It is just common sense for them to study the texts that form the motivating ideology behind the global jihad. But they have to do it quietly, behind the scenes, because the Obama administration is committed as a matter of policy to denying that Islam has anything to do with jihad. This denial of reality is the source of innumerable policy errors. It is good that at least some in the Pentagon are trying to fight against this.
“Behind the scenes, Pentagon’s top brass explores Islamic ideology’s ties to terror,” by Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, September 25, 2016:
U.S. Special Operations Command has privately pressed the staff of the nation’s highest ranking military officer to include in his upcoming National Military Strategy a discussion of the Sunni Muslim ideology underpinning the brutality of the Islamic State group and al Qaeda.
Thus, behind the scenes, the Pentagon’s top brass have entered a debate coursing through the presidential campaign: how to define an enemy the U.S. military has been fighting for 15 years.
The National Military Strategy, authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, is one of the most important guidances issued to global combatant commanders. It prioritizes threats to the nation and how to blunt them.
The 2015 public version does not mention Islamic ideology. It lists terrorists under the ambiguous category of “violent extremist organizations” and singles out al Qaeda and the Islamic State group.
Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford took the chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff two months later and is now preparing his first National Military Strategy.
It is during this process that Special Operations Command, which plays a major role in hunting down terrorists, has provided its input to the Joint Staff, Gen. Dunford’s team of intelligence and operations officers at the Pentagon.
Special Operations Command wants the National Military Strategy to specifically name Salafi jihadism as the doctrine that inspires violent Muslim extremists. Salafi jihadism is a branch within Sunni Islam. It is embraced by the Islamic State and used to justify its mass killings of nonbelievers, including Shiite Muslims, Sunnis and Kurds, as well as Christians.
People knowledgeable about the discussion told The Washington Times that SoCom has not been able to persuade Gen. Dunford’s staff to include Salafi jihadism in any strategy draft. It is unclear whether Gen. Dunford has been briefed on the proposals.
Spokesmen for the Joint Staff and U.S. Special Operations Command in Tampa, Florida, told The Times that they could not comment on a pending strategy. Gen. Dunford’s strategy will be classified in its entirety, meaning there will be no public version as was issued by his predecessor, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, in 2015.
Special Operations Command is headed by Army Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, a veteran terrorist hunter who led Joint Special Operations Command, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden and many other extremists.
There does not appear to be an effort to include the words “radical Islamic terrorism” in the strategy. But including a discussion of Salafi jihadism would tie acts of terrorism to Islamic ideology.
President Obama has fiercely rejected any connection between Islam the faith and al Qaeda, the Islamic State or any other Muslim terrorist organizations. He argues that they have corrupted the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran. His administration refers to them as simply “extremists.”
The counterargument from many U.S. national security analysts and Muslim scholars is that mass killings are rooted in the Koran and other primary writings and preachings of credible Islamic scholars and imams. These teachings at some mosques and on social media encourage youths to become radical Islamists.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ruthless Islamic State founder, is a cleric who studied at a seminary in Iraq. Al-Baghdadi has a Ph.D. in Koranic studies from Iraq’s Saddam University.
‘War of ideas’
If the cycle of global jihadism is to be broken, they say, U.S. officials must accurately assess the nature of the threat and its doctrines. If not, Gen. Dunford’s National Military Strategy is, in essence, directing commanders to ignore threat doctrine and relinquish the information battlefield to the enemy.
“If you look at threat doctrine from that perspective, it’s a much bigger problem because it’s not just the violent jihadists; it’s the nonviolent jihadists who support them,” said one person knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy. “Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win. We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”
A joint counterterrorism report by the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War concluded:
“Salafi-jihadi military organizations, particularly ISIS and al Qaeda, are the greatest threat to the security and values of American and European citizens.”
The Islamic State is also known as ISIS, ISIL and Daesh.
Albert M. Fernandez, who was the State Department’s chief of strategic communication, said that on some level, if not the U.S. directly, people need to talk about the form of Salafi jihadism that promotes violence.
“Using the word ‘extremism’ is extraordinarily vague language,” he said.
Some voices in the Muslim hierarchy differ with Mr. Obama and say the encouragement of violence is a problem that Islam must confront.
One such leader is Hassen Chalghoumi, imam of the Drancy Mosque in Paris. France has Europe’s largest Muslim population and has been wracked by a series of brutal terrorist attacks planned and inspired by the Islamic State.
Mr. Chalghoumi spoke last year at a conference in Washington sponsored by the Middle East Media Research Institute, which tracks jihadi social media and promotes moderate Islamic leaders.
Mr. Chalghoumi said mosques are one “battlefront” in the war on extremism.
“The third battlefront is the mosques, in many of which there is incitement to anti-Semitism, hate and ultimately violence,” he said. “This is the most critical battlefront regarding the future of Islam and its relationship with other religions. But even this one is not solely internal. The government should have a role in prohibiting money from terrorist organizations from reaching mosques and guiding their activities. It should prevent extremist leaders from preaching in pulpits from which they can abuse their power and spew hate and violence. It should make sure that the people who preach religion to others are qualified and endorse human values.”
Teaching terrorism
Advocates of publicly discussing the influence of Salafi jihadism point to Sahih al-Burkhari. It is a nine-volume collection of Sunni Muslim dictates from historical figures that is held as only second in importance to the Koran.
Volume 4, Book 56, justifies the killings of non-Muslims. “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him,” says one apostle of the Prophet Muhammad.
Volume 9, Book 88, contains this: “During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e., they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, where-ever you find them, kill them, for who-ever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.”
Robert Spencer is an author who runs Jihad Watch, a nonprofit that reports on Islamic extremism.
He explains that Salafi Jihadism is a vehicle for taking the teachings of the Koran and applying them to jihad.
“The Islamic State scrupulously follows the Koran and Sunnah in its public actions, including its pursuit of jihad, and provides in Dabiq its Islamic justification for even its most controversial actions,” he said. “Thus the Islamic State is essentially the apotheosis [highest form] of Salafi Jihadism.”
The Sunnah contains the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad. Dabiq is a town in Syria where a final battle between Muslims and Christians supposedly will take place.
A 2008 strategy paper from Harvard University’s John M. Olin Institute said:
“Like all ideologies, Salafi-Jihadists present a program of action, namely jihad, which is understood in military terms. They assert that jihad will reverse the tide of history and redeem adherents and potential adherents of Salafi-Jihadist ideology from their misery. Martyrdom is extolled as the ultimate way in which jihad can be waged — hence the proliferation of suicide attacks among Salafi-Jihadist groups.”…

Stephanie says
Surprise, surprise! … but only ‘Behind the scenes’ 🙂
‘WARNING GRAPHIC: ISIS Executes 100 Iraqi Civilians’ quran.com/5/33 ‘… execution’
http://quran.com/4/89 ‘… kill them’
https://twitter.com/schnellmann_org/status/780171852442460160
Ian H says
Obama will be upset. He wants them to fight climate change instead. So … what sort of weapons would you would need for that I wonder …
CrossWare says
Of course with nukes. As the series Futurama stated the nuclear winter compensated for it…
Stephanie says
What a brave man! Must watch!
https://twitter.com/Rojava_News_/status/780040400732098560
Mark A says
Political correctness has no place in warfare.
It is disgraceful that the US military is still having difficulty studying Islamic theology 15 years after 9/11.
Oldveteran says
Very true. What fools are we when the Koran is very very clear to “spread Terror” and kill infidels!
DP111 says
U.S. Special Operations Command has privately pressed the staff of the nation’s highest ranking military officer to include in his upcoming National Military Strategy a discussion of the Sunni Muslim ideology underpinning the brutality of the Islamic State group and al Qaeda.
This news has only been let out because it is too late for Obama to anything about it.
Islam the religion of killers says
At least they are looking at it, assuming attitude that might protect western civilisation ..
It’s only been 15 years since 9/11
15 years since the first clue
Islam the religion of killers says
I give the military top marks on this, unlike the FBI that removed mentions of Islam out of it’s manuals & training ..
J-pal says
This study MUST include history, philosophy, psychology – and, t also MUST include the study of the Bible – since the koran is written based on ideas and texts already existing for ages… Just studying some of the recent features of (wrongly mention as) radicalization (etc.) will lead to nothing. Why do the muslims have to turn to mecca five times a day in “prayer”? It is a part of the program – brainwashing! But, prayer is a constant communication with the only Living God, not a relic in a book or elsewhere. The fascination about “death and killing, sex and blood” comes from their originator and his representative, Mr. M.
Oldveteran says
The Biblical stories in the Koran – and the characters, are not relayed correctly in the Koran. The Scripture, from the Torah, Gospels and some Zoroasterism and Gnostic literature, are mis-told stories thrown in are all wrong and twisted into self aggrandizement by Muhammed. One only has to know the Old and New Testament well enough to do about 30 minutes of checking. Muhammed clearly shows his illiteracy as he didn’t get anything straight and then counters that the Bible is “corrupt” as do his dimwitted followers to this day.
Raja says
You are correct 100% Oldveteran.
5
RonaldB says
The point of studying threat doctrine is not labeling it correct or incorrect. The point is to understand the philosophy and strategy of the enemy, so as to be able to counter it. If the enemy is following the doctrine, it doesn’t matter how erroneous it is.
Thus, the study of the bible would have no place whatsoever in the study of Islam as threat doctrine.
You can read a detailed discussion of this point (and many others) in
https://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad/dp/1511617500/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474896127&sr=1-1&keywords=catastrophic+failure
Also, Robert Spencer’s books, although I don’t know which one specifically discusses threat doctrines.
Angemon says
While I praise them for daring to go against the official narrative, follow the facts and wanting to study the link between religion and terrorism, I find their focus on “salafi jihadism” too narrow for my taste. How do, for example, sufis, twelvers or ahmadi differ from salafis when it comes to the treatment of women and non-muslims? Do sufis, twelvers and ahmadi texts allow for the same kind of barbarity we see in the islamic state? If so, the focus on “salafism” is kind like focusing on Bloods or Crips when you have a problem with organized crime – it’s good that you want to tackle the problem, but you’re just going after one group. What about the rest of them? I certainly hope the Pentagon is not considering to join forces with “good” muslims to combat the “bad” muslims – how is that working out so far in Syria?
gravenimage says
Yes–this is far too narrow a focus. But it is still better than the “nothing to do with Islam” crap we get all too often.
aDhimmiSaysWhat? says
Almost makes it sound like shiites are good guys.
RonaldB says
Very good point, that the sea of Islamic scholarship is an unremitting ocean of terror, death, coercion, and suppression.
The Ahmadis claim that Islamic doctrine (for any Muslim, his doctrine is the only doctrine) rejects violent coercion, although I have evidence that their non-violence is a facade, with the usual concepts of jihad simmering below the surface.
I disagree with you that an alliance with Muslims is non-productive. I think alliances of convenience with Muslims can have a tremendous multiplying effect on our efforts. However, they must be viewed as collaborators and not as friends. An example might be the alliance between Finland and Nazi Germany in World War II. Finland allied itself against the USSR because the USSR had invaded Finland in 1941 and annexed substantial Finnish territory, which Finland wanted back. But, Finland was never so stupid as to consider the Germans as friends.
gravenimage says
Ronald B, we were safest when the Muslim world was most isolated–from about two hundred years ago until about fifty years ago.
Yes, sometimes alliances of convenience are necessary–such as our “allying” with the Soviet Union against Hitler–but trying to ally with Muslims is almost always a fool’s game. Muslims have betrayed us over and over again.
The only possible case I can think of now is the Kurds in Iraq in their stance against the Islamic State–and even there we should be cautious.
Darryl Kerney says
” I certainly hope the Pentagon is not considering to join forces with “good” muslims to combat the “bad” muslims – how is that working out so far in Syria?”
indeed, didn’t work well anywhere else it’s been tried either,
too many to list here of course.
sure has taken them long enough to get to here though,
too bad they couldn’t see it like many did long ago that it is all
of islam, all the factions want to kill the others and the infidels.
exactly why there is so much killing of everybody by muslims.
people keep saying, but they are killing fellow muslims too !
no they aren’t, not in their minds, for them it is killing heretics not fellow muslims.
but, so many still can’t seem to grasp the obvious, it is all of islam.
perhaps the realization is just too huge and disturbing that they fight to finds ways to
deny it, and baffle those of us who find it too obvious to not see.
August West says
I am reminded of a quote from Sun Tzu 5th Century BC:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
The “Gates of Ijtihad” are closed on the need to understand the enemy (and yourself) and have been for quite a while.
Interestingly, I listened to a UN Security Council meeting today in which the US delegation was telling the UN to not speak in passive words pertaining to the conflict in Aleppo. The US representative urged specificity in naming the enemy and the acts of the enemy.
I found it interesting that the Obama Admin seems to understand the core concept of Sun Tzu, but seems to apply it selectively.
But then again we already knew that… didn’t we.
Oldveteran says
Yes indeed. I think the military may get back to reality of Muslim Islamic terrorism when Mr Trump is their Commander in Chief. Based upon what is going on – hell even I know more about ISIS than the generals. I read the Koran. And General Pataraes just made me sick talking about the “Hoooollyyy Koran!”
Creole Gumbo says
I love that quote.
But even with learning about Islam one problem that we are facing is “Who is going to do the teaching?”
I first learned about Islam in Catholic High School and believed it to be evil. I then attended a large secular university and learned that everything that I had been told in HS was wrong and that Islam taught peace. Lets just hope that they get the truth about the Islamic conquest.
Gray says
Why are people getting so excited, and hailing this as a great advance? This means nothing. The discussion is to be confined to ‘the Sunni Muslim ideology underpinning the brutality of the Islamic State group and al Qaeda.’ i.e. Islam is this lovely, peaceful ideology, that preaches universal peace, love and universal brotherhood. It’s just been hi-jacked by a few extremists, and distorted away from its true meaning of love for all mankind. And look, we’ve found a couple of Imams to say the same thing, so clearly this must be true. The National Military Strategy is still refusing to face reality.
billybob says
I see it as encouraging. When they starting talking about the verses in the Quran and Sunna that drive the Salafi jihadis, it will be suddenly obvious the every Islamic sect has the same Quran and Sunna.
linnte says
I agree Billy! When I read the Qur’an all I could see was ISLAM is this way, PERIOD, and that the different sects all use the same crap to justify their lifestyle. Anyone who reads Islamic texts objectively without reading in any sects bull will be appalled. Now our Military has no excuses.
Gray says
Well, I think you are both wrong. Absolutely nothing worthwhile will come out of this stupid, pointless exercise. When the comparative theologians in the Pentagon begin their ‘examination’ of Islam by differentiating between various Islamic Sects, it is quite obvious that ‘workplace violence’ and inexplicable ‘Lone Wolf’ attacks will be found solely to blame for all the ills besetting mankind. Then the Military can get on with looking at important issues, like women in combat, and transgenders in military latrines. If Mr Trump becomes President, then yes, there is a very faint, outside chance that maybe, perhaps, in the fullness of time, and considering all angles, something approaching an honest examination of Islam may occur, but, even then, the entrenched military culture will be against anything happening. If the other candidate becomes President, then forget it. Nothing will happen, guaranteed.
linnte says
Gray, it doesn’t matter if “nothing happens”, because they are studying Islam, they now have ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE any more to deny the facts about Jihad. And someone mentioned that maybe they are honing up on their skills because they think Trump will win. He DID say the Pentagon will have 30 days to come up with a plan to eliminate Islamic State if he is elected. I view the Pentagon’s actions as positive! Hopefully even if Trump is not elected, these guys will have the guts to speak about the real Islam.
gravenimage says
Gray, if you want to counsel despair here, that is your prerogative. But saying that the Pentagon will simply return to the “workplace violence” meme only makes sense if you believe that the Pentagon is only studying Islam in order to dismiss it.
IN that case, why would they even bother?
This is not perfect, but seems to me like a step in the right direction.
abad says
So long as the Pentagon is not learning about Islam from any Muslims themselves (who are not the best source to learn Islam from since they lie (taqiyya) so much), read the Quran, Hadith, and of course Robert Spencer’s books they will be OK
billybob says
Ex-Muslims for me, have the greatest level of credibility. When I became aware that all was not well with Islam (not so very long ago), I was so shocked when I started reading stuff like here on Jihad Watch I could hardly believe my eyes. It wasn’t until I watched videos by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other ex-Muslims that I began to believe it was all too real.
ECAW says
Wafa Sultan’s “The God who hates” had the most effect on me when I started looking into all this. For those who don’t know of her she is a Syrian born psychiatrist who explains the vile culture in Syria, particularly towards women and based on Islam of course. She then found it following her to America, resulting in the inevitable death threats etc.
Raja says
Billy bob,
I had similar experience like yours.
Back in 2001 I scheduled to visit US for a CPA exams(and return to my country). When Sep 11 happened all my plans evaporated and changed for good. For several years I thought Sep 11 was because of US policies towards Israel etc. as you also had Muslims lying about Sep11 like: “Even a five year old knows that Sep 11 was the handiwork of US govt etc” Then came (May be 2004) the killing/rape/loot of some 600 Christians in the hands Muslims in Indonesia that could never be forgotten / barbarity of Islam followers was all too obvious(by then).. Thanks to Jihad watch now I know Islam much more than the elites from the local and national govt..
linnte says
Raja, we are beyond fortunate to have the phenomenal minds here on Jihad Watch! I could name the off, but they know who they are! God bless them all, especially Robert Spencer! When we win this war against Islam, Robert and all these people here on JW will be international heros!
gravenimage says
Thanks for your comments, Raja.
Raja says
abad, That is a good suggestion and a very relevant one.
Thanks..
Ross Lloyd says
Pointless. Moslems = enemy. End of lesson!
traci94 says
I applaud this effort, but how is this being “quietly” done if this was published in the Washington Times? Also, the burden of proof (that ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc. are twisted versions of Islam) should be on Obama to prove that ISIS twists Islam’s teachings and is truly a religion of peace. How does he explain the widespread persecution of Christians throughout Muslim lands, the brutality of Iran and Saudi Arabia, doctrines of abrogation and taqiyya, chapter 9 of the Koran, what well respected Imam’s say, etc.
RonaldB says
It doesn’t objectively matter whether ISIS represents Islam accurately or not. The purpose of studying threat doctrine is to understand and anticipate the moves of the enemy. As long as ISIS adheres to the teachings of the Koran, Sunnah, and Hadith, Islamic doctrine as they understand it is a fit subject for study.
Again, it is entirely irrelevant as to whether it really represents Islam, as it motivates and guides the threat we are facing.
Caliph says
It’s a step in the right direction. With Trump as president it can come out in the open and start being applied.
The ancient Greeks were formidable solders, the phalanx and all that… They also wore beards…
The Romans were clean shaven. In close combat the Roman soldiers knew they could grab and pull those Grecian beards, and where the beard goes, so goes the head. The beards, once thought to make them look distinguished and fierce, where in fact a liability. Needless to say Roman hegemony dominated.
When it comes to war, nothing should be excluded. But just because you CAN do something doesn’t mean it should be your first choice – like using nukes, ( or trying to kick someone in the nuts in a street fight )
By considering all things, you can make the most sensible decisions.
RonaldB says
I guess you’re making the point for women in combat…except, maybe not transgendered women.
billybob says
A hand that is grabbing a beard doesn’t have a sword in it. meanwhile, the beard-wearer’s hand likely does, (I have a beard, so I am defending beards, though mine is too short to grab really.)
linnte says
From this old Hippie- kissing a man without a mustache is like eating eggs without salt ?
Caliph says
To RonaldB and Billybob
Point is arrogance of political / military power ( as the Greeks’ political power diminished with rise of Rome ) What would have happened if the Ancient Greek soldiers had shaven and changed strategy?
I too grow a full beard now and again so I think nothing wrong with beards – grew 1st one when 16 years old – very hairy face, but not so much on head.
mgoldberg says
Considering that Robert used to give lectures to these people, it’s a sad recapitulation of what they’ve lost.
This is the disinformation age…. where the lights are shutting down, not on, and the ability to even discuss
sift and winnow thru the facts is considered racist, phobic, blah blah blah.
People are getting fed up with being forcefed bovine fertilizer, and being told it’s something else.
gravenimage says
mgoldberg wrote:
Considering that Robert used to give lectures to these people, it’s a sad recapitulation of what they’ve lost.
………………………….
Too true.
RonaldB says
I have no idea what Obama’s internal thoughts are, but the actions of his administration are pretty reliably predicted by the principle of whatever weakens the security and culture of the US.
The serious whitewashing of Islam began in earnest with the George W Bush administration. Bill Clinton’s administration probably would have focused on whitewashing it, but there wasn’t such a strong focus on it as after 9/11.
We should recall, though, that Bill Clinton bombed Serbia, which was fighting the Muslims, into submission. Also, in 2011, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, supported making criticism of Islam a criminal offense in countries other than the US. She recognized at the time, the unconstitutionality of such a statute in the US, but instead advocated extra-judicial sanctions against criticism of Islam.
Paul Clark says
All the Pentagon has to do is read Mr. Spencer’s books and the Koran. If they are not repulsed by the Koran alone,then they will do nothing, but; play Obama games. For those who have not read the Koran, I can tell you the lies and hate will overwhelm you. It is hard too believe that 1.2 billion people could believe such obvious trash, but they do. This is why I ask: Where have all the Christians gone? Have you fled the cross? “Pick up your cross” and go into the Muslim communities telling them about Jesus. Convert them. Tell them about how Jesus loves them. Many will listen, most will not, but if you save one precious soul it will be worth it. “I have told them by Lord has sent me to tell you that he loves you.” One black Muslim hugged me and said, “I love you.” He said it very weak and low but he said it.
Michael Copeland says
1.2 billion people are not in a position to say they do not believe that book.
If they say so they are killed.
RonaldB says
On the whole, Muslims cannot be dissuaded. They must be isolated. The US should stay out of Muslim countries and keep Muslims out of our (Western) countries.
Christianblood says
(..Pentagon quietly studying Islamic theology to understand the Islamic State and al-Qaeda..)
Pentagon+Saudi Arabia+Islam+West=ISIS. The Pentagon is really ISIS or at least very deeply pro ISIS! http://thewire.in/66778/us-kills-80-syrian-soldiers/
gravenimage says
Christianblood wrote:
The Pentagon is really ISIS…!
…………………………
Anti-Americanism at its most unhinged…
ECAW says
Wot no Joooooooooz?
RonaldB says
ISIS got its start through the “Arab Spring” (US supported), the abrupt and untimely US withdrawal from Iraq, and the US support of rebel groups in Syria which eventually merged with, or supported, the Islamic State (ISIS).
The Islamic State was further strengthened by being able to expand into Libya, thrown into anarchy by a gratuitous, US-sponsored coup which deposed and killed its dictator, Gaddafi.
The US is deeply schizoid about the Islamic State, but there is no question, US actions were involved in its formation and expansion.
gravenimage says
Pentagon quietly studying Islamic theology to understand the Islamic State and al-Qaeda
…………………….
*Good*. It’s about damn time.
davej says
Maybe our Police and political leaders should begin studying Islamic theology too.
It might make them a little clearer on the motivation of the Mall murderers, street bombers and “workplace violence” offenders.
Vae Victus says
Hard to fight an enemy when you are groping around in the dark with your eyes closed.
elizabeth says
The leader of Islamic State has a PhD in Islamic Studies, so it behooves the DOD to study everything that he has studied. Even if it is a “perversion” of Islam, it needs to be studied in order to understand how ISIS thinks and strategizes. It makes absolutely no difference whether it is a “perversion” of Islam or not, it must be analyzed carefully, based on the principle of “Know your enemy.” How is anyone defeat the Islamic State without knowing their core aims of theocratic despotism based on their meticulous study of the Koran, Sira, and Hadith? The DOD needs to be as meticulous and expert as ISIS is in understanding how ISIS interprets these core texts of Islam, or all is lost.
RonaldB says
Very excellent comment.
UNCLE VLADDI says
LET ME SAVE THEM SOME TIME: THERE IS NO ISLAMIC “THEOLOGY” BECAUSE THEY CLAIM THEIR ALLAH IS BOTH “UNKNOWN” AND “UNKNOWABLE!” IT’S ONLY AN ALIBI TO EXCUSE THEIR CRIMINAL DESIRES AND ACTIONS! MOVE ON ALREADY!
😉
gravenimage says
I must respectfully disagree. Sure–Muslims *do* say this, but they also clearly follow the diktats of their foul creed very closely. We are mistaken if we assume that since Allah is “unknowable” that violent Muslims do not act in the name of that vile deity.
Pal says
Long overdue.
US and Europe military & security establishment need a loong lesson in islam.
And one to teach them should be like Robert Spencer.
“We do not understand the (islamic terrorist – ‘omitted’) movement, and until we do, we are not going to defeat it”. “We have not defeated the idea. We do not even understand the idea”:
Gen. Michael Nagata, Commander, Special Operations Command Central, 2014, when the State of islam (IS) was declared:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2890266/We-not-understand-movement-Special-Forces-general-confessed-clueless-ISIS-FBI-agent-warns-terror-army-s-youth-recruiting.html
Ali Bey says
No need of study. Enough reading Sharia.
Daniel Triplett says
Dar al-Harb must give Dar al-Islam just two choices:
1. Apostatize your populations immediately, making the practice or promotion of Islam a capital offense.
2. Watch your cities get glassed until you choose Option #1, but with the added bonus of Regime Change and loss of your territory, resources, and oil.
Let’s get real; once we exfiltrated Iraq and Afghanistan, the nuclear solution became our only option. It’s always been our only option anyway. Let’s ally with Israel, UK, France, India, China, and Russia, and make it happen…stat.
One nuke strike on a random Dar al-Islam target every three days until all 57 Islamic sovereignties surrender to our terms. It worked for our grandfathers, and will work for us too.
Inside Dar al-Harb, we must legislate Islam a crime, minus the nuke strikes.
Iran is working around the clock, with the help of the N Korean punk, to build an arsenal to nuke us. This is a nuclear war now. It’s us or them. Let’s face it.
If people are pointing loaded guns at us, we need not wait for them to pull the trigger before killing them first.
We’re not required to tolerate Islam or give it Constitutional protection just because a 7th Century psychopath said so.
gravenimage says
We don’t demand that Muslims leave Islam–just that they stop attacking us.
linnte says
I’d like to add a few requests to that”stop attacking us” idea. I want them to stop pushing Shari’a, stop looking down on and not accepting the validity of other religions or no religion, and I want them to abandon the “don’t be friends with non Muslims” thing too. And I want them to stop not following the laws of the land they moved to and be in submission to those laws like the rest of us.
That’s all. ?
Raja says
Linnte,
With all respect to you, you are asking for too much. Unless you are allowed to speak about Islam openly you will end up in the hell hole of holy islam by ALL ACCOUNT.
One cannot talk about Islam or its hallowed prophet and hence who will bell the cat?
It is a vicious cycle. Offense is the best defense against Islam or its followers. Islamist understand ONLY ONE language, that of brute force.. Gurus of this Ideology: Gadaffi, Saddam Husein, Assad, Mubarak etc.
The West wants to unleash this evil potential in the Islamic nations by targeting its despots. THE CURE IS WORSE THAN THE DISEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!
linnte says
I guess I just so desperately want Islam to be GONE. Period. Having grandkids makes it imperative that we win this war.
gravenimage says
Linnte, I was including the imposition of Shari’ah under the rubric of Muslims attacking us.
I don’t care if Muslims are not friends with us, or even if they look down on other faiths–my only concern is that they do not impose their violent creed on those who do not want it.
Thomas Jefferson said he could be tolerant of any faith so long as it “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”.
Daniel Triplett says
@gravenimage
Muslims have been attacking us for 1400 years, and will continue attacking us until the entire planet is Dar al-Islam. Allah commands it. No one gets to debate Allah about it. Islam will never change.
Contrary to our desire, Muslims make war on us.
So, we have two choices:
1. Continue getting slaughtered (soon with WMD), pretending this Worldwide zero-sum conflict of two civilizations doesn’t exist, and lose the war.
2. Fight back with our superior intellect and technology to end this war quickly with victory. Extinguishing Islam (not Muslims) is the only way to win [Ref. first paragraph].
People willing to murder their own children to please their “deity” are deadly serious about their cause. Defeating a foe who loves death more than life is difficult. The only way to defeat them is with an overwhelming show of superior force, combined with re-education that their “religion” is just a criminal enterprise begun by a 7th Century madman to further his own selfish ambition and control the masses. Both strategies are required. Neither will work on its own.
They must witness a couple of dozen nuke strikes, with the detonations and Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) video broadcast across all social media. They must see what’s coming for them without surrender. They’ll lose their property, families, territory, and wealth. They must be shown and made to believe the West is superior, Islam is a farce, and Allah is a fictional concept who’s never going to save them.
War is a Battle is Wills. Whichever side loses the Will to Fight first loses the war. By that measure, we’re losing this war badly.
As I’ve said before, I believe 21 random nuke strikes across Dar al-Islam will “break their will to fight,” thus giving us victory in this 1400 year war.
If Islam is made a capital crime across the globe, devout Muslim holdouts will be forced to live like animals in caves. Not even their patriarch bin Laden could handle that for very long, hence the 38,000 square-foot walled Abbottabad compound, complete with electricity, plumbing, toilets, TV, and Internet.
We could destroy Islam inside of 10 weeks, for less than $10 Billion US, without losing one Allied serviceman’s life.
All we need is the stomach and will to fight.
gravenimage says
With respect, I’m not sure Islam would be as easy to kill as you surmise. Rational people fear death; Islam is *not* rational.
But we *have* isolated Islam before, and were under little threat from it for almost two centuries–before we forgot the threat of Islam and began letting in hordes of Muslim invaders.
linnte says
But Daniel, nuking the ME, would poision Israel! Not to mention the whole eastern region of the world. I just can’t condone that. So can’t we just use traditional bombs?
Daniel Triplett says
@gravenimage and @linnte
“With respect, I’m not sure Islam would be as easy to kill as you surmise. Rational people fear death; Islam is *not* rational.”
With equal respect ladies, I agree; Islam isn’t rational. Not only do Muslims not fear death, they seem to be in a big hurry to get there, and do crazy things like murder their daughters for perceived slights to Allah or Mad Mo.
************************************
“But we *have* isolated Islam before, and were under little threat from it for almost two centuries–before we forgot the threat of Islam and began letting in hordes of Muslim invaders.”
Isolating them isn’t working.
For starters, al hijrah has brought millions of Allah’s soldiers deep inside Dar al-Harb. They live among us, using their toolbox of well crafted lies to convince the useful idiots they’re our friends.
Moreover, Pakistan already has a nuke arsenal, N Korea knows how to launch missiles from submarines now, and Iran is just months or weeks away from perfecting their nuke-tipped ICBMs.
But Iran doesn’t even need the ICBMs, with “Islamic Republic of Iran” painted on the sides. All they need is a nuke on a container ship, or a nuke on a U-haul trucked into Times Square.
And it’s just a matter of when, not if, someone figures out how to steal or buy Pakistan’s nukes. Or they get some devout PM with his finger on the button who wants to please Allah and fast-track himself and his people to Paradise.
Extinguishing Islam will be a heavy lift, no doubt. The primary strategy in defeating it is discrediting it among its adherents. However, reasoning with them with words alone will be impotent. The combination of overwhelming force first, followed by, or concurrent with the words will be the winning strategy.
Right now, Muslims believe they’re winning this war, because they are. Our inaction only serves to legitimize their faith in their minds: Said any Muslim–> “If we’re winning the jihad, then surely Islam must be righteous.”
So our objective is to start winning this war ourselves. This will increase our confidence, and decrease our enemy’s, sowing doubt in their minds about the validity of their faith.
As a USAF Officer/pilot, and six year war vet myself, I’m well aware of the scale and scope of the foe we face, and of the capabilities and limitations of our military and weapons.
Dar al-Islam stretches from Morocco to Indonesia, going deep into Africa, and deep North into Central Asia. We simply don’t have the military, money, or the WILL to invade and indefinitely occupy 57 Muslim nations. A conventional solution isn’t possible.
For those anti-nuke proponents out there who lobby for a conventional military solution, if it was ever possible (which it wasn’t) that option went out the door as soon as we exfiltrated Iraq and Afghanistan.
War with Iran is coming. Anyone who can’t see that is a fool. Just ask the Iranians if you don’t believe me.
A conventional war requires forward basing from which to launch our missions. We can’t fly Infantry and Special Ops troops from North Carolina to Iran in helicopters, then back to North Carolina in one mission. We can’t fly fighter sorties from the US to Iran and back either.
These operations require bases close to the action. We need maintenance bases, food and lodging, Search and Rescue assets, logistics, etc, etc, all very close to where the fighting takes place. And with Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) behind enemy lines.
This is why Iraq and Afghanistan are so strategic. We needed to hold both of those territories in order to sandwich Iran, isolating them from outside support, and eliminate their opportunities for retreat.
But thanks to Obama, that’s no longer an option.
The only thing we can launch from the US to Iran and back on a single mission is nuclear bombers, such as the B-2. It’s a very long day for those guys, but that’s how it’s done. And that’s our only option left now.
Or, we could launch missiles from Naval vessels close by, particularly from a well-hidden nuke laden US submarine. Why risk a US Carrier Task Force in the Persian Gulf? Aircraft carriers cost a lot of money and carry thousands of sailors.
This war can and should be fought from a submarine or a cubicle inside a Wyoming mountain.
Look at it this way:
Trinity, the first atomic weapon test, was on 16JUL1945. The Hiroshima strike was less than 3 weeks later on 6 August.
If our grandfathers had atomic weapons on 7DEC1941, would they have waited 3 1/2 years, and sacrificed 407,300 of our finest, bravest Americans before using them? Of course not. They weren’t stupid.
Likewise, if we want to win this war, then let’s win it quickly with the technological advantage we have.
War is about killing people. If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.
This bullshit about not killing civilians, and minimizing collateral damage is nonsense coming from the minds of arrogant academics who’ve never worn our country’s uniform, much less seen action or studied our enemy.
We haven’t the time, money, nor method to separate the “good” Muslims from the bad. There aren’t any “good” Muslims anyway. They all adhere to Islam, which is our true enemy, much like Nazism. We can live in peace with ex-Muslims once we extinguish their ideology, in the same way the World could live in peace with the Germans once Nazism disappeared.
Our grandfathers neither had the time, money, nor method to sort out the good Germans and Japanese from the bad. So we bombed every German and Japanese man, woman, and child in sight until they surrendered unconditionally. We wouldn’t have won the war if we didn’t.
Just look at post-attack Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) photos of Cologne, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, Hiroshima, etc to see how our grandfathers felt about enemy civilian casualties and collateral damage. They knew how to win wars. We still know how to win wars in the military. We’re taught the same way. But today’s politicians think they’re smarter and morally superior to our grandfathers. So we keep losing wars as a result.
If politicians would STFU and release our military from the ROE leash, America could win any war we want–promptly.
The exclusive job of Congress is to declare war and fund it. The job of the POTUS is to define the objective, and turn the military loose.
Beyond that, both the Congress and POTUS need to stay the fuck out of the way, and let the military do what they’re trained to do–Kill people and break things in short order to achieve the objective the POTUS has given them.
Throughout history, every war America has won has been done this way.
To linnte’s point: In my military estimate, 21 nuke strikes, one every 72 hours, wouldn’t pose a “nuclear winter” or global climate problem at all. It wouldn’t even move the needle. You needn’t fear a Yucatan Peninsula Asteroid Catastrophe, circa 65 Million years ago that wiped out all life on Earth.
Regarding Israel, we’d let them take care of their neighbors. They have a much better study, and have plenty of nuclear weapons themselves to handle their neighborhood. They have both Neutron and traditional Thermonuclear weapons, and most are “Dial-a-Death” with adjustable yields. They’re certainly not going to blow themselves up with this operation. They’re not stupid.
The rest of the 21 targets wouldn’t all be near our ally. Sure, four or five would hit Iran, but the rest would be spread out randomly across Dar al-Islam. Randomly, such that every Muslim would believe he and his family could be next. That’s the point: Scare the hell out them, so they quickly surrender to our terms. Then the killing ends with mercy.
We don’t take pleasure in killing our enemy, especially civilians. But that’s what must happen if we’re going to win. So we’d best develop the stomach and the WILL to make it happen. Or we’re guaranteed to lose.
War is ugly. I’ve seen it up close for many years. It leaves a mark in your heart you’ll never forget. It alters your soul. Just remember, we didn’t start this.
But we’re going to finish it.
linnte says
OK, I believe you. Whew! What a mess. Can we start with Mecca first, then? ?
Bad Juju says
“STUDYING” ! – What studying ? – Give me a brake.
It takes one whole day to sit down and read the Koran.
And then you’ll know that Allah is Satan, the Koran is his murder manual and Mohammed was possessed by the Devil.
It’s been 5494 days since September 11th, 2001.
Time enough to have long since read and re-read that obscene snuff book, if you can stand it.
RonaldB says
I couldn’t get through the first two pages, despite several attempts. I have to rely on secondary sources.
The Koran itself is too stupid and rambling for me to tolerate. I can only express my gratitude to authors such as Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, David Woods and others who have slogged through it and provided descriptions that make sense.
Mubarak says
It is too simple and inconvenient for people in power to understand:
A MUSLIM IS A JIHAD LOOKING FOR SOMEWHERE TO HAPPEN.
gravenimage says
And Mubarak insists that Jihad is happening here not because Islam demands Jihad against Infidels, but because Westerners are so “decadent” that we deserve it. He is an especially big fan of Muslim rape.
Mubarak says
If anyone thinks that the (spirituel) slutwalk of the West is an appropriate weapon against Islam he/she is thoroughly deceived.
linnte says
You really don’t know Americans for sure Mu. The West is ready for folks like you. Trust me. Maybe not Europe, because of their inability to defend themselves. Oh, but not the USA. ha!
gravenimage says
The vile Mubarak wrote:
If anyone thinks that the (spirituel {sic}) slutwalk of the West is an appropriate weapon against Islam he/she is thoroughly deceived.
………………………
The repulsive Mubarak has made it clear here many times that he considers it much more “spiritual” to have Muslims raping us in the streets. *Ugh*.
And–as usual–he never says why Muslims are waging violent Jihad all over the world if they are supposedly targeting the West just because we are so degenerate.
Muslims are burning down churches in Nigeria, and using Yezidi girls as sex slaves, and raping elderly nuns in their convents in India. Is this all due to Western ‘decadence’ as well? sarc/off
Peter says
Muhammad was a self-declared terrorist (“I have been made victorious [by Allah] with terror” per Sahih Bukhari’s hadith). He is the archetype of proper Muslim (male) behavior. The Qur’an and other Islamic texts mandate that part of the Ummah wage predatory wars against non-Muslims at all times to make Islam “superior to other systems of belief” (Qur’an 9:33) so that the only religion is Allah’s. What more is there to understand?
Islam is a declaration of war against non-Muslim humanity (once 100%, now about 80% of us). Whether individual Muslims or communities engage in or support predatory jihad can be debated, but when polls show two-thirds of Muslims want to live under Islamic law, then one can rationally assume that a majority of Muslims are hostile to non-Muslims, their ways of life, religions, “man-made” laws, and well-being.
Matthieu Baudin says
… “If you look at threat doctrine from that perspective, it’s a much bigger problem because it’s not just the violent jihadists; it’s the nonviolent jihadists who support them,” said one person knowledgeable about the National Military Strategy. “Pretending there is no relationship between the violent jihadists and Islam isn’t going to win. We’re completely ignoring the war of ideas. We’re still in denial. We’re pretending the enemy doesn’t exist.”…
Jihad Watch encompasses a great vault of information, analysis and discussion stretching back many years that no doubt is already being mined by many individuals working within Military Intelligence. It’s a pleasant thought, that the great expense in time and effort that has been sacrificed, by so many people, to probe and expose the inner logic and motivation of Islamic Warriors; may prove to be useful to those entrusted to actively protect us.
dumbledoresarmy says
Except that as far as I can discover, every single comments thread prior to 2013 no longer *exists* in the jihadwatch archives. It’s all vanished; there are only the articles themselves.
Everything that happened in this forum, prior to 2013, can no longer be read. At least, not by a simple google search, nor by going through the archives here.
Only a year or so ago, so far as I know, it was all there. Now it … isn’t.
RonaldB says
Thanks so much for the information.
It’s not strictly necessary, as sufficient information on Islam is available through Spencer’s books, and those of others. But, every little bit helps, and there is a lot of valuable discussion in the comments archives…or, at least there was.
gravenimage says
Dumbledore’s Army, you *can* access the earlier comments threads–but it is not easy. I do wish Jihad Watch would make them easier to access–I believe they are important.
I addressed this the last time it came up, on this thread:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/08/uk-muslim-kills-one-wounds-5-in-stabbings-cops-say-no-evidence-of-radicalisation#comment-1496371
Here is the process for accessing old comments here:
1) First, ascertain the date of the Jihad Watch article in question.
2) Go to the “Wayback Machine” — a comprehensive archive of the Internet.
3) Paste in the Jihad Watch URL into their search box.
4) From there, go to the month and year from #1.
5) The Wayback Machine will display Jihad Watch recovery pages by months — but usually only a few days out of a given month are accessible. But this is not as bad as it seems. All one has to do, if your date is not highlighted on the Wayback Machine month squares for Jihad Watch, is select a date near it — select a date that is later in time (i.e., more recent) because when you open a Jihad Watch page from yesteryear, you’ll notice that the articles above are more recent than the articles below. Once you select an article that may be, say a week later than the one you want, just scroll downwards until you find the right title. The comments thread should be there, intact as it always was.
[technical thanks to “The Hesperado”]
But yes–I would like to see Jihad Watch archives accompanying the stories, just as with recent posts.
dumbledoresarmy says
Thanks!
Thank God for the Wayback Machine.
gravenimage says
Glad to help, DDA.
dumbledoresarmy says
Robert Spencer: Onward Muslim Soldiers.
S K Malik – The Quranic Concept of War (which is discussed and analysed in Spencer’s book).
Raymond Ibrahim’s series of articles on Islamic Deception.
Jacques Ellul’s Preface on Jihad.
http://www.dhimmi.org/Foreword.html
Jacques Ellul on Jihad: foreword to Bat Ye’or , “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude”,1991. Note that this was written just three years before Ellul’s death in 1994.
Conor Cruise O’Brien, “The Lesson of Algeria: Islam is Indivisible”, published 1995, in “The Independent” (which would never publish anything so bluntly truthful about islam, today).
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-lesson-of-algeria-islam-is-indivisible-1566770.html
And Patrick L Moore, “From Cold War to Guerra Fria”. Read here:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/26087
or here
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/GUERRA.HTM
FROM “COLD WAR” TO GUERRA FRIA?
Patrick L. Moore
That will tell them pretty much all they need to know.
Oh, throw in Winston Churchill’s “The River Wars” and “The Story of the Malakand Field Force”, and Andrew Bostom’s article “John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad”.
Mightn’t be a bad idea to read up on the victories at Vienna 1683 and 1529, Lepanto 1571 and Malta 1565, then go right back to Tours 632; also, revisit the story of the wars against the Barbary Pirates, and C S Hurgronje’s “The Acehnese”, and consult with the Israelis.
You need to know how to WIN and win decisively, against Mohammedans.
RonaldB says
I’d like to add Stephen Coughlin’s “Catastrophic Failure” to your list of references.
https://www.amazon.com/Catastrophic-Failure-Blindfolding-America-Jihad/dp/1511617500/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474896127&sr=1-1&keywords=catastrophic+failure
Coughlin used to present briefings to the Pentagon and other security agencies on Islam, and focused on the “threat doctrine” to anticipate the moves of the Islamist aggressors. He fully covers Islamic doctrine (especially Sunni), current Islamic teachings in Western countries, especially the use of taqiyya to pretend that Islamic doctrine doesn’t support terrorism, when in fact it does.
It is especially chilling how thoroughly Islamic countries have hijacked the UN, and use the power and influence of the UN to advance sharia law.
We can expect a Hillary administration to enthusiastically continue the US capitulation to globalist surrender to Islam.
Mazo says
^
|
Prime example of the mentally challenged with low IQs citing texts from authors they are unfamiliar with.
Hurgronje was the best friend of the Arab Muslim Mufti of Batavia Sayyid Usman and Usman issued a fatwa saying pederasty was un-Islamic for the Dutch to justify the Dutch war in Aceh in the name of Islam since they accused the Acehnese of pederasty.
The Dutch force converted the Hindu Osing people on Java to Islam and wiped out Hinduism from Java and made it a Muslim island.
The Dutch slaughtered Hindu Balinese when they invaded Bali.
The Dutch weren’t known as an anti Islam force.
The Poles liked and supported their own Lipka Tatar Muslims who served in the Polish armies since the Middle Ages. They hate foreigners only.
dumbledoresarmy says
Get lost, Mohammedan, slave of evil, trying a nice bit of well-poisoning as always.
I’ll BET that any factoids you are proffering are mixed with so much ‘spin’ they’re worthless. If Spencer’s formidably erudite friend Hugh Fitzgerald recommends Hurgronje and Mark Durie, also formidably erudite, think Hurgronje’s work of value, I think I’ll go with them, rather than with an anonymous Chinese slave of infernal ‘allah’, busy shovelling sh*t for a death cult.
Muslims were doing enormous evil on three continents, long before the Dutch turned up in the East Indies. If some of the Dutch, in the East Indies, were suckered by the damn mohammedans, and taken for a ride, and manipulated into serving the cause of hellish jihad, so what? That doesn’t make Islam or mohammedans any less evil, nor any less responsible for the evil done by Mohammedans. It doesn’t do squat to erase the jihad doctrines from the Muslim texts nor does it do squat to make Mohammed any less of a vile, lying, raping, child-abusing, slave-trading false-prophet warlord.
linnte says
I salute you General!
Mazo says
The Dutch were the ones who started the transmigration program of dumping Javanese settlers onto West Papua. The Dutch fired the first bullets to murder the West Papuans who killed a Rockefeller in revenge, thinking he was Dutch. The Vegemite bully has been shifting fault away from the Dutch.
Ditch slaughtered native animist Banda islanders out of greed for spices. All of their motives in the Indies were commercial and out of greed.
Much like how Vegemite thugs did a transmigration from Europe to Australia, murdered Aboriginals and pillaged resouces.
gravenimage says
The foul Mazo wrote:
^
|
Prime example of the mentally challenged with low IQs citing texts from authors they are unfamiliar with.
Hurgronje was the best friend of the Arab Muslim Mufti of Batavia Sayyid Usman and Usman issued a fatwa saying pederasty was un-Islamic for the Dutch to justify the Dutch war in Aceh in the name of Islam since they accused the Acehnese of pederasty…
………………..
Actually, Hurgronje used his knowledge of Islam to defeat Jihad. Sounds pretty savvy to me.
Moreover, even if one disagrees with some aspects of Hurgronje’s work it can still prove very edifying for Infidels.
All the rest is just intended–like so much of Mazo’s spewings–to instill unearned guilt in Kuffar here, making it easier for us to be conquered by Islam–or so Mazo hopes, in any case.
linnte says
That’s exactly his modus operandi! Thanks for pointing that out Graven ?
Mazo says
^
|
Retard above was claiming pederasty was Islamic and failed to prove it.
Sayyid Usman’s fatwa was intended by Hurgronje to recruit Acehnese to the Dutch forces.
Arab Muslims continually migrated to the Indies even after Dutch colonization and set up princely state Sultanate equivalents under Dutch authority. Pontianak Arab Sultan Hamid II had a Dutch wife.
gravenimage says
Yet more from Mazo:
Retard above was claiming pederasty was Islamic and failed to prove it.
…………………………..
Well, this is just absurd. The foul “Prophet” himself married a six year old child and raped here when when she was nine, as Mazo well knows. He is just making the Infidels jump through hoops here:
Narrated Aisha:
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234)
There is much more in canonical Islamic texts.
Prevaricating Muslims have occasionally claimed that Aisha was older than this, although there are no Islamic texts to back this up. More often, though, they just reject the charge of pederasty by asserting that a nine-year-old child is a “woman”.
Certainly, Mazo’s vicious coreligionists regularly “marry” girls as young as nine on just this basis–and it is Islamic clerics who resist any changes in these laws, since this is done on the model of the “Prophet”.
Has Mazo ever denounced the Islamic rape of little girls? Of course not, and he won’t denounce it now.
Yet more:
Sayyid Usman’s fatwa was intended by Hurgronje to recruit Acehnese to the Dutch forces.
…………………………..
Muslims have often fought each other. This proves nothing one way or another.
Yet more:
Arab Muslims continually migrated to the Indies even after Dutch colonization and set up princely state Sultanate equivalents under Dutch authority. Pontianak Arab Sultan Hamid II had a Dutch wife.
…………………………..
And this proves–what? There have always been a few foolish Infidels who marry Mohammedans or even convert to Islam. This does not make Islam any less vile–it just shows that there have always been foolish people.
Mazo says
^
|
Retard, pederasty means homosexual relations between men and boys.
The fatwa implied Acehnese were un-Islamic and needed to be corrected according to proper Islamic behavior.
Keith Jordan says
I think the common Liberal belief is simply that all religions are nice and we must not think otherwise.
RonaldB says
Actually, it’s a principle of cultural marxism that Western culture and legal institutions need to be dissolved, and that one cannot make a judgement on non-Western or non-white philosophies.
Some people think leftists are cynically using Islam as a tool to dissolve Western institutions. Morally, the leftists would have no problem with such a maneuver. Intellectually, it seems obvious that once Islam is established, things will deteriorate radically for even the most fervent leftist. But then again, leftists are not particularly connected to the real-world consequences of their doctrine, so it’s a tossup.
gravenimage says
That’s a big part of it, Keith–and this is not just a Liberal belief, but is even found among many conservatives.
Troybeam says
Of course CAIR is there to spread lies and intimidate those with real questions about truth.
Lesley says
Well, it’s about freaking time! Ridiculous that they have to study the texts secretly– the denial of this age of political correctness is shameful.
Charles Martel says
Robert, What is Obama’s real justification for not allowing the military and law enforcement to study Islamic doctrine as the motivation for jihad? He can’t be that ignorant so I assume it’s deliberate.
Secondly, why not study the Sira and Hadith of Mohammed? After all, he’s the ultimate authority in Islam and his barbaric behavior is just being copied by jihadists.
Peter the Hermit says
What makes Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser so dangerous is his advocacy and defense of a mythical, non-existent, peaceful Islam. Just read his Alice-in-Wonderland-like book, A Battle for the Soul of Islam for full exposure to this dangerous delusion. It truly gives me the creeps every time I see this lovable but profoundly conflicted man paraded on TV. His syrupy style has no doubt anesthetized quite a few viewers into falling for his ideas. What makes this even more troubling is his obvious record of patriotism and altruism, making him that much harder to oppose.
pennant8 says
As Pamela Geller so succinctly put it, “Zuhdi Jasser doesn’t have a theological leg to stand on.”
linnte says
100% wholly agree. And to take it a step further….I think it is deliberate. A ruse to make non Muslims think there IS SANITY in Islam. Raheel Raza too, because she supports and believes the whole Qur’an is the holy word of god and cannot be changed. Who are they trying to kid?
gravenimage says
I’m not sure if Zuhdi Jasser is sincere or not–but it hardly matters. The “peaceful” Islam he touts is utterly fictive.
linnte says
Even if he IS sincere, it is still a lie.
Daniel Triplett says
Agreed Peter. Half of America doesn’t read JihadWatch and understand the true threat we face.
But half of America does watch FoxNews. Jasser dangerously puts a blindfold on all of them, giving credit to the “Tiny Minority of Extremitsts” myth.
If Jasser has truly studied Islam, as he said he has, then he knows damn well Islam hasn’t been reformed in 1400 years, and it never will. To even suggest an endeavor is Blasphemy, punishable by death in most all Islamic nations.
To reform Islam would deny the “initial perfection” of Allah’s word, and Muhammad as the “perfect man.”
I wish Fox would keep that Taqiyya artist off the air. They should just run tapes of Anjem Choudary. As much of a creep as he is, at least he tells the truth about Islam and its goals. But the UK finally put him behind bars, so he won’t be seeing the light of day for about five years.
pennant8 says
These Johnny come lately generals must be counting on a Trump victory. Without it their late awakening is going nowhere.
Risto Kantonen says
Good. We cannot solve a problem if we do not understand it and its causality. This news means that the military has the will to study the causality. However, we should be clear what the causality is in clear terms. It’s not just a specific form of Islam, it is the doctrines of Islam itself found in the sira, the quran and the hadiths which when combined form sharia, which in turn together form the causality.
Neither does it do any good for us from the problem solving point of view to call violent jihad extreme, it’s a core doctrine within Islam and as such it is neither extreme, nor radical; it is normative within Islam.
RL Robison says
The world is not confronting “Muslim extremists”…it is confronting Muslim fundamentalists. And understanding the difference between those two terms is absolutely critical in dealing with the threat. We need more General Eisenhowers who know that to successfully combat an enemy you must first understand that enemy’s motivations and long-term goals.
Troybeam says
Let me teach the Pentagon, after 20 plus years of reading their books which all carry the same theme which created sharia law/ our armed forces would know this: there is no radical Islam, once that is established it would be to study their theocracy and how it works, how to get a grip with this fact: do not trust a Muslim, man, woman or child. Know they are taught to lie, protect and hide the jihad fighter, all this under sharia law, Change the rules of engagement so that our military have the upper hand at all times. (Reliance of the Traveller: sharia law, Chapter o9.0 page 599 Titled Jihad)
linnte says
Compared to the Qur’an THIS book, Reliance of the Traveller, is profoundly painfully read. Oh if people only knew the depths of the madness in that book!
gravenimage says
The Reliance of the Traveller is based on the tenets of the Qur’an and Hadith, Linnte.
linnte says
I know this. Just the words and the way they are codified, to me, makes it seem more heinous than even Qur’an or Hadith’s.
gravenimage says
The Qur’an and the Hadith are just more verbose. The Reliance of the Traveller–as you note, Linnte–is more succinct.
Peter the Hermit says
Linnte: Anyone who takes a glance at the brief index of ROT that was compiled for the interesting counter-Stealth-Jihad website, http://www.SneakyIslam.com, will quickly appreciate the extreme ugliness of Shariah law. Shariah law – many do not realize this – also applies to non-Muslims, as this document points out. Here is a direct link to this index, designed to show the truly awful side of Shariah:
http://nebula.wsimg.com/7f8ac3608ba82686a7e293f7de92e8e9?AccessKeyId=4AB376482039B2F3F977&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
linnte says
Thanks for the links Peter! Much appreciated!
My Shari'a Moor says
It’s been a LONG eight years for the SMART people to have to endure there in “Crazy-Town” (WDC)!
A WRETCHED epoch.
Good that it’s ALMOST over!
TRUMP/PENCE/WALL/JOBS/WINNING 2016-25 AD!