Flying Blind in the War on Terror (part 1)

[SF-TX]

The following is an interesting editorial lambasting our political leadership for their apparent failure in honestly addressing the Jihadi threat:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...ar_on_ter.html

April 30, 2008
Flying Blind in the War on Terror
By Patrick Poole

Imagine that following the bombing of Peal Harbor in December 1941, that FDR had prohibiting the use of the terms "Nazi" or "Japanese Imperialism" due to pressure brought to bear by German and Japanese-American lobbying groups. Or at the height of the Cold War that the US government had determined to ban the use of "Soviet" or "communism" for fear of offending the sensibilities of Russian-Americans or European socialists.


Yet that is precisely what has happened following the revelation last week by the Associated Press that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidelines banning the use of "jihad", "mujahedeen" and other Islamic terminology with reference to Islamic terrorism. This move lays bare the ideological prison house of political correctness in which our top policymaker's reside. The strictures are so ridiculous that even President Bush can't help himself in violating the guidelines.


No one can claim in defense of this move that it has been rooted in years of serious study and assessment of the issue at the highest levels of government. If so, where might these studies and assessments be found? What series of government publications outlines the strategic threat doctrine of our enemy in the War on Terror, similar to that prepared on Soviet doctrine in the early years of the Cold War? What comprehensive doctrinal assessment may our military and political leaders consult to inform themselves on the tactics and strategy of our enemy? Such does not exist, and the adoption of the government's new "lexicon" is an admission that such a strategic threat assessment of our enemy will not be done. This new effort means that in essence we have chosen to fly blind in the Global War on Terror (GWOT).


The categorical failure of our political leadership nearly seven years after 9/11 to engage in even the slightest effort to assess exactly who the enemy is and how they propose to attack and defeat us borders on treason. What could possibly represent the complete abdication of responsibility by our political leaders than deliberately avoiding addressing this pressing, and for our men and women in uniform a life-and-death, issue?


So on what basis have our public officials made this recent decision? This new effort is being driven by politics, not public safety, as demonstrated by the fact that such pandering measures adopted by the British government which the State Department guidelines appear modeled after have completely failed to abate the terrorist threat there. And it reveals that our national security policy is being determined more by public affairs officials driven by political correctness than sober reflection by our nation's intelligence, military and law enforcement personnel.


It has already been observed that the Islamic organizations identified by the Justice Department as being directly tied to terrorism (Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North American, Muslim American Society, the Institute for International Islamic Thought, et al.) are the same ones who have been openly promoting the adoption of this new "lexicon". I would note that last September I provided a critical analysis of this "Truespeak" lexicon here at The American Thinker, observing that the sources of Islamic law relied upon do not match how the new policy's advocates have represented them.


The government does not have a very good track record in identifying Islamic extremists in its outreach efforts since the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Just one example is the relationship that the government forged with supposed "moderate" Abdurahman Alamoudi, as noted last week by columnist Diana West, who the Pentagon tasked to establish the military's Islamic chaplains corps. Today, Alamoudi sits in a federal prison serving a 23 year sentence following his conviction on terror-related charges and for conspiring with Libyan intelligence to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince.


Another example would be the series of White House meetings Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami Al-Arian held with Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush before heading to prison on terrorism support charges. Al-Arian also hobnobbed with Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Karl Rove.


There are any number of similar embarrassing incidents that could be cited here, but suffice it to say that the US government cannot point to a single success when it comes to identifying Islamic extremists in the past quarter-century.


To fully understand the gravity of the problem posed by the government's new "lexicon", consider that nearly 30 years after the Islamic revolution in Iran that religion might play a role in the rise of Islamic terrorism is itself a controversial proposition in government circles. Noting such a connection between elements of Islam and Islamic terrorism cost Pentagon J2 analyst Stephen Coughlin his job earlier this year. And yet Coughlin's groundbreaking study, "To Our Great Detriment: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad", which poses a direct challenge to those who would exclude religious considerations in discussing Islamic terrorism, has not been addressed or critiqued by any of those promoting the government's guidelines.


There are two false assumptions that seem to underlie this new effort. One is narrowly limiting the enemy in the GWOT to Al-Qaeda alone. But this excludes many terrorist organizations, some of whom have openly allied with Al-Qaeda, that have already committed terrorist acts against Western targets and non-compliant Muslims in Asia, the Middle East, Northern Africa and Europe. It also fails to account for the radicalization process that is essential for the growth of Islamic terrorism, as noted in a study last summer by the New York Policy Department's intelligence unit, "Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat".


Another misguided assumption is the belief that through engagement and appeasement, we can make Islamic radicals "our extremists". One might think that this policy -- tried and found wanting in our efforts to leverage the "Arab Afghans" that became Al-Qaeda in order to tie up the Soviet Union in Afghanistan -- would be thoroughly discounted. But in fact, following my recent exposure of the American Muslims for Constructive Engagement strategic partnership between a prominent government-funded defense and intelligence think tank and several extremist organizations, one of the top officials involved in the effort defended the alliance on claiming that such engagement would affect the moderation of Islamic extremists (my rejoinder can be found here).


So what is to be done?


At this point it must be admitted that in the absence of any assessment of the strategic threat posed by Islamic terrorism and identification of exactly who and what the threat is, any Islamic outreach efforts are not only premature but potentially damaging to our national security. While some claim that such outreach is necessary, virtually no consideration has been given to what exactly Islamic extremists might be able to gain through such efforts. And in light of the appalling past record of the US government in this regard, no action is infinitely preferable to flawed action. But if such outreach is conducted, it should occur with the full knowledge and approval of counterterrorism officials -- something that has not been done in the past.


We also must utilize existing tools to address existing terrorist support organizations already operating inside the US. Trial exhibits offered by the Justice Department in the Holy Land Foundation trial revealed the intent of Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups to wage a "civilizational-jihadist process", intending to wage a campaign of cultural warfare against the US from within:


The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.


As noted by my friend and colleague Army LTC Joseph Myers here at American Thinker following these revelations, he concluded that existing Defense Department regulations and guidelines, these groups should be listed as hostile foreign agents and threat organizations:

[SF-TX]

...In its own documents, the Ikhwan in America has defined itself as a hostile threat to the American constitutional order. It has identified itself as a "foreign agent" of the greater global jihad, and exists as part of the transnational "Ikhwan Movement." The Holy Land Foundation trial has established evidence of material support to terrorism by Brotherhood entities and ties to international terrorism, namely Hamas and likely other jihad terrorist organizations in the Middle East. Therefore, the Muslim Brotherhood in America meets all three criteria of DoD Directive 5240.1-R.


The irony of this situation is, of course, that any discussion of the Muslim Brotherhood's "grand jihad" is prohibited by the government's new guidelines.


Additionally, congressional leadership on these issues is sorely needed. While Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) recently unveiled her 10-point plan to begin addressing the domestic terrorist threat entitled, "Wake Up America", these tactical efforts do not mention the larger strategic issues of assessing and identifying the doctrinal foundations of Islamic terrorism and the process of radicalization that it relies upon. Her plan, however, is a welcome alternative to the current policy of congressional negligence with reference to the domestic terror threat. A proactive Congress asking administration officials hard questions will be requisite to turn back the ill-considered State Department and Homeland Security's new policy.


But the key component needed for any future government policies regarding terrorism must be the long overdue assessment of our enemy's strategy and ideology. The present guidelines effectively prohibit any such analysis. Until such a comprehensive study by our intelligence, military and law enforcement communities is complete, we are left flying blind in the war on terror. As we should have learned on 9/11 at the cost of lives of three thousand innocent civilians, the enemy's vision is not likewise obscured.


Patrick Poole is an occasional contributor to American Thinker, and is a consultant to the military and law enforcement on anti-terrorism issues and an expert in the operations and ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood in the West.

[x-factor]

I can't speak to the policy as a whole (this is the first I've heard of it), but I think the article might be confused about why the words jihad and mujahideen were prohibited. Its not necessarily for the politically correct reasons the article assumes. Its a question of knowing the culture you're trying to win hearts and minds in.

"Jihad" and "mujahideen" have very positive connotations in the Arabic language. Every time we use those terms for public statements we just confuse the audience by identifying the enemy as the good guys. Does it do us any good in the GWOT for the President to stand up and say:

"We will hunt down these holy warriors. We must put an end to their striving in the name of God and the threat they pose to the American way of life."

Thats what comes through to Muslim audiences when you use those terms. You sound like a confused cartoon villain pretending he's the good guy.

Call them criminals, call them extremists. Better yet, call them a cult, call them assassins, call them takfiris. But why would you want to call them what they want to be called? What they're dying to be called? Why reinforce their message to the Muslim world by painting them with heroic words?

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by x-factor

I can't speak to the policy as a whole (this is the first I've heard of it), but I think the article might be confused about why the words jihad and mujahideen were prohibited. Its not necessarily for the politically correct reasons the article assumes. Its a question of knowing the culture you're trying to win hearts and minds in.

"Jihad" and "mujahideen" have very positive connotations in the Arabic language. Every time we use those terms for public statements we just confuse the audience by identifying the enemy as the good guys. Does it do us any good in the GWOT for the President to stand up and say:

"We will hunt down these holy warriors. We must put an end to their striving in the name of God and the threat they pose to the American way of life."

Thats what comes through to Muslim audiences when you use those terms. You sound like a confused cartoon villain pretending he's the good guy.

Call them criminals, call them extremists. Better yet, call them a cult, call them assassins, call them takfiris. But why would you want to call them what they want to be called? What they're dying to be called? Why reinforce their message to the Muslim world by painting them with heroic words?

Excellent point, IMHO.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by x-factor

....Thats what comes through to Muslim audiences when you use those terms. You sound like a confused cartoon villain pretending he's the good guy......

I disagree with your post.

The problem with Muslims and Isalm is that they believe. They believe that Isalm is the one true religion.

Islam is not stuck in the 8th Century. It is just like Cristianity in the 16th Century. It is spreading "The Word of God by the sword or the Immam."

Anything we do is seen as "Wrong". Right now the 99.9% of Muslims who are not doing anything violent are just sitting it out because "They believe."

Nothing will change until Islam cleans itself or they win.

Right now all we can do is fight a holding action until they win or the west understands and gets serious.

[Guy]

Originally Posted by Pete

Islam is not stuck in the 8th Century. It is just like Cristianity in the 16th Century. It is spreading "The Word of God by the sword or the Immam."

One word can describe the difference....TOLERANCE!

Stay safe.

[Peregrino]

I have to weigh in with X-factor on this one. When fighting hearts and minds, vocabulary defines the battlefield. Islam does have a lot of words to describe the terrorists in terms favorable to us, we just never see them or use them because we've allowed the Islamists to determine how the Islamic world views the actions of their "martyrs" (see how easy it is to influence perceptions by word choice? - we get pissed, they dance in the streets celebrating another "no nuts" getting his virgins). I remember seeing a "vocabulary sheet" a few years ago that listed the correct words/phrases we need to use. Unfortunately it never got the exposure it needed to become mainstream. That is something I blame on the current administration. Now it appears another poorly explained policy is once again "failing to communicate". If I can find the article, I'll post it. No promises though, I haven't seen it in years.

[Jack Moroney (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Pete

Nothing will change until Islam cleans itself or they win.
.

I agree. Islam, first and foremost, is at war with itself. While one billion muslims present a target rich environment for co-option by the fundamentalists it demands a multifaceted, multiagency, international strategy to cull the wheat from the chaff by the non-islamic and non-fundamentalist islamic world working in a culture that non-muslims do not understand.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by x-factor

I"Jihad" and "mujahideen" have very positive connotations in the Arabic language. Every time we use those terms for public statements we just confuse the audience by identifying the enemy as the good guys. Does it do us any good in the GWOT for the President to stand up and say:

"We will hunt down these holy warriors. We must put an end to their striving in the name of God and the threat they pose to the American way of life."

Amazing. I had no idea.

Thank you, X-factor.

[jatx]

Originally Posted by Pete

The problem with Muslims and Isalm is that they believe. They believe that Isalm is the one true religion.

I understand where you're coming from, but think that this is a dangerous over-generalization. Public opinion research on the "Muslim street" worldwide shows one thing consistently - a deep split over when the ends justify the means. Most Muslims (and the percentage does not vary much by region) do not believe in using violence against civilians to achieve sociopolitical goals. The percentage "against" drops when the researcher mentions a specific enemy such as Israel, but the the important point is that we in the West still share some important values with the great majority of Muslims.

I do, however, agree with your point that we are fighting a delaying action while Islam sorts itself out. American fighting men and women are placing themselves between peaceful Muslims and murderers belonging to an inflexible cult of death. If there is no chance that, given some breathing room, people without the benefit of an existing culture of free public discourse will decide that the Islamic Reformation begins in 2011 instead of on 9/11, then this would be a futile exercise. I believe that it will take longer than that, partly because the lack of free speech has tribal as well as modern political roots, but also because we are doing a piss poor job of public diplomacy.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by x-factor

"...Jihad" and "mujahideen" have very positive connotations in the Arabic language. Every time we use those terms for public statements we just confuse the audience by identifying the enemy as the good guys. Does it do us any good in the GWOT for the President to stand up and say:

"We will hunt down these holy warriors. We must put an end to their striving in the name of God and the threat they pose to the American way of life."

...Call them criminals, call them extremists. Better yet, call them a cult, call them assassins, call them takfiris. But why would you want to call them what they want to be called? What they're dying to be called? Why reinforce their message to the Muslim world by painting them with heroic words?

I fail to see how refusing to call them Jihadists will have any effect. Whether we admit it or not, they are fighting to make Islam supreme to all other religions. And, they are using the Quran to justify their actions.

The following is a brief summary, from "Islam 101" (http://jihadwatch.org/islam101/) describing the Quranic justification for waging war to spread Islam:

"Those Westerners who manage to pick up a translation of the Quran are often left bewildered as to its meaning thanks to ignorance of a critically important principle of Quranic interpretation known as "abrogation." The principle of abrogation -- al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) -- directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad's career "abrogate" -- i.e., cancel and replace -- earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad's career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Quran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:

2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
It seems that 2:106 was revealed in response to skepticism directed at Muhammad that Allah's revelations were not entirely consistent over time. Muhammad's rebuttal was that "Allah is able to do all things" -- even change his mind. To confuse matters further, though the Quran was revealed to Muhammad sequentially over some twenty years' time, it was not compiled in chronological order. When the Quran was finally collated into book form under Caliph Uthman, the suras were ordered from longest to shortest with no connection whatever to the order in which they were revealed or to their thematic content. In order to find out what the Quran says on a given topic, it is necessary to examine the other Islamic sources that give clues as to when in Muhammad's lifetime the revelations occurred. Upon such examination, one discovers that the Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose...

...Then there is this passage revealed just after the Muslims reached Medina and were still vulnerable:

2:256. There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in Taghut {idolatry} and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break. And Allah is All-Hearer, All-Knower.
In contrast, take 9:5, commonly referred to as the "Verse of the Sword", revealed toward the end of Muhammad's life:

9:5. Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun {unbelievers} wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat {the Islamic ritual prayers}), and give Zakat {alms}, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Having been revealed later in Muhammad?s life than 50:45, 109, and 2:256, the Verse of the Sword abrogates their peaceful injunctions in accordance with 2:106. Sura 8, revealed shortly before Sura 9, reveals a similar theme:

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.
8:67. It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

9:29. Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger 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.

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

The Quran's commandments to Muslims to wage war in the name of Allah against non-Muslims are unmistakable. They are, furthermore, absolutely authoritative as they were revealed late in the Prophet's career and so cancel and replace earlier instructions to act peaceably. Without knowledge of the principle of abrogation, Westerners will continue to misread the Quran and misdiagnose Islam as a "religion of peace."

[SF-TX]

From the Pakistani "Daily Times" (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...5-2008_pg7_1):

‘Anti-Pakistan’ militants being ‘detoxified’

* Haji Namdar says ‘we will never wage jihad inside Pakistan’

By Iqbal Khattak

BARA: Haji Namdar, the little-known pro-Taliban commander in Khyber Agency who survived a suicide attack on Thursday, said that he was helping to ‘detoxify’ militants staying with him through ‘Islamic classes’, that teach them that attacking Pakistani forces, people or state installations “is no jihad at all”, and that rather, by “doing so we are strengthening anti-Islamic forces”.

Namdar heads the religio-militant Amar Bil Maroof Wa Nahi Anil Munker (Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice) organisation in the Bar Kambarkhel area. “These [mujahideen] leaders brainwash teenagers, telling them that each and every Pakistani is their enemy and his or her killing is justified. And it is also jihad that they should keep killing Pakistanis,” said Namdar. “I am reforming these mujahideen as Islam does not allow jihad against Muslims.”

Talking to Daily Times in an exclusive interview two days before the suicide attack that targeted him and left many injured at his headquarters in Takya, he, however, did not name any of the Taliban leaders who were ‘brainwashing teenagers’.

‘No jihad at all’: Expressing concern over the “anti-Pakistan posture” of some mujahideen leaders in the Tribal Areas, with many having justified attacks inside the country as ‘jihad’, he said, “We will never wage jihad inside Pakistan. Afghanistan needs mujahideen to liberate that country from United States-led foreign occupation.”

“Yes, we do attack the US forces across the border and that is what real jihad is all about,” he admitted. “The way [US] President [George W] Bush is waging a crusade against Islam, we will hit the US wherever and whenever it is possible. Our jihad against the US in Afghanistan goes on,” he added.

Namdar’s influence is restricted to the Bar Kambarkhel tribe, but following his admission that he ‘plays host’ to tribal and foreign militants, this makes him a potentially influential commander in a region through which supply lines to the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan pass.

He said his aim was to make it clear to the mujahideen where and against whom the ‘real jihad’ is to be waged. “My aim is to show them which path is the correct one for waging jihad. Our real enemy is one that has reached closer to us, and is occupying Afghanistan. Why should mujahideen target Pakistan when this country provides everything for jihad in Afghanistan,” he said.

Namdar said he opposed suicide attacks inside Pakistan, but justified them as the “best weapon” against the enemy. “We have to finish our enemy in Afghanistan by any means and suicide bombing is the best weapon.”

His acknowledgement of the presence of Taliban militants and their ‘active participation’ in cross-border anti-US jihad marks a new beginning for the Taliban-linked insurgency in Afghanistan, as reinforcement from Khyber Agency would boost the morale of militants in opening up a new front against Kabul.

[Astraeus]

انا اجهد في دراساتي
It's an everyday phrase I've used before which includes the verb derived from the noun Jihad. "I'm struggling in my studies." One letter different. That's the form three verbal form of جهد and is commonly used by students around exam time at the American University of Cairo, Beruit, or wherever.

It's true that within the Middle East Jihad is a word and concept with deep religious connotations, but connotes to the vast majority of Muslims the value of striving in one's daily life to do the best that one can. If the U.S. wants to prevent Al-Qaeda from defining the religious vocabulary of the Islamic world, it should avoid propagating these same definitions itself in English.

Based on my very limited experience I would say its a rather large mistake to look at Islam, or Middle Eastern culture in general as some sort of unified or monolithic entity. It is true that moderate voices are failing to make themselves heard, and Middle Eastern society in general is failing to marginalize the extreme voices with any efficacy. I would submit that the best thing that the West can do to deny religious extremists the legitimacy they seek, is to refer to them as common criminals rather then using the heroic vocabulary they use themselves to ascribe a stature they do not deserve. They are not holy warriors, martyrs, or the "pious ones."

This is not about political correctness, it is about not making a mistake in the war of ideas that would be similar to condemning Timothy McVeigh as a "holy saint" after his attack in Oklahoma City was carried out on the anniversary of the raid on David Koresh's Christian militia in Waco.
My 0.02 respectfully,
Greg

[SF-TX]

I defer to one more learned on the subject and who has spent his adult life studying the Quran and the hadiths, Robert Spencer:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Article...5-B8131F2B25B3

The Definition of "Jihad"

By Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/22/2007

In a recent FrontPage interview, Mary Habeck, a professor at Johns Hopkins and author of a book about the jihadists entitled Knowing the Enemy, makes a number of observations about the jihad ideology, and why more Muslims don't stand up to the jihadists, that are worth looking at more closely.

...Thus, Muslims are allowed to fight these unbelievers in a just jihad. Their definition of jihad is quite different from that generally accepted by Muslims today. Most Muslims say that jihad is first and foremost an internal struggle to control one's desires or, if it is about fighting, jihad is a defensive just war.

Most Muslims may indeed believe that. Yet while this likelihood provides comfort for non-Muslims with its suggestion that most Muslims would prefer to tend to their own souls rather than to wage war against their non-Muslim neighbors, it actually doesn’t establish what what both Muslims and non-Muslims seem to wish it did. This is because the traditional pedigree of the spiritual jihad is not as firm as it is often advertised to be. The hadith in which Muhammad makes a distinction between “greater jihad” of spiritual struggle and the “lesser jihad” of warfare doesn't appear in any of the hadith collections that Muslims consider most reliable. Jihad understood as warfare against unbelievers in order to establish the hegemony of Islamic law has much greater support in Islamic scripture, tradition, and historical practice -- and leading jihad theorists including Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, and Abdullah Azzam, Osama bin Laden’s friend and intellectual mentor and co-founder with him of Al-Qaeda, challenge the authenticity of the saying in their writings. This only buttresses their claim, which Habeck notes below, to represent the "true believers."

These extremists make jihad into the central tenet of their religion, arguing that it is primarily about fighting both defensively and offensively (to spread the just laws of Islam). They also say that any Muslim who does not participate in their jihad is not a "true believer," and is at most a sinner and at worst an unbeliever and can therefore be killed with impunity.

Habeck gives no hint here of the fact that the theology of offensive and defensive jihad is far older than the "extremists," and is in fact rooted in the Qur'an (2:193 and 9:29 and for offensive jihad) and Muhammad's statements, notably the one in which he directs his followers to offer non-Muslims conversion, subjugation, or war. Then there are the schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which all teach the necessity for offensive jihad in order to subjugate unbelievers under the rule of Sharia.

All this answers the follow-up question below far more convincingly than Habeck answers it: the moderate Muslims don't speak out more forcefully against the jihadists because if they do, the jihadists can easily portray them as unfaithful Muslims, and quote Qur'an and Sunnah to establish their position. And that can make the lives of the moderates difficult in many ways.

Habeck is aware of this. Last year, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross reviewed her book and noted that in it she drew a sharp distinction between jihadist theology and "traditional Islam." I wrote to him, asking him a number of questions about the content of this distinction and related matters, and he discussed them with Dr. Habeck over lunch. At the time, he got permission from her for me to publish her answers from his emails -- and he gave me his permission also to publish what he wrote to me.

Here's what Gartenstein-Ross wrote to me in response: "I had lunch with Prof. Habeck on 8/8, a couple of days after receiving your e-mail, and was able to put the question to her myself. Prof. Habeck's answer was that she used the term 'traditional Islam' sloppily in her book. She says that she generally has used the term two ways: referring to Islam as practiced before Napoleon's 1798 invasion of Egypt and referring to Islam as practiced in individual societies such as Indonesia or Pakistan before exposure to Wahhabism/Salafism or other foreign strains that alter the indigenous practice." So in other words, she is referring to what I refer to as "cultural Islam."

I had also asked if Dr. Habeck could name any orthodox sects or schools of Islamic jurisprudence that rejected the necessity of jihad warfare in order to institute Sharia. Gartenstein-Ross answered: "I also put to her your question about traditional Islamic sects that 'reject the proposition that the umma must wage war in order to establish Sharia.' She agreed without hesitation that such sects have not existed within mainstream Islam historically."

Yet despite knowing this, Habeck goes on in the FP interview to assert that the jihadists have hijacked Islam, and to make several other dubious assertions:

FP: Why are “moderate” Muslims so silent, in general, in the face of jihadism?

Habeck: There are probably many reasons for this, but I can give at least three. First, many Muslims have spoken out against jihadism, but they have been ignored by Western media. There was, for instance, a huge demonstration against violence carried out in the name of Islam is Morocco not too long ago (late 2005), but I don't remember reading anything about this is in the mainstream media.

Maybe the mainstream media didn't cover it, but here is a story about it from Lebanon's Daily Star. The story says that the demonstrators were protesting "Al-Qaeda's decision to kill two Moroccan hostages in Iraq," and were "holding banners and chanting 'Muslims are brothers. A Muslim does not kill his brother.'" So they were upset about Al-Qaeda killing Muslims. That is a phenomenon we have noted here many times: Muslims taking umbrage at Al-Qaeda killing fellow Muslims. But where are the protests against Al-Qaeda killing unbelievers? It is not enough for Muslims to "speak out against jihadism" only when its victims are Muslims, but to remain silent when they're non-Muslims -- not enough at least for non-Muslims.

I read memri.org and see many, many moderate Muslims speaking out against these guys every day. Second, in many countries these guys control the public arena and intimidate or even murder anyone who speaks out against them. The intimidation carried out in Western countries recently shows the power that just a few fanatics can have. Finally, there is a peculiar dynamic going on in the Islamic world: most people do not trust their governments or media to be reporting the truth, so they refuse to believe that the jihadis are carrying out these terrible atrocities. It's far more satisfying to believe that the government/US/Zionists are lying about all this rather than to confront the fact that someone has hijacked your religion for their own purposes.

Indeed. And it's also far more satisfying to pretend that the jihadists have "hijacked" an essentially peaceful Islam rather than confront the ugly reality of the deep roots that the jihad ideology has within Islam, even when one has acknowledged that the facts are otherwise.

Now certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle. But to pretend that the jihadists don't have the intellectual upper hand in the Islamic world today is to undercut any chances for genuine Islamic reform, which can only proceed from an honest acknowledgment of the realities of Islamic doctrine, not from ignoring those elements and implying they don't exist.



Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.

[x-factor]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

Now certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle. But to pretend that the jihadists don't have the intellectual upper hand in the Islamic world today is to undercut any chances for genuine Islamic reform, which can only proceed from an honest acknowledgment of the realities of Islamic doctrine, not from ignoring those elements and implying they don't exist.

Thats the point exactly. By allowing the jihadists to control the vocabulary you allow them to perpetuate and strengthen their grip on the debate in the Muslim world, which as we've all said is at the center of this whole conflict.