and the one I cited:
1) It involves moderate imams, not terrorists or former terrorists;
2) It is a media campaign, not a rehabiltation program.
I presume that Mr. Spencer is an honorable. Most likely, he did not hear me speak, but heard a description from an ideologically motivated source.
My larger disagreement with Mr. Spencer is that he relies too heavily on the Koran to make his arguments ratand ignores the literature that actually motivates the jihadis--like Qutb's Milestones and Zawahiri's Knights Under the Phrophet's Banner. These are the books that influence Zarqawi et al--we know this from captured correspondence. Reading the Koran is the begining, not the end, of understanding why they hate us.
Richard Miniter
OT: Yesterday I drove out to the airbase (Macdill) while eating lunch at the BX two young lieutenants sat down next to me and I casually started a conversation and asked them the following question. I know some people say all muslims are bad and some think a small number of extremists have highjacked the religion. Which is correct? For the next few minutes they explained how most muslims are actually good people and are getting a bad rap because of the actions of a few. Both were were young US Army, military intelligence officers, wearing Central command patches. I did recommend they read Roberts books to “round out” their education. They wrote down the name but I doubt they will ever read his books. Robert you have your work cut out for you. We are in serous trouble folks. These two didn't exlain what they did and I did not ask, the fact they were MI was enough. PC has hit our military hard and it could cause more damage than any enemy ever could.
"My larger disagreement with Mr. Spencer is that he relies too heavily on the Koran to make his arguments ratand ignores the literature that actually motivates the jihadis--like Qutb's Milestones and Zawahiri's Knights Under the Phrophet's Banner."
And Qutb and Zawahiri are not crucially, fundamentally, indispensably, and predominantly founded on the Koran?
Almost everyone everywhere in the Mideast says "Jews invented the aids virus, 9/11 was planned by Bush and the Jews, Ariel Sharon secretly ate Palestinian babies - no matter how insane it is they believe it. And if you argue with them they say 'your government is hiding the truth from you'. The most insane rantings are taken as 'common knowledge'.
This level of demonization of non-moslems gives the lie to useful idiots like Miniter. Hundreds of millions of ignorant volatile people firmly believe this trash. Opinion polls have proven this. Just remember, even Julius Striecher's anti-semitic magazine only had a circulation of about 50,000 in Nazi Germany. Compare the audience for the Protocals mini-series in Egypt and the Turkish movie about Iraq.
My young nephew, who spent many summers with us as he grew into young adulthood, recently visited us, along with an Army buddy, between their graduation from Army Basic Training and Advanced Infantry Training.
He had never been, IMO, very concerned with, or knowledgeable about, current events. So, to find out if he knew why he would soon be sent to Iraq, I asked him to tell me what his Drill Sergeants and other leaders had told him about the people and cultures of the region, and what the US mission is there.
While each of them told me that their job would be to 'kill hajib', neither new anything, one way or the other, about Islam.
Training and education start at the top, and if the top is uninformed....
Hugh will be easy to pick out of the audience; he'll be the one who looks like Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird . . . somebody posted a picture here before of the good Mr. Peck, er Mr. Fitzgerald.
BBS reports on a conference about Islamic terrorism, a conference that asks no serious questions, and provides absolutely no answers. I'm looking forward the AlBeebs report on America's Truth Forum symposium, coming soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4958314.stm
Behind the terrorist
Theories abound as experts analyse types and motives
Anti-terrorist experts are floundering about trying to understand Islamic suicide bombers in the UK and the rest of Europe.
The experts came together and argued together at a conference in London organised by the Centre for Defence Studies at King's College and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment.
The conference sought to assemble "the puzzle that will help us better understand what determines and motivates the actions of individual jihadists.
They even use the word "jihadists" Wow. That's about as close as they'll ever get to getting a clue.
Policy wonks, pols, muckety mucks don't read, they don't have to because they know everything already, they stopped reading books when they finished their last college/university exam, as they progress in their career they get briefings, and they might casually read the front page of a Newspaper of record.
What I would invite any to do, if they are open to being disillusioned of their ideations about Islam (a religion of war and conquest) is to log on to any
Islamist site such as Islamic Digest which has combined with the site WWW.e-jehad.com
or check out even so briefly ummah.com or tanzeer.com or any Islamic message board.
The problem is that these wonks and pol's are, like our President, not in the least curious, if people were curious a simple phrase in a google search engine would yield interesting results.
Ronin,
You're not alone. I've had similar conversations with people affiliated with the airbase on this side of the Florida coast(Patrick AFB) with similar answers to that which you received.
Scary? Yes. Disheartening, too.
I purchased one of Richard Miniter's books "Disinformation" and I've seen him interviewed on FOX so I am disappointed to read his comments about Islam.I don't think it's an accident that almost all terrorist acts today are being committed by Muslims.Or that almost all religious violence involves Muslims on one or both sides. It's not Christians or Jews who are blowing up civilians on buses and trains. It's not Mormons who are beheading Buddhist priests and burning Hindus worshippers alive.It seems obvious to me that Islam is at the heart of much of the worlds violence.
I just read Mr Minter's response after I posted my previous.
If he is still reading this thread,and less he think that I'm just another irrational bigot, let him know that I am in the eyes of many, their bete noire, a "liberal", and in the eyes of Muslims an atheist liberal that is "Islamophobic"..(Islamophobe is inaccurate and propaganda, for fear of Islam is rational, not irrational.
Anyway, I've been studying Islam for two years, via their scriptures, their websites and information from Spencer, Bostom, Muir, Rodinson, ibn Warraq, and even Asad Abukhalil, point is that the Moderate Muslim is a myth. Were it not so, but it is so.
For there are only two kinds of Muslims, True Muslims and apostate Muslims, there is nothing inbetween. The phrase Islamic fundamentalist is redundant, a Muslim, if he isn't being obfuscating, will tell you that Islam is nothing but fundamentals and fundamentalist, and what is called "radical or extremist" is a true Muslim.
There are indeed many a Muslim who would like to moderate (to some extent) their faith, but they can't, for when caught they are punished severely and denounced by the Ummah and ulama. But even the moderates still want Shari'a, and in the west governance of Shari'a over their own community, and it starts there and grows outwards, by baby steps.
Islam is Shari'a and Jihad. The religion of Islam is simple, the Five Pillars, and there is no Moderate Muslim or any Muslim I know, that would or could restrict Islam to the five pillars (in Shi'a, salafist and kharija Islam, it has six pillars, with the sixth being Jihad).
Jihad is not necessarily "terrorism" or violence, in fact non violent Jihad is more dangerous than violent Jihad..
Sorry Mr Minter, Islam will never be moderate, nor are there behind close doors moderate Imams and scholars.. in public, in English, French, German, they perform damage control, because they can't moderate Islam and in Yemen the Imams are working with the government to preserve the government, and they take on the Jihadis because the Jihadis have taken on the government (whom they consider apostate), and the same is true in Saudi Arabia. No Muslim country would censor, track, arrest a mujahideen, if these "warriors for the faith" did not attack the ruling class, the government, sheikhs, emirs and Kings.
Saudi Arabia is a theocracy in the mold of the Roman Empire..The state (the Saudi family) funds and supports the ulama and the deen, and the ulama and deen in turn supports the Royals.. each promotes the other, because each derives benefit from the other, the same is true in Yemen and all Muslim countries, even Algeria and Morocco.
Richard Miniter,
Pleased to see you post on Jihad Watch!
Please tell me:
Was it not you who made a report about the Gulf-states a while ago, traveling through the Emirates, sitting with many Arabs, sitting (or rather laying about on Persian rugs) with one Prince Turki, who twice talked about the "Travesty of 9/11?"
The first time I thought I didn't hear it correctly, then he said it a second time "The travesty of 9/11..."
Strangely, I didn't hear that Richard Miniter ask why "travesty? please explain...?"
Did you read the Koran, the Hadith, the Sira, Richard Miniter?
If not, perhaps it is not too late to lock yourself in a room and do some serious reading for a couple of months. Otherwise, some knowledgeable people here on JW/DW can give you some directions, a crash course of sorts. People are fed up with the garbage from the msm, and people like you do have a duty to inform the public, would you agree?
Learning about Islam will be an eye-opener, believe me. Are you up to it?
"It seems obvious to me that Islam is at the heart of much of the worlds violence." - Roxane
Yes and it seems obvious to me that the book Qutb and Zawahiri relied upon in their work is the very book Mr. Miniter so derides Mr. Spencer for depending upon, the uh, KORAN. Qutb quotes practically nothing else.
I'm afraid his reply shows just how far off the track Mr. Miniter has gone and also he shows no sign of understanding what we do here.
We help explain the enemy's side of the war in the enemy's own words and we help to define that ideology for westerners using western terminology as needed.
As Andy McCarthy said, "You really can't fight an ideological battle without grappling with the ideology."
I listened to the exchange between Miniter and Williams and it seemed to me that Mr. Miniter was there to spread disinformation; either that or maybe he is just ignorant of the facts. I suspect it is the former because it seemed like he was trying much too hard to discredit Mr. Williams thereby exposing his intentions IMHO.
Officers and men in the American military will have to educate themselves, through books, articles, websites, and will have to find the time not merely to read but to thoroughly assimilate the material, so that events around the world begin to make sense, once the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, as they effect Believers, from the most fanatical all the way to those who, while nearly "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, still cling to it, still defend it, still insist upon misleading Infidels (and sometimes themselves about it), for reasons of filial piety, ethnic ("Uruba") pride, or simple unwillingness to let go of an identity that they think they somehow are obligated to retain forever, no matter what.
Nothing to do with Islam is getting old.Its got every thing to do with Islam.The qoutes by bin-laden, Hamas,Hezbollah, Islamic jihad,Al-aqsas,PFLP,the numerous asian and south asian groups,the numerous African groups,the Euro groups,and the North American groups.For what cause are theses many groups fighting fore, in whos name, under what authrity, what ideals, what book is quated,what god do they profess,what do they want,why,and how.Come on now nothing to do with Islam.Its insanity to say such a thing.Irrasponsable,ignorant,naive,foolish,dazed,counfused,morralyblind,selfish,uninformed.The list can go on.Ya sure these types of speckers serve a point.But if enough peaple cant see the obvious soon enough were all in for a huge catrastrafhy.Were already behind the eight ball.The self handycaping has got to be pushed back hard.If we fail in this respect well tread water,and sink.Nothing else will or can suceed to the degree needed.Not Iraq,Iran,Isreal,India/Pakistan,Afganastan.Nun of it.The stakes are that high.Theres no other option.Theres no where else to go.Face it,or submit.Thats the game.Like it or not.Except it or not.It is what it is.
Miniter wrote:
"I specifically referred to a program of putting moderate imams onto to tv and radio every time al Qaeda releases a tape. That way the terror group does not have a monopoly on the meaning of islam and it forces al Qaeda to debate the veracity of their statements."
They are already doing this. Even not-so-moderate groups like CAIR do this by quoting a weak hadith and ignoring the more authentic hadith that legitimizes the terrorist attack. This has been happening for a long time but instead of seeing it with imams we were seeing it mostly with Muslim advocacy groups shouting from the top of their lungs that "This has nothing to do with Islam! Islam tolerates other religions!" Right after Beslan, right after the "Youth Riots" in France, right after the Cartoon Intifada, and right after the Abdul Rahman case, they were all saying this had nothing to do with Islam. Even respected Imams got into the fray. And did it change anything? NO. It only served as good PR for the ummah, but the exhortations that Islam means peace fell on deaf ears. Regardless of what supposedly moderate imam (or 100 of them) say like al-Turabi in Sudan, the people will not listen because they know he is only saying it to protect the Muslim community from suscipion by the infidels. Muslims understand this, YOU DON'T. They know what Islam is, YOU DON'T. And trying to shoulder all of this weight on these supposedly moderate Muslims (read: apostates or charlatans) you are not only afraid to deal with the real problem of Islam but you are also too afraid to learn about the truth about Islam and how it is taught from Jakarta, to Karachi, to London. YOU SIR ARE AN IDEOLOGICAL TIT MOUSE WHO IS SO AFRAID OF WHAT THE QU'RAN, HADITH, SIRA, AND TABARI SAY THAT YOU TRY TO DESACRALIZE THE JIHAD SO THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF ISLAM AND SUFFER BEING CALLED A "RACIST".
You need to do some reading. If you think the problem of jihad started after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, you are sadly mistaken. The Muslims have been butchering Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists for centuries. The problem is you don't read that sort of history in Esposito, Armstrong, or MESA, so you have to look elsewhere for real scholarship. And ask yourself this Richard: If Islam truly is a religion of peace, why would they need their imams to constantly remind them of this MAJOR tenet if it exists in abundance in the Qur'an and Sunnah?
Spencer: "To say that the war on terror had anything to do with Islam, he asserted, was to agree with Osama bin Laden and to foreclose any possibility of cultivating allies among Muslims."
I wasn't there and so I cannot comment on Miniter's claim that Spencer has misrepresented his comments at the Symposium.
But this is certainly an argument I have seen before - namely, to say this has anything to do with Islam is to make common cause with bin Laden himself.
Ironically, however, those who make this claim have NO PROBLEM whatesoever, in making common cause with bin Laden in many of his claims. In fact, bin Laden's "grievances" against the west read like a textbook example of western "lefty-speak". One of his speeches immediately prior to the last presidential election could have been written by any number of democratic candidates themselves.
So clearly this claim - "you're giving credence to bin Laden!" is a total red-herring. People who make that claim are in fact MORE than willing to make common cause with bin Laden, provided it gives them Muslims votes and gets democrats elected (on the more benign end) or reinforces their hate-America first attitudes (on the less benign end) - but given this evident fact, it is clearly ridiculous to impugn those such as Spencer, who also make so-called "common-cause" with bin Laden, by merely acknowledging the actual and true Koranic justifications for his actions.
Right you are, Igor.
Giving air-time to imams or any other Mohammedan simply helps them to deflect & obfuscate the issues. What they say in front of an infidel audience is very different from what they say among themselves. Keep in mind that they are trained to lie & deceive the infidels to further the cause of Islam.
Genocide, world-domination, annihilation of Jews and the subjugation of women, booty & terror, that is what the Koran teaches. No Mohammedan can get away from that, neither can we infidels by ignoring it.
There are no 'moderates', there is only Islam.
richard miniter (?) wrote:
Reading the Koran is the begining, not the end, of understanding why they hate us.
And that's not good enough, Richard? I wonder, if you were to ask the commonly motivated Muslim which books he holds as Allah's truth and which he is most familiar with, what the answer will be? You know the answer already.
The truth is, if these "elite" jihadi are motivated by any kind of (un)holy philosophical and strategic manuals, it would hardly matter to the common Muslim that hates Israel and the United States, Europe and anyone else that is perceived as an obstacle to restoring the Caliphate that was lost in Turkey. If you attempt to lessen the impact of the Qur'an in the eyes of the mainstream, then that just falls right into the hands of the Islamists. It perpetuates the idea that most Muslism are reasonable and peace-loving. History shows that this has simply never been the case. The only time that the Muslims have been willing to cooperate with the Free World is when they have either been completely outgunned by Westerners (i.e. Napolean, the British Empire), they have something to gain from an alliance (i.e. Nazis killing the Jews) or they need oil revenues to further their school building and slow usurption of the West by use of our own laws and "loopholes."
What is needed is a clear-cut, undeniable battle-call. Not more politically correct rhetoric on any front. The "terrorists" are just the frontmen for the "movement" and Islam is the source of both.
Thousands dead to jihadists annually is hardly the work of a select minority of jihadist war manual readers. It is the product of 1300 years of Islam!
May the Triune God continue to bless your effort! redleg64,out.
Richard Miniter, pay close attention:
Fact 1: The koran says jihad fighters get 72 virgins in paradise.
Fact 2: In Islam the koran is taken literaly, word for word, always.
5 years on and this absurd term "war on terrorism" is still being used. Terrorism is just a tecnique that our enemy happens to be using - can we please focus on the enemy and stop obsessing about which war fighting tecnique they are using.
The enemy is islamic fundamentalism. Now, moderate islam, moderate imams etc - they don't exist for christ sake! the term is an oxymoron - a moderate extremist, ridiculous! How could anyone who prays 5 times a day, as stipulated in the koran, be considered moderate. Of the many muslims I have come across the only moderate ones are the muslim for identification purposes ones, i.e. they have basicly ceased to be muslims to all intents and purposes.
So, when will you stop hiding from reality?
I forgot to add:
Our job, as infidels, is not to "reform" Islam or even "empower" the "moderates". That is up to the Muslims and they don't seem willing to do it. As infidels, we cannot convince them to do it (even with bribery) because in the end, we still remain infidels to them, not friends. Our job is to protect ourselves from the jihad and that means immigration reform, isolating the Muslim world from the West, destabilizing terrorist organizations and terrorist governments when they give us trouble, and most importantly not kow-towing to Muslim demands for more "tolerance" or "sensitivity".
Obviously Miniter stepped into the wrong conference that day trying to play us as fools by fashioning himself as the "tough-talking realist" he imagines himself to be. Well, we are not fooled and we are not idiots. It is abundantly clear that you have not studied Islam indepth and I'm sorry but reading Qutb, Zawahiri, and even Mawdudi is not enough. The problem did not start with them and is much bigger than all of those figures combined. We could kill every "Islamist" tommorrow, burn their writings and we would still be threatened by the jihad because it originates in the Qur'an and Sunnah, not Milestones.
As for making alliances with Muslims "allies", not only is that improbable but it is costly. Nobody on this site wants to pay more jizya to the hideous regimes of Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, or Turkey. Why should we sell them more weaponry for some meaningless statements from apostate officials that will have no resonance in their countries as a whole? Their "alliances" (if you can call them that) are temporary, they turn on you as soon as you stop the foreign and military aid. And even if you don't stop the cashflow, they become as "useful" as Egypt is to us today (i.e. being the anti-American and antisemitic propaganda captial of the world). So please, spare us this Muslim alliances prattle and bring it over to some more gullible outlets like PBS or NPR. We don't need to make alliances with moderate Muslims or moderate Muslim states. The only alliances we need is between Western countries who are informed about the jihadist threat and are willing to cut through the politically correct fluff and tackle it head on. I guess that leaves you out of the alliance as well, funny that.
And another thing . . . why is it Jews and Christians fall over themselves to 'explain' the peaceful intentions of Islam? Why, for example, don't Christians 'explain' the ideology of The Talmud? or why don't Jews(or Muslims)explain the nuanced distinctions between the infinite varietals of Christianity? Can somebody explain how The Spencers, The Fitzgeralds of the world seem to be slightly 'out of the Esposito mainstream,' and, yet, ask any Jihadist like Bin Laden or Zach the 20th wannabe, and they will mock Esposito's 'read' of Islam, and would dispute none of what is said here. Of course not everyone is yet out of the closet Jihad speaking, so Jihad watch will always have its Islamic detractors, but will be always more vilified by the Islmamist fellow travelers like Esposito and company. But the American people are changing their tune as well as polls show the falling perception of Islam within the US. If an attack occured Monday, I doubt we as a people will be as receptive to W's chant(and Oprah)of Islam means peace crap . . . been there, done that . . . or do you believe me or your infedel's eyes.
"If they agree with the Koran, we don't need them; if they disagree, we don't want them."-
-the essence of Islamic scholarship.
Everything beyond the al-Qur'an is footnotes.
Those who need an after-burner on their resentment go for the extras cited by Mr. Miniter.
I think we pretty much agree on the aim, but our sights may be parallax.
Keep dipping into this unique well.
(& Keep your wits and powder dry.)
Welcome.
Dear Richard Miniter:
Thanks for stopping by. I apologize for my late reply; I just got out of the symposium and am in the stagecoach station now awaiting transport back to Secure Undisclosed Locationville.
You say: "Either Robert Spencer was not in the room or he was not paying attention."
Actually, I was very much in the room, and took copious notes on your talk, and saw you leave with your little white dog -- I was sorry not to get a chance to say hello.
As for your Yemeni reference, you're quite right, however. I realize now that I assumed you were talking about the one program when in fact you were talking about the other. For that I apologize.
You say: "I presume that Mr. Spencer is an honorable. Most likely, he did not hear me speak, but heard a description from an ideologically motivated source."
In fact, I was there.
You say: "My larger disagreement with Mr. Spencer is that he relies too heavily on the Koran to make his arguments ratand ignores the literature that actually motivates the jihadis--like Qutb's Milestones and Zawahiri's Knights Under the Phrophet's Banner."
It is generally good to have a working knowledge of your subject before making assertions like this. You will find an extended discussion of Qutb's "Milestones" in my book "Onward Muslim Soldiers."
I notice that you do not dispute the substance and core of my disagreements with you, which remain.
Thanks again for writing in.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Addendum to Richard Miniter:
Also, your assertion that Qutb quotes Marx more than the Qur'an in Milestones and Fi Zilal al- Qur'an is patently and demonstrably false.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
What is a squirrel hunter/spider killer? Why not the other way round? And do you have to wear a short skirt to be one?
Posted by: Interested at April 29, 2006 08:46 AM
+_+_+_+_+_+_+_
As long as you do not bend over for anything if you go undieless.............
☺
Catherine is a hunter (of more than just squirrels, by the way) and there was some discussion about that, especially surrounding armaments and weaponry, and the advocacy of being "armed and prepared".
+_+_+_+_))((+_++)_+
And Catherine what caliber weapon do you prefer??//
Perhaps what Richard Miniter and everybody else here shares the same thing in common: forgetting the absurd duplicity of Islamic experts who are not Muslim, who would have a half life of 15 minutes in Yeman. I wonder Mr. Miniter, if the moderates would win in free elections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Or, are we at fault, exacerbating the disturbing 'chance' of the growing Islamist menace. Where were the moderate voices on 911? Cutting through all the PC BS, do you, Mr. Miniter, feel the moderate voices of Islam were really 'that' upset on 911? And for what reason? Mr. Miniter, I wonder how Bin Laden would fare in a free and fair election in Saudi(or Yeman)? Would he be trounced by a progressive, moderate Islamic politician? Looks like Mr. Miniter that those same 'moderate' Muslims who have been so willing to earn 25 million to turn in Bin Laden are the same folks who 'protested' 911 so loudly that nobody heard it. Then or now. How can a scholar of Islam, fail to appreciate the growing Islamist menace? the unification of Israel, Cyprus, France, Sweeden, ground zero, and school girls in Thailand? Is their a subtle nuanced position here I'm missing? Is there a growing moderating influence within Islam that is taking off? If only we could . . . . ? What a load of crap.
Actually, we older-timers at JW and DW know most everything worth knowing about Catherine - she is generous with her time and quite fluvial in her self-expression. The only thing in which my male curiosity still would like some satisfaction is: is she young and is she pretty? As I said, most everything else we know.
I just got out of the symposium and am in the stagecoach station now awaiting transport back to Secure Undisclosed Locationville. - Robert
At least the fuel costs are pretty constant:
http://www.nonstopbargains.com/amishairlines.jpg
Paolo: "The only thing in which my male curiosity still would like some satisfaction is: is she young and is she pretty? "
And does she wear short skirts? :-)
Paolo, I am sure she is taken and pretty
But not all of us good ones are, Ronin.
not "taken" that is.
shouting, maybe not but they are rare. I have given up that fight. muslims are the target now. Pretty squirrel hunters will have to wait,
I presume that Mr. Spencer is an honorable.
posted by richard miniter
Dear Mr. Miniter,
Your presumption is accurate. Mr. Spencer is not only "honorable", he is truly an American hero. It requires inordinate courage to tell the truth in today's Orwellian world of political correctness, where surreal lexical contortions have replaced common vernacular. If someone had told me twenty years ago that in the not too distant future TRUTH would be a dirty word, I would have laughed. I'm not laughing now.
Despite relentless personal attacks and death threats, Mr. Spencer calmly, non-judgmentally, and truthfully refutes the lies, half-truths, and obfuscations that apologists, useful idiots, and Muslims disseminate about Islam and jihad. Since Muslims have invaded all Western countries en masse, Islamic baggage in tow, the hapless, unsuspecting citizens of the West are entitled to know exactly what's in that baggage. Mr. Spencer and a handful of other courageous, concerned people are telling them, those who will listen.
He deserves a medal for this invaluable service. Our own government has lied and misled the American people; I refuse to believe that the federal government, in all it's behemoth glory, or the entire Bush administration are totally ignorant of the insidious threat of Islam and its intrinsic incompatibility to our system of government and culture. I am quite certain our founding fathers never envisioned Islam in America when they crafted the Constitution, for they knew more about this menace to freedom and peace than all the pundits, intelligentsia, and elite lawmakers in Washington today.
Thank God for Robert Spencer.
Err. Make sure you know what you are talking about before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself, the Qur'an says nothing about 72 Virgins, that is mentioned in one (disputed) hadith, other hadiths mention being serviced in Jennah, by either unspecified number of houris and boys with skin like pearls if they die in Jihad. IIRC one mursal hadith claims that there are 70 houris awaiting a Jihadi. and these houris are self renewing virgins, a virgin at every lay.
However the second part of your post was incorrect as well The Qur'an is taken as the ineffible word of "Allah", undisputed and undisputable, except where abrogated, and it is full of contradictions (abrogations) which is what enables the Muslims to lie and obfuscate to kaffirs such as quoting "there is no compulsion in religion" forgetting to mention the verse of the sword.
To Nariz:
I believe you that the Koran says nothing about the number 72 with regard to virgins (and I did a search of the USC-MSA Quran database for "72 or seventy-two or seventy", and nothing came up connected with virgins). However, the way you put things in your post above, you might unintentionally give the impression to some visitors here that the Koran does not mention heavenly virgins at all. I know you would be among the first to affirm that it does indeed mention virgins as rewards for believers. Anyway, in case they are of interest, here are some relevant Koran verses:
In Koran Chapter 56:
056.022
And (there will be) Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes,-
056.023
Like unto Pearls well-guarded.
056.024
A Reward for the deeds of their [believing Muslims'] past (life).
[...]
056.034
And on Thrones (of Dignity), raised high.
056.035
We have created (their Companions) of special creation.
056.036
And made them virgin - pure (and undefiled), -
In Koran Chapter 55:
055.056
In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
[...]
055.072
Companions restrained (as to their glances), in (goodly) pavilions;-
055.073
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
055.074
Whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-
055.075
Then which of the favours of your Lord will ye deny?-
055.076
Reclining on green Cushions and rich Carpets of beauty.
In Koran Chapter 52:
052.020
They will recline (with ease) on Thrones (of dignity) arranged in ranks; and We shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.
In Koran Chapter 44:
044.054
So; and We shall join them to fair women with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.
-Omar
Susanp
Hear, Hear!
Nariz,
I don't doubt your analysis and your posts rock, but does it really matter if its 69 virgins, 72 or 124.
and ineffible word of "Allah", undisputed etc ... surely that is, in laymans terms, taking it literally.
I must admit my approach is somewhat simplistic, as being a devoutly non-religious person, my position is that islam is an intellectual nonsense in the first place - Not meaning to upset fellow, religious, jihadwatchers.
Fine detail and intellectualisms are great for preaching to choir, i.e. jihadwatchers, but tend to get lost on the willfully blind general public who will hear what they want to hear about moderate islam and jump on people like Richard Miniter's bandwagon. We need to spread the word in a language that everyone, king or street sweeper will understand.
Ronin's description of his conversation with the lieutenants is all too familiar. The vast and overwhelming majority (sorry, had to put that one in) of the non jihadwatching general public still don't quite believe that there is no version of Islam in which the koran "has some good things to say, but isn't all true word for word" a la modern christianity and judaism. We need to address this.
Igor wrote: "Our job, as infidels, is not to "reform" Islam or even "empower" the "moderates". That is up to the Muslims and they don't seem willing to do it. As infidels, we cannot convince them to do it (even with bribery) because in the end, we still remain infidels to them, not friends. Our job is to protect ourselves from the jihad and that means immigration reform, isolating the Muslim world from the West, destabilizing terrorist organizations and terrorist governments when they give us trouble, and most importantly not kow-towing to Muslim demands for more "tolerance" or "sensitivity". "
Well said. And the other part of our job to is to make sure the Muslims know how little we in the civilized world think of their perverted and violent belief system and why. By their own words, actions, and inactions, they deserve only unrelenting scorn. That is the face we should display in every incidental contact with them.
Mr. Spencer,
Thanks for making the correction. I didn't see you in the audience, but if I had, I would have been delighted to say hello.
And I typed too quickly. I meant to say Zawahiri's Knights cited communist sources more than it did the Koran.
And please tell your many admirers that I have indeed read your work and that Serge T. In fact, I have the Sword and the Phrophet to a Wall Street Journal editor for Christmas last year.
But let's be clear about what I am saying and what I am not. I am not arguing that Islam is unconnected to terrorism and I do not think that it is an accident that most terror attacks are carried out by muslims (tho it was the very Hindu Tamil Tigers don't have to rely on the Koran to justify their suicide attacks. We could and should have a longer conversation about this, but not in this forum.
"In my reference to lessons that can be learned from Yemen, I specifically referred to a program of putting moderate imams onto to tv and radio every time al Qaeda releases a tape. That way the terror group does not have a monopoly on the meaning of islam and it forces al Qaeda to debate the veracity of their statements. It is called putting the enemy of the defensive--and it works."
"Debate" with al qaeda? Are you kidding?
Remember the boasting post about the free muslim tv channels? Why not put these mullahs there? Anyway, how can anyone "put" them anywhere?
They alone have to do it of there own accord, which is impossible, because denouncing their actions, goes against everything that vibrates in every cell of their being. They are simply living their koran
Dear Mr. Miniter,
I am glad to hear that you are not arguing that Islam is unconnected to terrorism and that you do not think that it is an accident that most terror attacks are carried out by Muslims. As for the Tamil Tigers, of course I have never said that Muslims or anyone else has a monopoly on evil.
I would love to have a longer conversation about this with you, in this forum or anywhere else of your own choosing. Since you have immensely greater media access than I do, perhaps you could persuade your friends O'Reilly or Hannity/Colmes to host a friendly debate between you and me on Islam and terrorism.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Are we to have sleepless nights over Miniters Tamil Tigers?
Especially their global aspirations and their worldwide presence in infidel countries give me the creeps! Think I should take another valium?
Dear Mr Miniter (if you still happen to be reading this)
The Tamil Tigers never ran their campaign as a Hindu campaign. It was a Tamil campaign, and the only place in India it ever got support was in the Tamil state of Tamil Nadu, before 1991. The LTTE was in fact supported by Leftist groups worldwide (including Libya in the 80's). (Whatever support they had in Tamil Nadu dried up after they assassinated the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1991.)
Bottom line - although Tamils are Hindus and the LTTE is a Tamil terrorist/separatist organization in Sri Lanka, Hindu fanaticism is not what motivates them - Tamil nationalism is. Holding them up as a Hindu edition of al Qaeda is therefore totally misleading. While there are Hindu fanatical organizations in India, none of them have taken up even local terrorism, let alone global terror.
Well Friday speaches were a bit of a bore but after we Drank and then the party got started and we Drank and Danced!!
Fun to be had some got up a bit late the next day But as I see now Robert[who I feel I can now call Robert because Bought him a beer] left at a time to get his work done and of course wanted to see the redneck side but I was in a Channel mode But there was a short skirt [not short enough it seams] but again the Bows on the shoes were there and a see through top made it easy to get through the meatal detecters??
I was disapointed not to see more reporters there.!!
What I could tell was more and more people are waken up!!
Qur’an 9:45 “Only those ask for exemption (from Jihad) who believe not in Allah and whose hearts are in doubt, so that they are tossed to and fro. If they had intended to march out to fight, they would certainly have made some preparation and readied their equipment; but Allah was averse to their being sent forth; so He made them lag behind. ‘Sit you among those who sit.’ If they had marched with you, they would not have added to your (strength) but only (made for) discord, spying and sowing sedition. There would have been some in your midst who would have listened to them. But Allah knows well those [peace-loving Muslims] who do wrong and are wicked.”
NOW MINATUR SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE UP AGAINST?
” Qur’an 4:89 “They wish that you would reject Faith, as they have, and thus be on the same footing: Do not be friends with them until they leave their homes in Allah’s Cause. But [and this is a hell of a but...] if they turn back from Islam, becoming renegades, seize them and kill them wherever you find them.”
SO IS HE SAYING THAT HE WANTS THE MODREATS KILLED??
Qur’an 47:21 “Were they to obey, showing their obedience in modest speech, after the matter (of preparation for Jihad) had been determined for them, it would have been better. Is it to be expected that if you were put in authority and given command that you would do mischief in the land and sever your ties of kinship. Such men are cursed by Allah. He has made them deaf, dumb and blind.”
YEP THAT IS WHAT THEIR BOOK SAYS NOW IF YOU WANT TO FIGHT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHO THE REAL ENEMY IS!!
TORTURE:
Qur’an 5:33 “The punishment for those who wage war against Allah and His Prophet and make mischief in the land, is to murder them, crucify them, or cut off a hand and foot on opposite sides...their doom is dreadful. They will not escape the fire, suffering constantly.”
READ IT AND WEEP FOR THOSE WHO THESE MONSTERS HAVE KILLED BY THEIR BOOK PEAR,BERG,JOHNSTON,HENSLEY,BISLEY,HEAGAN,AND THE LIST GOES ON MANY IRAQIS MEN FROM NEPAL FROM THE PHILLIPENS AND JAPAN AND HOW MANY IN OUR LANDS??
YES WE SEE WHAT THEY DO AND LIKE ALL MONSTERS THEY MUST BE DESTROYED!!
Qur’an 9:5 “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
THIS MEANS WE CAN GIVE NO QUATER??
Qur’an 5:37 “The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture.”
EXPLAINS ITS SELF
NOW SOME BELIEVE THEIR LIES AND NEVER LOOK FOR THEMSELVES AND THESE ARE THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD NOT LOOK AT WHAT HILTER BELIEVED AND WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM MOST WERE KILLED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO FACE THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT WAS TO UGLY TO IMAJAINE BUT THEY DIED A HORABLE DEATH JUST THE SAME??
Tabari IX:6 “The chief sheep tender sent out spies to obtain intelligence. But they came back with their joints dislocated. When he asked what had happened, they said, ‘We saw white men on black horses. Before we could resist, we were struck as you see us now.”
THIS IS CAIR AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS THAT HAS BEEN SWADED BY THE MONEY OF TERRORIST??
Qur’an 8:12 “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.”
SO TO THEM THE BOMBERS ARE DOING THIS
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ THEIR BOOK I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THESE 3 VERSERS SHOULD BE ALL THE ARMOR YOU NEED TO DEFEND YOUR PTA'S AND GET THIS CRAP OUT OF YOUR SCHOOLS!!
DON'T BE WIMPS THESE 3 SHOW YOU YOU ARE AT THREAT AND YOUR CHILDREN ARE AT TREAT ASK A MULSUM ABOUT THESE 3 WRITE THEM DOWN SEE IF THEY DENIE THEM THEY WONT!!!
Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.’”
Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
Qur’an 5:72 “They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah only said: ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’
GET YOUR PREACHERS TO WARN YOUR PEOPLE HAVE YOUR MEN BE MEN NOT FRENCH!!
CGW
Thanks!!
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003003.php
August 31, 2004
Sheik: Allah sent giant spiders to combat U.S.
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL MULSUM TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP TOGETHER AND DESTROY THESE MONSTERS FOR ONCE AND ALL AMEN
THAT LITTLE WHITE DOG WAS BEHIND ME AND IT WAS SUCH A SISSY DOG PANTING THE WHOLE TIME!!
WHY DON'T YOU GET YOUR WIFE TO GIVE THAT THING A BATH AND BRUSH HIS HAIR. IF YOUR Going TO HAVE A CUTTY DOG COMB HIS HAIR!!!!
And Catherine what caliber weapon do you prefer??//
Posted by: Texican at April 29, 2006 08:32 PM
I like my 12 ga when I hunt birds?
I like my 270smm when I hunt biger game.
I like to shoot my 308 for fun and shave some other toys I like and have a big wish list??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL MULSUM TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
I did look for the Greagy Peck look alike but couldn't find him.
But some one took some pictures and Said he would send them I don't like to have MY picture taken so not sure if it would be posted but maybe shared behind the senes?