Ignoring al Qaeda’s ideology is a threat to US national security

[Valin]

Counter Terrorism Blog:

Walid Phares
5/28/10

In preparation for the publicizing for the new National Security Strategy by the Obama Administration, Mr John Brennan, White House Advisor on Counter Terrorism said the President’s strategy "is absolutely clear about the threat we face." From such an announcement one would project that the new narrative would be as precise as it should be. That is to define the ideology and the goals of the forces we're facing, namely the Jihadists, either Salafists or Khomeinists. Unfortunately, it was just the opposite. M. Brennan said the Obama Administration doesn’t "describe our enemy as 'Jihadists' or Islamists," because (as he argued) Jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community." He added that "the use of these religious terms would "play into the false perception" that al-Qaeda and its affiliates are "religious leaders and defending a holy cause, when in fact, they are nothing more than murderers." In reality, abandoning the use of terms such as “Jihadists” or even “Islamists” in defining the threat is a strategic set back in the war of ideas fought against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Shabab al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Pasdaran and all other adherents to Global Jihadism. It is the equivalent in a classical war, of banning the use of radars, AWACs and broadcast. In short, this is a shortcut to utter self defeat.

The premise of the new national security doctrine regarding the identification of the threat and the appropriate names to use is flawed in its root. Linguistically Jihad doesn’t translate into “Holy Struggle,” for the latter in Arabic is “al Nidal al muqaddass.” In its substance Jihad doesn’t mean a purification of oneself in abstract, like Yoga. Theologically it is a call for efforts on behalf of Allah (Jihad fi sabeel Allah) which could take different forms, some of which could be in the battlefield. It is originally a theological notion that US Government officials have no business in defining or redefining as M. Brennan and the national security doctrine of President Obama are attempting to. The United States secular Government shouldn’t enter the fray of stating that Jihad is legitimate or illegitimate from a theological standpoint. Instead they should identify if a particular ideology self described as "Jihadist" is or isn't a source of threat and radicalization.

الجهاد Jihad is a Theological Notion
الجهادية Jihadism is an ideology

However, and that’s the Administration’s second intellectual mistake, “Jihadism” is not the same thing as Jihad: the first is an ideological notion while the latter is originally a theological notion. The Administration’s experts have tried to link Jihadism, and thus the “Jihadists” to the controversially debated concept of Jihad. This is academically flawed: For Jihadism is a movement in contemporary times and their ideology has been established for almost a century. There are geopolitical in nature and involved in conflicts, wars and radicalization. More importantly they’ve declared a war against the US and have waged it for decades. Whatever is the debate about Jihad as a notion, the Jihadists exist in reality and they are the foes of democracies.

An AP story posted on April 7 reported that President Obama's advisers will remove religious terms such as "Islamic extremism" from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror. It added that “the change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: "The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century." This means that the Obama Administration is saying there is no such thing as “Militant Islamic Radicalism” thus the US narrative should not talk about ideology as a threat to national security. But banning all terms that identifies the threat other than describing it as “extremist” or “violent” not only is scholarly wrong but would in turn constitute a threat to America’s national security. Extremism and Violence are abstract terms used to describe an ideologies, movements and organizations. But “description” is not “identification.” One can say the Nazis or the Bolsheviks are extremists but one must identify the threat before describing it.

For while it is positive to refine and improve the quality of US rhetoric, and thus select the best words to identify the enemy’s identity and doctrines, cleansing the official narrative from all words allegedly “Islam-related” would simultaneously eliminate the very words and terms that determine and specifies the particular network and world vision which are at war with the entire international community including the United States but also the moderate Arabs and Muslims. .........(Snip)



Dr Walid Phares is the author of Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America, and of The War of Ideas: Jihadism against Democracy

[SrWoodchuck]

Dr. Walid Phares knows his stuff!

 

Bowing, bun-kissin', why won't you like me?-Obamunists cannot surrender enough.

 

Now they've conceded the "War of Semantics" without a shot.

 

Where are our Alpha-dogs? Obama is on his back peeing himself, trying to get someone to scratch his tummy.

 

I'm calling them, "bearded Arab killers who are at war with us, even if we don't think they are"....or..."killers who want to hack off our heads with a dull sword, on TV, but just need a way to get to us"

 

We're not at war with moderate Islam? Yes we are. They aid & abet the "violent, bearded Arab killers" by smiling & remaining silent! Not to mention giving to fake Arab charities [Alms-one of the five pillars of their faith]

 

There is smaller Jihad [Jihad of the heart & turning to God] & greater Jihad [War on all lands not under Islam] and these Obama asshats don't even read their own legislation, let alone pick up & peruse a Quran. Mohammad made contradictory statements [hadiths] based on whether he was losing or winning his battles, and the later hadiths are the one's that are considered correct.......when he was killing 700 Jewish males at once....or throwing people into pots of molten lead.

 

I've had enough of this PCBS......and.......I don't even care if their feelings get hurt!

[Valin]

Dr. Walid Phares knows his stuff!

 

Bowing, bun-kissin', why won't you like me?-Obamunists cannot surrender enough.

 

Now they've conceded the "War of Semantics" without a shot.

 

Where are our Alpha-dogs? Obama is on his back peeing himself, trying to get someone to scratch his tummy.

 

I'm calling them, "bearded Arab killers who are at war with us, even if we don't think they are"....or..."killers who want to hack off our heads with a dull sword, on TV, but just need a way to get to us"

 

We're not at war with moderate Islam? Yes we are. They aid & abet the "violent, bearded Arab killers" by smiling & remaining silent! Not to mention giving to fake Arab charities [Alms-one of the five pillars of their faith]

 

There is smaller Jihad [Jihad of the heart & turning to God] & greater Jihad [War on all lands not under Islam] and these Obama asshats don't even read their own legislation, let alone pick up & peruse a Quran. Mohammad made contradictory statements [hadiths] based on whether he was losing or winning his battles, and the later hadiths are the one's that are considered correct.......when he was killing 700 Jewish males at once....or throwing people into pots of molten lead.

 

I've had enough of this PCBS......and.......I don't even care if their feelings get hurt!

 

 

I could be wrong, but as I recall Muhammad said the "Jihad of the heart & turning to God" was the greater jihad, and the smaller jihad was fighting a war.

[SrWoodchuck]

Valin!

 

Scholars of Islam have said both things.

 

Hasan Al-Banna [founder-1928-Muslim Brotherhood & Al Qaeda's lineage] said this in his treatise on Jihad:

 

All Muslims Must Make Jihad- Jihad is an obligation from Allah on every Muslim & cannot be evaded or ignored.

Banna-Quoting the author of the "Majma" al Anhar Fi Sharb Multagal Abhar- which described the rules of Jihad according to the Hanafi School said: "Jihad linguistically means to exert one's utmost effort in word & action. In the Sharee'ah it is the fighting of unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam, by such means as fighting those that fight you; and the dhimmis [non-Muslims under Islamic rule.]

It is fard [obligatory] on us to fight with the enemies.- Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is Jihad Asghar [a lesser jihad] and that fighting one's ego is Jihad Akbar [a greater jihad.]

It is said in the Hadeeth: "One of the greatest forms of Jihad is to utter a word of truth in the presence of a tryannical ruler." But nothing compares to the honour of Shahadah Kubra [the Supreme Martyrdom] or the reward that is waiting for the Mujahideen!

 

We're in a semantic battle with a group that uses semantics & picks over their hadeeths to determine any action. They at least have the purity of purpose of using words to their advantage in accomplishing Jihad Akbar; while we have idiot nincompoops in charge of, "National Intelligence", that are deciding which words will inflame the delicate dispositions of moderate Muslims. It's a big yuk to them. Moderate Muslims are perfectly content to smile & make no noises about Islamic terrorism, then use CAIR or other Muslim groups to legislate through the courts, for their advantage.

 

It's a battle of wits, to the death.....and our warriors are unarmed.

[NCTexan]

M. Brennan said the Obama Administration doesn’t "describe our enemy as 'Jihadists' or Islamists,"

The Obama Administration would rather describe them as:

 

Right Wing extremists

Lone Wolf actors

Disenfranchised citizens of the world

Misunderstood individuals

Insurgents

Victims of discrimination

Bunch of "Crazy Kids"

Religious fundamentalists

Poor and downtrodden

 

Fits their political narrative much better... and obfuscates the real issue.

[Valin]

SrWoodchuck

 

(A bit off topic....not that I've ever let a little thing like that stop me )

Speaking of Hasan Al-Banna, you migh twant to take a look at The Flight of the Intellectuals

Paul Berman

 

Insight Into Islamo-fascism, May 19, 2010

By Ratonis (Lincoln, Nebraska)

This review is from: The Flight of the Intellectuals (Hardcover)

 

In "Flight of the Intellectuals," Paul Berman presents an extensive critique of the thought of the Swiss philosopher Tariq Ramadan, and his kid-glove treatment by western intellectuals. The book is a trenchant exposure of Ramadan's tendency to speak out of both sides of his mouth, and the acceptance of violence as a political strategy, even among alleged "moderate" voices, that lies at the heart of the Islamist movement in Europe and America. Although Berman is cautious about giving credibility to the concept "Islamo-fascism," (he backs off from this), he nevertheless agrees that one can understand why people might want to use that phrase. He then unfolds, with wonderfully crafted prose, the very real fascist (specifically Nazi) influences on the Islamist movement since the 1930s down to the present day, and how accepting the alleged "moderate Muslim" Ramadan is of these principles.

 

The greater percentage of the book is a critique of Ian Baruma's article on Tariq Ramadan that appeared in the New York Times Magazine in 2007. This extensive critique of a specific writer discussing a leading Swiss Muslim philosopher illuminates Berman's assessment of western intellectuals' response to radical Islam, which he describes as "a coverage animated by earnest good intentions, but, then again, by squeamishness and fear. And by less-than-good intentions."

 

Berman clarifies the intellectual line of descent in Ramadan's thought from Hassan al Banna (Ramadan's grandfather)through Jerusalem's Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini and Sayid Qutb. Berman challenges Ramadan to explain why he refuses to clearly reject the violent extremism of such figures, and why, when writing of them, Ramadan dances around such a lurid anti-semitism and exterminationist agenda as was embraced by the the Mufti. And why doesn't Baruma press the point while interviewing Ramadan for his NYT article? As far as Ramadan is concerned, Berman notes that Ramadan's whole intellectual tradition "is precisely the milieu that bears the principal responsibility for generating the modern theory of religious suicide-terror."

 

Along the way, Berman calls our attention to some promising further reading, most notably a novel by the Algerian writer Boualem Sansal entitled "The German Mujahid," translated into English from the original French in 2009. In Sansal's story, the sons of a former German SS officer who has moved to Algeria and converted to Islam, discover the truth concerning their father. The dramatic thread of the novel is rooted, significantly, in the harmonious relationship between Nazi anti-semitism and the officer's new Islamist version of the Muslim faith. The boys come to the "alarming recognition that Nazism and Islamism have something in common."

 

The ninth and final chapter of the book, which recapitulates the title of the book itself, is worth the price of the book (and it's expensive). In this chapter, Berman expresses moral outrage at the cowardly and twisted responses of western intellectuals to a woman of great courage and intellect--Ayaan Hirsi Ali. While Ramadan gathers sychophantic admirers among western intellectuals, Hirsi Ali's advocacy of womens' rights and individual liberty draws their scorn and ridicule, some of which is itself clearly sexist in nature. The intellectuals manifest a now-familiar guilt and disgust of their own western civilization, and seem to wallow in the "pleasure of self-hatred." Quoting Pascal Bruckner, Berman notes that "it is astonishing that sixty-two years after the fall of the Third Reich and sixteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an important segment of Europe's intelligentsia is engaged in slandering the friends of democracy."

 

Berman expresses the view that the Salman Rushdie affair has now "metastasized into an entire social class. It is a subset of the European intelligentsia--its Muslim free-thinking and liberal wing especially, but including other people, too, who survive only because of bodyguards and police investigations and because of their own precautions. This is unprecedented in Western Europe since the fall of the Axis. Fear--mortal fear, the fear of getting murdered by fanatics in the grip of a bizarre ideology--has become, for a significant number of intellectuals and artists, a simple fact of modern life." Thus it is that western intellectual life is threatened by the intellectuals themselves, who refuse to discuss or even acknowledge "the Nazi influence that has turned out to be so weirdly venemous and enduring in the history of the Islamist movement."

 

This is a book that should be on the recommended reading list of college students throughout America. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that, for that would require courage far beyond the conventional "multiculturalist" bromides that now put them to sleep.

 

 

It is raising quite a stir in certain circles

[SrWoodchuck]

Valin!

 

Thank you for the post & book tip [yes, I'm ordering this one on Amazon, right now]

 

I wish we could believe that moderate Muslims would assimilate into the American model of life; but feel that if we don't protect ourselves [and there is no protection under Obama & the progressive Dems] we will be living the European model, where people live or die based on "bodyguards, police investigations & their own precautions."

 

The eagle on the dollar: Talons of olive branches & Talons of arrows.