In yet another attempt to absolve Islam of any responsibility for the crimes of the Islamic State, the hard-Left publication Think Progress has published this piece centered on the wit and wisdom of Will McCants, the puerile and silly counter-terror “expert” who is involved with the State Department’s laughable Think Again Turn Away social media initiative to try to convince jihadis not to wage jihad.
In this piece, McCants is identified as the director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution. Now that’s interesting: a recent New York Times expose revealed that the Brookings Institution receives significant funding from Qatar, and in return, makes Qatar look good. Researcher Kathy Gorka noted at Breitbart: “It is a matter of public record that Qatar is a key funder and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and, indeed, that supporting Muslim Brotherhood parties has been a cornerstone of Qatar’s foreign policy.”
And whitewashing the jihad doctrine so as to keep Americans complacent about the jihad threat is a cornerstone of the Brotherhood’s activity in the U.S. Lo and behold, that is just what McCants does in this piece. Its author, Jack Jenkins, apparently working from information McCants gave him, says that the Islamic State ignores “Islamic rules of engagement, such as refraining from violence against women or children. Among other horrors, reports abound of ISIS regularly using rape and sexual slavery as a weapon.” Then he quotes McCants: “The Islamic State stands apart from other [extremist] organizations. They are not bound by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare.” (Jenkins added the “extremist” in brackets.)
Interestingly, Obama made some of these same points in his address last night. In any case, both he and McCants ignore the fact that there is support in Islamic law for such behavior:
“Violence against women or children”: “It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.” (Sahih Muslim 4321)
“Then the Messenger of Allah commanded that ditches should be dug, so they were dug in the earth, and they were brought tied by their shoulders, and were beheaded. There were between seven hundred and eight hundred of them. The children who had not yet reached adolescence and the women were taken prisoner, and their wealth was seized.” (Ibn Kathir, commentary on Qur’an 33:26)
“Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi: I was among the captives of Banu Qurayza. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair. (Sunan Abu Dawood 38:4390) Pubescent boys were thus killed, whether they had been combatants or not.
“Using rape and sexual slavery as a weapon”: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (Qur’an 33:50)
“Certainly will the believers have succeeded: They who are during their prayer humbly submissive, and they who turn away from ill speech, and they who are observant of zakah, and they who guard their private parts except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed” (Qur’an 23:1-6).
Does Will McCants really not know that this material exists, and that it provides the Islamic State with Islamic justification for what it is doing? The glib dismissals of the Islamic State’s Islamic bona fides fail to explain why the group has a significant following among Muslims, with hundreds of young Muslims from the West traveling from Iraq and Syria to join it. How did this band of misunderstanders of Islam come to rule a territory the size of a nation? Why are there other Muslims nowhere near the Islamic State who misunderstand Islam in the same way that it does? Will Professor McCants explain all this? Or just dismiss it as a line of questioning that is, in his words, “crazy pants”?
“The Book That Really Explains ISIS (Hint: It’s Not The Qur’an),” by Jack Jenkins, Think Progress, September 10, 2014:
…In fact, there is some evidence to suggest that ISIS’s overarching strategy is especially influenced by one book in particular — and no, it’s not the Qur’an.
In 2004, a PDF of a book entitled “The Management Of Savagery” was posted online and circulated among Sunni jihadist circles. Scholars soon noticed that the book, which was published by an unknown author writing under the pseudonym “Abu Bakr Naji,” had become popular among many extremist groups such as al-Shabaab in Somalia, and was eventually translated into English for study in 2006 by William McCants, now the director of the Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World at the Brookings Institution. The book, McCants told ThinkProgress, was written as an alternative to the decentralized, “leaderless” approach to jihadism popular in the mid-2000s. Instead of using isolated attacks on super powers all over the globe, “The Management Of Savagery” offered an expansive plan for how a group of Muslim militants could violently seize land and establish their own self-governing Islamic state — much like ISIS is trying to do today.
“[The book] provides a roadmap for how to establish a caliphate,” McCants said. “It lays out how to create small pockets of territorial control … and how to move from there to a caliphate. It would not surprise me if the book were popular among the crew in Iraq [ISIS].”
“It would not surprise me if the book were popular among the crew in Iraq” — in other words, McCants has no evidence that it is, and this entire article is based on hunches and wishful thinking — of course, that is something it has in common with American foreign policy.
McCants was quick to note that while “The Management of Savagery” is “the only text out there that really addresses the question of how [jihadists] can capture and hold territory,” the black-clad troopers in Iraq and Syria haven’t taken all of Naji’s advice to heart. ISIS has clearly ignored the author’s recommendation that fighters abide by traditional Islamic rules of engagement, such as refraining from violence against women or children. Among other horrors, reports abound of ISIS regularly using rape and sexual slavery as a weapon.
“The Islamic State stands apart from other [extremist] organizations,” McCants said. “They are not bound by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare.”…
jihad3tracker says
As I watched ISIS gain swaths of territory and intensify its slaughter of fellow humans, a question popped un in my ancient brain :
How were the Deniers Of Truth — ( we here at JW know they inhabit governments & academia by the thousands ) — going to weasel out of the reality of what is happening ?
Well, Robert Spencer is giving us the answer — this is just the latest example. Such fantasy-based scrambling to avoid confronting the fact that Islam is not like any other “religion” would be funny if it were not so pathetic an example of how easily otherwise smart people can deceive themselves into comfort.
Paul says
Not to worry. American bleeding hearts turned a blind eye to the horrors of the USSR for decades. Eventually, however, the older generation of bleeding hearts died off. Further, only a few pigheaded leftists—at least in America, anyway—now espouse claptrap about the USSR being an “authoritarian” corruption of communism.
Don McKellar says
This jackass Will McCants is the perfect puppet for the stealth jihad being waged on us all through money and influence, rather than with bombs and suicide bombers. A puppet for jihad defence, while ISIS wages jihad offence.
Qatar is one of the rottenest apples in the big barrel of rotten Islamic governments. The FIFA bribery scandal a most public example. Even the NY Times is on top of Qatar’s promotion of jihad horrors around the globe: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/world/middleeast/qatars-support-of-extremists-alienates-allies-near-and-far.html?_r=0
The Brookings Institution is a fiasco and needs more exposure as the tool for Islamic supremacists (and anybody with a buck) it really is.
mortimer says
ISIS methods not Islamic? RUBBISH!
ISIS scrupulously, self-consciously and minutely follows the sacred example of Allah’s representative Mohammed.
It is the most Salafite of the Salafite approaches to Islam. They are the purest Puritans in Islam.
Beagle says
I don’t know if IS the purest. Only one way to find out. Put IS in Saudi Arabia with the Bedouin Wahhabis, give them plenty of weapons (wait, never mind, they have plenty) and see who comes out alive. Actually, that is likely to happen anyway. Make popcorn. Oh, and fill up your gas tank the day before.
Paul says
IS is pure Islam….emulating the holy prophet/ pedophile/ murderer/ bandit/ rapist/necrophile/toy-boy/liar/con-man to the last detail. Trying to whitewash Islam is like trying to make coal look like snow.
Will Mccants is mohd’s public relations manager…period.
Noah Reese says
Well said!
lindy2 says
A pure muslim believes in the forceful violent overthro’ of all and any theology that disrespects Mohammed the tricky. It is a default understanding.
Matt Bracken says
It is amazingly arrogant and stupid for Western liberals to presume to know more about Islam than the founders of The Islamic State. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has a masters and a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad. (And he didn’t have to study Arabic as a second language to get it.) Does this “Think-Progress” fool truly believe he is more of an expert on “true Islam” that Baghdadi? Or is he just a knowing liar?
Paul says
Given those quotes (e.g. of Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir, Sunan Abu Dawood , and the Koran), shouldn’t you have written as follows?
“And whitewashing the jihad doctrine so as to keep Americans complacent about the Islam threat is…”
P.S. “Generous individuals, foundations, leading corporations, and U.S. and foreign government agencies that share our commitment to quality, independence, and impact in public policy research and analysis support Brookings with financial contributions and intellectual engagement.”
(http://www.brookings.edu/support-brookings; emphasis added.)
Walter Sieruk says
One thing is for sure. Which is the the only language the the thugs of ISIS can and will understand is the power of military might. For the violent and murderous villains of ISIS will not respond to reason. As Thomas Jefferson had explained “With every barbarous people…force is law.”
Paul says
Jefferson was an ochlocrat, i.e. he favored mob rule. See the book Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power, by Jon Meacham, for the relevant quote showing TJ’s unqualified support for majority rule.
Wellington says
Meacham belongs to the Flawed Giant school of history. He neither too much lauds nor too much denigrates history’s great men. There is merit in this but it doesn’t mean that Flawed Giant historians get everything right (ditto for those from every other school of history of course). While Jefferson embraced the common man perhaps more than any other Founding Father, he could also be hesitant at times about being too enthusiastic about regular folks. He was, after all, a Virginia aristocrat——-and he liked this.
Jefferson, while American minister to France in the early stages of the French Revolution, was often consulted by various Frenchmen at the time and he warned them about how revolutions can get out of hand should proper authority not be strong enough (good call, eh?). Jefferson also, as President, embraced and acted upon the concept of expanded Presidential powers compared to what his two predecessors thought and did here, even though while Washington and Adams were President, Jefferson was against a too strong executive.
What does all this mean? Jefferson was so complicated a human being that he could entertain polar opposite ideas and yet implement them both with great efficiency (vulgar people will simplistically call this hypocrisy). I would be careful about asserting that Jefferson was unhesitant in support of mob rule. Some events in his life do support this, but others don’t. One thing is for sure and that is that he was a most remarkable man. Shortly after John Kennedy became President, he invited all the living American Nobel Prize winners to a luncheon in the East Room. He said, when the luncheon began, “Gentlemen such eminence has not dined here in this room since Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” JFK, a keen student of American history, understood Jefferson’s complexity and greatness.
gravenimage says
What rot. Jeffersonian democracy is not about mob rule at all, but the rights of the individual.
Here, the Monticello website debunks the quote about democracy being mob rule that is often falsely attributed to Jefferson:
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule
Paul says
That isn’t the quote I referred to, although it is true that Meacham has Jefferson approving of the majority lording it over the minority.
Tradewinds says
” Will Professor McCants explain all this? Or just dismiss it as a line of questioning that is, in his words, “crazy pants?”
McCants is the crazy pants.
R Cole says
Examples – of verses for example, the use of rape as a weapon of war – by the Prophet are not hard to find – and less so if you are being paid to find it:
This stuff is not Christian – seeing that ~ [western] Muslims are almost forced to maintain a private and public persona when it comes to Islam.
What we are coming up against is the belief that everything Muhammad said and did was perfect. And conditioning from the very first ISIS style invasions – that brought their ancestors under Islamic rule – meant that criticism would almost certainly meet with severe repercussions — to think for example of something Muhammad might have said or done as being wrong / or view his actions as the wrong thing to do? – could result in you or a family member’s death/ beheading – and today – now – imprisonment.
This is far more than Muslims feelings being hurt – when the undesirable actions of Muhammad are exposed – with Muslims we are touching on the fear barrier / more the terror barrier. [This is where we get the push back – vehement denials and the trumped charges of Islamophobia , intolerance and so on.] Then we are talking about moderate Muslims [the radicals would often proudly tell you]. Whereas others may realize this information was there – but feel it to be sacred – God’s will – God must have known what he was doing when he told Muhammad to do such things — that any onlooker would find reprehensible.
:: ::
As for the development of ideas – Bin Laden developed the idea of Islamic warfare. But the foundation for these had already been in place.
Now we have Boko Haram taking territory.
It’s moving on its 7th century Muhammadan way.
dlbrand says
“The Islamic State stands apart from other [extremist] organizations,” McCants said. “They are not bound by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare.”
Excuse me, Fool, the hell they are not. They are not only “bound by the structures of traditional Islamic Warfare,” they follow it to the letter.
As is shown when we regard the Islamic tenet of making the “prohibited” permissible, as is spoken to with clarity by the revered al-Qurtubi , and like-kind others, this is the guidance the mujahid is bound by: “[if the action] will cause great harm or open a path which the Muslims can use, then it is also permitted.”
(TAFSIR AL-QURTUBI, Classical Commentary of the Holy Qur’an, Translated By AISHA BEWLEY, VOLUME I, DAR AL-TAQWA, 2003; P. 500.)
Example provided by the Tafsir author noted is that of suicide.
Knowing Islam prohibits suicide, the scholars agree, thus tafsir provides, “If one man attacks a thousand idolaters on his own, there is no harm in that if he hopes to survive or inflict great damage on the enemy.” (Ibid.)
The same source provides, though such an attack one would clearly be “exposing himself to destruction,” and the Qur’an clearly commands, “Do not cast yourselves into destruction,” (2:195), it is okay to do precisely that, as tafsir asserts, if such a hit will result in “benefits for the Muslims.”
The prohibited Islam permits, “If his intention is to encourage other Muslims to follow him.” Islam permits the impermissible if it is the intention of the perpetrator of the impermissible act to, with the act, “terrify the enemy and show the resolve of the Muslims.” (Ibid.)
Tafsir there sums up and buttresses the above, stating, “If that will help the Muslims, strengthen the din of Allah and weaken the unbelievers, then it is,” not only permissible to do the Prohibited, but doing the prohibited, then, “is the noble station which Allah praises.” (Ibid.)
Tafsir asserts there as follows:
Same source further adds, “The same applies to the ruling of commanding what is correct and forbidding what is bad when one hopes that it will help the din and a person strives to achieve that until he is killed.” (Ibid.”)
This sum up comment made on the same topic–the prohibited in Islam permitted—states it in short: “When such … is for the sake of Allah, then there is nothing wrong with it.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, Compiled by: Imam Hafiz Abu Dawud Sulaiman ibn Ash ‘ath, Ahadith edited and referenced by: Hafiz Abu Tahir Zubair ‘Ali Za’i, Translated by: Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Canada), Final Review by: Abu Khaliyl (USA); First Edition, Darussalam, 2008; Vol. 5, Book of Etiquette, P. 319, #4916.)
That there is why, under the high-flying whipping banner of Islam, we have suicide bombers. Such is why, under the same, we have suicide pilots fly airliners into our buildings, we have rape used as a weapon against the non-believers, we have arson, trust, and alliances weaponized and used against “us”, and on and on the list could go of that which Islam rules “wrong” executed by those who live guided by those texts.
Because, if for the reasons borne out above, Islam not only allows its adherents to do that which its texts prohibit ,it sanctions as well as praises such acts.
voegelinian says
dlbrand,
Does the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi exist online? I’ve been trying to find an online version for years…
Thanks for providing so many excerpts from it. Few people, even in the Counter-Jihad, realize that al-Qurtubi is probably the #1 mufassir (author of a tafsir on the Koran) in the entire Sunni world (which comprises over 85% of all Muslims worldwide). It behooves the Counter-Jihad to have this at our digital digit-tips, on would think.
One concern I have, however, is that the translator of the version dlbrand mentioned, “Aisha Hewley”, with a name like that may well have provided a suspect bowdlerized English translation in order to deceive her readers through kitman (the Islamic tactic of cleverly telling half the truth while also concealing the other half). At the very least, the Counter-Jihad would need one or more persons proficient in Arabic to vet the translation (as Mark Durie has done with regard to the deceitful translation of the Islamic manual of law known quaintly as The Reliance of the Traveler).
dlbrand says
V. Real quick here, to your response post:
1. Please note the name of the Translator is Aisha Bewley, rather than, as you wrote, “Aisha Hewley.” In the work I cited from today, her name is listed just as I posted it. In some of her other works, she list her name as Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley.
This appears to be her web site: http://bewley.virtualave.net/.
She is a well-respected Translator in Islamic ranks. For such reasons, most reputable Islamic Book stores have, commonly, a number of her works in the line up of their products available.
I was introduced to her work by my mentor in Islam and dear friend, former Muslim and contributing author of numerous essays on Islam posted at Islam Watch and Faith Freedom International, Abul Kasem.
I have four of her works– two, Tafsirs, both published by Dar Al-Taqwa Publishing (http://www.daraltaqwa.com/about-us/); then, Qadi Iyad’s invaluable Ash-Shifa, Published by Madinah Press Inverness, Scotland (http://www.angelfire.com/ab2/bookwork/Madinah.html).
And the forth, Glossary of Islamic Terms, Published by Ta-Ha Publishers (http://www.tahapublishers.com/).
Clearly, all reputable regarded Islamic publishers.
2. To the availability of an online version of Al-Qurtubi, and, as far as I know, even in hard copy, an English translation is still limited to just Vol. 1.
That stated, that volume one should be able to down load from the following site: http://nmusba.wordpress.com/2013/11/17/tasir-al-qurtubi-classical-commentary-of-the-holy-quran-volume-1-translated-by-aisha-bewley/.
Take care, my Friend. And thanks for your respond.
dl
voegelinian says
Thanks for the link dl. My point about Muslim translations into English is not necessarily dispute that they are “reputable” or “well respected” — I’m sure that the clever activity of promoting stealth jihad through elaborate forms of deception is quite a reputable and well respected activity in the Muslim world. We should expect that they are trying to do that, and we should take measures accordingly, by having non-Muslim anti-Islam scholars competent in Arabic vet their translations (and I already cited how a “reputable” and “well respected” translation of the Reliance of the Traveller has crafty deceits woven into it, as exposed by Mark Durie. Anyone who balks at this elementary and reasonable idea does not belong in the Counter-Jihad.
dlbrand says
No balking here, V.
I’m fully aware that many renditions we now have available in English have been “Cleaned up.”
That stated, there is enough there, that, corroborated by other sources, is worth our knowing, for damn sure.
gravenimage says
dlbrand, excellent post. Thank you.
Voegelinian wrote:
dlbrand,
Does the Tafsir of al-Qurtubi exist online? I’ve been trying to find an online version for years…
……………………………………
Voeg, my understanding is that an English translation—and then, just of volume one—only became available earlier this year.
You can download it here:
http://www.darultahqiq.com/tafsir-al-qurtubi-one-volume-in-english/
Of course, I have no way of knowing how accurate a translation it is—all I can say is that this *does not* appear to be aimed at Infidels, so I would imagine that Taqiyya is not the main purpose of this translation, which would lead me to believe it is likely fairly accurate in that regard.
You can also download the full work in Arabic at the same site.
Hope this is useful.
dlbrand says
Thanks, grave.
dl
Michael Copeland says
“Using deception to mask intended goals”
Is a stated aim in the Muslim Brotherhood plan.
It’s quite unaffected by Western opinion polls,
And is something we need to get wise to as soon as we can.
Paul says
That was pretty good. Maybe you could try your hand at a limerick, too. Better still if you could restate in verse the following questions for Brookings. They are related to its alleged “independence” from Islamic statism:
Has the Brookings Institution received money or other wealth collected pursuant to zakat*?
Is Brookings planning to receive money or other wealth collected pursuant to zakat?
If yes to either, what are the identities of the payors?
For how many years has Brookings been receiving zakat payouts?
How much zakat has Brookings received?
What proportion of Brookings’ 2014 budget was collected through zakat?
Is Brookings helping Muslims, foreign or not, to subject nonislamic Americans to jizyah?
* The CIOGC (Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago) reports EIGHT categories of licit recipients of zakat, which enjoins Muslims to submit to Islamic statism. Nonmuslims are among those who may receive zakat, and they need not be poor. One such category is “Mu’allafat al-Qulub (Those whose hearts are to be inclined towards Islam)”.
Jaladhi says
Qatar has bought these infidel traitors and they are doing what Muslims want them to do. We have not seen such a flood of traitors among us ever since eternity. You know what is the punishment for a traitor under US Constitution!!!
Wellington says
ISIS’s actions mirror Mohammed’s actions. ISIS knows this. Too many don’t. And so the Great Pretend Game (GPG), i.e., that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and was founded by an enlightened man, continues.
What a waste.
Bettina says
Did anyone notice Hannity’s post-speech comment of yesterday, where he got so very, very close?
When he mentioned that islam was… (something pejorative), he was immediately shut down by his roundtable partner — a black commentator whose name escapes me now — who said (I’m paraphrasing)
No, no! You can’t be against all of islam, all 1.6 billion of people are not guilty of this behavior.
Hannity said, “okay” and quietly backed down! Oh, how close!
That awful shut-down in the name of only a “Tiny Minority of Extremists” (ah, the legend of TME) cut me quickly, reminding me that thanks to JihadWatch, I finally opened my eyes to the horrors of islam itself — its evil texts, and their monstrous consequences.
tpellow says
“Is Islamic State Islamic?
Five Experts Speak.”
Introduced by Geert WILDERS.
(15 min video.)
Bettina says
Did anyone watch Hannity after Obozo’s speech of yesterday? Do you have a reaction similar to mine?
Mongoose says
I disagree.
If you read their instruction manual (Koran) they are acting
by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare.
Bettina says
I don’t get you, Mongoose — who is “they”? The terrorists? All Muslims?
Maybe my post of today on Fox will clarify the issue. See below.
Bettina says
Yesterday, after Hussein Ibn Obama’s speech on ISIS, Hannity got so close, when he finally began to refer directly to Islam itself! He barely touched the edges of the evil cult when he was effectively shut down by Juan Williams, who stated that all of Islam, i.e. 1.6 billion people, could not be held accountable for the monstrosities of only a few. That’s not the point!
Referring to ALL Muslims in this context is a diversion that works only with those who buy into the fallacy of comparing an ideology with the number of people born to that culture. Not only is it illogical, but the diversion of only a “Tiny Minority of Extremists” perpetuates our ignorance of the barbaric values of Islam – and the atrocities perpetrated in its name.
How many times must Fox hear the words of Islamic terrorists, who blatantly affirm they work for Allah, before you see the glaring connection to the Quran, the Hadith, and other deadly Islamic texts??
When will Fox finally have the courage to step up to the plate and SEE the bold monstrosities screaming off those pages??
The bisexual / transvestite / pedophile Mohamed, as the uncontestable model of Islamic virtue, erected himself as the supreme example for those of his followers with sociopathic ambitions to walk in his exalted footsteps.
Please, Fox, please-please-please READ those texts for yourselves, and UNDERSTAND the evil injunctions within!
You must also KNOW that the softer, Kumbaya Koranic verses dating back to the bad times in Mecca were abrogated i.e. supplanted by the blood-filled verses in Medina, when this psycho knew that militarily he had the upper hand. It is all written out for you – Maktub!
voegelinian says
While it’s true that the anxiously impulsive spasm to leap to “but all Muslims aren’t bad” whenever anyone dares to call Islam itself into question is a red herring fallacy, it’s not enough for us to react by reminding them that we are not talking about “all Muslims” but rather only Islam itself. The reason it’s not enough is that there is in fact a problem of Muslims following their Islam. And this problem is not a nice and tidy problem of a Tiny Minority of Extremists who will forever remain a small number. The problem of Muslims following their Islam has two features which have to be faced by the mainstream: The problem is —
1) systemic
and
2) metastasizing.
By systemic, it means that the problem is not just a “tiny minority” but is much broader. To say it is a broader problem triggers anxiety among PC MCs and asymptotics, causing them to worry that opening up the barrier of the Tiny Minority to consider a broader demographic problem among Muslims around the world is to lead us inexorably to the logical conclusion of “all Muslims” — and from there, of course, to rounding them up, putting them in camps, and genociding them (a natural inevitability, of course, seeing that we Westerners are naturally prone to such a bigoted “backlash”). And when I use the locution “the problem of Muslims following their Islam”, the reasonably informed rhetorical questions this should immediately generate in us are the following: “How many Muslims are not following their Islam? And how would we really know that any given Muslims is genuinely not following their Islam rather than trying to deceive us by pretending to be not following their Islam?”
By metastasizing, I mean that the problem (of Muslims following their Islam) is not static; its getting worse. Indeed, it has been getting worse over the course of the entire 20th century; though, of course, most Westerners have been comfortably oblivious to it until it bit them in the ass on 9/11 — and even after that (and hundreds of other atrocities in the years since then) most Westerners remain clueless.
So no, we should not evade the PC MC accusation about us supposedly saying (or implying) that “all Muslims are bad” by refusing to talk about the problem of Muslims. That would be to play the PC MC game by PC MC rules.
Ily says
McCants has discredited himself as researcher, along with Brookings Institute, it sold its soul to Islam. Stinks conflict of interest. They serve their Qatari masters.
dumbledoresarmy says
Geert Wilders’ blazing speech in the Dutch parliament on 4 September this year should be going viral.
A jihadwatcher,Myxlplik, linked it, and I looked it up.
You’ll find the text here:
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4674/geert-wilders-speech
Geert Wilders: “War Has Been Declared against Us” A Speech in the Netherlands Parliament
Core of the speech: it seems he had brought a Quran into the building with him):
“…Madam Speaker, is it a coincidence that for centuries Muslims were involved in all these atrocities? No, it is not a coincidence. They simply act according to their ideology. According to Islam, Allah dictated the truth to Muhammad, “the perfect man.” Hence, whoever denies the Koran, denies Allah. And Allah leaves no ambiguity about what he wants. Here are a few quotes from the Quran:
“Surah 8 verse 60: “Prepare to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.”
“Surah 47 verse 4: “Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks”. We see it every day in the news.
“Another quote from Allah is Surah 4 verse 89: “So take not friends from the ranks of the unbelievers, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them.”
“Madam Speaker, the Koran on the table before you is a handbook for terrorists. Blood drips from its pages. It calls for perpetual war against non-believers.
“That Koran before you is the hunting permit for millions of Muslims. A license to kill.
“That book is the Constitution of the Islamic State. What ISIS does is what Allah commands.
“This bloodthirsty ideology was able to nestle in the Netherlands because our elites looked away.
“Neighborhoods such as Schilderswijk, Transvaal, Crooswijk, Slotervaart, Kanaleneiland, Huizen, you name it. There, the caliphate is under construction; there, the Islamic State is in preparation…”. END QUOTE
To repeat.
Geert Wilders, in the Parliament of the Netherlands, describing the Quran (after having quoted selected – and totally typical and representative – Jihad verses):
Madam Speaker, the Koran on the table before you is a handbook for terrorists. Blood drips from its pages. It calls for perpetual war against non-believers.
“That Koran before you is the hunting permit for millions of Muslims. A license to kill.
“That book is the Constitution of the Islamic State. What ISIS does is what Allah commands.”
Oh, would that at least one politician in every non-Muslim country in the *world* – not excluding India, Russia, China, and every majority-Christian country in sub-saharan Africa, and the tiny Christian countries of the Pacific and the Caribbean, and the majority-Catholic countries of Latin America – would do as Geert Wilders has just done, and say (in their own official languages) those very words that Wilders just said.
“…the Koran on the table before you is a handbook for terrorists. Blood drips from its pages. It calls for perpetual war against non-believers.
“That Koran before you is the hunting permit for millions of Muslims. A license to kill.
“That book is the Constitution of the Islamic State. What ISIS does is what Allah commands.”
Bettina says
DDA, you and Myx have you’ve outdone yourselves — he, for the original link, which I didn’t see, and you for the terrific emphasis!
Thanks so much! Now let me follow that link… 🙂
dlbrand says
Indeed, indeed.
And we are blue-ribbon fools to allow a nation within our nation, that has its own cadres of Armed Force, its own Laws and Constitution.
Laws, which include, no less than, the duty of ever member of that Community/State/Nation to spend themselves, to the best of their ability, doing all they can do to see their law, their Constitution become the ruling law and Constitution of our land.
gravenimage says
US “terror expert”: Islamic State “not bound by the structures of traditional Islamic warfare”
…………………………………..
What an ass McCants is—but, sickeningly, he has plenty of company.
Anyone who has read the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the Sira, and who knows anything about the history of Muslim conquest down through the bloody centuries knows that what ISIS is doing in the Islamic State is *absolutely normative Islam*.
Just look at the savage Muslim conquests in India and of Constantinople—and many other places—and you can see just the same barbaric techniques of sex slavery, forced conversion, and mass murder.
SpiritOf1683 says
Exactly. That is why the defenders of Vienna were determined not to let their city fall at all costs. Same with De la Valette in Malta. He fought almost to the last man against the invading Turks, because if he fell short of victory, he would get beheaded along with his remaining men. He was left with only 290 men still alive and many of them were wounded when he secured victory in 1565 – on September 11th of all dates.
Yes three memorable September 11ths – in 1565, 1683 and 1697 – Malta, Vienna and Zenta.
Jaladhi says
This stupid expert” has to show what ISIS is doing is in any way different that what Mo did in his time and what subsequent Muslim invaders did to Hindus, Christians, Jews, etc., in India, and Europe and other countries invaded by them.
If he can’t find any difference then ISIS is totally Islamic and is using all Islamically sanctioned tactics to subjugate n-n-Muslims and Muslims of other sects!!