| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
A revealing piece from the Washington Post this morning about the possible extent of infiltration by radical Muslims into the American military.
"Just after the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, huge tents were erected in Saudi Arabia near the barracks of U.S. military personnel. Inside, day and night, Saudi imams sent by their government lectured the GIs about Islam and made aggressive pitches to convert them. Saudi officials had promised that the discussions would touch only on Arab culture. But within months, about 1,000 soldiers, and perhaps as many as 3,000, converted to Islam -- the largest surge of Muslims ever into the U.S. armed forces."
I wrote about Saudi proselytizing efforts among the military over two weeks ago in the Washington Times. Glad to see the Post is catching up! But more importantly, note the Saudis' promise that these lectures would touch only upon "Arab culture." For the Saudis, that means Islam, and our military brass should have known that.
But they didn't. The article continues: "'It was quite aggressive,' said David Peterson, then the military's top chaplain in the region. In retrospect, he said, there was reason for concern that foreign clerics had gained influence over the troops, but military officials were slow to grasp the implications, he said. Twelve years later, with three Muslim employees at the Guantanamo Bay prison accused of security breaches, some U.S. military officials are again wondering whether they have been inattentive to outside influences on the small community of Muslims in the armed forces."
Here's the rub: "But even asking that question is a delicate matter for an institution that has long embraced tolerance of all faiths."
That's why it hasn't been asked for so long, and why efforts to portray Islam as wholly peaceful or non-political can be lethal. There are millions of peaceful and secular Muslims, but radicals appeal to traditional understandings of Islam as a political and social system as well as a faith for individuals; in doing so, they introduce a thing that military officials have been wholly unprepared for: a religious faith with almost immediate implications for political action.
Even worse, "some military officials believe that the al Qaeda terrorist network is trying to recruit Muslim members of the U.S. armed services and contractors who work with them. Other officers have expressed fears that some Muslim soldiers, sailors and airmen might one day decline to take up arms against fellow Muslims."
Why would they decide to do that? I explain why in Onward Muslim Soldiers. Among other things, radical Muslims appeal to the Qur'an: "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell" (Sura 4:93). We have already seen a British Muslim soldier go AWOL rather than go to Iraq. Why? He feared hell.
Later on in the article, we're told that the military was concerned: "'There was a concern about the ability of the Muslim community to take up arms against fellow Muslims,' recalled Herman Keizer, then an Army colonel who headed the military's chaplains board. 'There was also concern about what influence events in the Middle East could have on Muslims in the military.'" But evidently not all that much concern.
In the article, Air Force General Ralph Eberhart, identified as the "head of the U.S. Northern Command, the military's homeland defense unit," downplayed the success of terrorist efforts to turn American Muslim soldiers, but added: "There's no doubt in my mind there's an effort [by al Qaeda and other terrorists] to turn our people. . . . I'm concerned, and I know others [in the military] are concerned" about such efforts at Guantanamo.
The article also informs us that "military sociologist Charles Moskos is traveling to Iraq this month to poll troops about morale issues. He plans to ask whether Muslim soldiers seem to have their hearts in fighting fellow Muslims, and whether the troops trust Muslims in their ranks. I'll ask, 'How do you feel about having a Muslim in your tent?' Moskos said."
It'll be interesting to see the reaction to this.
How has it come about that this is necessary at all? "Some critics of government terrorism policy say the Pentagon is so devoted to promoting religious brotherhood in its ranks that it fails to discern traces of anti-American sentiment among Muslim troops. 'The military has a style of political correctness that says, "We're not in the business of judging anyone's religion," ' said Thor Ronay, a terrorism researcher at the conservative Center for Security Policy."
Even when it comes to Saudi tent meetings proselytizing for Islam? That's right; those are ok too: "Despite their initial upset that Saudi officials had misled them about the tent lectures, U.S. officers did not end the gatherings, in keeping with the military's bedrock principle of accommodating all faiths . . ."
Yet I know that they don't accomodate other faiths to the extent of allowing proselytizing. Why are the Saudis exempt? They were certainly pouring money into the effort: "The well-financed team paid for the converts' pilgrimages to Islam's holy cities, and upon their return home, arranged follow-up visits by Muslim clerics in the United States . . ."
Meanwhile, Bilal Philips, one of the imams who organized all this, went on record saying: "The clash of civilizations is a reality. Western culture led by the United States is an enemy of Islam." The article states that "with his encouragement, some of his U.S. military converts trained Islamic fighters in Bosnia in the 1990s and were later investigated by the FBI in terrorism probes in this country, he added."
Moreover, "by the early 1990s, the Pentagon was working closely with U.S. Muslim activists to hire Islamic chaplains to minister to Philips's new converts and their co-religionists. One architect of this initiative was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was indicted Oct. 23 on money-laundering charges for allegedly taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Libya, which is designated by U.S. officials as a state sponsor of terrorism."
Military officials now say that they "might have been more suspicious" of all these proselytizing efforts. Yes, I would say so.
Also: The scarcity of Arabic translators has led military officials to cut corners in security checks of them, officials said. Both Halabi and Mehalba [two of the those who worked at Gitmo and are now under arrest had received quick 'interim' clearances. . . . Kevin Hendzel, a spokesman for the American Translators Association who works closely with the military, said officers often are so desperate for Arabic linguists they employ them despite fears they are al Qaeda plants. 'Al Qaeda knows we're short of linguists, so it's a natural pipeline for infiltration by them,' he said.
Yet I know of scores of Arabic-speaking Jews (and Christians also) who were turned away by the FBI. Why couldn't they have been told about these military jobs for which applicants were so scarce?
Finally, the article registers the objections of Marine Sgt. Jamal Baadani, "founder of a group called the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in the Military." Baadani "resents implications that Muslim soldiers may be disloyal, an insult he said is compounded by criticism he receives from other Muslims. 'I've been called a traitor and an Uncle Tom by fellow Muslims' for serving in the military, he said."
Um, why do you think they call you that, Sergeant? Maybe for the same reasons why there are legitimate concerns about the loyalty of Muslims in the military?
There is also a good deal of evidence: "In 2000 Ali Mohamed -- a highly placed al Qaeda operative who had infiltrated the U.S. military and became a sergeant in the Army Special Forces -- pleaded guilty to conspiracy in connection with the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa. Last month, Jeffrey Leon Battle, a former Army reservist from Portland, Ore., pleaded guilty to conspiracy to levy war against the United States after trying for months to enter Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces. U.S. prosecutors said he enlisted in the reserves 'to receive military training to use against America.' Last March, as his unit prepared to enter Iraq from Kuwait, Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar killed two of his commanding officers in a grenade attack as they slept. Relatives said Akbar, a Muslim convert recently disciplined for insubordination, had sensed persecution as a Muslim. He had avoided serving in the first Gulf War because it conflicted with his faith, said relative Quran Bilal."
Posted by Robert at November 2, 2003 8:38 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
This is what I heard: as a security measure, the FBI will only offer positions to citizens with undivided loyalty. The Jewish Arabic translators were turned down because they held dual Israeli-American citizenship. The FBI was willing to offer positions to these individuals if they would give up their Israeli citizenship, but they were unwilling to do.
Posted by: DebP at November 2, 2003 10:14 AMAre the Koran and the U.S. Constitution compatible documents? I know the Constitution allows for freedom of religion but, does the Koran allow Islam to exist within the system of another set of laws. From my understanding of the Koran it has to be on top and doesn't allow itself be ruled by any higher worldly or spiritual authority.
If this is the case, can a Muslim take an oath to uphold the Constiution of the United States of America without either insincerity regarding his oath or being an apostate?
Posted by: Captain Radium at November 2, 2003 10:49 AMCaptain Radium: There was a debate in my hometown "The Constitution and the Koran, Can They Co-exist?" a year ago. The muslim panelists spoke a while about how there was no problem at all with the co-existence of the two documents. Then, one panelist, a well educated businessman and islamic scholar from Morocco, responded to a question about the fatwa on Salmon Rushdie. Yes, he said, he'd have to support that fatwa that called for Rushdie's death. You can't criticize or make fun of the prophet Mohammed.
The panel moderator, a law professor, was astounded at this answer and rephrased the question adding "...and you do understand that the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, including the written word, and killing Rushdie would be a crime here. The muslim, seemingly oblivious to how he sounded, gave the same answer (support of the fatwa) along with a quote from the Koran.
The Koran is the absolute word of Allah, perfect and immutable, I heard one muslim say. Our laws are man-made and therefore, inferior to those laws laid down in the Koran.
I'm no scholar but this was scarey enough for me
to find out who the prominent muslims in town are and what they think.
Captain Radium and JCF raise the question that troubles a lot of people. It goes without saying that there are peaceful, mild Muslims. But the question is, how stable is there worldview? Daniel Pipes says it's quite stable (and he is thus a staunch apologist for Islam, not the attacker of Islam that Islamists portray him to be). Robert Spencer, if I understand him, says in "Islam Unveiled" that many mild, peaceful Muslims can be excited into Islamism somewhat readily. But he never says that there cannot be a stable moderate Islam.
I don't see how there can be a stable, moderate Islam, given the centrality of aggressive jihad in the scriptures. By analogy, there were mild, decent people who wore the Nazi armband in the 1930's, for example, the bookish philosopher Martin Heidegger. These are people swept up in a culture who never pay much attention to its call for murder, and who dwell on its good parts. But they do not have a stable worldview; "peaceful, mild Nazi" is incoherent. Sooner or later one half of the concept has to go. Take away the murderous racism, and it's not Nazism anymore. By analogy, it would seem that any mild form of Islam would be too distorted to count as Islam. Such a form simply ignores the central teaching of jihad, the killing of apostates, etc.
So, the question is, Isn't it the case that Islam cannot be stably disconnected from aggressive jihad? And, given that moderate Islam is an ephemeral concept, isn't the hope for the triumph of moderate Islam over Islamism unrealistic? Has there been a peaceful, stable, genuine Islam? This is a hugely important question for historians of religion. Is any of them working on it?
Nevertheless a further question: Even if Pipes's hope is unrealistic and George Bush's "Islam is peace" simply false, might it be more prudent for them to state these hopes than their critics on the anti-Islam right realize? After all, the way to solidarity with decent Muslims might be to lure them with honey, rather than vinegar. They will become our friends in liberal democracy in the fullness of time. We will leave it to them to make up their minds about the untenability of "moderate Islam". And they will be able to recognize the facts clearly, as long as we aren't screaming in their ears that Islam is bad. But if we give them vinegar, they might recoil. In short, "Islam is peace," may be a very wise little white lie for the White House to tell (especially now that the White House didn't invite CAIR to Ramadan dinner and has apparently learned over the last year or so not to assume that all American Muslim groups are peaceful).
Of course, Mr. Spencer, I'd be extremely grateful for any light you can shed on my questions.
Posted by: Jim at November 2, 2003 2:34 PMOn Islam and Democracy:
Source 1:
"Islam is not consistent with democracy, at least it is not consistent with what is widely believed to be democracy in today's world. The only freedom that exists is the freedom to do anything that is in accord with the Will of Allah."
http://islamic-world.net/aphorisms/
Source 2 (based in Washington DC):
"The object of rule in Islam is to implement God's Law -- that legislated in the Quran and Hadith, known as Shariah (Islamic law). The ruler who does so is to be followed, and the one who does not is to be corrected."
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/ftp/ISCA%20-%20Islam%20and%20Democracy.htm#_Toc14018353
On Muslims serving in "infidel" armies:
Question #3885: Military service in kaafir [infidel] armies and working as a "chaplain" in those armies
QUESTION:
What is the ruling on Muslims serving in the military of non muslim country?
ANSWER:
Praise be to Allaah.
We put this question to Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen, may Allaah preserve him, who answered as follows:
"Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Military matters are problematic, because they involve helping these kuffaar [infidel] to wage war against the Muslims or those who have entered into a treaty with the Muslims. If no such thing is involved, it may be advantageous for Muslims to work in these armies so as to learn their secrets and be aware of their potential evil. In other words, if working in these armies could be of benefit [for the Muslim ummah], it may be permissible, otherwise it is not allowed."
Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)
http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=3885&dgn=3
William
There may be different interpretations of the Koran among Muslims that make democracy possible. Turkey has been democratic and Muslim for about 80 years now. Somehow they have adapted. I'm not knowledgeable enough regarding the influence of the Ottomans or Sufi's to explain why it works but it does.
From my summit of limited knowledge I would suggest study of what the Wahabbists started rebelling against. What put them into conflict with the Turks? If I understand correctly they saw the Ottomans as corrupting Islam by adopting Western ways in addition to other grievences. Perhaps a study of the root of the conflict would yield an idea what could be used to fight Wahabism. If what was found appealing to the Ottomans could be used to seduce other Muslims than an antidote to Wahabbist teaching might be available.
Posted by: Captain Radium at November 2, 2003 3:43 PMWhen someone says they are going to kill you and everyone you know, believe them. Get up early on the day they are going to kill you and kill them before they harm you.
We hear the 'death to America' and 'death to Israel and the Jews' coming from the mosques on a near daily basis. Why don't we believe them when they say they want us either dead or converted? Are we too nice for our own good? Do we really believe that the islamofascists are wired like us? To ignore the threat coming from the militant mosques, imams, etc. is to ignore the guy rattling your front door and hope that he goes away.
Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2003 4:52 PMKirk
Not appreciating the chants for "Death to America" is indeed a problem for many. But once you do appreciate it what do you do about it? The quick and easy solution is genocide. But that is also the most likely to destroy our own culture and all the values we hold dear in the process. The calls to nuke Mecca should be rejected.
In this war human nature is our ally. The strict interpretation of Islam flies in the face of human nature. Like communism, this is a fatal flaw which makes it unstable. Western culture is much more in tune with the natural state of humanity and is adapted to make the most of its human virtues and create disinsentives for human flaws. Western culture is also much more seductive when given an equal airing. This is what the Wahabbists fear. My opinion is that the war can be won by appealing to the virtures of human nature to draw the masses of Muslims away from the cheap and brutal lure of Wahabism (killing the terrorists is also a necessary part of the war as well). Doing this will be hard. It will take generations. But it will allow us to keep our civilization and it's values.
Posted by: Captain Radium at November 2, 2003 6:00 PMCapt Radium, you don't have to use a 'final solution' against all of Islam. When an imam speaks 'death to America' to his congregation take that as a valid declaration of war and immediately attack that imam/mosque. After a few dozen imams, some of their congregation, and mosques are reduced to rubble they might get the picture that we take the death threats seriously and act accordingly.
Since many in the middle east respect only raw power we would be projecting our power. This would be the western equivalent of what the KGB was forced into in Lebanon after a Soviet diplomat was kidnapped and executed. It only took one reprisal kidnapping/torture/execution of a imam supportive of the terrorists to get the terrorists to leave the Soviet diplomatic mission alone. Would this solve the problem? Probably not, but it would cut off leadership and recruitment from within the mosques.
Posted by: Kirk at November 2, 2003 7:26 PMI've known human nature for these way too many years and unless the human consciousness is taught otherwise and is fairly evolved, the result is a society that is out of balance (either too strict and imposes rule from a totalitarian source or too loose, unconstrained, indulgent and self-serving).
As an old hippie, I am agast at the results of our efforts to "free" ourselves and others of their "hang-ups" and abandon the old rules, supplanting them with a new order that would lead to peace and enlightenment for all. In our ignorance arrogance what we did was to introduce multiculturalism and political correctness in our society and make them gods.
Sorry, Captain, but I'm not the idealist I once was. We may think democracy is a wonderful thing but with democracy comes the responsibility of choices. There are those who want others to tell them what to do.
This is the seduction of Islam and unless our western society changes, it will seduce our children who will easily trade their creativity and thoughtful analysis in for a secure life.
Wherever islam goes, there is genocide. Ask the Hindus, Armenians, Bangledesh Buddhists, the Sudanese, Indonesian, Greek, Syrian, Egyptian Christians, etc. Western civilization is next.
Posted by: JCF at November 2, 2003 7:35 PMI have visited a couple of websites of Muslims who are challeging the validity and truthfulness of Islam. They understand the historical and scientific fallacies the Koran preaches as truth and how deeply indoctrinated their people have become by the hands of a mad man, like Mohammed who raped, pillaged, and killed many people in his life. How can a killer be a prophet, is what they ask. And how can the Koran be valid if copies of it were destroyed after Mohammed died?
Muslims, though in small numbers, are attempting to challege Islam and its betrayal of its people, but they too are under suspicion and threats.
This is a war of civilizations, ideas, and the right for all people to be free. That's what makes the United States unique. It allows the individual to choose to do good or bad. You do good you will succeed, if you do bad, you will go to jail. Under Islam you will be good whether you like it or not.
I'd prefer having a choice.
Posted by: Moor at November 2, 2003 7:45 PMCaptain Radium writes: "There may be different interpretations of the Koran among Muslims that make democracy possible. Turkey has been democratic and Muslim for about 80 years now."
There are allegedly 1.2 Billion Muslims worldwide, Turkey has a population of 68 Million -- one half of one percent. Sorry, when 99.5% of a population is not compatible with democracy, it's safe to conclude that particular population is not compatible with democracy.
Note that the second source I provided above is located in Washington DC, and the front page of the website has a photo of an ISCA leader standing with the President of the United States. In case you missed it, ISCA's website states:
"The object of rule in Islam is to implement God's Law -- that legislated in the Quran and Hadith, known as Shariah (Islamic law). The ruler who does so is to be followed, and the one who does not is to be corrected."
These aren't Muslims in Turkey, these are Muslims in Washington DC.
Posted by: William at November 2, 2003 8:22 PMJCF
When I talk about Western culture I am not talking about Hippie culture or some sort of multi-culti-hand-holding-love-fest. And I don't think a sudden dose of democracy is the answer either. I am talking about individual choice and responsibility with the rewards and responsibilities that come with it.
For example, take women's rights. If we can show the Islamic world the great things that liberated women can accomplish with their lives in a tolerant society it will erode the hold of Wahibists/fundamentalists who can only offer burkas and babies. That is why Iran and Saudi Arabia have banned Barbie Dolls. Women's lib is a powerful tool we haven't exploited.
Other aspects of our culture such as freedom of inquiry and the scientific method would corrode the dogmatic hold of Islam on people's minds if it could be taught effectively and at an early age. The west has hundreds of years of philosophers and thinkers who have broken the shackles of intolerant religion from the Western soul. If these ideas could be insinuated into the Muslim world it would give them tools for freeing themselves from the slavery of the mind that they must endure now.
As far as cleaning up our own house is concerned, I agree with you completely. I have personal experience with watching Islam grab someone. This war isn't some abstraction to me.
Posted by: Captain Radium at November 2, 2003 8:39 PMWilliam,
Actually, 68 million is 5.6666% of 1.2 billion.
To give up and say that Islam is not compatible with democracy is to throw away what may be our most potent weapon this side of genocide. Lord Cromer, who once governed Egypt for the British said "Islam reformed is Islam no longer." He may be right. You may be right. But there is the example of the Turks, who once were the world's greatest champions of Jihad, and are now a large, stable and democratic society composing about 6% of Islam. Are they true Muslims? I'll leave that to others to debate but they are an example of what can be accomplished with hard core Jihadists. To discard this option is to commit to a path that will lead to grand horrors. My opinion is that we should at least try.
Posted by: Captain Radium at November 2, 2003 9:02 PMDon't be so sure about how stably non-Islamist Turkey is. It's been sliding gradually back into the hole over the last 80 years. As I suggested before, moderate Islam is conceptually incoherent.
The best hope is that liberal democracies installed by coup/U.S. invasion throughout the Middle East will lead to a gradual rejection of Islam. It doesn't work in Turkey because of outside Islamist influence. But if there are no more Islamist strongholds, Islam will gradually wither in the light of open societies.
If Islam is here 100 years from now, the War on Terror will be, as well. The way to eliminate Islam is not by killing 100s of millions of benighted, but innocent people suckered by their wicked religious leaders, but by forcing them to think for themselves. Islam is a cult. Liberal democracy will deprogram its members, or, more accurately, will allow them to deprogram themselves.
Posted by: Jim at November 2, 2003 9:43 PMCaptain Radium writes: "Actually, 68 million is 5.6666% of 1.2 billion."
Math was never my strong suit; but there's not much difference between 99% and 95%...
Captain Radium writes: "To give up and say that Islam is not compatible with democracy is to throw away what may be our most potent weapon this side of genocide."
I'm not "giving up," I'm just stating the facts. To ignore the facts, is silly. This is what the "moderate" and "mainstream" Muslims are saying, that Islam is not compatible with democracy.
I agree that Western civilization should try to reform the Muslim world. Hence, the liberation of Iraq.
Truly, western civilization is in a race to avoid losing a city (and in return, wiping out most of the Mideast).
The timeframe for a religion to reform (Islam is more than a "religion," it is a totalitarian political ideology, but I digress) is hundreds of years.
The timeframe for Muslim fanatics to acquire a nuclear weapon is tens of years.
If/when these fanatics detonate a nuclear device in an American city, America's response will be unlike anything the world has seen.
When framed in this way (and I believe this is a fair assessment) it becomes clear that the John Kerrys and the Wesley Clarkes of the world are literally playing with the future of the world to advance their own political careers.
There is no time to waste.
This is not fearmongering, this is the threat America (and by extension the free world) faces.
The big question is, does anyone believe the Muslim world can be reformed in the next 25 years or so, and nuclear disaster averted? If I had to guess, I would say no.
I think we will see an American city hit in our lifetime, and we will see much of the Mideast vaporized in response. This is not my wish, this is simply a sober look at the facts.
Time is simply not on our side.
Jim writes: "If Islam is here 100 years from now, the War on Terror will be, as well. The way to eliminate Islam is not by killing 100s of millions of benighted, but innocent people suckered by their wicked religious leaders, but by forcing them to think for themselves. Islam is a cult. Liberal democracy will deprogram its members, or, more accurately, will allow them to deprogram themselves."
Excellent points.
The wrench in the works, though, is that nuclear weapons compress the time horizon. If terrorists nuke an American city, things will get ugly very quickly.
I hope there is enough time, but I fear there is not.
Posted by: William at November 3, 2003 12:38 AMThe best option would be deprogramming and conversion. Not enough time.
Therefore we must deal with...destroy, if you will...the nexus of Islamofacism: Saudi backed Wahhabism. Which means regime change in the Kingdom; sooner not later.
But then again, we're dealing not with a population intimidated by Baathists. We're dealing with a populace of fanatics. The princes must go. And the clergy.
There's no getting around the fact that it will look like a religious war. Even though we live in a post-religious era.
We can worry about how history will judge us and die. We can get an unfavorable report card and survive.
Time is of the essence.
Posted by: ESTEBAN at November 3, 2003 2:43 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)