Are we at war with Islam?

[Richard]

Ah - tried and true - nothing like a little ol' fire and brimstone to keep those errant flocks from wandering away from the fold.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[dr. mabuse]

*

[Richard]

Morality was certainly not an invention of any organized form of religious belief - it surely existed long before man felt the need to create a god.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...

Richard

[dr. mabuse]

*

[GratefulCitizen]

Couldn't find this anywhere else on the site.
Islam is eager to censor images of their prophet.
They also seem eager to censor their own doctrine.

Curious to know what Ruth Nasrullah would think.

WARNING: disturbing images
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/vi...omen-in-islam/

[incarcerated]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64P62320100526

Obama doctrine to make clear no war on Islam: aide

Matt Spetalnick and Adam Entous
WASHINGTON
Wed May 26, 2010 3:59pm EDT
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's new national security strategy will make clear the United States is not at war with Islam, a top adviser said on Wednesday as the administration prepared for a formal break with Bush-era doctrine.
The White House on Thursday plans to roll out Obama's first formal declaration of national security goals, which are expected to deviate sharply from the go-it-alone approach of his predecessor that included justification for pre-emptive war.

Previewing parts of the document, John Brennan, Obama's leading counterterrorism adviser, said: "We have never been and will never be at war with Islam."

"The president's strategy is unequivocal with regard to our posture -- the United States of America is at war. We are at war against al Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates," he said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Brennan's words dovetailed with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world, where former President George W. Bush alienated many with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and his use of phrases like "war on terror" and "Islamo-fascism."

At West Point on Saturday, Obama laid out the broad principles of his coming National Security Strategy, a document required by law of every administration, stressing international engagement over Bush's "cowboy diplomacy."

Grappling with a fragile U.S. economy and mounting deficits, Obama also signaled he would place new emphasis on the link between U.S. economic strength and discipline at home and restoring America's standing in the world.

Obama has been widely credited with improving the tone of U.S. foreign policy but is still struggling with unfinished wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and sluggish Middle East peace efforts.

Critics say some of his efforts at diplomatic outreach show U.S. weakness.

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM THREAT

Brennan said curbing the growing threat of "homegrown" terrorism would be a top priority, along with boosting defenses against lone al Qaeda recruits who hold foreign passports that allow them to enter the United States with little to no screening.

This comes in the aftermath of the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner and the botched Times Square carbomb attempt earlier this month -- incidents Brennan called part of a "new phase" of the counterterrorism fight.

Obama's revised strategy is expected to implicitly repudiate the 2002 "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to wage pre-emptive war against countries and terrorist groups deemed a threat to the United States, part of a policy Bush called a "distinctly American internationalism."

What followed was the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq despite the lack of formal U.N. authorization.

But Brennan made clear there would be no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, saying the United States would need a broad campaign that "harnesses every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic."

"We will take the fight to al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates wherever they plot and train -- in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond," he said.

"We will not simply degrade al Qaeda's capabilities or simply prevent terrorist attacks against our country or citizens, we will not merely respond after the fact, after an attack that has been attempted," Brennan said.

"Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates," he said.

(Editing by Sandra Maler)

[T-Rock]

President Barack Obama's new national security strategy will make clear the United States is not at war with Islam, a top adviser said on Wednesday as the administration prepared for a formal break with Bush-era doctrine

We’re not at war with Islam, but Islam certainly has declared war on us - Islam has been at war with the free world since the 7th century.

Too bad neither Obama nor Brennan have read any of Adams essays…

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
~John Quincy Adams~

[Bordercop]

The link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...e-tenet-islam/

The president's top counterterrorism adviser on Wednesday called jihad a "legitimate tenet of Islam," arguing that the term "jihadists" should not be used to describe America's enemies.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, John Brennan described violent extremists as victims of "political, economic and social forces," but said that those plotting attacks on the United States should not be described in "religious terms."

He repeated the administration argument that the enemy is not "terrorism," because terrorism is a "tactic," and not terror, because terror is a "state of mind" -- though Brennan's title, deputy national security adviser for counterterrorism and homeland security, includes the word "terrorism" in it. But then Brennan said that the word "jihad" should not be applied either.

"Nor do we describe our enemy as 'jihadists' or 'Islamists' because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children," Brennan said.

The technical, broadest definition of jihad is a "struggle" in the name of Islam and the term does not connote "holy war" for all Muslims. However, jihad frequently connotes images of military combat or warfare, and some of the world's most wanted terrorists including Usama bin Laden commonly use the word to call for war against the West.

Brennan defined the enemy as members of bin Laden's Al Qaeda network and "its terrorist affiliates."

But Brennan argued that it would be "counterproductive" for the United States to use the term, as it would "play into the false perception" that the "murderers" leading war against the West are doing so in the name of a "holy cause."

"Moreover, describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie propagated by Al Qaeda and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam," he said.

The comment comes after Brennan, in a February speech in which he described his respect for the tolerance and devotion of Middle Eastern nations, referred to Jerusalem on first reference by its Arabic name, Al-Quds.

"In all my travels the city I have come to love most is al-Quds, Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together," Brennan said at an event co-sponsored by the White House Office of Public Engagement and the Islamic Center at New York University and the Islamic Law Students Association at NYU.

[T-Rock]

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

By Walid Phares

May 28, 2010


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. Arguing that abandoning terms such as “Muslim Terrorists” may be helpful in narrowing the identification process to the very movement and ideologies involved in the threat.

Rejecting generalizations against communities is the right thing to do, but eliminating the naming of the actual enemy would be a disaster on many levels. Indeed, the Administration’s experts have accordingly advised for deleting terms such as Jihadists, Jihadism, Salafism, Khomeinism, Takfirism and even Islamists. But these are the vital identification codes for the entire web engaged in war, indoctrination, incitement and Terrorism first against Muslim societies and also against Western and American democracies. These are ideological and political identifications of the threat without which US national security would be as blind as if during WWII word such as Nazism and fascism or during the Cold war, words such as Soviets and Communists, would have been dropped from the rhetoric. The terms Jihadists and Islamists are not descriptive of Islam or Muslims but of the forces which claim to do so. If we drop these very words we would be doing exactly what the Jihadists want us to do: linking them to the entire community instead of separating them from the majority of Muslims. If we accept the premise advanced by some advisors that Jihadism is Islam and mentioning it negatively would offend the Muslim world, al Qaeda wins.

The AP says these revisions “are part of a larger effort about which the White House talks openly, one that seeks to change (…) how the United States talks to Muslim nations.” This is a worse argument as the public debate and narrative in the Muslim majority countries precisely uses this terminology 24/7. How is it arguable that terms such as al Jihadiyya, al Salafiyya, al Islamiyun, al Khomeiniyun, al Takfiriyun are used in on Arab airwaves, in print and in the blogosphere to depict the radicals, extremists and Terrorists from Morocco to Pakistan, and White House advisors claim such words would offend if used in that sense in English? There is something very odd here. If these terms define the enemy within the Arab and Muslim world, who are we trying to confuse here? The only possible answer is that these words would be banned, so that the American public doesn’t use them not that the Muslim world is offended. This looks like a war of ideas to disable American citizens' understanding by making them believe that the very words that Arabs and Muslims use to isolate the Terrorists also offend them.

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

Source > http://counterterrorismblog.org/2010...deology_is.php

[Ismail K.]

...there is so much here that I would love to respond to but push ups beckon. Besides, I should probably play my opinions fairly close to the chest, there is interesting and engaging debate, and there is getting on a soapbox and shooting your mouth off and tainting people's impression of you before you even get to basic. The later is a bad idea I feel.

So I would just like to highlight some assumptions which have frequently gone unreferenced and occasionally unchallenged:

1) Islam intrinsically promotes a polarized ideology of us vs them, dividing the world between the unconquered non-Muslim peoples (dar al harb, the house of war) and the Muslims (dar al islam, the house of submission/peace)

2) Attacks against civilians are generally condoned among the populace of the middle east and/or larger Islamic world.

3) Muslims as a whole have a noticeably higher contribution toward violence as a whole.

4) Jews, Christians and others are capable of reforming their religion and moving away for some the archaic and primitive practices, where as Muslims are not.

5) The groups that we are at war with in Iraq and Afghanistan are global organizations, with global, ideological concerns prioritized over local, political ones.

6) Muslims in the US have been slow to condemn terrorism, and Muslims abroad have not made any significant effort to fight it.

7) Islam's role in history has been solely to limit individual freedom, retard scientific advancement, degrade women, and heap violence and persecution on religious minorities.

This is an issue that is near and dear to me, and so I have done some independent research, and I have no good empirical reason to think that any of these are true, and several reasons to think that a few of them are not. This is coupled with some fairly sloppy thinking, and occasional blatant dishonesty from some people on both sides of the debate, and so I have discovered that I have to really dig deep and verify everything independently. And on top of that, there are a lot of very nebulous terms that are thrown around recklessly ("western civilization" comes immediately to mind). All in all it is a great exercise in skepticism and critical thinking!



I'm gonna shut my yap now.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Ismail K.

......, and I have no good empirical reason to think that any of these are true, and several reasons to think that a few of them are not. ..... ....

So you "feel" all are not true?

[Ismail K.]

Originally Posted by Pete

So you "feel" all are not true?

Well, as the late great Carl Sagan said: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

So, no I try not to "feel" anything about them, although for the sake of honesty, I'll alway cop to my biases, and lord knows I have them. Rather what I am saying is that I have some evidence which causes problems for those statements, and no evidence (outside of the very anecdotal and emotionally charged field of the mass media) to support them.

Actually it is just this sort of "thinking with your gut" or "feeling" that I was trying to highlight and question. More then once I have heard people say this or that about Islam, Muslims, or the terrorists, and then provide no substantiation, like it is an obvious self evident axiom. Well, it is not to me, especially with so many preconceived notions and entrenched ideologies at work in this sort of discussion. I am just hoping that folks will take the time to self examine their beliefs. Hope I clarified my post.

Edit: it occurs to me that you may have been trying to goad me out of my shell a bit and really make an argument to support my opinions. I'm happy to do so, as long as it is a solicited opinion and not the wannabe SF guy expressing obnoxious opinions to his elders.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by Ismail K.

Well, as the late great Carl Sagan said: "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble."

So, no I try not to "feel" anything about them, although for the sake of honesty, I'll alway cop to my biases, and lord knows I have them. Rather what I am saying is that I have some evidence which causes problems for those statements, and no evidence (outside of the very anecdotal and emotionally charged field of the mass media) to support them.

Actually it is just this sort of "thinking with your gut" or "feeling" that I was trying to highlight and question. More then once I have heard people say this or that about Islam, Muslims, or the terrorists, and then provide no substantiation, like it is an obvious self evident axiom. Well, it is not to me, especially with so many preconceived notions and entrenched ideologies at work in this sort of discussion. I am just hoping that folks will take the time to self examine their beliefs. Hope I clarified my post.

Edit: it occurs to me that you may have been trying to goad me out of my shell a bit and really make an argument to support my opinions. I'm happy to do so, as long as it is a solicited opinion and not the wannabe SF guy expressing obnoxious opinions to his elders.

You might want to review the earlier posts in this thread, including the ones that cite Muslim works (and some of the other threads that lay out the rationale for these positions) before going down this road.

Could save you some pain, unless you are really sure of yourself.

TR

[Ismail K.]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

You might want to review the earlier posts in this thread, including the ones that cite Muslim works (and some of the other threads that lay out the rationale for these positions) before going down this road.

Could save you some pain, unless you are really sure of yourself.

TR

I will do so before I continue with this thread. I am confident though, because like I said I am not a stranger to this discussion, and have read many polemics on Islam, with a number of perspectives, and several arguments made here are not foreign to me. However it would be disrespectful of me not to read throughly, at very least, this thread.

Pain? what pain? I love learning, and If my opinions are undermined by someone who knows a good deal more than me, good deal, I am better for it.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Ismail K.

So I would just like to highlight some assumptions which have frequently gone unreferenced and occasionally unchallenged.

This statement is inaccurate.

If you were to take the time to explore the many discussions of Islam on this BB going back several years, across a number of forums, and in scores of threads, you would find that all the points you have mentioned have been debated from many perspectives.

While, at times, the debate has been heated, even rancorous, the participants have striven, time and again, to support their arguments with references. And those references, in turn, have received many a challenge.