In David Wood’s brief (4:56), funny, well-cited, brilliantly lucid video (The Jihad Triangle), he gives us the CRUCIAL MOMENT when recruiters put potential jihadis in the devotional clincher:
“Do you think you get to pick and choose which of Allah’s commands to obey, as if our religion is some sort of lunch buffet? Allah demands complete submission and, if you don’t obey, you’re not a real Muslim — you’re going to Hell.”
Jay Boosays
Great video
Shameless supremacist vanity is a powerful recruitment tool.
A simple re-programming of an individual Muslim cannot change Islam.
Some in the West mistakenly use the Islamo-friendly euphemism of calling these Muslims ‘IDEALISTS’ as if to suggest their intentions are somehow really good and they do not “understand” Islam.
Wellingtonsays
Plain as day. Ambiguity and the excuse of reading things in “context” absent. Thank you again, Robert Spencer.
KrazyKafirsays
I think moderate Muslims are even more dangerous in the long run, for they are ultimately carriers of an evil virulent ideology, even if they themselves don’t strictly follow it.
occupant 9says
That has long been my point; the soft carriers of Islam are not benign. The so-called “moderates,” in still honouring their “holy” texts however loosely, and in remaining as self-identifying Muslims, validate Islam for the following generations … who, being the offspring of those that immigrated as Muslims to further the footprint of Islam (and now Allah is obligated to provide them a seat in his SkyBrothel), have only jihad to ensure themselves a SkyBrothel ticket.
Obviously, we can’t fight what we can’t/won’t name. Worse, we can’t fight the Islamic State by imp;orting whole battalions of their fighters into our nations as “refugees.”
Towards the “refugees” I take my guidance from the House of Saud, As we in the west have been informed many times, the House of Saud has a superior position on all things. The superior position they promote for themselves is that they won’t take a single “refugee” despite sharing a language, culture, religion and geographical neighbourhood.
On this and only this do I agree with the House of Saud; the superior position is to not let any Muslim “refugee” into one’s land.
Robert Spencer says “Why do ISIS carry out beheadings and post them on Facebook? Because from their standpoint beheadings are a recruitment tool, one that’s rooted in the Koran. The Muslim holy book says very straightforwardly ‘When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks’. The Islamic State knows that young Muslims will not recoil in horror…but rather they will realise that ISIS is acting in fidelity with the Koran.”
That is a clear explanation of ISIS’ understanding of verse 47:4, that the unbelievers mentioned are not just the unbelievers Mohammed was fighting at the time but all unbelievers for all time. It seems to me that Robert Spencer shares that understanding of the text. At least he is not equivocating about context and traditional interpretations.
I shared that view too until recently and I think that many posters here do as well. This is why I changed my mind and why I think the distinction matters:
If anyone can refute my claim with reference to the text, not what Ibn Kathir or anyone else thinks, I would be much obliged as I was much more comfortable with my former understanding.
mortimersays
ECAW, I disagree that Islam is NOT supremacist. Islam is supremacist to the core.
The Koran, hadiths, canonical commentaries and different schools of Sharia, as well as ISLAMIC HISTORY after Abd al Malik all agree on this point.
If ‘Historical Mohammed’ was a supremacist, the fact is lost to history, because the early caliphs destroyed all the records there were about Mohammed and wrote new ones more to their liking.
Historical Mohammed cannot be reconstructed.
No Islamic doctrine is built on one verse of the Koran, however K.61.9 is clear about the supremacism by using the word ‘liyuẓ’hirahu’ (to make it prevail). Not only ‘prevail’ but ‘prevail OVER’ (‘ala).
Another Koranic verse is clearly supremacist: -“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of SUPERIORITY and they are in a state of subjection.” (K. 9:29-Shakir translation)
“Allahu akbar” (allah is superior) is clearly supremacist. There are hundreds of examples.
Mortimer – how can it be that you could so completely misread what I wrote? I do not claim that Islam is not supremacist. I do not say that Mohammed was not supremacist. In fact I said in the post that they were. I only said that there is no evidence for Mohammed’s (global, eternal) supremacism in the Koran. It is still a vicious book and Mohammed is still a vicious megalomaniac, just on a less grandiose scale.
Which religions are to be prevailed over in 61:9? There is nothing in the sura to indicate any beyond all the religions in the locality. Isn’t that what happened when Mohammed destroyed the 360 other gods in the Kaaba?
9:29 is similar and I deal with it in the blog post. In fact is is a clearer example of Mohammed’s local concerns. 9:28 talks of a specific set of local idolaters. If you think 9:29 is referring to other than local Jews and Christians please explain the difference.
mortimersays
Muslims are not TURNED OFF by atrocities or crimes against humanity. No. They RELISH them…GLORY in them…CROON for them.
Brutality, sadism, torture, even genocide, are normative Islam, rather than aberrations.
eduardo odraudesays
Robert Spencer is a hero, but… reading from a prepared text for these videos is not a good idea, given the fact that Robert is about a thousand times more effective speaking extemporaneously, or using just a few mnemonic notes rather than a text. If the first extemporaneous take is not good enough, just do a second take. Or if you must read from a text, at least raise the teleprompter so that your eyes seem to maintain contact with the audience.
Sancho Panzasays
Why does ISIS carry out beheading and post them on Facebook?
There is a tantalizing piece of information flitting in the corners of my mind that I just can’t pin down. It has to do with the killing of Abu Afaq or Asma bin Marwan by Mohammed’s goons. Ibn Ishaq says in the Sira that after this ‘many people converted to Islam because they realized the power of Islam’
ISIS and other terrorist groups are following Mohammed’s playbook – the more horrific the act of terrorism the more the conversions to Islam. To be effective, information about these acts of terror have to be widely disseminated. Hence, Facebook and other avenues of propaganda. In this regard, one recalls how Islamic websites claimed that many more people were converting to Islam after 9/11.
common sensesays
Robert’s right Islam ( especially Al- Queda, Taliban, ISIS) has had my attention since 911 and the subsequent beheading of Daniel Pearl.
ISIS just executed a 15 y/o boy for listening to music and have banned colored crayons, pencils and ink pens from schools with in it’s filthy reach.
I agree that *moderate* Muslims are *carriers* of a much more potentially deadly ideology. It is not a mental disorder it plain and simple conquest. The worst of them don’t really care what we think about their psychology. They are trying make us think they are insane and desperate enough to do anything as long as it creates an edge for them in warfare.
Deansays
Unfortunately Trump is backtracking on his call for a “temporary” ban. He proved that he did not understand the issues when he took the wrong side on the Garland attack. After Berdoo he sensed the public attitude and tapped into its mood with the call for the temporary ban and then effectively branded the problem with his candidacy with his comments that there is “something” going on with Islam that makes them hate us, but he hasn’t expressed any understanding of what that something is. He does have some reasonable advisors around him and is certainly far better than Hillary, but that isn’t saying much. The moderate Muslim at least sympathizes with the reason for jihad and thus is a potential jihadist when the time is right or convenient. The non-sympathizers are apostates and are outed and banned from their ranks.
jihad3tracker says
In David Wood’s brief (4:56), funny, well-cited, brilliantly lucid video (The Jihad Triangle), he gives us the CRUCIAL MOMENT when recruiters put potential jihadis in the devotional clincher:
“Do you think you get to pick and choose which of Allah’s commands to obey, as if our religion is some sort of lunch buffet? Allah demands complete submission and, if you don’t obey, you’re not a real Muslim — you’re going to Hell.”
Jay Boo says
Great video
Shameless supremacist vanity is a powerful recruitment tool.
A simple re-programming of an individual Muslim cannot change Islam.
Some in the West mistakenly use the Islamo-friendly euphemism of calling these Muslims ‘IDEALISTS’ as if to suggest their intentions are somehow really good and they do not “understand” Islam.
Wellington says
Plain as day. Ambiguity and the excuse of reading things in “context” absent. Thank you again, Robert Spencer.
KrazyKafir says
I think moderate Muslims are even more dangerous in the long run, for they are ultimately carriers of an evil virulent ideology, even if they themselves don’t strictly follow it.
occupant 9 says
That has long been my point; the soft carriers of Islam are not benign. The so-called “moderates,” in still honouring their “holy” texts however loosely, and in remaining as self-identifying Muslims, validate Islam for the following generations … who, being the offspring of those that immigrated as Muslims to further the footprint of Islam (and now Allah is obligated to provide them a seat in his SkyBrothel), have only jihad to ensure themselves a SkyBrothel ticket.
Obviously, we can’t fight what we can’t/won’t name. Worse, we can’t fight the Islamic State by imp;orting whole battalions of their fighters into our nations as “refugees.”
Towards the “refugees” I take my guidance from the House of Saud, As we in the west have been informed many times, the House of Saud has a superior position on all things. The superior position they promote for themselves is that they won’t take a single “refugee” despite sharing a language, culture, religion and geographical neighbourhood.
On this and only this do I agree with the House of Saud; the superior position is to not let any Muslim “refugee” into one’s land.
ECAW says
Robert Spencer says “Why do ISIS carry out beheadings and post them on Facebook? Because from their standpoint beheadings are a recruitment tool, one that’s rooted in the Koran. The Muslim holy book says very straightforwardly ‘When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks’. The Islamic State knows that young Muslims will not recoil in horror…but rather they will realise that ISIS is acting in fidelity with the Koran.”
That is a clear explanation of ISIS’ understanding of verse 47:4, that the unbelievers mentioned are not just the unbelievers Mohammed was fighting at the time but all unbelievers for all time. It seems to me that Robert Spencer shares that understanding of the text. At least he is not equivocating about context and traditional interpretations.
I shared that view too until recently and I think that many posters here do as well. This is why I changed my mind and why I think the distinction matters:
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2016/05/18/the-koran-is-innocent/
If anyone can refute my claim with reference to the text, not what Ibn Kathir or anyone else thinks, I would be much obliged as I was much more comfortable with my former understanding.
mortimer says
ECAW, I disagree that Islam is NOT supremacist. Islam is supremacist to the core.
The Koran, hadiths, canonical commentaries and different schools of Sharia, as well as ISLAMIC HISTORY after Abd al Malik all agree on this point.
If ‘Historical Mohammed’ was a supremacist, the fact is lost to history, because the early caliphs destroyed all the records there were about Mohammed and wrote new ones more to their liking.
Historical Mohammed cannot be reconstructed.
No Islamic doctrine is built on one verse of the Koran, however K.61.9 is clear about the supremacism by using the word ‘liyuẓ’hirahu’ (to make it prevail). Not only ‘prevail’ but ‘prevail OVER’ (‘ala).
Another Koranic verse is clearly supremacist: -“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of SUPERIORITY and they are in a state of subjection.” (K. 9:29-Shakir translation)
“Allahu akbar” (allah is superior) is clearly supremacist. There are hundreds of examples.
ECAW says
Mortimer – how can it be that you could so completely misread what I wrote? I do not claim that Islam is not supremacist. I do not say that Mohammed was not supremacist. In fact I said in the post that they were. I only said that there is no evidence for Mohammed’s (global, eternal) supremacism in the Koran. It is still a vicious book and Mohammed is still a vicious megalomaniac, just on a less grandiose scale.
Which religions are to be prevailed over in 61:9? There is nothing in the sura to indicate any beyond all the religions in the locality. Isn’t that what happened when Mohammed destroyed the 360 other gods in the Kaaba?
9:29 is similar and I deal with it in the blog post. In fact is is a clearer example of Mohammed’s local concerns. 9:28 talks of a specific set of local idolaters. If you think 9:29 is referring to other than local Jews and Christians please explain the difference.
mortimer says
Muslims are not TURNED OFF by atrocities or crimes against humanity. No. They RELISH them…GLORY in them…CROON for them.
Brutality, sadism, torture, even genocide, are normative Islam, rather than aberrations.
eduardo odraude says
Robert Spencer is a hero, but… reading from a prepared text for these videos is not a good idea, given the fact that Robert is about a thousand times more effective speaking extemporaneously, or using just a few mnemonic notes rather than a text. If the first extemporaneous take is not good enough, just do a second take. Or if you must read from a text, at least raise the teleprompter so that your eyes seem to maintain contact with the audience.
Sancho Panza says
Why does ISIS carry out beheading and post them on Facebook?
There is a tantalizing piece of information flitting in the corners of my mind that I just can’t pin down. It has to do with the killing of Abu Afaq or Asma bin Marwan by Mohammed’s goons. Ibn Ishaq says in the Sira that after this ‘many people converted to Islam because they realized the power of Islam’
ISIS and other terrorist groups are following Mohammed’s playbook – the more horrific the act of terrorism the more the conversions to Islam. To be effective, information about these acts of terror have to be widely disseminated. Hence, Facebook and other avenues of propaganda. In this regard, one recalls how Islamic websites claimed that many more people were converting to Islam after 9/11.
common sense says
Robert’s right Islam ( especially Al- Queda, Taliban, ISIS) has had my attention since 911 and the subsequent beheading of Daniel Pearl.
ISIS just executed a 15 y/o boy for listening to music and have banned colored crayons, pencils and ink pens from schools with in it’s filthy reach.
I agree that *moderate* Muslims are *carriers* of a much more potentially deadly ideology. It is not a mental disorder it plain and simple conquest. The worst of them don’t really care what we think about their psychology. They are trying make us think they are insane and desperate enough to do anything as long as it creates an edge for them in warfare.
Dean says
Unfortunately Trump is backtracking on his call for a “temporary” ban. He proved that he did not understand the issues when he took the wrong side on the Garland attack. After Berdoo he sensed the public attitude and tapped into its mood with the call for the temporary ban and then effectively branded the problem with his candidacy with his comments that there is “something” going on with Islam that makes them hate us, but he hasn’t expressed any understanding of what that something is. He does have some reasonable advisors around him and is certainly far better than Hillary, but that isn’t saying much. The moderate Muslim at least sympathizes with the reason for jihad and thus is a potential jihadist when the time is right or convenient. The non-sympathizers are apostates and are outed and banned from their ranks.