What makes a terrorist? [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

incarcerated

01-27-2010, 23:42

Their podcasts go back to the 25th w/o subscribing.

Moderator Roberts asserts that “Extremism is a relative judgment.” Blazak and Horan agree. Horan adds that people holding radical views “is a sign of a very healthy, functioning, democratic society. We’re not really trying to prevent radicalization per se: we’re trying to prevent a particular kind of radicalization from taking root…”
As long as it’s not anti-gay, Talk Radio and Tea Parties (two places where White Supremacist rhetoric is used a lot, according to Blazak) (Glen Beck is of particular concern), people opposed to illegal immigration or in favor of gun rights, and anti-government types (especially on the internet), which are the areas where Blazak finds the greatest concern for breeding terrorists. He mentions Islamic terror only as an equivalent to Christian terror.
Roberts reminds us of Christian, veteran, and White Supremacist terrorist Timothy McVeigh.
The lady professor from Islamabad finds injustice and lack of opportunity as a major source of terror in Pakistan. She believes that “you cannot identify terrorism with any religion.” Islam is not germane to their discussion.
No mention of Fort Hood. The Christmas Day Bomber is not directly discussed in any significant way: their discussion is “in the context of” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, not about him. His name is never mentioned.
This is how the Left morphs Civil Rights activism and their political agenda into the War on Terror.
Hate Crime = Terror.

SF-TX

01-27-2010, 23:46

From the NPR transcript:

ROBERTS: And you know, we've been talking about this in the context of the Christmas Day bomber and, of course, Islamic extremists, which get a lot of play, but we have to remember that for a long time, the worst attack on American soil was perpetuated by Timothy McVeigh, a white Christian U.S. citizen.

Mr.�HORGAN: Absolutely.

Mr.�BLAZAK: Right, and a veteran and white supremacist.

Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian? In his "Dear Tracy" letters, he is claiming to be agnostic:

Now awaiting death, McVeigh says he is unafraid, that he doesn't believe in heaven and hell. 'If I'm wrong then I'll adapt, improvise and overcome,' he says. 'But if there is a hell, then I'll be in good company with a lot of fighter pilots who also had to bomb innocents to win the war.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/22/mcveigh.usa

'Dear Tracy' - by mass killer Timothy McVeigh
In a letter to Observer reporter Tracy McVeigh, Oklahoma bomber Timothy McVeigh, who faces execution in 10 days, talks about the 'triggers' that led him to kill people
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/may/06/news.mcveigh

These two articles also suggest he wasn't a Christian:

http://townhall.com/columnists/MaggieGallagher/2002/10/28/timothy_mcveigh,_christian_terrorist

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200205/ai_n9113667/

T-Rock

01-28-2010, 00:40

These two articles also suggest he wasn't a Christian:

What's key and often overlooked when folks throw religion into the mix, is that violence in the Bible is descriptive, whereas violence in the Qur'an is prescriptive - commanded by Allah and Muhammed. To say otherwise would be orienting on a "narrative" as opposed to orienting on facts. Christianity doesn't have any theological legal imperative commanding Christians to go out and do violence on Christianities behalf, whereas Islam does.

Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers - terrorism.

"...I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (Sura 8:12)

Sigaba

01-28-2010, 01:56

Statement comparing nature of the Bible to the Qur'an

Islam is unique in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers - terrorism.

"...I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." (Sura 8:12)T-Rock--

I think your equating all acts of violence committed in the name of Islam as "terrorism" is problematic. If, for example, a number of Muslim states in the M.E. were to declare war on Israel and send their armed forces to attack, would that constitute terrorism or a condition of general war?

In regards to your quote that uses "terror," I would remind you that in Western civilization, references to "terror" are not rare. IIRC, in The Iliad of Homer, terror, along with rumor, are often seen stalking the ranks. Trojans (and at least one god) know terror as they face Diomedes, Lord of the War Cry in book five. Dolon, a Trojan upstart also has his moment of terror in book ten under the scornful wrath of the great tactician Odysseus. And then there is Pallas Athena and the aegis.

Where I am going with this is that "terror" might hold special power in a cultural milieu in which notions of male identity revolve around notions of physical courage.

In regard to the first part of your post, I think the article below provides an interesting counterpoint. YMMV.

Source is here (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202614.htm).ScienceDaily (Mar. 7, 2007) — Reading violent scriptures increases aggressive behavior, especially among believers, a new study finds. The study by University of Michigan social psychologist Brad Bushman and colleagues helps to illuminate one of the ways that violence and behavior are linked.

"To justify their actions, violent people often claim that God has sanctioned their behavior," said Bushman, faculty associate at the U-M Institute for Social Research and lead author of the article published in the March 2007 issue of Psychological Science. "Christian extremists, Jewish reactionaries and Islamic fundamentalists all can cite scriptures that seem to encourage or at least support aggression against unbelievers."

Bushman, who is also a U-M professor of psychology and communications studies, and colleagues at Brigham Young University and at Vrije University in the Netherlands, found the same relationship in two separate experiments detailed in the article.

The first study involved Brigham Young University students, 99 percent of whom believed in God and in the Bible. The second study involved Amsterdam students, 50 percent of whom believed in God and 27 percent of whom believed in the Bible.

After reporting their religious affiliations and beliefs, participants read a passage adapted from the King James Bible that described a woman's brutal murder and her husband's revenge on her attackers. Half the participants were told that the passage came from the Old Testament, half that it came from an ancient scroll found by archeologists. Half the participants from each of these groups read a version of the passage that included a sentence in which God commanded his followers to take arms against others.

After reading the passages, participants were paired with confederates of the experimenters for a simple reaction task. They were told that the winner would be able to "blast" the losing partner with noise as loud as 105 decibels, about the level of a fire alarm—a common experimental measure of aggression.

The researchers found that both the religious and secular students were more aggressive, delivering louder blasts of noise to their ostensible partners, when told that the passage they read came from the Bible. Aggressive responses also increased when participants read that God directly sanctioned violence. The increased level of aggression was greater among believers than among secularists, however.

"Our results further confirm previous research showing that exposure to violent media causes people to behave more aggressively if they identify with the violent characters than if they do not," Bushman said.

The work also supports the view that exposure to violent scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions. "It's important to note that we obtained evidence supporting this hypothesis in samples of university students who were, in our estimation, not typical of the terrorists who blow up civilians," Bushman wrote. "Even among our participants who were not religiously devout, exposure to God-sanctioned violence increased subsequent aggression. That the effect was found in such a sample may attest to the insidious power of exposure to literary scriptural violence."

According to Bushman and colleagues, this does not mean that reading the scriptures leads to aggression. "Violent stories that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims' suffering or the aggressor's remorse can teach important lessons and have legitimate artistic merit. But taking a single violent episode out of its overall context, as we did in these studies, can produce a significant increase in aggression."Dr. Bushman's article is available here (http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/files/BRDKB07.pdf).

T-Rock

01-28-2010, 04:25

When God Sanctions Violence, Believers Act More Aggressively...

Especially when it is a legal imperative to do so...

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5:51), therefore, "...Fight those who do not believe in Allah...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. (9:29) also,..."The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews" (al-Bukhari)

I think your equating all acts of violence committed in the name of Islam as "terrorism" is problematic. If, for example, a number of Muslim states in the M.E. were to declare war on Israel and send their armed forces to attack, would that constitute terrorism or a condition of general war?

Neither Jewish nor Christian scriptures nor any other religions employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments for "War." Although we in the west don't think their way, Islam has already declared war on us - secularists, atheists, buddhists, Jews, and christians alike, a never ending eternal war, and the perpetual acts of terrorism only reinforce what is sanctioned by their legal doctrine. To them it is a religious war, sanctioned by Islam.

...The crucial difference in Islam, however, is that war against the infidel is a perpetual affair—until, in the words of the Qur'an, "all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to God."[25] In his entry on jihad from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, Emile Tyan states: "The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily."[26]...

...Obligatory jihad is best expressed by Islam's dichotomized worldview that pits the realm of Islam against the realm of war. The first, dar al-Islam, is the "realm of submission," the world where Shari'a governs; the second, dar al-Harb (the realm of war), is the non-Islamic world. A struggle continues until the realm of Islam subsumes the non-Islamic world—a perpetual affair that continues to the present day. The renowned Muslim historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) clearly articulates this division:

In the Muslim community, jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the jihad was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.[29]...

http://www.meforum.org/2538/taqiyya-islam-rules-of-war
http://www.meforum.org/2159/are-judaism-and-christianity-as-violent-as-islam

Does the indiscriminate killing of innocent life constitute terrorism?

Edited to add:

According to S.K. Malik, terrorism is a form of warfare, the Quranic concept of war explains the role of 'terror' in the implementation of war:
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL4086137M/Quranic_concept_of_war

Richard

01-28-2010, 06:41

I think some of you should reread the entire transcript - the radical vs extremist point, the similarity of radicalized language used by many terrorist and non-terroristic groups, and the myriad issues involved in 'profiling' and leading up to a detemination by an individual to a crossing of the line between radical thinking and extremist action are of interest.

RE: McVeigh as 'Christian' - "I was raised Catholic. I was confirmed Catholic (received the sacrament of confirmation). Through my military years, I sort of lost touch with the religion. I never really picked it up, however I do maintain core beliefs." http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,109478,00.html

McVeigh also requested a Catholic priest be present at his execution.

SPREAD BY THE SWORD?

http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html

Religion does three things quite effectively: divides people, controls people, deludes people.
- Carlespie McKinney

I know of no crime that has not been defended by the church, in one form or other. The church is not a pioneer; it accepts a new truth, last of all, and only when denial has become useless.
- Robert G. Ingersoll

Theological and societal turf wars in an increasingly crowded modern world - no less dangerous, but increasingly complicated. :(

Richard's $.02 :munchin

cszakolczai

01-28-2010, 09:54

Especially when it is a legal imperative to do so...

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." (5:51), therefore, "...Fight those who do not believe in Allah...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. (9:29) also,..."The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews" (al-Bukhari)

Neither Jewish nor Christian scriptures nor any other religions employ such perpetual, open-ended commandments for "War." Although we in the west don't think their way, Islam has already declared war on us - secularists, atheists, buddhists, Jews, and christians alike, a never ending eternal war, and the perpetual acts of terrorism only reinforce what is sanctioned by their legal doctrine. To them it is a religious war, sanctioned by Islam.

T-Rock

I would be weary when adding a "therefore" between the 2 writings in this passage of the Qur'an. By adding it, you are creating a sense that violence toward Christians and Jews is justified by the Quran, when in reality these two writings are not just seperated by many other lines, and the historical context hasn't even been taken into account.

Manipulation of writings and verses can be misinterpreted and therefore convince people that these lines do in fact justify the killing of Jews and Christians... this same ideology is present in the extremists mind set when they carry out attacks. They have been brain washed, and have been cited verses out of context in order to create a sense of martydom, therefore I would be cautious when extracting 2 lines and combining them out of context and out of order.

T-Rock

01-28-2010, 12:53

I would be weary when adding a "therefore" between the 2 writings in this passage of the Qur'an. By adding it, you are creating a sense that violence toward Christians and Jews is justified by the Quran, when in reality these two writings are not just seperated by many other lines, and the historical context hasn't even been taken into account.

Manipulation of writings and verses can be misinterpreted and therefore convince people that these lines do in fact justify the killing of Jews and Christians... this same ideology is present in the extremists mind set when they carry out attacks. They have been brain washed, and have been cited verses out of context in order to create a sense of martydom, therefore I would be cautious when extracting 2 lines and combining them out of context and out of order.

Therein lies the rub, the Qur’an does justify violence towards Jews and Christians providing certain criteria are met. Offensive Jihad or violence towards Unbelievers, Jews, and Christians, happen to be grounded in history, as well as being codified by Sharia.

The Objectives of Jihad

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)

o22.1 ( I )
(9) those (nasikh) which supersede previously revealed Koranic verses;
(10) and those (mansukh) which are superseded by later verses.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 625, 626)

Which verses in the Qur’an that call for peace, love and patience towards Unbelievers, Jews, and Christians are not affected by al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh ? :confused:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Surah 2: 106)

“When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not."
(Surah 16:101)

Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside of the mainstream… :(

greenberetTFS

01-28-2010, 13:45

T-Rock

I would be weary when adding a "therefore" between the 2 writings in this passage of the Qur'an. By adding it, you are creating a sense that violence toward Christians and Jews is justified by the Quran, when in reality these two writings are not just seperated by many other lines, and the historical context hasn't even been taken into account.

Manipulation of writings and verses can be misinterpreted and therefore convince people that these lines do in fact justify the killing of Jews and Christians... this same ideology is present in the extremists mind set when they carry out attacks. They have been brain washed, and have been cited verses out of context in order to create a sense of martydom, therefore I would be cautious when extracting 2 lines and combining them out of context and out of order.

cszakolczal,

I see in your profile you didn't answer the question, What services you were in?....may I ask what and when? :confused:

Big Teddy :munchin

greenberetTFS

01-28-2010, 13:48

cszakolczai

01-28-2010, 14:07

Therein lies the rub, the Qur’an does justify violence towards Jews and Christians providing certain criteria are met. Offensive Jihad or violence towards Unbelievers, Jews, and Christians, happen to be grounded in history, as well as being codified by Sharia.

The Objectives of Jihad

o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.

o9.6 It is offensive to conduct a military expedition against hostile non-Muslims without the Caliph’s permission (A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 599-609)

o22.1 ( I )
(9) those (nasikh) which supersede previously revealed Koranic verses;
(10) and those (mansukh) which are superseded by later verses.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 625, 626)

Which verses in the Qur’an that call for peace, love and patience towards Unbelievers, Jews, and Christians are not affected by al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh ? :confused:

“None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Surah 2: 106)

“When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not."
(Surah 16:101)

Those who do not accept abrogation fall outside of the mainstream… :(

Jihad means struggle and in response to the verses you cited, here are some other verses...

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

Not much time right now.

To add while I have some more time, Yes, the Qur'an does offer and have violent verses, but is it just that easy to declare it a violent text and one which targets Christians and Jews? I think it is a little more complicated then that. And in order to understand Islamic extremism, we have to see how the texts are manipulated and altered to fit the teachings which are found by terrorist organizations.

SF-TX

01-28-2010, 14:09

McVeigh also requested a Catholic priest be present at his execution.

I suspect that may have been "E" in his PACE plan.;)

T-Rock

01-28-2010, 18:52

Jihad means struggle and in response to the verses you cited, here are some other verses...

If the elderly and disabled are exempt from the “struggle” what exactly does it mean?

o9.4 Those called upon (o: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

o9.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
(1) someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
(2) or someone with at least one muslim parent, until they give their permission:
Unless the muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.
(Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 602-603)

Read Qur’an 9:29.

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors.

[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

cszakolczal - what role does al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh play on the verses you’ve cited and what role does the below verse play?

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

FWIW, the following Surahs have no authority and have been nullified:
Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108
http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?103174-About-Abrogation-in-the-Quran-%28al-Nasikh-wal-Mansukh%29

Edited to add:

“They have been brain washed, and have been cited verses out of context in order to create a sense of martydom…”

FWIW, the Qur’an & Hadith guarantee martyrs a fast track to Islamic paradise to have their sins forgiven, regardless of any debauchery they may have been engaged in.

God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden—they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l]—this is a true promise given by Him .... Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.(9:111)

You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph (61:10)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/jihad-martyrdom-and-the-torments-of-the-grave/

http://www.meforum.org/646/the-qaradawi-fatwas

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5671220264306422368&hl=da#

cszakolczai

01-28-2010, 23:09

If the elderly and disabled are exempt from the “struggle” what exactly does it mean?

o9.4 Those called upon (o: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane.

o9.5 The following may not fight in jihad:
(1) someone in debt, unless his creditor gives him leave:
(2) or someone with at least one muslim parent, until they give their permission:
Unless the muslims are surrounded by the enemy, in which case it is permissible for them to fight without permission.
(Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 602-603)

Read Qur’an 9:29.

cszakolczal - what role does al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh play on the verses you’ve cited and what role does the below verse play?

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

FWIW, the following Surahs have no authority and have been nullified:
Surahs 2, 3, 5, 8, 14, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 40, 42, 51, 52, 56, 58, 73, 103, and 108
http://www.meforum.org/1754/peace-or-jihad-abrogation-in-islam

http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?103174-About-Abrogation-in-the-Quran-%28al-Nasikh-wal-Mansukh%29

Edited to add:

FWIW, the Qur’an & Hadith guarantee martyrs a fast track to Islamic paradise to have their sins forgiven, regardless of any debauchery they may have been engaged in.

God has purchased the persons and possessions of the believers for the Garden—they fight [q-t-l] in God’s way: they kill [q-t-l] and are killed [q-t-l]—this is a true promise given by Him .... Who could be more faithful to his promise than God? So be happy with the bargain you have made: that is the supreme triumph.(9:111)

You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph (61:10)

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/jihad-martyrdom-and-the-torments-of-the-grave/

http://www.meforum.org/646/the-qaradawi-fatwas

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5671220264306422368&hl=da#

You bring up some very valid points, and a lot of good reading along with a video I have not yet seen. Unfortunately I cannot offer a complete response due to the fact its late and I have to be up early... I am also going away for the weekend and will hopefully have internet, but I cannot promise anything. I won't forget about you, and I hope I can continue the discussion.

T-Rock

01-28-2010, 23:18

You bring up some very valid points, and a lot of good reading along with a video I have not yet seen. Unfortunately I cannot offer a complete response due to the fact its late and I have to be up early... I am also going away for the weekend and will hopefully have internet, but I cannot promise anything. I won't forget about you, and I hope I can continue the discussion

No problem.…and thanks for taking a look. I will leave this last parting thought though, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:

The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.

http://www.meforum.org/2066/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam

Sigaba

01-28-2010, 23:40

Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.IMO, this observation is not especially insightful. The view that the world has always been (and shall always be) a dangerous place filled with hostile nations is hardly a novel concept in American diplomatic, military, or naval history.

T-Rock

01-29-2010, 04:10

IMO, this observation is not especially insightful.

Maybe you’re right but I have to wonder - would it have been so for Richard the Lionheart, Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak Rabin, or Bill Clinton
14343

Intentional deceit is a well grounded doctrine of Islam which presents a range of ethical dilemmas.

Khayrul-Makereen...

Richard

01-29-2010, 06:17

...would it have been so for Richard the Lionheart...

Leaders are not very open to negotiation when you have executed several thousands of their captured soldiers being held as hostages because it would be awkward to continue to hold them as your forces advanced.

A side note - I have been to Trifels, the castle where Henry Vl held Richard for ransom - not a well restored castle but copies of Henry's sword, crown, sceptre, and orb as Emperor of the Holy Roman and Germanic Empires are on display there - and I've seen the originals on display in the Schatzkammer in Wien which also contains the Hapsburg collection of holy relics - including what were proclaimed to be pieces from the cross on which Christ was crucified, the Holy Lance used to pierce His side, the thorn of crowns, the cloth that covered the table at the last supper, and Christ's loincloth.

Those who wish to seek out the cause of miracles, and to understand the things of nature as philosophers, and not to stare at them in astonishment like fools, are soon considered heretical and impious, and proclaimed as such by those whom the mob adores as the interpreters of nature and the gods. For these men know that once ignorance is put aside that wonderment would be taken away which is the only means by which their authority is preserved.
- Spinoza

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
- Blaise Pascal

Richard

cszakolczai

01-29-2010, 07:52

No problem.…and thanks for taking a look. I will leave this last parting thought though, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam simply states:

The duty of the jihad exists as long as the universal domination of Islam has not been attained. Peace with non-Muslim nations is, therefore, a provisional state of affairs only; the chance of circumstances alone can justify it temporarily. Furthermore there can be no question of genuine peace treaties with these nations; only truces, whose duration ought not, in principle, to exceed ten years, are authorized. But even such truces are precarious, inasmuch as they can, before they expire, be repudiated unilaterally should it appear more profitable for Islam to resume the conflict.

http://www.meforum.org/2066/war-and-peace-and-deceit-in-islam

Few seconds I have before I jump in the car... No need to thank me, I enjoy hearing other opinions and reading and learning. This could have easily spun out of control due to the fact topics like this usually do, so it is nice to have a discussion without name calling and whatever else.

Chris

cszakolczai

01-31-2010, 22:15

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)....." Surah 9:5

I think the passage can be better understood by the passages surrounding it and understanding the history surrounding this time. I think this link provides a very good answer and so I will quote it... not trying to be lazy, I just don't think I could word it any differently.

But very quickly, from what I know and have understood from other readings. Very briefly...

The Pagans and Muslims had a deal, Muslims would be allowed to complete their Hajj in order to complete the deal. The Pagans constantly refused the Muslims the chance to enter their Hajj, and therefore Surah 9:4 was written.
"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught not aided anyone against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous."

Clearly the statement starts off by saying that one should not break the treaty and be faithful to their word.

Following the completion of the treaty, Surah 9:5 was written allowing the Muslims to revolt against their Pagan oppressors who were not allowing them to complete their Hajj.
"But whe the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans where ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every strategem (of war); bit if they repent..." Surah 9:5 I dont want to take up more space, I'm sure you can find the Surah in your copy of the Qur'an.

Some state and some historians state, that war was not allowed in Muslim religion until it was declared in the Qur'an. Therefore this last Surah (9:5) states that the Muslims are allowed to declare war against the Pagans.

As for the video you posted which was linked to google... that was a helluva video. Just shows you the level of extremism, and honestly very scary movie to show how crazy some of these men and women are. Thank you for that link.

Thats all for now, sorry about the delay in getting back to you, -27 degree weather killed the internet and lots of hockey.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/jihad/kill_the_infidels.asp

what role does al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh

T-Rock

02-01-2010, 02:26

I think the passage can be better understood by the passages surrounding it and understanding the history surrounding this time. I think this link provides a very good answer and so I will quote it... not trying to be lazy, I just don't think I could word it any differently.

Thanks for the article. It is prudent though to examine Islamic Law - what does it demand?

The Prophet Muhammad said, "No babe is born but upon Fitra (as a Muslim). It is his parents who make him a Jew or a Christian or a Polytheist." (Sahih Muslim, Book 033, Number 6426)

As Islam teaches no one really converts to Islam, they revert.

Infidel is a commonly used western word, nevertheless, lets examine their terminology.

* Kafir - Non-Muslim
* Kufr - Unbelief/infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.
(Reliance of the Traveller - index for above - see pages 1132,1170,1172,1207).

What does Islamic Law say ? (Shariah)

Unbelief (Kufr)

c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...

(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...

o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)

o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:

(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:

(19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law:
(these are but a few)

BACK TO o8.0

o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed

(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

Edited to add:

o9.6 (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).

o9.8 The caliph (see above) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.

**"Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day and who forbid not what Allah and His messenger have forbidden--who do not practice the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book--until they pay the poll tax out of hand are humbled"** (Koran 9:29)
(pg 602-603)

Following the completion of the treaty, Surah 9:5 was written allowing the Muslims to revolt against their Pagan oppressors who were not allowing them to complete their Hajj.

Unless all pagans play the game of Zakat and Salat, the forbidden months are four months in which no warfare was allowed. Once these months have passed, it becomes an obligation for Muslims to go out and kill some pagans in accordance with the Qur'an in its context - Muhammad himself fought many wars during those sacred months.

I'll offer you a challenge :D if you go on the Hajj unannounced with a visible cross around your neck and a bible in hand, I will buy you your favorite bottle of whiskey :D

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/swordverse.htm

cszakolczai

02-02-2010, 22:27

Damn you and your good posts, sir :D. Now I have to think more and come up with a rebuttal. All very valid statemens, and again very informative links. I will try and get back to you tomorrow when I have some more time and not crammed with work. I will have to look at each individual statement and analyze it.

But I will say this, if I do take your challenge, forget the whiskey, just buy me a new Glock. :)

T-Rock

02-03-2010, 00:23

...sir

Hey....I'm just an old clump :D no need to call me sir...LOL

But I will say this, if I do take your challenge, forget the whiskey, just buy me a new Glock.

LOL...I'm not ashamed to say, I wouldn't go even with a Glock - the only way I would consider it... is to have an ODA watching my six, and even with that, on a pucker factor scale of 1-10, 10 would be the norm throughout the whole endeavor :D

You may find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfeYhzsPTsg

cszakolczai

02-03-2010, 09:39

Hey....I'm just an old clump :D no need to call me sir...LOL

LOL...I'm not ashamed to say, I wouldn't go even with a Glock - the only way I would consider it... is to have an ODA watching my six, and even with that, on a pucker factor scale of 1-10, 10 would be the norm throughout the whole endeavor :D

You may find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfeYhzsPTsg

Alright, then old clump it is :D Just kidding, we'll leave it at sir.

Haha, I meant if I actually accomplished the Hajj with a cross around my neck. Forget the whiskey, my new Glock is more important. Been saving for a while. Again good youtube video... letting it download as we speak.

cszakolczai

02-03-2010, 23:36

Never commented on the youtube video. Very informative and I think it just further addresses the point that extremism is caused by taking the Qur'an's words and twisting them. There was a piece of information I read somewhere stating that the most dangerous terrorists who say they understand the Qur'an the best, really dont know anything about it due to the fact they never actually studied it. Most picked it up, read sections and didn't look into the history behind certain Surahs.

Again obviously though you make some incredibly valid points and can back it up with examples, which I still have to look at one by one, but I feel that with history, violence can be seen everywhere. For example in the Jewish religion, when we look at Vladamir Jabotinsky and his future aid in creating the Irgun. One of the very first terrorist organizations, aimed at fighting the British.

I'm not sure if you've read Qutb, but if you want to talk about a little bit of crazyness, here ya go. If you have read it then you know the influence he's had over Bin Laden. If you haven't had a chance to read it... it is a good number of pages and can tire the eyes by staring at a screen. I can print it for you and mail it if you'd like.

http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Milestone/index.htm

T-Rock

02-04-2010, 02:53

Never commented on the youtube video. Very informative and I think it just further addresses the point that extremism is caused by taking the Qur'an's words and twisting them.

That's the whole point I think you're missing, anyone can twist religion to justify violence, yet...Shari'ah Law demands violence, it's in accordance with the Qur'an - no twisting whatsoever. Shari'ah Law is on the side of extremism, don't take my word for it though, examine Shari'ah Law for yourself - The principle source of Shari'ah is the Qur'an itself. It is the Islamic source material for the muslims Law, confirmed by any number of ulema.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/SHARIA.HTM

It guides the muslim in every aspect of life - listen to this guy (00:10 - 01:22 - 01:55)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

This book pretty much covers Shar'iah, it is the book I quoted from in my previous posts - The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Law - get one here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

For the muslim, "it is imperative for every muslim to mold his or her life according to the teachings of the Qur'an. Our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "None of you can become a true believer until his desires become subordinate to what I have brought." and the true believers consider "the pathetic and disastrous condition of the Muslim Ummah throughout the world is due to the abandoning of the Qur'an by the Muslims. The attitude of indifference that we constantly show towards the last of the Allah's Revelations, along with our hypocritical lip-service, is tantamount to ridiculing it. Instead, we must clearly understand our responsibilities towards the Qur'an and try our very best in fulfilling them."
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658485560&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout

I'm not sure if you've read Qutb, but if you want to talk about a little bit of crazyness, here ya go.

The last of the Allah's Revelations (Medina) are what extremists are abiding by - Sayyid Qutb barely scratches the surface, if you really interested in reading the craziness, check out the writings of: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Wakidi, and Ibn Taymiyyah. Qutb's ideas came from the early ulema:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=active&q=ibn+taymiyyah+the+madinan+way&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8

This too is a worthwhile read:

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

cszakolczai

02-04-2010, 16:59

That's the whole point I think you're missing, anyone can twist religion to justify violence, yet...Shari'ah Law demands violence, it's in accordance with the Qur'an - no twisting whatsoever. Shari'ah Law is on the side of extremism, don't take my word for it though, examine Shari'ah Law for yourself - The principle source of Shari'ah is the Qur'an itself. It is the Islamic source material for the muslims Law, confirmed by any number of ulema.
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GLOSSARY/SHARIA.HTM

It guides the muslim in every aspect of life - listen to this guy (00:10 - 01:22 - 01:55)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qxjocm5fCc

This book pretty much covers Shar'iah, it is the book I quoted from in my previous posts - The Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Law - get one here:
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

For the muslim, "it is imperative for every muslim to mold his or her life according to the teachings of the Qur'an. Our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said: "None of you can become a true believer until his desires become subordinate to what I have brought." and the true believers consider "the pathetic and disastrous condition of the Muslim Ummah throughout the world is due to the abandoning of the Qur'an by the Muslims. The attitude of indifference that we constantly show towards the last of the Allah's Revelations, along with our hypocritical lip-service, is tantamount to ridiculing it. Instead, we must clearly understand our responsibilities towards the Qur'an and try our very best in fulfilling them."
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158658485560&pagename=Zone-English-Living_Shariah%2FLSELayout

The last of the Allah's Revelations (Medina) are what extremists are abiding by - Sayyid Qutb barely scratches the surface, if you really interested in reading the craziness, check out the writings of: Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, Wakidi, and Ibn Taymiyyah. Qutb's ideas came from the early ulema:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=active&q=ibn+taymiyyah+the+madinan+way&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8

This too is a worthwhile read:

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

Again great links and information,
I think I was so adament about proving you wrong because of the first post you made where you used "therefore." I still defend my first initial point where I stated you couldnt link those 2 passages together. Yet, after all these posts and all this discussion and me really looking into the Qur'an and Sharia very deeply, I can see your point.

I still defend the fact that Islam teaches peace as well as stating violence, but I can definitely understand your points detailing where it does point out very obvious statements that can so easily be manipulated. I'm almost more inclined to call the Qur'an a poorly written book which was written for a time period and should have been left in that time period, rather then a book which all Muslims should follow completely without question.

I have access to the texts you've mentioned and as much as I can counter your statements with history and other passages, I think you make your point very well when it's realized that the extremists who read the Qur'an, do not look at anything else, other then what the book says. And if we look at the book at such a superficial level, then it can be stated that it is violent, and it calls for the killing of many people in the name of Islam. I don't look at the book in such a way because I am a history person, so I try and take into account what was written and where and why.

I'll fold on the river card, and I guess I owe you a drink. :)

T-Rock

02-04-2010, 23:12

I think I was so adamant about proving you wrong because of the first post you made where you used "therefore." I still defend my first initial point where I stated you couldn’t link those 2 passages together.

No problem, it’s not about proving me wrong, it’s about proving them wrong. I sincerely would like to be wrong…

In linking those two passages together, 1400 years of history makes the case against you argument - it is the legacy of “Jihad” - it is Islam. Islam means submission and only when the world (Dar al-Harb) submits to Shari’ah, will there be peace - so they say…LOL
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/59/31/

I still defend the fact that Islam teaches peace…

On what and whose terms?

The terms defined by the “book of mecca” or those defined by the “book of medina” ?

I will agree with you that some muslims teach peace, but the peace they’re preachin is not what Islam demands.

According to the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law, non-muslims are to be subdued and treated as second class citizens - coerced and intimidated to convert to Islam, if not, humiliating taxes like the jizya are/were to be imposed - the 1400 year historical record proves this true. How can this be peace - the subjugation of others?

Take a brief moment and look at the movement towards dhimmitude in the Philippines - by allowing the “Jizya” - will this bring peace or subjugation?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/philippines-offers-autonomy-to-rebels-20100201-n8nu.html
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/philippines-to-let-milf-collect-taxes/
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=289437&D=2010-02-02&SO=&HC=2
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html

When Qur’anic source materials are examined, it becomes evident that surah 9:5 is part of the theology of Jihad - Jihad is/was violent, and those that reject/rejected Islam are/were to be killed.

The significance of my use of therefore has to do with the chronological order of the Qur’an and its so-called progressive revelation, which is useful information, if one is to halfway make any sense of what Islam teaches.

I think you make your point very well when it's realized that the extremists who read the Qur'an, do not look at anything else, other then what the book says.

The use of “therefore” and linking the two passages together dates back to the 7th century, it has everything to do with the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law.

Muhammad’s followers noticed he was contradicting himself quite frequently since he claimed that his revelations were from the angel Gabriel - and then later - Muhammad would tell his followers that allah had invalidated it. I do not believe it is acceptable or sensible to think that allah changes his mind so frequently unless he‘s a fraud, a cultural icon. Nevertheless, since Islam is a dualistic system, we will always be facing the never-ending threat of its teachings - which are - the inspiration of what makes an Islamic terrorist.

I'll fold on the river card, and I guess I owe you a drink.

Nah, don’t worry about that…LOL…if you ever find you way down here in the south, the drinks are on me :D

cszakolczai

02-07-2010, 15:37

No problem, it’s not about proving me wrong, it’s about proving them wrong. I sincerely would like to be wrong…

In linking those two passages together, 1400 years of history makes the case against you argument - it is the legacy of “Jihad” - it is Islam. Islam means submission and only when the world (Dar al-Harb) submits to Shari’ah, will there be peace - so they say…LOL
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj/
http://www.andrewbostom.org/loj//content/view/59/31/

On what and whose terms?

The terms defined by the “book of mecca” or those defined by the “book of medina” ?

I will agree with you that some muslims teach peace, but the peace they’re preachin is not what Islam demands.

According to the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law, non-muslims are to be subdued and treated as second class citizens - coerced and intimidated to convert to Islam, if not, humiliating taxes like the jizya are/were to be imposed - the 1400 year historical record proves this true. How can this be peace - the subjugation of others?

Take a brief moment and look at the movement towards dhimmitude in the Philippines - by allowing the “Jizya” - will this bring peace or subjugation?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/philippines-offers-autonomy-to-rebels-20100201-n8nu.html
http://moneyjihad.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/philippines-to-let-milf-collect-taxes/
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=289437&D=2010-02-02&SO=&HC=2
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html

When Qur’anic source materials are examined, it becomes evident that surah 9:5 is part of the theology of Jihad - Jihad is/was violent, and those that reject/rejected Islam are/were to be killed.

The significance of my use of therefore has to do with the chronological order of the Qur’an and its so-called progressive revelation, which is useful information, if one is to halfway make any sense of what Islam teaches.

The use of “therefore” and linking the two passages together dates back to the 7th century, it has everything to do with the Qur’an, Sira, Hadith, and Shari’ah Law.

Muhammad’s followers noticed he was contradicting himself quite frequently since he claimed that his revelations were from the angel Gabriel - and then later - Muhammad would tell his followers that allah had invalidated it. I do not believe it is acceptable or sensible to think that allah changes his mind so frequently unless he‘s a fraud, a cultural icon. Nevertheless, since Islam is a dualistic system, we will always be facing the never-ending threat of its teachings - which are - the inspiration of what makes an Islamic terrorist.

Nah, don’t worry about that…LOL…if you ever find you way down here in the south, the drinks are on me :D

Didn't forget about this... just have no time to respond.

T-Rock

01-03-2011, 00:43

An enlightening interview from the Aramaic Broadcasting Network with Omar Bakri Mohammed, Anjem Chouhary, Walid Shoebat, and Kamal Saleem. It's all about the Sharia...

:munchin

"Is al-Qaeda justified by Islam"

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-A9MK6UlNE

akv

01-03-2011, 02:17

An enlightening interview from the Aramaic Broadcasting Network with Omar Bakri Mohammed, Anjem Chouhary, Walid Shoebat, and Kamal Saleem. It's all about the Sharia...

Enlightening is a powerful word. IMHO Justice Scalia's opinions for example are often enlightening but YMMV. Chouhary and Omar are clearly folks proctologists should study. Kamal Saleem has written a book The Blood of Lambs, I have not read this book. Doug Howard, (who to be fair alleges Saleem is a fake) has written a scathing review, an excerpt follows,

In The Blood of Lambs, Kamal Saleem writes, "I wanted to be like Bond." In these pages he is Bond, James Bond, in size 6X. He gets those emphatic rivals, the PLO and the Muslim Brotherhood, both to recruit him. He recalls the intricate details of raids he carried out at age seven. Abu Jihad himself teaches him how to use an AK-47. He is shown off by Yasser Arafat as a model warrior. In Libya at age 14 he has Muammar Qaddafi gushing in gratitude. In Iraq, he waves to Saddam Hussein. He only meets one man smarter than himself, an American commander of the mujahidin at al-Qaeda, "the base," in Afghanistan. No major war of liberation in the Arab world seems to have gone off without his expertise. He schmoozes with rich oil sheikhs in the Emirates and Saudi Arabia and makes love to the beautiful daughter of one of them in London. Even if one were disposed to give these entertaining claims the benefit of the doubt, the book's frequent mistakes give the reader pause. The Islamic umma does not mean one world government, and it is not "coming." The PLO was a secular organization even though Yasser Arafat prayed and quoted the Qur'an.

The Blood of Lambs describes so many deaths and killings, in such pornographic detail, that we wonder whether indulging this secret lust is the whole point.

The book tries to make readers feel ashamed for asking nagging questions, but I am unmoved. Every other chapter is devoted to coyly reminding us of the dangers Kamal Saleem faces when he speaks publicly against "Radical Islam." Describing the controversy surrounding his 2008 appearance at the Air Force Academy, he writes that "a college professor specifically called me a 'fraud.' " I was that college professor, and having now read his book, I see no reason to withdraw the assessment. I want to know why a person who so vividly recalls maneuvers carried out when he was seven years old has such vague memories of his twenties. How did he come to the United States, exactly? When asked that question at Calvin, he answered "as a student, like you." In the book, he refers to students being funded by Arab oil money, which of course is true. But he avoids saying he was a student himself, and it would seem to have been impossible, since he says he was forced to drop out of school as a youngster to work for a cruel uncle. He writes that he got a temporary visa in Abu Dhabi and had $35,000 in his bank account from "an Islamist sheikh whom I had introduced to three very accommodating French girls." Did he really get a visa to come to Wassau, Wisconsin, to "freelance" around college campuses and in poor neighborhoods, evangelizing for the Muslim Brotherhood and recruiting for jihad? Then he "moved to a major southern city." Why not say which one? Was he working, and if so, where? Within a few pages four years pass, and he has his car accident. After his conversion to Christianity he meets his wife. Nobody knows that he was a "former terrorist," not even his wife, and not Immigration and Naturalization officials, not until 9/11.

It is obvious Mr. Howard has an agenda, but I wonder has anyone here read this book, because if the events described in this review are an accurate depiction of the claims in the book, with all due respect doesn't this Saleem guy seem like the Wolfgang Hammersmith of Terrorism? Enlightenment sometimes reveals itself from an unanticipated direction.

http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2010/mayjun/mixedmessage.html

T-Rock

01-03-2011, 02:32

Enlightenment sometimes reveals itself from an unanticipated direction.

It does doesn't it :D

I was pretty much focused on what Bakri and Choudary were saying and didn't really pay much attention to the others...

ETA

What I found interesting is that the basic ideas, goals and objectives {Sharia} of the Taliban, or say AQ, are no different from those championed by the Islamic Circle of North America, or the Hizb ut-Tahrir.
http://www.unitedstatesaction.com/real/ht/HT.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jbnn2qKJ3o
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8101/pub_detail.asp

The same totalitarian political ideology that seeks to exterminate us culturally and physically, espoused from the mouth of Bakri and Choudary, are no different from the ideological stance Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf embraces and advocates.

Terrorism is an intrinsic and inseparable part of Islam and the only option for defeating it, or keeping it in check, is to undermine it by a slow process of ideological warfare, similar in the way we undermined communism and Nazism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT8s1a1E4nk

IMO, Self flagellation, apologia, and appeasement didn’t work in the past, and it won’t work now - it only serves to embolden.

Claemore

01-21-2011, 23:27

Just got through reading this thread. Have to say, thanks T-Rock. I enjoyed reading your insight and knowledge on the subject.:lifter

T-Rock

01-22-2011, 02:39

Just got through reading this thread. Have to say, thanks T-Rock. I enjoyed reading your insight and knowledge on the subject

Why thank you Sir. But I gotta say…, credit should be given where credit is due…, to those who‘ve shaped my perspective… I’m no scholar but a regurgitator :D regurgitating what little I can remember from the scholarship of those I’ve immersed myself in since the murder of Robert Stethem.

Below are some of the works that have shaped my perspective, for they deserve the credit…, for their insight, knowledge, and scholarship… :cool:

CSPI
http://cspipublishing.com/A_Simple_Koran.htm
http://cspipublishing.com/Self_Study_Political_Islam.htm

Ahmad Ibn Lulu Ibn Al-Naqib
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728

Qur’an - Abullah Yusuf Ali
http://www.amazon.com/Quran-Translation-Commentary-English-Arabic/dp/0940368323

USC - Qur’an & Hadith
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/

Ibn Ishaq
http://www.amazon.com/Life-Muhammad-I-Ishaq/dp/0196360331

Ibn Warraq
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3765&sec_id=3765

Ibn Taymiyyah
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madinan-Way-Soundness-Premises-School/dp/0953863905

Raymond Ibrahim
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaeda-Reader-Raymond-Ibrahim/dp/038551655X

Andrew Bostom
http://www.andrewbostom.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591023076

Marc Sageman
http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14036.html

DL Adams
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/resolving_the_cognitive_disson.html

Ali Sina
http://www.faithfreedom.org/author/Ali-Sina-2/

Robert Spencer
http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles-by-robert-spencer.html

Bat Ye'or
http://www.amazon.com/Decline-Eastern-Christianity-Under-Islam/dp/0838636888/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Walid Phares
http://www.walidphares.com/

Timothy Furnish
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~tfurnish/index.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=lGjMWnS5yK8C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=timothy+furnish+holy+wars&source=bl&ots=nhleTqEgwQ&sig=nOr-DjHRLJzk805Y_JqcE58FJ_Y&hl=en&ei=6pI6TfCgJYGC8gaPheHrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mark Steyn
http://www.steynonline.com/
http://www.amazon.com/America-Alone-End-World-Know/dp/0895260786

Emir & Ergun Caner
http://www.amazon.com/Voices-Behind-Veil-World-Through/dp/082542402X

Rafat Amari
http://www.amazon.com/Islam-Light-History-Rafat-Amari/dp/0976502402

Omar Nasiri
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Jihad-My-Life-Qaeda/dp/0465023886

Wafa Sultan
http://www.amazon.com/God-Who-Hates-Courageous-Inflamed/dp/0312538359

Brigitte Gabriel
http://www.amazon.com/Because-They-Hate-Survivor-Islamic/dp/0312358385/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289692

Nonie Darwish
http://www.amazon.com/Now-They-Call-Infidel-Renounced/dp/B000W8WSGY/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/48756/sec_id/48756

Mohammad Asghar
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/48703/sec_id/48703

Hugh Fitzgerald
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=2013&sec_id=2013

Wiki Islam
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

Warrior Mentor - the reason I joined this site…
http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23636

T-Rock

04-27-2013, 00:18

Considering the events in Boston, this article IMO was interesting.

“…This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives…
…Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward…”

Terrorism Without a Motive

By Daniel Greenfield
April 24, 2013.

Means, opportunity and motive are the three crucial elements of investigating a crime and establishing the guilt of its perpetrator. Means and opportunity tell us how the crime could have been committed while motive tells us why it was committed. Many crimes cannot be narrowed down by motive until a suspect is on the scene; but acts of terrorism can be. Almost anyone might be responsible for a random killing; but political killings are carried out by those who subscribe to common beliefs.

Eliminate motive from terrorism and it becomes no different than investigating a random killing. If investigators are not allowed to profile potential terrorists based on shared beliefs rooted in violence, that makes it harder to catch terrorists after an act of terror and incredibly difficult before the act of terror takes place.

The roadblock isn't only technical; it's conceptual. Investigations consist of connecting the dots. If you can't conceive of a connection, then the investigation is stuck. If you can't make the leap from A to B or add two to two and get four, then you are dependent on lucky breaks. And lucky breaks go both ways. Sometimes investigators get lucky and other times the terrorists get lucky.

Federal law enforcement was repeatedly warned by the Russians that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was dangerous, but operating under the influence of a political culture that refused to see Islam as a motive for terrorism, it failed to connect the dots between Chechen violence in Russia and potential terrorism in the United States, and because it could not see Islam as a motive, as a causal factor rather than a casual factor, it could find no reason why Tamerlan was a threat not just to Russia, but also to the United States.

The missing motive factor has led to a rash of lone wolf terrorists whose acts are classified as individual crimes. Nidal Hasan's killing spree at Fort Hood was put down to workplace violence, but workplace violence isn't a motive, it's a bland description. The motive was obvious in Hasan's background and his behavior; but the military, an organization that by its nature has to be able to predict the actions of the enemy, had been crippled and left unable to see Islam as a motive.

The current working concept is that by refusing to allow our military and law enforcement to identify Islam as a motive, we are stifling terrorist recruitment by preventing Muslim from identifying terrorist attacks with Islam. This ostrich theory of terror assumes that if we blind ourselves to the motives of the terrorists, then potential terrorists will likewise be blinded to their own motives.

Any law enforcement protocol that prevents investigators from understanding the motives of the killers in the hope that this will take away that motive from the killers is absurdly backward. The investigators of terror are not the instigators of terror. A police detective arresting a rapist does not create rape. An FBI agent arresting a terrorist does not create terror. Identifying a crime does not create the crime. It makes it easier for law enforcement and the public to fight that crime.

The insidious infiltration of blowback theory into terrorist investigations has dangerously subverted the ability of investigators to get to the truth and to catch the terrorists. Blowback theory assigns each act of Islamic terror an origin point in our actions. Everything that Muslim terrorists do is caused by something that we did. To those who believe in this linkage, the only way to fight Muslim terror is to stop inspiring it. The only way to defeat Islamic terrorism is to defeat ourselves.

Blowback theory has been dressed up in academic language and expert jargon, but all it amounts to is Stockholm Syndrome with a lecture hall. Its essential postulate is that if we become more passive in our responses, a strategy that is usually described with the complementary term, "smart", as in "smart war" and "smart investigation", then the enemy will become more passive in response to our passivity because we are no longer inspiring his violence.

Smart wars and smart investigations are those that don't offend Muslims. The cost of the smart war in Afghanistan has been a very expensive and bloody defeat. The cost of the smart investigation can be seen in the streets of Boston or in Fort Hood.

Any smart tactic based on inaction and ignorance, on throwing away advantages to seem less provocative, is not smart; it's stupid. When things go unsaid because they are politically incorrect, then they will eventually go undone. And when they are both unsaid and undone, then it becomes impossible to think them. The concepts fade out of reach, the connections in what, Hercule Poirot, called the little grey cells, are no longer made and what was once a familiar mental shortcut becomes an entirely alien concept.

Defeating ourselves in order to defeat Islamic terrorism is a dead end because we are not the source of that terrorism; we are its target. When we handicap ourselves out of a misguided notion that the best way to fight terrorism is with one hand tied behind our backs and an eyepatch on one eye, then Americans die.

T-Rock

04-27-2013, 00:20

Islamic terrorism, once the starting point of any rational investigation, has become an uncomfortable endpoint uttered by uncooperative suspects who refuse to go along with the stress-motivated killing spree defense their lawyers are eager to put forward for them. It is the dark thing at the end of every investigation that politicians don't want to talk about, reporters don't want to write about and prosecutors grow reluctant to discuss for fear of offending judges and stifling career prospects.

Without Islam as a motive, there is no way to fight the larger threat except as a discrete collection of seemingly random events. What connects a Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a Nidal Hasan to Ahmed in Jersey City or Mohamed in Minneapolis plotting the next attack? The official answer is nothing. One was a boxer and another was an army doctor and the third is just an Egyptian student or a Somali bank clerk. They have no motive in common except that of Islam.

Motives identify links. They make it easier to stack events together as a trend. They make it possible to predict the next attack by looking at the common denominators that matter as opposed to the ones that don't. And above all else, they combine together to give us a rational picture of the world so that we understand what we are experiencing and what we have to do about it.

A man dropped onto a battlefield without having the concept of an army or a war will be bewildered and horrified by the incomprehensible experience of large numbers of individuals shooting at him for no reason. "Why do they all want to kill me?" he thinks. "Was it something I did?"

Crime is personal. War is impersonal. The murderer has personal motives for his actions, but the motives of the soldier are irrelevant. In war, it is the organization that matters more than the individual. Wasting time predicting the movements of individual soldiers instead of armies is not productive. Attempting to understand terrorists as individuals, rather than members of a mass movement is equally a waste of time.

Media accounts have presented various exculpatory motives for Tamerlan Tsarnaev ranging from the possible head injuries he may have suffered as a boxer to the murder of a best friend that investigators suspect he may carried out. All these motives are irrelevant, not because they may not have some figment of truth to them, but because they stopped mattering once he became what he was. One soldier may join the army because his girlfriend broke up with him, another because he lost his job and a third because he wants to impress his friends. Those motives may all be true, but they don't matter. Once organized into a collective, their individual motives stop mattering and the collective motive takes over.

Islamic terrorism is a collective motive. There is limited variation in the tactics and the thinking of terrorists. Whatever they may have been before they fully committed themselves to the war against civilization is an incidental matter. And the only piece of individual identity that matters is still the collective one of their Islamic background. That is still the greatest predictive factor of terrorism.

The Islamic terrorist abandons his individuality and takes on an identity that asks him to love death more than life. His motives are no longer personal, but collective. He is a soldier in the Islamic war against civilization. His marching orders may come from Jihadi videos and magazines, but they provide him with training and an esprit de corps sufficient to the purposes of his campaign of terror. To strive to understand him as a father or a son, as a boxer or a doctor, is a waste of time. These biographical footnotes no longer represent him. They are the things he has discarded to become a messenger of death in obedience to a faith that values death more than life.

Without understanding that, the terrorist becomes a cipher, another nice young man who suddenly turned violent, and the trend of terrorist attacks ceases to be a pattern and becomes a rash of horrifying incidents that can happen at any time.

Terrorism is a form of war. It cannot be won without understanding that there is a battlefield and an enemy fighting for control of that battlefield. Without that understanding, our superiority in strength and our possession of the battlefield can only result in a temporary stalemate leading to a permanent defeat.

Terrorism denial turns terrorist attacks into a cipher without a motive. If Tamerlan and Dzhokar Tsarnaev had not carried out their attack at a public event in the age of the ubiquitous camera, then how long would law enforcement have chased down dead ends or searched for the Tea Party tax protesters that the political establishment expected them to find?

Without a motive, there is no place to begin searching. Without Islam, there is no motive. Terrorism denial isn't just an intellectual error; it is a grave danger to the lives of Americans. Terrorism denial created a space in which the Tsarnaev brothers were free to plot and kill. Terrorism denial cost the lives of three Americans and the bodily integrity of hundreds of others. Denying the Islamic motive for terror, makes it harder for law enforcement officer to do their job and easier for Muslim terrorists to do theirs.

Source: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/04/terrorism-without-motive.html

pcfixer

08-12-2013, 09:46