.
The real reason Iran can't be trusted
By Mamoun Fandy
London – In the run-up to talks with Iran last month [October 2009], many in Europe and the United States asked whether Iran would, or even could, come clean on its nuclear activities.
Should the West trust Iranian promises? The short answer is "no." But the underlying question is "Why not?"
The answer lies in Iranian belief systems – notably the doctrine of taqiyya, a difficult concept for many non-Muslims to grasp. Taqiyya is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political or worldly affairs. At one level it means that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his regime can tell themselves that they are obliged by their faith not to tell the truth.
This doctrine has not been discussed much in the West, but it should be. How should the world deal with taqiyya in Shiite Islam in the context of Iran's nuclear file?
Can Iran be trusted?
In Iran, the teachings of Shiite Islam govern all aspects of society. And taqiyya – dissimulation and concealment – is one of the key elements of the Shiite faith. While many outsiders are surprised by Iran's concealment of its nuclear installations, those who study the Shiite faith and recognize the signs of taqiyya are not.
Many governments lie about strategic secrets, especially secrets about nuclear weapons. Witness Israel's concealment of its nuclear capabilities. And former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping counseled his country to "hide its brightness" – for strategic reasons.
Iran's approach to its nuclear ambitions, however, is a different form of deception and denial. Certainly states do not need a religious edict to lie or obfuscate. But it helps if a state has one already in place.
What can the West do?
Western negotiators must be mindful, not only of the technical side of Iran's nuclear program, but the historical evolution of taqiyya. Such context sheds critical light on the insecurities of the Iranian regime and that of the Shiite community at large.
Taqiyya doesn't mean the West should give up all negotiations with Iran, or that Iran can never be trusted. Tehran's concealment is a means to an end: It wants nuclear weapons to provide security for the clerical regime and the Shiite community. So long as Iran feels threatened, it will deceive. But if the West can ease Tehran's anxiety with strong assurances, then negotiations will be more truthful.
How a doctrine of deceit developed
Taqiyya requires the faithful to be deceitful at times of weakness. The history of Shiites in their conflict with Sunnis is a history of the downtrodden. They have been the underdogs in Islamic history, and have had to protect both their communities and their faith from being overrun by the more numerous Sunnis. Taqiyya emerged as a response.
Taqiyya offers a license to violate the strict rules of the faith in cases of extreme pressure or threat of extinction – something not unusual in Sunni-Shiite history. The doctrine allows dissimulation in the service of self-preservation, practiced by the faithful.
The teachings of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Shiite imam, emphasise taqiyya as a political tool. "Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden," he advised. He also defined the relationship between the Shiite and other Muslims: "[B]eing double-faced with one's own takes one outside the bounds of faith, but with others [with non-Shiites] is a form of worship."
The words of Shiite imams are viewed as having the authority of the prophet Muhammad, and they entail obligations. Taqiyya is one component of the faith, and the Shiites are instructed to practice it until the time the Mahdi returns. The Mahdi is the figure who, like the Messiah in Christianity, will return and spread justice on earth.
Until that moment occurs, the Shiite faithful are obliged to practice taqiyya in their dealings with other Muslims, as well as with non-Muslims.
Opposing value systems
While the policies of the West and of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are driven by the concept of transparency as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, those who are negotiating with Iran must question the extent to which the Shiite regime in Tehran is driven by the concept of concealment. There are two different value systems at work here, making common ground exceedingly difficult to find.
Today the West may rightly be obsessed with nuclear installations in Iran, or the number of centrifuges it has, or even uranium-enrichment levels.
Last month, Iranian officials allowed IAEA officials to inspect a nuclear facility near the city of Qom. But they won't reveal everything: that would violate their faith. Shiites are obliged by their religious teachings to protect both the faith and the community until the return of the Mahdi. From Tehran's perspective, "nuclear" taqiyya is a must, because strategic nuclear weapons are the only means to protect the Shiite community in these modern times.
The West must understand that Iran's nuclear guile is a function of regime insecurities. And its insecurity is rooted in reality: Iran feels squeezed by the tens of thousands of US troops who brought regime change to its west, in Iraq, and to its east, in Afghanistan.
If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith.
Mamoun Fandy is the director of the Middle East program at the International Institute of Strategic Studies in London. He's also the author of the forthcoming book, "The Shia-Sunni Divide and the Coming Middle Eastern Cold War."
[Fri Nov 20, 4:00 am ET]
[ALSO SEE Can Moslems Be Trusted? "Understanding Taqiyya ― Islamic Principle of Lying for the Sake of Allah"
and
Islamic concept of Al-Taqiyah to infiltrate and destroy kafir countries]
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
NOW . . .
If you have read this far, do you believe this quote from the foregoing Mahmoun Fandy article represents the way things are with Iran?
"If Washington wants a breakthrough in its negotiations with Iran, it should make fewer threats and more assurances. Only when the Iranian regime feels safe will it negotiate in good faith."
There is no sign of Iran "negotiating in good faith," given Obama's weakness in facing its nuclear ambitions.
How much "feeling safe" does the Iraninian regime need? Allowing it to go ahead with perfecting the nuclear weapons it desires so that it can nuke Israel off the face of the Earth?
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
KNOW YOUR ENEMY - PART ONE
Fitna and the Kafir: Part One
By Kenneth Roberts
December 1, 2009
Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.
Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.
Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.
What is fitna then?
The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.
This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.
As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.
There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.
In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.
Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.
Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.
Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.
The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.
Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.
In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.
The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.
Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.
In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!
As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.
In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?
The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).
Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.
Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.
The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.
Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.
Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.
Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'
But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.
Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)
No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.
The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.
The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"
Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!
That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.
Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
By Kenneth Roberts
December 1, 2009
Why do cartoons constitute a capital crime in Islam? Why did writing 'The Satanic Verses' bring a death sentence and bounty upon Sir Salman Rushdie? Why does a military psychiatrist fire more than 100 rounds into an unarmed crowd he was trained to heal? Why do Muslims express violent anger concerning differences of religious opinion? The one-word answer to these questions is 'FITNA'.
Fitna is one of the most important concepts in Islam, but it is a totally alien concept to Western philosophy. The concept of fitna totally abnegates our notions of free expression or logical discourse. The concept of fitna subjugates all thought to the method of Mohammed.
Fitna is spotted by the mullahs who also pick the Islamic response to it. In response to the Danish cartoons, they instructed Muslims to riot. Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the paramount authority in Islam, demanded the closing of Jyllands Posten to prevent further fitna. Muslims studiously avoid the word fitna when talking to infidels.
What is fitna then?
The definition is surprisingly simple: Fitna is any disagreement with Mohammed. More precisely, Fitna is any islamicly-incorrect thought which is communicated to others in the public domain.
This definition fits all the confusing facts and makes sense of all the Islamic dualisms. Fitna is a thought crime. Fitna is a dualistic cocktail of blasphemy and treason.
As with almost everything in Islam, fitna is very hard to explain, because it is couched in Islamic dualism. Even Muslims have trouble explaining it, but they can identify it when they see it. And when they see it, they react violently.
There are two distinctly different classes of fitna: inter-Islamic fitna and infidel fitna. In relation to the evil infidels, fitna means 'tempting', 'enticing' or 'luring' another to disagree with Mohammed. Fitna comes from an old Arabic word that means removing the dross from pure metal. Pure Islam is held in check by fitna, so it must be purged.
In modern Islamic usage, fitna is used to describe ideas that cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community, …such things as openly disagreeing with the head of state of Egypt or Iran or with something found in Sharia law. When a professor at an Arab university quotes original research on the primary sources of Islam, he is immediately accused of fitna and his life is simultaneously threatened. Inter-Islamic fitna is what most Muslims understand when they think of the word 'fitna'.
Muslims cast a veil over 'kafir fitna'…the politically incorrect free speech of wicked infidels that justifies jihad and brings Allah's just punishment upon them.
Mohammed discovered a brilliant way to criminalize differences of opinion with himself. He called his invention 'fitna' and made it the worst crime in his new religion. Any utterance that tests Mohammed's method is a chargeable offence and a capital crime if it persists. The religious charge of blasphemy veils the serious political charge of treason against Mohammed.
Mohammed is Allah's vice-regent on earth. Not only does Mohammed define the truth, but he has a right to punish those who disagree. Moreover, Mohammed is both the constitution and the Islamic state. By disagreeing with Mohammed, you are calling him wrong, in error or worse yet a liar. That is slander and character assassination, but it is also the crime of treason against the Islamic Nation.
The Koran likes to say infidels are accusing Mohammed of being a liar, since that sounds more dramatic and culpable. The Koran commands the punishment of fitna after making it sound reprehensible. Anyone disagreeing with Mohammed in any way has become an enemy of the state who should be treated severely and with violence.
Private disagreements with Mohammed are acceptable, as long as they do not reach the eyes or ears of Muslims. However, public disagreement demands public Islamic punishment. 'Punishment' euphemistically means the death penalty, normatively by beheading.
In the Islamic religion, Mohammed is the only one who speaks for God. Disputing Mohammed's religious monopoly in public means disagreeing with God Himself…thus putting Allah to the test before Muslims. If Allah has lost face in public, his honor and control of the situation can only be restored by violence. To disagree publicly with Mohammed is to call Mohammed and Allah liars. Koran 29:63 - "Who does more harm than he who tells a lie against Allah?" No one! Anyone who suggests Allah or Mohammed are fakes is the worst criminal.
The Koran tells us that words disputing Mohammed/Allah are more criminal than the deed of murder. This does not make sense.
Obviously, something else is going on under the blanket of religion. That something is a political doctrine called 'supremacism'.
In art, an object is sometimes defined, not by positive use of color, but by negative space and the use of shadow. Fitna reveals Islam's key doctrine of Mohammed's supremacy veiled in shadow. Undermining Mohammed's authority does more harm than anything!
As far as Muslims are concerned, the fact that infidels have wrong thoughts in private is bad enough. The divine plan is for the whole world to agree openly that Mohammed is right. In the meantime, it is good for the infidels to be under Islamic control.
In normative Islam, the public utterance of disagreement with Mohammed is worthy of death. Practically, why is this so?
The death sentence is required for the sake of the political harm done to the Islamic chain of command and the readiness of Muslims as a solid fighting force (Koran 61:4).
Basically, all Muslims constitute one army of which Mohammed is the head. First and foremost, every Muslim male is a potential soldier…a holy warrior…a jihadist. If Islam is to go forward, the Muslim male needs to be emotionally, psychologically and mentally ready for jihad and the Islamic community needs to enthusiastically support jihad.
Jihad is Mohammed's method, the way Islam grows. Mohammed is the only expert on Islam. Anything that stands in the way of jihad is evil, satanic and treasonous! Satan and his followers need to be weakened and destroyed or at a minimum brought under the coercive control of the Islamic state. The Islamic army will be ready only if there is an absence of fitna, so fitna control means information control. Information control precedes jihad.
The tactic of information control was first demonstrated by Mohammed by assassinating his vocal critics, usually at night. Mohammed also gave his complete support to freelance assassins who murdered family members who criticized Mohammed at home…also usually at night. Disagreeing with Mohammed is not permissible if a Muslim is present or becomes aware of it. Mohammed used violence to stamp out the utterance of disagreement and he approved of others who did the same on their own initiative. Mohammed is the role model for all Muslims to emulate.
Assassination is the normative punishment for the crime of fitna. Killing a critic of Islam is a good deed, since it restores the honor of Allah/Mohammed and removes the threat of fitna from the community. Any Muslim is free to carry out the death sentence in the matter of fitna. In Sharia-dominated countries, no punishment will be given and the killer will be a hero. As well, the assassin is guaranteed entry to the highest rank in paradise.
Grand Imam Sayyed Tantawi, the leading cleric of the four Sunni sects declared, 'Muslims are allowed to fight against them (critics), but only to the extent of making them aware that they should not become enemies of Islam.' Here we have the foremost Muslim in the world stating publicly that infidels should be 'fought' (treated violently) if they disagree with Mohammed. Since Tantawi speaks for 90% of Muslims, violence against critics of Islam remains an official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam. Sunnis number almost one billion.
Most Westerners believed Muslims were angered that Kurt Westergaard (the cartoonist who drew the Mohammed turban-bomb cartoon) called Mohammed, or by extension, that he called all Muslims-violent! Westerners believed their message was: 'Don't say Islam is violent or we'll kill you!'
But Islamic violence is not the issue. Muslims know that Mohammed is violent and that he is their role model. They revel in it. It makes them feel strong and proud.
Jihad is holy violence. Violence is the way Allah removes fitna, removes the dross from pure Islam and removes the infidel scum from the earth which is owned by Mohammed. (Bukhari 4:52:220)
No! Muslims were angered that the Danish cartoonists disagreed with Mohammed, and said so in public. That was political fitna and a crime against honor.
The cartoonists disagreed that Mohammed's violent method is right and made fun of it. The cartoonists removed Mohammed's halo. As a consequence, Allah and Mohammed both lost face. If Allah/Mohammed said violence against the infidels is right… and the infidels laugh at Allah's Divine Command…the infidels obviously need to be taught a lesson. The infidels need to accept that Mohammed owns the earth and their position is one of political inferiority to Muslims. Islamic supremacism is Allah's divine plan and violence is Mohammed's method.
The infidels are to be brought under the control of the Islamic state in thought, word and deed and they are given no choice in submitting to it or not. Allah commanded violence so the infidels will be forced to receive the divine benefit of Islam…'even if the infidels are averse to it!' (Koran 9:33)"
Muslim logic is: The infidels do not understand. They are blinded by Satan. Muslims have to use violence to help the infidels. The infidels should be in terror of Allah and the coercive power of the Islamic Nation. It is for their own good. Allah is great! And has the ability to do all things. And Allah knows best!
That final phrase ends every Islamic verdict and the deeds of jihad follow. Further disagreement is impossible.
Throughout the West, the infidels did not understand! The purpose of the cartoon riots was not to reassert the lost human rights of Muslims under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but to proclaim the political supremacy of Muslims over the infidels and show the willingness of Muslims to support jihad and bring the infidels under their control. Put negatively, the purpose of the cartoon riots was to declare the inferiority of infidels, who should know their place and commit no more 'fitna'. That is…the infidels needed to learn not to disagree with Mohammed in public.
Kenneth Roberts is interested in global affairs, military history and the music of Mozart.
Permalink
copyright (c) CBSX, LLC
politicalislam.com
Use and distribute as you wish; do not edit and give us credit.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
FACTS, FALLACIES AND BIGOTS
by Bill Warner
Bill Warner presents us, in his words, with "an exercise in fact-based rational thought." He quotes a fairly typical, politically correct, fair-minded Rabbi committed to ecumenicism and determined to think well of everyone. Warner quotes the letter that embodies that point of view, then proceeds to demonstrate that this image of Islam doesn't conform to reality. Defusing the hatred in the Koran because the Jewish and Christian Scriptures also -- in the Rabbi's words -- contain "bad material" doesn't anwer why Jews and Christians have moved on, but Muslims still stone people and behead them and cut off hands for trivial offenses.
READ MORE
Bill Warner presents us, in his words, with "an exercise in fact-based rational thought." He quotes a fairly typical, politically correct, fair-minded Rabbi committed to ecumenicism and determined to think well of everyone. Warner quotes the letter that embodies that point of view, then proceeds to demonstrate that this image of Islam doesn't conform to reality. Defusing the hatred in the Koran because the Jewish and Christian Scriptures also -- in the Rabbi's words -- contain "bad material" doesn't anwer why Jews and Christians have moved on, but Muslims still stone people and behead them and cut off hands for trivial offenses.
READ MORE
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Islamic Terror is not only fought in the battlefields of Afghanistan and the Middle East . . .
from Small Wars Journal :
Major Hasan reintroduces 'Terror and Consent'
Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
The massacre at Fort Hood is a reminder that the War on Terror is not fought just in south Afghanistan or Mosul. It is a global war also fought in an office building inside a military base in Texas. Many counter-terror analysts focus on the Pakistan connection and preventing The Big One that could top 9/11. But the real problem may well be the self-motivated “small ball” players like Major Hasan or a future disciple of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. “Small ball” terrorism won’t have the economic, political, or strategic impact that 9/11 did. But if there is enough of it, the public will eventually find political leadership that will provide an adequate response to the problem.
What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of “market-state terrorism” he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.
After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt’s theories.
Major Hasan’s case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don’t know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?
Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won’t be just theory for much longer.
Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
Comments (6)
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/major-hasan-reintroduces-terro/
ALSO see
An Oath Violated
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-oath-violated/
Major Hasan reintroduces 'Terror and Consent'
Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
The massacre at Fort Hood is a reminder that the War on Terror is not fought just in south Afghanistan or Mosul. It is a global war also fought in an office building inside a military base in Texas. Many counter-terror analysts focus on the Pakistan connection and preventing The Big One that could top 9/11. But the real problem may well be the self-motivated “small ball” players like Major Hasan or a future disciple of DC Sniper John Allen Muhammad. “Small ball” terrorism won’t have the economic, political, or strategic impact that 9/11 did. But if there is enough of it, the public will eventually find political leadership that will provide an adequate response to the problem.
What should be that response? How should Western societies respond to the generalized problem of terrorism, especially the domestic variety? Constitutional law professor and former National Security Council staffer Philip Bobbitt attempted to provide a comprehensive answer in his grandly ambitious book Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty-first Century. In a message that ruffled feathers on every point on the political spectrum, Bobbitt argued that in order to defend Western values of liberty and the rule of law, both domestic and international law would need to become more muscular. Bobbitt rejected that there is a trade-off between civil liberties and government power. In a future world of “market-state terrorism” he fears we are headed to, Bobbitt argued that more law authorizing more surveillance and more foreign intervention would be the only way to protect basic liberties.
After an initial flurry of attention, Terror and Consent seems to have been shelved to collect dust. Without another 9/11 or even any small ball terrorism inside the U.S., no one has had any need for Bobbitt’s theories.
Major Hasan’s case may reintroduce us to Terror and Consent. Many want to know why the electronic surveillance over Hasan was not used to stop him in advance of his rampage. A fair question. Are there other Major Hasans who have similarly self-radicalized and are preparing to strike? Or about to self-radicalize even if they don’t know it yet? Is there a government agency responsible for monitoring and preventing this? If so, what should be an acceptable level of false positive identifications and apprehensions?
Bobbitt attempted to address these and other questions in a dense and theoretical way. But maybe it won’t be just theory for much longer.
Posted by Robert Haddick on November 19, 2009 12:34 PM Permalink Print
Comments (6)
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/11/major-hasan-reintroduces-terro/
ALSO see
An Oath Violated
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-oath-violated/
Friday, November 6, 2009
‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam
Why?
because Islam means peace. That's what they claim. But . . .
An islamic miniature (one of many) that portrays muhamhead at a beheading. So if their guy is at killings, what is the big deal with associating islam with violence.
It's because it is TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.
because Islam means peace. That's what they claim. But . . .
An islamic miniature (one of many) that portrays muhamhead at a beheading. So if their guy is at killings, what is the big deal with associating islam with violence.
It's because it is TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH.
www.practicalturkish.com/miniature-siyer-i-nebi--beheading.jpg
It shows Ali bin Abu Taleb beheading Nasr bin al-Hareth in the presence of the Prophet Mohamhead and his companions.
In 1995, this miniature (measuring just 7 by 9 inches approximately) fetched £ 42,000 at Sotheby's in London. the devil hates to be discovered for what the deceiver is.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/modern_satires/
above from http://www.finalcrusade.com/4.html
‘Islam not responsible’ for Fort Hood massacre: US imam
by sheikyermami on November 7, 2009
At last! Not a moment too soon: denial is a river in Egypt, but the kuffar-media is desperate to lap it up.
Debbie Schlussel:
Nidal Malik Hasan was just a "stressed out victim of Islamophobia."
King Kong Schlong: Its Islam, Stupid! Spare us the "Sudden ‘Camel Jockey’ Allahu Akbar Derangement Syndrome… Fake ’Dr’ Phil spouts this same BS line about stress and trauma being the reason, not that Islam actually was the reason.
Breitbart.com
Islam is "not responsible" for the bloodbath at an army base in Texas where Muslim-American army Major Nidal Malik Hasan allegedly gunned down 13 people, the prayer leader at the mosque where the officer regularly worshipped said Friday.
"We offer our condolences and prayers to the families that have a person who died," said Imam Mohammed Abdullahi over loud-speakers that carried the weekly Muslim prayer to several hundred worshippers gathered at the mosque.
"Islam is not responsible," he stressed.
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/11/07/islam-not-responsible-for-fort-hood-massacre-us-imam/
Former JAG Officer on CNN Tells Dr. Phil to Quit The "Psychobabble" & Deal With The Islamic Factor at Ft. Hood....
Lefties are working overtime to spin this one so Islam isn't the motive (he's mentally ill, Islamophobia drove him to do it, Bush's fault etc). The facts: Hasan's a Muslim and he killed infidels to please Allah. Deal with it.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/11/video-gold-former-jag-officer-on-cnn-tells-dr-phil-to-quit-the-psychobabble-deal-with-the-islamic-fa.html
Islam breeds hate, intolerance and great confusion about the human condition. It is necessary that one day it be nothing more than a testimonial relic of man's capacity for misdirection. I look forward to that day, though I may not live long enough to see it. It had better come, though, or a new dark age will descend upon mankind, courtesy of Islam.
Yes, the situation is this dire. Islam is incapable of reform but very capable of creating repression, misery and death. Its theological blueprint is a menace to liberty as much as Marxism and Nazism were. And I'm running out of patience for those who blindly persist in not seeing this.
Wellington November 6, 2009 4:15 PM
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/11/when-nidal-hasan-came-calling.html
How many centuries has this been going on and we still reject that Islam is anything but peaceful? There has never been a time, anywhere in the world, that Islam was not the aggressor. No, not every Muslim is radical, but can anyone show me one instance, even within the Military, where Muslims personally want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels?
We do not know the details of each and every Muslim serving alongside our Military. That's the problem. What are we asking Muslims to do when deployed to a war zone fighting the war on terror. We are asking Muslims to kill Muslims, knowing that their "faith" teachs that only Muslims can, and should, survive. I know many Muslims are serving this country, but, really, I ask again, will they tell you they want to put an end to Islam's threat to infidels? Will they?
http://findalismonkeyinthemiddle.blogspot.com/2009/11/cair-defends-islam-fort-hood-shooter.html
Cartoon thanks to http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/left-wing-political-correctness-killed-those-soldiers-at-fort-hood/
When you hear someone shout "allahu akbar!" shoot the bastard! http://islamicdangerstill.blogspot.com/2007/12/when-you-hear-someone-shout-allahu.html
Thursday, November 5, 2009
THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM - HOW TRIBALISM TRUMPS RATIONALISM AND CIVILISATION.
by najistani
Viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter. Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!
And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.
To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.
If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.
This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.
Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:
- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.
- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.
- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.
- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.
- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.
- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.
Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.
Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.
The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.
najistani
Tags: islam, Tribalism, Muslims
Viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter. Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!
And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.
To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.
If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.
This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.
Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:
- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.
- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.
- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.
- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.
- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.
- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.
Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.
Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.
The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.
najistani
Tags: islam, Tribalism, Muslims
Sunday, October 25, 2009
When will the Arabic-Islamic colonialism end?
by Jugurten
All the Amazighs (Berbers) in Algeria-the Kabylians, Chaouis, Touregs, Chenouis and the Mzabs-have always been and continue to be the victims of Islamist colonialism for 14 centuries, since the death of Dihia ( A Berber Queen who fought against the first Arabic-Islamic hordes which invaded Algeria).
Centuries and centuries of oppression, persecution, exploitation, murders, destruction and falsification have deprived this “redoubtable and numerous” people-as described by Ibn Khaldoun-of its civilisation and its identity to an extent that makes him doubt of himself and fell like he is nothing without being an Arabic Islamic.
Today, we are witnessing and living an Amazigh revival in all Tamazgha (North Africa), and it becomes more and more evident that the changing or even the downfall of North African Islamic regimes is unavoidable. Recently, a Touareg (Berber from South Algeria) told me that if his people weren’t afraid of the Arab government of Algiers which is able to impose a food embargo on them, they would struggle by using any means necessary to gain back their cultural, linguistic, identity and racial rights.
Another Chenouis from Tipaza told me someday: “Azul [Hello], I am sorry, I can’t talk to you in Kabylian language, because as you know this sad situation is due to the criminal Algerian Arabic-Islamic government which has always favoured our extinction, we, the children of Juba (Amazigh King), but one day they (the Arabic-Islamic governors) will pay for all their crimes and our cultural genocide.”
Actually, all the Amazighs feel the same injustice which has lasted too long. The Arabic-Islamic colonists have always kept a permanent watch on the Amazighs for centuries, since they first arrived in the country. After more than 14 centuries of colonisation, the relationships between the Arabic-Islamic colonists and the Amazighs have not known any change at all. We are, until today, still being mistreated, brutalized, imprisoned, persecuted or murdered every time we dare ask individually or collectively for the official recognition our millennium culture and identity. We, Kabylians, must do everything necessary to win our sovereignty (autonomy) because the survival and the salvation of the rest of the Amazigh people in Tamazgha depend on the success of our human initiative. Then, Kabylia will serve as an example and show the right way to follow for our Amazigh sisters and brothers in Tamazgha, caught in a destructive and fascist Arabic-Islamic trap.
JUG
Posted Thu, 09/11/2008 - 00:25 by Jugurten
http://www.kabylia.info/when-will-arabic-islamic-colonialism-end
All the Amazighs (Berbers) in Algeria-the Kabylians, Chaouis, Touregs, Chenouis and the Mzabs-have always been and continue to be the victims of Islamist colonialism for 14 centuries, since the death of Dihia ( A Berber Queen who fought against the first Arabic-Islamic hordes which invaded Algeria).
Centuries and centuries of oppression, persecution, exploitation, murders, destruction and falsification have deprived this “redoubtable and numerous” people-as described by Ibn Khaldoun-of its civilisation and its identity to an extent that makes him doubt of himself and fell like he is nothing without being an Arabic Islamic.
Today, we are witnessing and living an Amazigh revival in all Tamazgha (North Africa), and it becomes more and more evident that the changing or even the downfall of North African Islamic regimes is unavoidable. Recently, a Touareg (Berber from South Algeria) told me that if his people weren’t afraid of the Arab government of Algiers which is able to impose a food embargo on them, they would struggle by using any means necessary to gain back their cultural, linguistic, identity and racial rights.
Another Chenouis from Tipaza told me someday: “Azul [Hello], I am sorry, I can’t talk to you in Kabylian language, because as you know this sad situation is due to the criminal Algerian Arabic-Islamic government which has always favoured our extinction, we, the children of Juba (Amazigh King), but one day they (the Arabic-Islamic governors) will pay for all their crimes and our cultural genocide.”
Actually, all the Amazighs feel the same injustice which has lasted too long. The Arabic-Islamic colonists have always kept a permanent watch on the Amazighs for centuries, since they first arrived in the country. After more than 14 centuries of colonisation, the relationships between the Arabic-Islamic colonists and the Amazighs have not known any change at all. We are, until today, still being mistreated, brutalized, imprisoned, persecuted or murdered every time we dare ask individually or collectively for the official recognition our millennium culture and identity. We, Kabylians, must do everything necessary to win our sovereignty (autonomy) because the survival and the salvation of the rest of the Amazigh people in Tamazgha depend on the success of our human initiative. Then, Kabylia will serve as an example and show the right way to follow for our Amazigh sisters and brothers in Tamazgha, caught in a destructive and fascist Arabic-Islamic trap.
JUG
Posted Thu, 09/11/2008 - 00:25 by Jugurten
http://www.kabylia.info/when-will-arabic-islamic-colonialism-end
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)