As I noted here early this morning, “it hardly matters whether he is dead or alive.” This is because jihadis don’t turn to jihad because they’re following some charismatic leader. They turn to jihad because they believe that in doing so, they are pleasing Allah and winning a place in Paradise. But of course our learned mainstream analysts refuse to accept this or consider its implications, and thus continue to misapprehend the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.
“ISIS Supporters Respond Defiantly To Reports Of Al-Baghdadi’s Death: Jihad Is Not Founded On Men,” MEMRI, October 27, 2019:
…Following are examples of the reactions….
English-Speaking Outlets Reiterate Defiant Message
These defiant messages were reiterated for the benefit of English-speaking ISIS followers as well. For example, on October 27, 2019, a pro-ISIS English language Telegram channel called “Virtual Dawa,”[6] released a post stating that the strength of supporters does not rely on the individuals but on their faith in Allah alone, downplaying the importance of the Muslim leaders in contrast to the Muslim faith. The post compares the situation to the death of the prophet Muhammad. It should be noted, however, that the post doesn’t explicitly mention Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi. The message reads: “The manifestation and continuation of this religion does not reside on the shoulders of people, not now, nor in the past. This even applies to the person of the prophet Muhammad. […] We worship Allah alone! Our struggle is for His pleasure, we will remain on this path even if we are alone! Even if the strongest of winds blows it will not shake us, as our feet are well rooted in this religious methodology. As for those who are wishy-washy, rely on men and phases, and not on certainty and sure knowledge, their colors will soon show; never were they firm to begin with, they were nothing but worshipers of new trends. So we remain with the belief of the Prophets and Messengers.”
Post by Virtual Dawah, pro-ISIS group on Telegram
Another pro-ISIS Telegram channel,[7] which mostly publishes news items in English and French, released a short post warning supporters not to rush to conclusions regarding rumors of Al-Baghdadi’s death, adding that sources in the area which reported on the raid did not mention Al-Baghdadi. The message reads: “I wouldn’t rush to conclusion when it comes to the news of Al-Baghdadi killing. A lot of times these announcements are untrue. Multiple sources indicate that the raid targeted the house of Abu Muhammad Salaama in Barisha village in Idlib. No mention of Al-Baghdadi. ISIS will not deny, if indeed Al-Baghdadi was killed, the news of Prominent figure Al-Adnani’s killing was reported through ISIS’s official media at the time when it happened.” In a later post, the same channel shared a message which also downplayed the importance of the news, stating that if Al-Baghdadi had indeed been killed it still would not change the situation on the ground. The message reads: “Let’s say Al-Baghdadi was killed… Will that change the situation in the ground? Probably not. Al-Baghdadi although influential is but one person, the term Caliphate that ISIS promotes is not a temporary idea whereby if one person dies the whole term or ideology ends. Al-Baghdadi is not the first Jihadi leader to be killed if the news is verified, before him influential figures such as Bin Laden, Al-Zarqawi, Abu Omar Al-Baghdadi, Al-Muhajir, Al-Adnani, Al-Shishani were all killed, it didn’t stop anything neither it changed the situation in the ground.”
Several jihadi Telegram channels, including a pro-Al-Qaeda Telegram channel reporting on jihad in Syria, warned against following “rumors from the unbelievers,” stating that it is currently “still not clear, who was targeted!”[8] Along the same lines, an ISIS media operative[9] shared a post and an image which imply that ISIS supporters should only follow official sources. The message reads: “The real supporter of the Caliphate state: The supporters of the Caliphate amplify the preaching of the Caliphate, having adopted the messages put out by its OFFICIAL MEDIA (NOT crusaders Media) and Strives to disseminate it far and wide.”…
Mario Alexis Portella says
Very well said, Mr. Spencer. While it’s a good thing the bastard got killed, doesn’t change the mentality behind the Muslims who want to kill us.
mortimer says
Agree with AP. Baghdadi is much less important than the PRIMARY SOURCE TEXTS of Islam that he quoted and correctly interpreted according to the WAHHABIST VIEW.
SALAFISM is the interpretation of Islam that says only the first three generations of Islam provide the role model for Muslims.
Muslims believe the source texts are the LITERAL WORDS OF ALLAH. That means that they only way to stop jihad is to convince Muslims that the Koran is a man-made hoax of a document.
This is simple but challenging to do. Once Muslims begin to have serious doubts about the Koran, they start to leave Islam.
Western intelligence agencies should be spreading Koranic textual criticism to undermine and destroy jihad.
Jule Bacal says
The Qur’an/Hadiths are a Warlord Manual for conquest and complete control of its members. What else would a warlord culture honor? to make it OK they say its all Allah ordered & willed, just in case someone might have a little doubt.
CogitoErgoSum says
True. Islam is a religion that resides upon the shoulders of the god from Hell.
Mario Alexis Portella says
As Ataturk said, Islam is a theology for the immoral Arab https://thegreatarchitect.blog/2019/10/26/2437/
Terry Gain says
Islam is not a religion. It is an evil conquest ideology. Religions don’t mandate killing or promise a carnal paradise for evil people who obey these evil commands. The purpose of religion is to connect us to God, not Satan.
Lydia Church says
Only Christianity can do that (Jesus), so in that case Christianity is the only true religion. And in that sense it is. But that is why the others are called false religions. They are religions because they are belief systems regarding supernatural things, only they are false religions because they are wrong.
Lydia Church says
The only VALID religion is Christianity. The others are religions because they are belief systems regarding some god and the supernatural, but they are FALSE religions because they are wrong.
gravenimage says
Islam is a religion by any definition, The idea that there cannot be evil religions has been debunked many times.
Terry Gain says
Debunked by whom? The notion that Islam is a religion is irrational and suicidal. To grant it that status in America means it has First Amendment Protection and cannot be inhibited. And no, GI I am not railing against the First Amendment. I support the First Amendment. I am pointing out the obvious fact that If Islam is a religion, then it has First Amendment protection and may not be inhibited. I do not believe the founders intended to give Islam the means to conquer America. Your thinking on this issue remains confused.
Lydia Church says
It’s a bad religion.
They do exist.
islam should not have protections under the Constitution because it is not compatible with it.
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
Debunked by whom?
…………………….
There have been many religions with ugly beliefs before. including the worship of Ba’al and the worship of Aztec and Mayan gods. Even many aspects of the worship of Greek and Roman gods was pretty unpleasant. There are many more examples, from all over the world. I could post links to proof of this again, but you have always ignored them in the past.
More:
The notion that Islam is a religion is irrational and suicidal.
…………………….
Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that Islam is a religion, Winston Churchill acknowledged that Islam is a religion, Robert Spencer acknowledges that Islam is a religion. Are they all irrational?
Really, acknowledging that Islam is a religion by the definition of the word is anything but irrational. Facts matter.
More:
To grant it that status in America means it has First Amendment Protection and cannot be inhibited. And no, GI I am not railing against the First Amendment. I support the First Amendment. I am pointing out the obvious fact that If Islam is a religion, then it has First Amendment protection and may not be inhibited.
…………………….
Your belief that American laws mean that religions cannot be inhibited in any way–even claiming that they cannot be criticized–is simply incorrect. I know you have cited the Lemon Case–a matter of whether or not the public should pay parochial school teachers’ salaries–as proof somehow that no one is allowed to speak negatively about religion, but this is simply not the case. It is, in fact, the First Amendment that allows such freedom of speech.
More:
I do not believe the founders intended to give Islam the means to conquer America.
…………………….
I have pointed out before that the First Amendment was written after John Adams and Thomas Jefferson learned about the awful creed of Islam in their dealings with the Barbary Pirates. Clearly they did not believe that the First Amendment would lead to Islam conquering us, nor do I believe this.
In fact, I think our changing our laws for Muslims would be far more likely to harm us than it would supremacist Muslims.
More:
Your thinking on this issue remains confused.
…………………….
I know you have said before that anyone who cares about what words mean–such as the definition of “religion”–is confused, but this is simply not the case.
I believe, in fact, that using adhering to reason and facts is of central importance in our defending against Islam. All too often, we see people ignoring reality in trying to deal with Islam, and that does not work well.
Terry Gain says
GI
Whether Islam is a religion is an opinion. It is not a factual claim which may be debunked. An opinion cannot be debunked. It can be challenged and argued that the opinion is not valid, but it cannot be debunked.n
Your opinion that Islam is a religion leads to the result that Islam is entitled to FIRST Amendment protection and may not be legally inhibited. Is that what you want? Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, including America. Your opinion that Islam is a religion facilitates the conquest. Change your stubborn opinion. It Is wrong.
As I’ve said before the notion that the founders intended to give First Amendment protection to this conquest ideology is preposterous.
gravenimage says
Terry Gain wrote:
GI
Whether Islam is a religion is an opinion. It is not a factual claim which may be debunked. An opinion cannot be debunked. It can be challenged and argued that the opinion is not valid, but it cannot be debunked.n
……………………
If you are saying that there is no basis for not considering Islam not to be a religion, I have to agree.
But there is actually no rational basis not to consider Islam a religion. I have shown the definition of the word in authoritative dictionaries–Islam is indeed a religion by the definition of the word, I can see little value in pretending that this is not so.
More:
Your opinion that Islam is a religion leads to the result that Islam is entitled to FIRST Amendment protection and may not be legally inhibited. Is that what you want?
……………………
Terry, you are the one who has claimed that no faith can be “legally inhibited: under the First Amendment, and that this includes legal bars on criticizing any faith, This simply is not the case, so your asking me is this is what I want makes no sense.
Americans have the right to criticize any faith, Your citing of the Lemon Case simply does not bear out your claims that no one in the US is legally allowed to say anything critical of religions.
More:
Islam’s goal is to conquer the world, including America.
……………………
This is something we can agree on.
More:
Your opinion that Islam is a religion facilitates the conquest. Change your stubborn opinion. It Is wrong.
……………………
I simply don’t believe that acknowledging that Islam is a religion facilitates Islam conquering us. Many brave people have fought against Islam. Knowing that Islam is a religion did not stop Thomas Jefferson from crushing the Barbary pirates. It did not stop Winston Churchill from his scathing condemnations of Islam.
More:
As I’ve said before the notion that the founders intended to give First Amendment protection to this conquest ideology is preposterous.
……………………
In that case, you would have to believe that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson forgot everything they learned about Islam when the Bill of Rights was passed into law–there is no indication that this was the case,
Also, so long as one is not inciting violence, one can advocate Fascism or Communism or other vile ideologies under the First Amendment, Even if you could some how (you never say how) get Islam “delisted” as a religion, it would still have the same protections under the Constitution that any other ideology has. As I have noted many times, I don’t think that gutting any of these freedom would make us safer–just the opposite.
In fact, many places without such protections–much of Europe, for instance–are much further down the path of Islamization.
Our being able to freely expose Islam and speak out against it is key.
yiyoya says
The First Amendment, rationally interpreted, refers to freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and the freedom to express those thoughts in speech and writing without government punishing you for those thoughts and expression of those thoughts. It can not rationally be interpreted to refer to complete freedom of action, the freedom to INITIATE force against others, the freedom to do anything you want because you claim the action is sanctioned by your religion.
FGM is sanctioned by Islam, but it is a violation of individual rights, under the American Constitution, you can talk and write all you want about how you believe FGM is commanded by my Creator, blah, blah, blah, but you are not allowed to do it. The Rights Of Man, the American Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights are based on one fundamental moral law, formulated by Ayn Rand –
“Man’s rights can be violated only by the use of physical force. It is only by means of physical force that one man can deprive another of his life, or enslave him, or rob him, or prevent him from pursuing his own goals, or compel him to act against his own rational judgment.
The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships—thus establishing the principle that if men wish to deal with one another, they may do so only by means of reason: by discussion, persuasion and voluntary, uncoerced agreement.”
gravenimage says
Very true–much of Islam is illegal under American law.
Mobuyus says
Adios Al Baghdadi you rotten five coil steamer, don’t let the toilet seat hit you on your way to your islamic paradise.
ElderlyZionist says
I am happy that al-Baghdadi is dead. I hope it was painful and humiliating. But I suspect that the death of this failed, would-be Caliph will make his erstwhile followers more ready to turn to the new, strong horse, the Yeni Caliph Erdogan.
Mario Alexis Portella says
+1 https://thegreatarchitect.blog/2019/10/27/isis-defeated-think-again/
Terry Gain says
Erdogan will get his once the West wakens up.
ElderlyZionist says
The sooner the better.
somehistory says
This is true. Some gangs have a certain leadership, with a main figure, and then subordinates that may move up if the main guy dies or leaves the gang. Some gangs have a leader who is so central to the gang that he is not replaced, and the gang falls apart. islam is like a gang, but there is no certain person that is a leader of the entire organization. There are many ‘leaders’ but no central guy. The central ‘figure’ in islam is satan the devil.
As long as the devil is allowed to exist and mislead people, there will be evil in the earth and people will be performing evil actions.. Devout moslims , and others of similar psychopathic personalities, lust for the evil and nothing short of death puts an end to it. The devil himself must be eliminated before the evil will end.
DOBinTX says
If history is any example [:)], mass jihad fervor only seems to happen when there is a strong leader. Mo, of course. Saladin. The various warrior sultans (but not consistent) in the Ottoman/Turkish empire. Khomeni. OBL. Abu Bakr. The various African tribal leaders wreaking havoc in Africa right now. Others who aren’t coming to mind.
Followers follow. They don’t initiate; a strongman has to lead off. The quiescent periods appear to coincide with the absence of a strong leader. Spot them early enough, perhaps we stop could these (now) eruptions of global jihad. And perhaps ISIS will wither away without Abu Bakr leading.
Angemon says
What if Al-Baghdadi is a title, not a name?
Terry Gain says
Angemon
Are you serious? Or real?
Walter Sieruk says
With death of al Baghdadi this means that he will soon be replaced by another jihadist terrorist chief who will as al Baghdadi was a figurehead and a puppet rulers of ISIS .
For the actual and real head and chief of that heinous and dangerous jihad organization is someone else. Who that “someone else” has been exposed in the book entitled THE ISIS CRISIS by Charles Dyer. For on page 166 the author explains that “The ultimate commander of ISIS remains unseen by most of his followers, but he is not unknown. This commander is Satan himself… Satan moves across the earth ‘like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.’ [First Peter 5:8.]
Therefore, the vicious jihadist thugs who compose ISIS are, in realty, vicious, malicious and deluded fools who are being use by Satan, as his stooges and tools, to inflict demonic murderous harm on humankind. So must so that those violent wicked and insanely deluded jihad savages who make up ISIS are like those callous characters described in the Bible in Ecclesiastes 9:3. That teaches “The hearts of men are full of evil and there is madness in their hearts while they live, and afterwards they join the dead.” In addition, those malice-filled fiendish jihadists of ISIS are so very bloodthirstily, ruinous dangerous and murderous that they are similar to, in character, the hideous villains described in the Bible. Which reads “Their feet are swift to shed blood: ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.” Romans 3:15-17. [N.I.V.]
J D S p says
Anyone with any understanding of God’s word should know that Satan is the real head of ISIS as he I’s the head of islam itself…….
So Baghdadi is dead…Satan is ALIVE and well and for a time is permitted to run rampant throughout the world grabbing those who are unwise into his realm such as groups like ISIS and the many other muslim terrorist groups, organizations and individuals as well as many other non-muslims who fall into Satan’s web of death and deceit. BE WISE AND BE CAREFUL!
gravenimage says
ISIS supporters: “The manifestation and continuation of this religion does not reside on the shoulders of people”
……………………….
Yeah–Jihadists won’t stop. I hope this sets them back a bit, though.
Taking Baghdadi out is excellent, just as taking out bin Laden was. These thugs have to know they are in our crosshairs.
Terry Gain says
These are wonderful but Pyrrhic victories so long as the elites remain ignorant about Islam. It’s like breaking up a no hitter when you are down 12-1.
gravenimage says
Terry, you are right that taking out high-profile Jihadists is not enough–our leaders understanding the threat of Islam itself is key.
Right now, though, this is a victory. I’m going to take a moment–just a moment–and enjoy it.
Jim Gunn says
This is a death blow to any notion of an Islamic State, as there is no authority to declare an Islamic State without a caliph who is in the direct line from Muhammad. They have no capital and no economic base, and no authority with which to re-establish them. ISIS will need to turn to other state sponsors of terror for funding and materiel.
gravenimage says
Yes, Baghdadi claimed–rather implausibly–to be a descendant of the Quraysh tribe.
But he had no proof of this, so any yahoo can make such a claim–there may be more.
Moreover, the heads of the last Caliphate–the Ottoman Empire–were clearly not Arabians, and that didn’t stop them.