He is saying that we have to pretend, and that the Obama Administration pretends, that they’re not Islamic at all — in other words, that the Administration is determined to ignore what they state as their guiding ideology, motives and goals. This is a recipe for disaster, as one cannot defeat an enemy one refuses to understand.
Also, the idea that Muslims are looking to non-Muslim authorities for “religious legitimacy” is absurd. The Qur’an calls non-Muslims the “most vile of created beings” (98:6). Non-Muslims can’t legitimize anything for believing Muslims.
“CIA Director says Islamic State represents ”ideology of violence, ” not Islam,” ANI, March 23, 2015 (thanks to Lookmann):
Washington: CIA Director John O. Brennan has cautioned against categorizing the Islamic State (IS) fighters as followers of Muslim faith by saying that they represent an “ideology of violence” and not religion.
In an interview, Brennan stuck to the Obama administration`s official line and stressed on the need to not use phrases like “radical Islam” for the IS terrorists, The Washington Times reported.
Brennan warned that it would be a mistake to link the IS with Islam, when majority of Muslims around the globe have denounced, condemned their actions and therefore, he added, “we should not give them any religious legitimacy.”The CIA Chief added that he was prepared to call them “extremists” and “violent terrorists” who misrepresent Islamic faith.
Bob Smith says
It is the job of all good Muslims to help the spread of Islam.
Brennan like Obama use deception to deflect criticism of Islam.
They are both good Muslims.
john spielman says
if you gave both Obama and Brennan an enema they would both be able to fit in a shoe box!
mortimer says
HOT, STEAMING PILES OF MALODOROUS, RIPE RECYCLED SODDY TAQIYYA shoveled by the CIA’s chief taqiyya meister.
Brennan is misinformed about what Americans think. Americans have already decided that Islam is inherently violent. They won’t be talked out of it.
Brennan is insulting too many people know. His cluelessness is a sign of a lack of many qualities a CIA chief should have: awareness, interest in Americans, curiosity, honesty, integrity, a brain.
Thou shalt not tell Americans egregious falsehoods that 70% now recognize as false, e.g. ‘religion of peace’.
Brennan must go.
EYESOPEN says
Not while the Usurper-in-Chief is still in the WH.
Huck Folder says
“…when majority of Muslims around the globe have denounced, condemned their actions…”
Citations?
Michael Copeland says
An ideology of violence? Why yes, that will be Islam, ordinary basic Islam.
“Violence is the heart of Islam”, says Ayatollah Yazdi, adviser to Ahmedinejad.
Boston Tea Party says
In “The Art of War”, Sun Tzu said: “It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.”
I suspect Sun Tzu’s analysis of the West in relation to Islam would be:
“You’re screwed.”
Demsci says
You’re right and Sun Tzu was wise.
John Brennan is so wrong in this!
But only a part of our masses know what they are really FOR. Why save the ignorant, arrogant rest,including these “Brennan’s” and his leaders, who the masses voted in, at all costs? Western civilization was good while it lasted, but it’s own inhabitants “are now dropping the ball”, no matter how often we warn them.
And: it might be said that Quran-Sunnah are indeed Ambiguous, Vague, Incomplete, Contradictory, Obsolete. Not divine, primitive. But if that is true, that very faultyness gives us the opportunity to ask, demand from Muslims to formulate alternative interpretations to the ever more knowable ISIS-interpretation.
And one day a CIA-chief might say; The ISIS-terrorists use the “totalitarian interpretation of Islam”, but the Muslims in America use the “democratic interpretation of Islam”. That too would be a huge lie, but maybe a better lie than this monstrous lie he is uttering now, which implicitly calls Muslims innocent of:
being totalitarians and traitors to our democratic system, which many of them are and can potentially become.
pdxnag says
Can we do this locally for every Muslim seeking infinite accommodation? Like when a teacher seeks to go on haj to the not-Islamic-either Saudi Arabia? Or when a Muslim demands to wear a head scarf announcing her must-not-be-Islamic Islamic Supremacy? Or when a Muslim demands special break time to curse Jews and Christians, so as not to be targeted by other Muslims for not doing so?
Just as Iran has no gays we must have no Muslims. There is no such thing as Islam.
Don McKellar says
AHAHAHA!
This policy must originate from Obama’s childhood where he was no doubt bullied by the other moslems in 4th grade in Indonesia who, without question, MUST have been on his case for going to a Christian school before. A teacher no doubt told him to tell the bully that it’s “not Islamic” to act that way and they won’t give him any more trouble because it will take away his “legitimacy”. Meanwhile, behind the closed door, the teacher beat the hell out of the bully (the moslem way of educating during koran learning) — and what do you know, the bully stopped harassing Obama! It worked!
I would bet a bundle on that story I just made up as being absolutely true!
Shmooviyet says
Precisely why he is this particular POTUS’ latest CIA head.
It stinks of the same brand of bending-over-backwards/explaining/excuse-giving, i.e. the ‘Gitmo as recruiting tool’ horsecrap.
You continue repeating it, we’ll continue knowing the truth.
Jaladhi says
This guy is a total idiot!! What giving them a religious legitimacy – a bunch of crap!1 News for you Mr. CIA head – they are following religious edicts to kill non-Muslims and you playing word games instead of telling the truth!
This is what Islam wants and this is what jihadis are doing – kapisch!!
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
“Non-Muslims can’t legitimize anything for believing Muslims.”
Okay, but can a Muslim who is a high government official legitimize anything for believing Muslims? The movie “Zero Dark Thirty”, which was about the hunt for Osama bin Laden, portrays Brennan — or a man who looks very much like him — as a high U.S. government official who is a practicing Muslim and takes time out from his government job to spread his prayer rug on his government-office floor and pray facing Mecca (the rug is not perpendicular to the office’s walls). Has Brennan ever been asked, “Are you a Muslim?”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan
is silent on what religion he professes. If he is a Muslim, does his prominence as a high government official mean that he can issue fatwas and pronounce takfir on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi? Why hasn’t he done so?
gravenimage says
Probably not an actual Muslim convert, Mark—but there is no doubt that Brennan is an Islamophilic piece of sh*t.
Here’s the evidence pro and con, such as it is:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/brennan.asp
pongidae rex says
Obama and his underlings are correct about one thing. The Islamists are not the problem. The REAL problem is our own government who is importing Muslims into our societies by the hundreds of thousands, all expenses paid, on our dime, then telling us it is for our own good and if we do not like it we are criminals.
That is the problem.
EYESOPEN says
Bulls-eye!
Bezelel says
That is also what is giving them legitimacy, giving islam any legitimacy is giving the same to IS.
RonaldB says
Right or wrong, it’s totally inappropriate for the head of the CIA to make public statements concerning religious doctrine (or almost anything else). The job of the CIA is to provide intelligence, and in some cases, some covert influence or force. This makes it imperative that the CIA be kept under tight control, and that it carries out policy, or advises on the consequences of proposed actions.
The CIA is supposed to be a secret organization, under the supervision of Congress. We have gotten into deep trouble when the CIA engages in policy-making. An example is when the CIA engineered a coup in Iran in 1953, to depose the elected government there. Did a Muslim country like Iran, composed of intelligent people with a non-Muslim culture they still remember, have a chance of maintaining itself as a secular society? We’ll never know.
mortimer says
The head of the CIA is ordering Americans to disregard their own eyes.
Wellington says
With respect, RonaldB, President Eisenhower had no choice but to engage in the covert Operation Ajax to overthrow a loon, Mohammed Mossadegh, who had become Prime Minister. Mossadegh had natiionalized the Anglo-Persian Oil Company with zero compensation (just like Castro did with many American companies) and he was buddy-buddy with the Tudeh Party, the Communist Party of Iran, and had received millions of dollars of aid from the Soviet Union. In a staged election in August of 1953, Mossadegh got over 99% of the vote. He was a control-freak, way too friendly with the USSR and a threat to the entire order of things in that region of the world. The argument that he was some kind of seuclar, democratic and good-guy leader that the nasty US overthrew is the kind of take of history which can help to make one conclude that history is a pack of lies agreed upon. Eisenhower had to act and he, as usual, did so with speed and decision (btw, the person conducting Operation Ajax, which overthrew Moosadegh, was Kermit Roosevelt, TR’s grandson). To allow Iran to have become an ally of the USSR in the 1950s with access to warm water ports aplenty in the Indian Ocean was simply not an option. Thank God Eisenhower was President then and not a doofus like Carter or a complete fool like Obama.
I fully agree with you though that Brennan should not be making public statements about religious doctrine, made all the more objectionable because he is dead wrong in his assessments. Hope you and yours are well.
gravenimage says
Wellington, a lot of otherwise quite intelligent people appear to believe that if the US had never ousted Mossadegh that not only would Iran have somehow become some sort of secular democracy, but that we never would have seen the resurgence of Islam anywhere.
I think this is just another version of blaming the West, like blaming the rise of Islam on US support for Israel, or US backing for the Shah or Mubarak, or any number of depressingly similar assertions.
Wellington says
I agree, gravenimage. It would be wonderful if every nation the US had to support was a true democracy but we live in a real world and sometimes you have to have allies who are less than savory. Stalin as our ally in WWII is a front and center example of this. And yet at other times deeds must be done so that something worse does not occur (like the example above with Iran in the early Fifties). Also, it’s damn tough being the great power. No offense to people like Canadians and Swedes, but it’s easy to be Canada, it’s easy to be Sweden (at least before they let the Muslims in). Naive people and the America haters miss all this.
gravenimage says
True, Wellington. After WWII, too much of the world world virtually ceased acting to defend themselves, and often without ever formally acknowledging it essentially “outsourced” this function to the US.
That’s why complaints about the size of the American military are off base.
All that being said, of course, having tools like Obama and Brennan in high places considerably undercuts our ability to defend either ourselves or others.
mortimer says
The CHARADE or TRAVESTY or PRETENSE of Peaceful Islam. Koran 48:29 is a verse that clearly and unmistakably, perhaps even deliberately, contradicts the Golden Rule.
“Muhammad is the messenger of Allah
Those with him are VIOLENT (ashiddaa’) against the unbelievers (kufaar),
Compassionate amongst themselves.” -Koran 48.29 (Richard Bell’s translation)
Is Islam unfairly mischaracterized as a warrior cult? Is jihadism (called ‘extremism’ by Western politicians) a misinterpretation of Islam? Both questions must be answered by ‘no’. Islam is a warrior cult. Jihadism is normative Islam. There is unimpeachable support from Islamic texts that that is so.
“The caliph (o-25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians” Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.
“The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim”, Book O: Justice, Chapter O-9.0: Jihad, Reliance of the Traveller.
Islam’s goal is the political supremacism of Muslims over disbelievers by whatever means possible including violence, extortion, enslavement, genocide, rape or deception.
Any denial of that goal is a laughable and insulting CHARADE.
EYESOPEN says
Mortimer: izlam is simply the extension of the Bedouin warrior cult that existed in the Saudi peninsula long before Mad Mo came on the scene. These Bedouin tribes fought fiercely among themselves for resources, women and slaves. What Mad Mo accomplished (with Satan’s help) – using izlam – was to unite these Bedouin tribes as one (the “ummah”) against all other nations and cultures. Diabolical, but brilliant. (Ref. “Cruel and Usual Punishment”, by Nonie Darwish)
Papa Whiskey says
Under John Brennan, “DCI” stands for “Dispenser of Craven Idiocy.”
mortimer says
‘JIHADIFICATION’…not ‘radicalization’.
Jeff says
Islam has no religious legitimacy. It’s a complete fraud of a theology. It should be classified as a cult.
Streak says
Wont use it because it identifies Obama to closely.
lairdKintyre says
I dont get John Brennan. Why would a guy like him, give himself to Islam. He is in a word, what the hippies in the 60’s would call the Establishment. He looks like his idea of a wild time would be playing Sinatra a little loud on his stereo driving to work. He is established, best of jobs, money, savings, nice house, you name it. Why would he give himself over to the domain of these rootless, foolish young people?
Maranatha says
People in some strata in North America, maybe were not too sure about ISIS ideology….
But after listening this daily and constant apologetic coming from the Washington minaret,…now they
know better.
..
Edward says
Yes Mr. Director,
“Washington: CIA Director John O. Brennan has cautioned against categorizing the Islamic State (IS) fighters as followers of Muslim faith by saying that they represent an “ideology of violence” and not religion”……
But, the “ideology of violence” you speak about is predicated by the same Koran that all of the Muslim world reads. Unless, there exists 2 versions of the book, the original (universal) one or the unabridged one. Which version does the ISIS adheres by?
duh_swami says
How is it that every one of the ultra elite beautiful people in charge of western governments, all misunderstand Islam in exactly the same way? Did they come to these conclusions by independent study? Or do they get them from morning talking points from above? Brennan’s message is the same as Rasool O’s message and that of Kerry, Cameron. and many more. All tooting the same tired horn about Islam being the religion of peace, tolerance, love. and has nothing to do with violence. if your intelligence is not insulted. you are not paying attention…
Jaladhi says
Either they are all utterly stupid to fall for Muslims talking points from Saudi Arabia or they are all liars. And a third possibility is even worse – traitors!!
vlparker says
No, Mr. Muslim CIA Director, it is the Koran and the Sunna that give them religious legitimacy.
gravenimage says
Brennan: Using term “radical Islam” gives jihadis “religious legitimacy”
…………………………
Like pious Mohammedans care whether the “filthy Infidel” gives them “religious legitimacy” or not. The only thing they care about this at all is that it is convenient when, as here, Infidel security agencies perform their own Taqiyya for them.
What fools these dhimmis be!
Stanley says
This is priceless, the CIA has a muslim director now. Ive got to laugh, its better than crying.
Khagaraj says
Mr.Brennan is almost saying that calling the CIA an intelligence agency will give the agency undeserved pretension.