Go Back   Professional Soldiers ® > UWOA > Insurgencies & Guerrilla Warfare

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-27-2009, 18:16   #16
GratefulCitizen
Area Commander
 
GratefulCitizen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Page/Lake Powell, Arizona
Posts: 3,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
Out of curiosity, did you have to pay the “Jizya” - (aka - "Bumiputra") ?
This is something which piques my curiosity.
It would seem that islam needs to expand in order to fund itself.

Historically, how has the ratio of muslim/non-muslim (where they peacefully co-existed) correlated with economic growth/prosperity?
Once you run out of dhimmis to tax (due to conversion/emigration), local economic collapse would seem to follow.

Anybody know any history which would address this question?
__________________
__________________
Waiting for the perfect moment is a fruitless endeavor.
Make a decision, and then make it the right one through your actions.
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." -Ecclesiastes 11:4 (NIV)
GratefulCitizen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2009, 07:32   #17
Warrior-Mentor
Quiet Professional
 
Warrior-Mentor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: America, the Beautiful
Posts: 3,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen View Post
This is something which piques my curiosity.
It would seem that islam needs to expand in order to fund itself.

Historically, how has the ratio of muslim/non-muslim (where they peacefully co-existed) correlated with economic growth/prosperity?
Once you run out of dhimmis to tax (due to conversion/emigration), local economic collapse would seem to follow.

Anybody know any history which would address this question?
This might explain it...
http://www.amazon.com/Middle-East-Oi.../dp/1845429095
__________________
Like a free America? Join www.actforamerica.org

"The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy
or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
- From Army Regulation 360-1, Paragraph 6-8 (2)
Warrior-Mentor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2009, 16:09   #18
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACE844 View Post
In reference to your statement above how would one go about vetting this in the face of the fact of so many differing viewpoints? Some are close and many are all over the map. So how are the warriors and educators vetting-setting their 'zero' on this issue?
Ace--

As the discussion of Islamic theology and its role in GWOT reflects differing points of view, it remains up to each participant and each observer to judge for himself which views are more credible than others.

My perspective reflects the fact that I've spent a modest amount of time studying history. Three good rules of thumb in the study of history are:
  • no one is just one thing,
  • no one does anything for just one reason, and
  • the best answers to questions are those that
    • consider a multiple number of causal factors, and
    • raise additional questions.
Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to stipulate that Warrior Mentor and others were correct in their interpretation of Islamic theology*, the interpretation raises a number of questions worth consideration. These questions include (but are hardly limited to):
  • Is what is preached being practiced or are most Muslims picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow and which to ignore?
  • Are there significant dynamics of accommodation, resistance, and reform within the Muslim world?
  • What other factors (such as gender, race/ethnicity, social class, and politics) are shaping Muslim identity?
  • Can these dynamics and factors be 'harnessed' or 'exploited' as moderating/disrupting influences on Muslim belief and practice?
  • Are key philological issues being missed?
  • To what extent are our own (read: Western) preconceptions and assumptions shaping what we see and, potentially, preventing us from seeing what may be hiding in plain sight?
  • Is this struggle of civilizations essentially about religion or modernity or power (be it gendered, political, economic, or cultural)?
IMHO, this last question is critically important. I think the focus on religion comes at the expense of delving deeper into the issues of modernity and gendered identity.


__________________________________________________ _
* Please note that I'm using the past subjunctive.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 01:03   #19
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
* Is what is preached being practiced or are most Muslims picking and choosing which tenets of their faith to follow and which to ignore?

* Is this struggle of civilizations essentially about religion or modernity or power (be it gendered, political, economic, or cultural)?
When more people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined, the answer is easy for me.

Are not most Islamic scholars in agreement that Mohammed’s deeds and words are used as a standard of behavior, and are used as their moral compass?

How does one apologize for such a standard - an ideology - which allows misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide?

Can a Muslim change Sharia without leaving the faith?

I would like someone to explain to me how these terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?

Which is stronger, the bond of nationhood, or the bond of the ummah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rG...typepad.com%2F
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 15:39   #20
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
When more people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined, the answer is easy for me.

Are not most Islamic scholars in agreement that Mohammed’s deeds and words are used as a standard of behavior, and are used as their moral compass?

How does one apologize for such a standard - an ideology - which allows misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide?

Can a Muslim change Sharia without leaving the faith?

I would like someone to explain to me how these terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?

Which is stronger, the bond of nationhood, or the bond of the ummah?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W0rG...typepad.com%2F
T-Rock--

First, understanding something in its own terms does not mean one is justifying it or apologizing for it.

Second, your application of terms including "misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide" is double-edged when one considers seriously what has been done in the name of religion in the history of Europe and the Americas. Similarly, comparing dysfunctions in the Islamic world to events in European religious history (like the Inquisition) places one on rocky historiographical terrain, especially when discussing the role of gender.

Third, I would point out that I did not employ the concept of nation in my post. IMO, nationalism is a concept of western modernity and it remains to be seen how modern the Muslim world wishes to be.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 18:47   #21
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Second, your application of terms including "misogyny, pedophilia, rape, theft, deception, enslavement, subjugation, terror, murder and genocide" is double-edged when one considers seriously what has been done in the name of religion in the history of Europe and the Americas. Similarly, comparing dysfunctions in the Islamic world to events in European religious history (like the Inquisition) places one on rocky historiographical terrain, especially when discussing the role of gender.
There is a major difference between what's done in the NAME of religion versus what's dictated by religious DOCTRINE

As Christians are to follow the example of Christ - are not Muslims to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed?
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2009, 20:17   #22
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
As Christians are to follow the example of Christ - are not Muslims to follow the example of the prophet Mohammed?
T-Rock--

Your placement of Christians under one banner suggests that you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the role religion has played European and American history. In a nutshell, the formulation that Christianity is simply following the example of Christ belies the historical evidence that there have been widely diverging interpretations as to just what that example was, who interprets it, and for whom it is interpreted.

In regards to your statement that "[T]here is a major difference between what's done in the [name] of religion versus what's dictated by religious [doctrine]," I invite you to elaborate with specific examples of how that "major difference" mattered to those on the receiving end in the New World. (I'd be most interested in reading your thoughts on the role of "Christian" doctrine in Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire during the sixteenth century and the efforts of many Americans to square the practice of Christianity with the "peculiar institution" of slavery during the nineteenth century.)

My broader point here is that I am dubious of the sustainability of comparing the Islamic world to the western world as part of a broader project to say that the former is dysfunctional in terms of the latter.

YMMV.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2009, 00:35   #23
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Sigaba, you still haven't answered my question, since it is relevant, not in history, but globally today - particularly this - can you explain to me how these current day Islamic terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?

Quote:
Your placement of Christians under one banner suggests that you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the role religion has played European and American history. In a nutshell, the formulation that Christianity is simply following the example of Christ belies the historical evidence that there have been widely diverging interpretations as to just what that example was, who interprets it, and for whom it is interpreted.
We do have a fundamental difference in the understanding of Christian Doctrine - the banner of Christianity, is of course, carried by Christ. Christianity is not about religion, it is about a relationship. There are many standards people in the world use to develop and build character, but for the Christian, the only correct standard is that which is revealed in Christ, and I am sure you are aware of His example.

Quote:
In regards to your statement that "[T]here is a major difference between what's done in the [name] of religion versus what's dictated by religious [doctrine]," I invite you to elaborate with specific examples of how that "major difference" mattered to those on the receiving end in the New World. (I'd be most interested in reading your thoughts on the role of "Christian" doctrine in Spain's conquest of the Aztec empire during the sixteenth century and the efforts of many Americans to square the practice of Christianity with the "peculiar institution" of slavery during the nineteenth century.)
The role of religion is huge, but which groups were/are actually violating the tenets of their faith?

I am fully aware of the role religion played in early America yet this day and age, as evidenced by observation, Replacement Theology for the most part has thoroughly been debunked - the cross did that you know - early Christians failed to grasp this concept.

Christians who carried out forced conversions were not following the example of their prophet.
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2009, 03:26   #24
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
Sigaba, you still haven't answered my question, since it is relevant, not in history, but globally today - particularly this - can you explain to me how these current day Islamic terrorists are theologically violating the basic tenets of their faith?
Where have I said that the terrorists are or are not complying with the tenets of their faith?

Since you are apparently trying to make a point, I am afraid that my answer to your question is going to be a bit of a disappointment. I am not as confident in my understanding of Islamic theology and practice as you are confident in your understanding of Islamic theology and practice. At this point and time, my view is similar to that offered by Bush the Younger on those occasions when he spoke of Islam being "hijacked."

That is to say, the fatwas for jihad are being issued by individuals such as OBL who do not have the ecclesiastical authority to call for holy war. While OBL and other Salafi jihadists subscribe to the writings of Ibn Taymiyya, Mawlana Abdul A'la Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb, and Mohammed Abd al-Salam Faraj, it is my understanding that most Muslims do not recognize that cabal's critique of contemporary Islam nor its authority to launch what may be termed a counter-reformation with the objective of establishing a global caliphate.^

Here's the thing. The fundamental disagreement between the two of us is that I reject the notion that human beings are motivated to do anything for a single reason. Were human motivation so easily ascertained then there would be quite a few less biographies on Lincoln, more answers than questions about the motivation of Confederate and Union soldiers during the American Civil War, less controversy about what George F. Kennan "really" meant when he spoke and wrote about "containing" the Soviet Union,* and the question of questions (Why the Third Reich?) would not be driving the most vibrant trajectory of contemporary history.
Quote:
We do have a fundamental difference in the understanding of Christian Doctrine - the banner of Christianity, is of course, carried by Christ. Christianity is not about religion, it is about a relationship. There are many standards people in the world use to develop and build character, but for the Christian, the only correct standard is that which is revealed in Christ, and I am sure you are aware of His example.
The very fact that you claim to understand the teachings of Christ--apparently without the mediation of an authority of one form or another-- and that Christianity is not about religion indicates that you are privileging your views over the millions of Americans who have different perspectives on issues of faith, worship, and religious education. While you are well within your rights to do so, and this observation is not a criticism, I suggest that this approach may inhibit a disinterested appreciation of the many ways faith is practiced in America both historically and contemporaneously. (A question: might you be mirror imaging your perception of the central features of a monolitich Christianity against a monolithic Islam?)
Quote:
Christians who carried out forced conversions were not following the example of their prophet.
IMO, this formulation is ahistoric. It allows one to argue teleologically that people who pursued goals that we find abhorrent today were not really Christians. Such an approach invites one to decline opportunities to understand the role their faith played in the decisions that they made and the lives that they lived in their own terms. (To underscore a key point, understanding someone is not the same as justifying or apologizing for that person's actions or behavior. Empathy is not sympathy.)
Quote:
I am fully aware of the role religion played in early America.
I respectfully suggest that you are slightly overstating your understanding of American religious history if not also the history of the early republic. Not even Sydney E. Ahlstrom, Nathan Hatch, Gordon S. Wood, or Jon Butler could make such a broad statement.

On the topic of your distinguishing between the study of the past and what is "relevant" in the world today. I would like to point out that positions on political, social, cultural, and religious issues often rest upon discussants' understanding not only of their present day situation but also upon their perception of the past.

As a convenient example**, the popular understanding of the history of the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) and the Holy Roman Empire's conduct during that awful conflict shaped Germans' view of domestic politics in the mid-nineteenth century, Germany's nation's place in European geopolitics in the decades leading up to the First World War, and also their receptiveness to Nazism and to Hitlerian theories of machine warfare. It was not until after the Second World War that central assumptions of German historiography began to receive critical re-examinations that might have served Europeans well had they taken place decades earlier.***

Sometimes history matters.

__________________________________________________ _____
^ Here, I'm drawing from United States Joint Forces Command, The Terrorist Perspectives Project: Strategic and Operational Views of Al Qaida and Associated Movements (Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 2008), chapter 1. My conclusion that most Muslims reject the Salafi critique and call to global jihad is based upon the fact that there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims and several hundred million of this total are, at worst, sitting on their hands. Those who think that sitting on one's hands is a casus belli for a war of extermination today may have a bit of a hard time justifying the reluctance of the United States to intervene in European affairs during the Interwar Period and World War II.
* From the "Not That Anyone Asked" department, but until either John Lewis Gaddis or Anders Stephenson complete their long overdue biographies of Kennan, I am going to stick by my view that if anyone is responsible for the alleged co-option of the Long Telegram and Mr. X article into the militarized containment of Communist aggression it is Kennan himself. It does not take twenty years for a person as articulate as Kennan to pick up the damn phone, call someone, and say "Hey, this isn't quite what I had in mind." YMMV.
** Convenient because I have a couple of books by Peter H. Wilson within arms' length, not because he's particularly easy to read. (Just because he's apparently familiar with the 14,000 or so books on the Thirty Years' War and the equally voluminous historiography of the Holy Roman Empire doesn't mean everyone else is. I mean, sheesh.)
*** Peter H. Wilson, The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806, pp. 4-6; Wilson, The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy, pp. 4-5.
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2010, 01:23   #25
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Where have I said that the terrorists are or are not complying with the tenets of their faith?
You haven't, that is why I asked the question - to solicit an opinion from a learned scholar - thank you for your response.

Quote:
That is to say, the fatwas for jihad are being issued by individuals such as OBL who do not have the ecclesiastical authority to call for holy war.
But none of that matters does it? Does the Ummah need an ecclesiastical authority to issue a fatwa when the Qur'an is the ultimate source for legal opinions - concerning Jihad?

The Qur'an does lay out the guidelines, the ruling from Allah, for Jihad against the unbelievers...

Strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, - an evil refuge indeed. (9:73, 66:9)

Striving or "struggling", the Muslim's duty - occurs in the context of opposing, or striving against the unbeliever.

The purpose of Jihad is clear.

It is He Who has sent His Messenger (Muhammad) with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).(9:33)

Fight [q-t-l] against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.( 9:29)


While performing Jihad, martyrs are guaranteed a fast track to Islamic paradise to have their sins forgiven, regardless of any debauchery they may have been engaged in.

Quote:
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)

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)
Quote:
Here's the thing. The fundamental disagreement between the two of us is that I reject the notion that human beings are motivated to do anything for a single reason.
I do agree with you, but I think the zealots who do blow themselves up for the cause of allah, are doing it for what they perceive as a means of salvation - they believe they may even be able to bring 70 members of their family to paradise with them as well.

.http://www.pmw.org.il/asx/PMW_Hamas_suicide_Rajab.asx

http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detai...main_cat_id=18


For the Christian, it is by the Blood of Christ that enables salvation, but for the Muslim, it takes the blood of the martyr to be totally assured of salvation so that he or she may be afforded the opportunity to intercede for 70 members of their family. I would say the desire for salvation among a religiously inclined people is a pretty powerful motivator, one that shouldn't be discounted.

Quote:
The very fact that you claim to understand the teachings of Christ--apparently without the mediation of an authority of one form or another-- and that Christianity is not about religion indicates that you are privileging your views over the millions of Americans who have different perspectives on issues of faith, worship, and religious education.
"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all"...

The prophet of Christianity was truly anti-religion, He was rejected by the religious.

Jefferson summed it up rather nicely for me:

"Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughterhouse, and divided it into sects of inextinguishable hatred for one another."

Quote:
...overstating your understanding of American religious history..
Self-flagellation in no way will discourage or deter those who have declared war on us, it's Sharia.....when current day Christians start inserting liquid explosives into their anuses in order to kill innocents, I will most certainly re-examine the violent history of Christendom with a fine-toothed comb...

Quote:
Since you are apparently trying to make a point...
I'm certainly not a learned scholar but my point is that Jihad and Islam needs a reformation, but is it capable of doing so?

IMO, with its current teachings and doctrines - Dar al-Islam will always be ripe for civil war, yet there will always be war in the Dar al-Harb.

Declaring Islam as peace, and that Islam has been hijacked by just a few radicals will most certainly soothe ideological sentiments of many, nevertheless, doing this has failed us strategically. IMO, the refusal to call a spade a spade will do us in.

Should we reevaluate our threat doctrine as Stephen Coughlin suggests? I think so...playing the current appeasement card doesn't seem to be working.

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib...emistJihad.pdf

http://wolfpangloss.files.wordpress....ept-of-war.pdf

Last edited by T-Rock; 01-01-2010 at 21:39. Reason: link
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2010, 15:26   #26
Sigaba
Area Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rock View Post
Declaring Islam as peace, and that Islam has been hijacked by just a few radicals will most certainly soothe ideological sentiments of many, nevertheless, doing this has failed us strategically. IMO, the refusal to call a spade a spade will do us in.
T-Rock--

I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you.

I don't know that the argument offered by Bush the Younger that Islam has been hijacked is appeasement or that the formulation has failed the United States strategically. In my opinion, the focus on behavior--the use of terrorism--allows the West freedom of action so the thornier issues of motivation do not gum up the works.

One of the risks of making GWOT primarily a war against Islam jihadism is the domestic political capital one would lose if an act of terrorism were committed by a more 'traditional' (at least in the western sense) organization. (Is the Cold War really over?)
Sigaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2010, 22:17   #27
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues with you
Likewise

I’m not so sure though - if we were to focus on the motivation, and include it in our war doctrine, wouldn’t it open up the unvarnished dialogue required which could thwart tolerance that tolerates the murderously intolerant?

I’m curious if a doctrine which takes into account the religious motivation could have prevented the outcome at Fort Hood?

IMHO, Islam is a religion which is totalitarian in structure and ideology, much like Nazism - are we, or should we exclude Nazism (Sharia) from the IPB?

Quote:
To Coughlin, the IPB in the War on Terror is being thrown off by what he describes as the “Current Approach”: the view that Islamic-based extremism is aberrant and that Islam has become a “religion hijacked.” To Coughlin, this view is pernicious in part because it is being pushed by those who claim that Westerners should rely solely on Muslims to tell us what Islam is, much like how the late Professor Edward Said attacked the notion that Westerners could ever understand what people in the “Orient” thought and how they behaved. Coughlin argues that the Current Approach represents an outsourcing of the information requirements that the IPB process is not structured to answer, much like a defendant taking the prosecutor’s word that the statute is constitutional. In American litigation, the resulting strategy will be based on input from people not aligned with the interests of the defendant. Applying this problem to the military challenge and the IPB, “Inputs into the decision-making process from the Current Approach are the product of borrowed knowledge from individuals and entities that may be either unknown or unbeholden to American national security interests.”

The consequences of uncritically accepting the Current Approach is the unstated corollary that because extremists do not represent “true” Islam, Islamic law itself should be excluded from analytical processes that support threat development. This tendency is culturally enticing to us, for we come from a tradition where arguments over the merits of particular religions are considered impolite (and impolitic) dinner party conversation. This tradition undoubtedly reinforces our inability to look closely at Islamic religious doctrine, and to look elsewhere for help. To add to this, we have Muslim intellectuals like Tariq Ramadan telling us (as he wrote a few weeks ago in the New York Times Book Review) that one cannot truly understand the Koran unless one goes at it with faith (“the language of the heart”). For this task, we must trust people like him. No wonder Ramadan is in such high demand.

Coughlin uses the IPB methodology to ask why we are not bothering to ask, “What if?” It is a powerful argument, if one accepts the IPB process itself, since there is no harm in asking the question – just as there is no harm in the criminal defendant considering the constitutionality of the crime while simultaneously planning a full defense on the factual merits. If, in planning military action, intelligence analysts limit their focus to factors that contribute to understanding the enemy’s doctrine, then the result of a rigorous inquiry that supports the Current Approach would ultimately be neutral to the threat assessment. If, on the other hand, the result is a finding against the Current Approach, we ignore the result at our peril since the IPB-driven process will not based on the proper inputs.

Coughlin’s thesis would be powerful if he just ended there, but he it does not. Instead, he searches through the prevailing views of all major schools of Islamic thought to argue “true” Islam – the type taught in the U.S. to 7th grade Muslim-Americans – requires its adherents to engage in violent struggle for worldwide domination, a state of affairs that cannot be adequately explained by the Current Approach. To get there, Coughlin considers the most definitive sources of Islamic law, including what they say about how Islamic doctrine is to be interpreted. It seems that much is settled in Islam, including what the faithful are required to do in the face of non-Muslims with whom they interact. He concludes that the purveyors of the Current Approach are selling us a bill of goods.

No wonder Maj. Coughlin found himself a disliked character in the halls of the Pentagon among the Muslim advisors who have the monopoly on telling us what Islam represents. He threatens their authority, as well as their livelihood.

Coughlin’s arguments about Islamic mandates make up the bulk of his thesis, but are ultimately unnecessary if one accepts his premise – that we owe it to the system to question whether the Current Approach is supported in Islamic law. What are the stakes? Even if the “true” Islam is a religion of peace, we would still need to know the doctrinal basis for the actions of those who have hijacked it, as long as they in fact exist and are able to motivate fellow Muslims to act at their direction. Consider this argument:

For the “extremist” argument to succeed, it simply has to assert a claim that has some doctrinal basis that survives the ideological screen because any surviving portion of the claim still leaves the “extremist” with a validated argument in support of the jihadis’ agenda. Hence, exclusivity is not an essential requirement for the “extremists.” The Current Approach, however, must be able to demonstrate exclusive correctness to the exclusion of the “extremist” position because the success of their argument can only be measured by the extent to which it constrains the “extremist” doctrine.
The problem, as Coughlin describes it, is that when the purveyors of the Current Approach respond to inconvenient Islamic law doctrines by claiming that there are “thousands of different interpretations to Islamic law,” they are saying there is no point to looking to Islamic law for solutions. In their oft-repeated claims that “Islam does not stand for this,” they are necessarily agreeing with Coughlin that there exists such a thing as Islamic doctrine, which necessitates our rigorous examination of it. For Current Approach arguments to succeed at neutralizing “extremist” positions, they must establish that “Islam does not stand for this” in every situation ranging through all interpretations. What are the prospects of that?

So in the end, it does not matter whether Coughlin is right about Islamic doctrine, as much as that the questions are being asked by people who are practicing the appropriate professional standards (another one of Coughlin’s key points). The U.S. government needs to ask these questions, rather than blithely concluding that Islam is a religion of peace that has been hijacked by al Qaeda. Even if Coughlin is wrong about the big issues of Islam, he is certainly correct that military planners should be asking about the religious basis for al Qaeda’s actions, so we can better predict how the adherents of “radical Islam” can be expected to act. That is really what matters.
http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008..._beginners.php

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strateg...llege/?print=1
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 05:33   #28
Richard
Quiet Professional
 
Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NorCal
Posts: 15,370
Seems to me as if it's about time Islam modernized its message and old world business practices, and came up with its own version of the New Testament before it runs out of adherants to tithe so they can keep all those gilted minarets polished.

Richard's jaded $.02
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)

“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2010, 11:29   #29
T-Rock
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Western NC
Posts: 1,243
Quote:
Seems to me as if it's about time Islam modernized its message and old world business practices, and came up with its own version of the New Testament before it runs out of adherants to tithe so they can keep all those gilted minarets polished.
I agree with you Sir but I think it already has, Islam’s New Testament is the book of Medina - aka “The Madinan Way”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Madinan-Way-.../dp/0953863905

-“We're now eight years removed from 9/11, and the only thing the last 3,016 days have taught us is that there is no Islamic reformation coming any time soon…And for the last eight years, unfortunately, the moderates have barely even shown up for the fight.”-
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time....c-reformation/
T-Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:19.



Copyright 2004-2022 by Professional Soldiers ®
Site Designed, Maintained, & Hosted by Hilliker Technologies