Reading CDR Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book Militant Islamist Ideology: Understanding the Global Threat, published by the Naval Institute Press (2010), one can see why U.S. leadership is far from “understanding the global threat”; why the Obama administration is supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood; and why so many U.S. politicians rose up in condemnation when one obscure pastor threatened to burn a Koran.
According to the jacket cover, Aboul-Enein is “a top adviser at the Joint Intelligence Task Force for Combating Terrorism” and “has advised at the highest levels of the defense department and intelligence community.”
What advice does he give?
He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists,” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”
This theme, sometimes expressed in convoluted language—at one point we are urged to appreciate the “nuanced” differences “between Militant Islamists and between Militant Islamists and Islamists”—permeates the book.
Of course, what both groups want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.
Whereas most of the book is meant to portray nonviolent Islamists in a nonthreatening light, sometimes Aboul-Enein contradicts himself, for instance by correctly observing that "the United States must be under no illusions that the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood includes limiting the rights of women" and other anti-Western aspects.
How to explain these discrepancies? Is the Brotherhood a problem for the U.S. or not?
The book's foreword by Admiral James Stavridis clarifies by stating that the book is a "culmination of Commander Aboul-Enein's essays, lectures, and myriad answers to questions." In fact, Militant Islamist Ideology reads like a hodgepodge of ideas cobbled together, and the author's contradictions are likely products of different approaches to different audiences over time.
His position on appeasing the Muslim world—a fixed feature of the current administration’s policies—is clear. Aboul-Enein recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must relieve the soldier of duty, offer “unconditional apologies,” and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: “I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,” followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran and “ceremoniously” presenting it to Muslims.
Likewise, after rightfully admonishing readers not to rely on skewed or biased accounts of Islam, he presents Islamic apologist extraordinaire Karen Armstrong—whose whitewashed writings on Islam border on fiction—as the best source on the life of Muhammad.
Then there are Aboul-Enein’s flat out wrong assertions and distortions, examples of which this review closes with:
- He asserts that “militant Islamists dismiss ijmaa [consensus] and qiyas [analogical reasoning].” In fact, none other than al-Qaeda constantly invokes ijmaa (for instance, the consensus that jihad becomes a personal duty when infidels invade the Islamic world) and justifies suicide attacks precisely through qiyas.
- He insists that the Arabic word for “terrorist” is nowhere in the Koran—without bothering to point out that Koran 8:60 commands believers “to terrorize the enemy,” also known as non-Muslim “infidels.”
- He writes, “when Muslims are a persecuted minority Jihad becomes a fard kifaya (an optional obligation), in which the imam authorizes annual expeditions into Dar el Harb (the Abode of War), lands considered not under Muslim dominance.” This is wrong on several levels: a “fard kifaya” is not an “optional obligation”—an oxymoron if ever there was one—but rather a “communal obligation”; moreover, he is describing Offensive Jihad, which is designed to subjugate non-Muslims and is obligatory to wage whenever Muslims are capable—not “when Muslims are a persecuted minority.”
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
I disagree with the title.
It should be simply: "Islam: Understanding the Global Threat"
or at worst: "The Ideology of Islam: Understanding the Global Threat"
I know! I know!
A Militant Islamist is a Muslim with a weapon, a moderate Muslim hasn't got a weapon yet.
Everyone clear on that?
Islam Macht Frei wrote:
I disagree with the title.
It should be simply: "Islam: Understanding the Global Threat"
or at worst: "The Ideology of Islam: Understanding the Global Threat"
..................................
Well—that's the whole point, IMF—as Raymond Ibrahim makes clear, Aboul-Enein barely has a clue.
From the article:
He holds that, whereas “militant Islamists” (e.g., al-Qaeda) are the enemy, “non-militant Islamists,” (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood) are not: “It is the Militant Islamists who are our adversary. They represent an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. They must not be confused with Islamists.”
..................................
*What crap*. Doesn't Aboul-Enein understand that both these groups of "Islamists" want to impose Shari'ah law? No—I'm sure he doesn't...
Incidentally, I'm reading Sayyid Qutb's "Milestones" right now—believe me, his vision of the Muslim Brotherhood was not exactly "non-militant".
More:
Of course, what both groups want is a system inherently hostile to the West, culminating in a Sharia-enforcing Caliphate; the only difference is that the nonmilitant Islamists are prudent enough to understand that incremental infiltration and subtle subversion are more effective than outright violence. Simply put, both groups want the same thing, and differ only in methodology.
..................................
Yep. Ibrahim is spot on.
Bottom line here is that the Aboul-Eneins of the Muslim world are a greater menace to Western Civilization than the bin Ladens the Muslim world produces PRECISELY because the former implicitly push the stealth jihad rather than the up-front violent jihad. After all, killing by kindness can be most effective---and lethal.
Never, EVER trust a Muslim. This can never be stressed enough.
The free world should deluge those territories that have a predominance of Islam with non-Muslims. We have to play the "numerical superiority" game. From every which way, we need to infuse those territories with freedom lovers.
We will never face a more pernicious enemy.
Islam: where freedom ends and slavery begins.
The Muslim Brotherhood is not the enemy? Since when? It's 'grand jihad' aimed at destroying Western civilization from within constitutes a national security threat. Sayyid Qutb didn't have much positive to say about the U.S. and our way of life after spending a few years here (which goes to show you that all that nonsense about "getting to know one another" and increasing "understanding" and "interfaith dialogue" is based on wishful thinking when it comes to Islam and devout Muslims).
The West faces yet another totalitarian ideological threat, yet its governments seem to do everything they can to deny or remain oblivious to it. What's the problem? Did the Saudis and Gulf Arabs threaten to cut off the oiil? If so, call their bluff. Water is much more precious than oil.
You wrote: 'A Militant Islamist is a Muslim with a weapon, a moderate Muslim hasn't got a weapon yet.'
It's funny yet true. What's difference b'twn a Militant Islamists and Islamists? Well, the answer is 'Nothing'. Yet, the book presents convoluted defintions.
I agree!
Youssef Aboul-Enein’s book Militant Islamist Ideology: 'Understanding the Global Threat' is taqqiya on stilts.
Youssef is a clown on stilts!
.'Taqqiya on stilts'. .gosh, Buraq, a collage of images sprang to mind then. .Dali's 'The Temptation of St.Anthnny combined with the many paintings of invading hordes on elephants. .call me somewhat disturbed, you'd be right, to a point..
It's amazing that the lightweight Karen Armstrong can be cited as an authority like that. This alone is reason enough to ignore the book.
Sigh.
THIS is how the Russians kicked our butts in the cold war.
Oh, we won the physical military contest alright. We out-produced them by a huge margin just as we out-produced the Axis in WWII -- which being a largely free economy was not quite a slam dunk, but well within our competence.
And while we were doing that, the peaceful political commies took over the schools, the arts, the media, the intelligentsia, a big chunk of the political establishment, nearly the whole elite and the whole public aspect of culture.
By peaceful means of course.
And to this day we can still hardly make a dent in the prevalence and dominance of socialist ideas in the culture and therefore in our political lives.
We got our b*tts handed to us.
And now the same sort of simple minded chumps are about to hand what's left to the Mohammedan supremacists.
Wake up and get with the program people.
There is precedent for this, and we are about to get our b*tts kicked ... AGAIN!
Will somebody out there PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE start composing an appropriate strategy to fight the propaganda war and the institutional infiltration !!!!!!
There's something else here -- having looked again at the name Youssef Aboul-Enein.
Why is it so disproportionately difficult for Mohammedans to look critically at their own cultural heritage. Nobody else in the world seems to have a comparable degree of difficulty with such stuff.
They just seem to feel compelled to turn themselves inside out and upside down to avoid saying the first critical word about Islam itself.
Even sophisticated cosmopolitan people educated, living and working in the west ... in positions of trust and responsibility no less!
Why is that?
Probs cuz they have been brainwashed to believe that their book is the un-alterable word. .mugs they are for buying that b.s.
In India the Moslems have been living alongside local Hindus for the last 500 years ! Still , over the years , the Moslems have hardly integrated themselves with the local Hindu population ! They stay in their own localities , mostly "ghettos" , and steadfastly maintain their barbaric tribal cultural habits of food and behaviour ! There have been inter-religious marriages between Moslems and Hindus but in 90% cases of such party the mild-mannered Hindu spouce has been converted to Islam and then only married by the Moslem spouce. Even the children of such marriages have mostly been dictated by the original Moslem spouce , be a mother or father , to follow Islam and not given freedom to choose the religion the child would like to have !
In fact the birth of Islamic state of Pakistan by partitioning the then greater India by the Moslems of then India was achieved by the last minute treacherous strategy by Mohammed Ali Jinnah , the "father of nation" in Pakistan, by deceiving the Hindu front-running freedom fighters Gandhi & Nehru !
Such treacherous double-faced character of Islam is still a hallmark of any Indian Moslem who , in spite of this double face , is fully protected by the liberal constitution of the secular state of India !
Just like the American politicians , be they Republicans or Democrats , depend upon the Moslem population in US for its being a "vote-bank" in election so do the Indian politicians in India !
Also , just like Ptero-dollars pouring into the election funds of the political parties in USA our Indian political parties too are funded by the Petrodollars in elections!
Today India's Moslem population is about 15% of the total polpulation and India is facing the Islamic pressure in its daily life from all sides ! Worls Moslem population having declared USA and UK as their number one enemy these two nations will have to face a similar perpetual enmity of Moslems from all around the world forever !
France , Germenay , Canada and Australia will come next and so will Denmark shortly ! Beware yo White man ! You are in trouble ! You have a permanent enemy of Islam lurking at every nook and corner of your lands and abroad too !