AP, 12 July 2010: The Obama administration’s recent move to drop rhetorical references to Islamic radicalism is drawing fire in a new report warning the decision ignores the role religion can play in motivating terrorists. Several prominent counterterror experts are challenging the administration’s shift in its recently unveiled National Security Strategy, saying the terror threat should be defined in order to fight it.
The question of how to frame the conflict against al-Qaida and other terrorists poses a knotty problem. The U.S. is trying to mend fences with Muslim communities while toughening its strikes against militant groups.
In the report, scheduled to be released this week, counterterrorism experts from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argue that the U.S. could clearly articulate the threat from radical Islamic extremists “without denigrating the Islamic religion in any way.” . . . In the report, which was obtained by The Associated Press, the analysts warn that U.S. diplomacy must sharpen the distinction between the Muslim faith and violent Islamist extremism, identify radicalizers within Islamic communities and empower voices that can contest the radical teachings. . . .
. . . . “There is an ideology that is driving al-Qaida and its affiliates,” said Matt Levitt, one of the authors of the study on countering violent extremism. The administration, Levitt said, has to separate discussion of Islam as a religion from the radical Islamic ideology that is producing and fueling global insurgencies. The study is due out next week, but the authors, Levitt, a former FBI and Treasury official, and co-author J. Scott Carpenter, were to preview it Monday.
Juan Zarate, a former top counterterror official in the Bush administration, added that the U.S. government has always been uncomfortable dealing with ideological battles. Zarate, who also participated in the report, said there are a number of non-governmental groups already speaking out against violent preachings.
The report follows the public disclosure of an exchange earlier this year between Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Brennan over the effort to scale back the Bush administration’s portrayal of Islamic extremism as a root cause of terrorism.
Lieberman raised the issue in a letter to the White House, saying that “the failure to identify our enemy for what it is—violent Islamist extremism—is offensive and contradicts thousands of years of accepted military and intelligence doctrine to ‘know your enemy.’” . . . .
Raymond Ibrahim, 22 June 2010: Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke “justice,” the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind. Islamists obviously use this to their advantage. . . . (see “Duality and Political Islam“)
. . . . The reader may well be surprised to discover that the controversial Cordoba Initiative, which plans on manifesting itself as the largest American mosque, situated atop Ground Zero—that is, atop the carnage caused by none other than bin Laden—also has two faces, conveying one thing to Americans, quite another to Muslims.
The very name of the initiative itself, “Cordoba,” offers different connotations to different people: In the West, the Andalusian city of Cordoba is regularly touted as the model of medieval Muslim progressiveness and tolerance for Christians and Jews. To many Americans, then, the choice to name the mosque “Cordoba” is suggestive of rapprochement and interfaith dialogue; atop the rubble of 9/11, it implies “healing”—a new beginning between Muslims and Americans. The Cordoba Initiative’s mission statement certainly suggests as much:
Cordoba Initiative aims to achieve a tipping point in Muslim-West relations within the next decade, bringing back the atmosphere of interfaith tolerance and respect that we have longed for since Muslims, Christians and Jews lived together in harmony and prosperity eight hundred years ago.
Oddly enough, the so-called “tolerant” era of Cordoba supposedly occurred during the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahman III (912-961)—well over a thousand years ago. “Eight hundred years ago,” i.e., around 1200, the fanatical Almohids—ideological predecessors of al-Qaeda—were ravaging Cordoba, where “Christians and Jews were given the choice of conversion, exile, or death.” A Freudian slip on the part of the Cordoba Initiative?
At any rate, the true history of Cordoba, not to mention the whole of Andalusia, is far less inspiring than what Western academics portray: the Christian city was conquered by Muslims around 711, its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. The original mosque of Cordoba—the namesake of the Ground Zero mosque—was built atop, and partly from the materials of, a Christian church. Modern day Muslims are well aware of all this. Such is the true—and ominous—legacy of Cordoba.
More pointedly, throughout Islam’s history, whenever a region was conquered, one of the first signs of consolidation was/is the erection of a mosque atop the sacred sites of the vanquished: the pagan Ka’ba temple in Arabia was converted into Islam’s holiest site, the mosque of Mecca; the al-Aqsa mosque, Islam’s third holiest site, was built atop Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem; the Umayyad mosque was built atop the Church of St. John the Baptist; and the Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque upon the conquest of Constantinople.
(Speaking of, in 2006, when the Pope visited the Hagia Sophia in Turkey, there was a risk that the “Islamic world [would go] into paroxysms of fury” if there was “any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims,” for example, if he had dared pray there—this even as Muslims today seek to build a mosque on the rubble of the Twin Towers.)
Such double-standards lead us back to the issue of double-meanings: As for the literal wording of the mosque project, “Cordoba House,” it too offers opposing paradigms of thought: to Westerners, the English word “house” suggests shelter, intimacy—coziness, even; in classical Arabic, however, the word for house, dar, can also mean “region,” and is regularly used in a divisive sense, as in Dar al-Harb, i.e., “infidel region of war.” Thus, to Muslim ears, while “Cordoba” offers allusions of conquest and domination, dar is further suggestive of division and separation (from infidels, a la the doctrine of al-Wala’ wa al-Bara’, for instance).
Words aside, even the mosque’s scheduled opening date—9/11/2011—has two aspects: to Americans, opening the mosque on 9/11 is to proclaim a new beginning with the Muslim world on the ten-year anniversary of the worst terror strikes on American soil; however, it just so happens that Koranic verse 9:111 is one of the loftiest calls for suicidal jihad—believers are exhorted to “kill and be killed”—and is probably the reason al-Qaeda originally chose that date to strike.
So while Americans may think the mosque’s planned 9/11 opening is meant to commemorate that date, cryptically speaking, it is an evocation for all out war. A “new beginning,” indeed, but of a very different sort, namely, the propagation of more Islamists and jihadists—mosques are, after all, epicenters of radicalization—on, of all places, soil sacred to America. (see “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Invade American Mosques“)
Some final thoughts on the history of Cordoba and the ominous parallels it bodes for America: though many Christian regions were conquered by Islam prior to Cordoba, its conquest signified the first time a truly “Western” region was conquered by the sword of Islam. It was also used as a base to launch further attacks into the heart of Europe (until decisively beaten at the Battle of Tours). . . . . .
Daniel Pipes, 25 June 2010: Jaw-dropping court testimony by Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber, singlehandedly undermines Obama administration efforts to ignore the dangers of Islamism and jihad.
Shahzad’s forthright statement of purpose stands out because jihadis, when facing legal charges, typically save their skin by pleading not guilty or plea bargaining. Consider a few examples:
- Naveed Haq, who assaulted the Jewish Federation building in Seattle, pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Lee Malvo, one of the Beltway Snipers, explained that “one reason for the shootings was that white people had tried to harm Louis Farrakhan.” His partner John Allen Muhammad claimed his innocence to the death chamber.
- Hasan Akbar killed two fellow American soldiers as they slept in a military compound, then told the court “”I want to apologize for the attack that occurred. I felt that my life was in jeopardy, and I had no other options. I also want to ask you for forgiveness.”
- Mohammed Taheri-azar, who tried to kill students on the University of North Carolina by running over them in a car and issued a series of jihadi rants against the United States, later experienced a change of heart, announced himself “very sorry” for the crimes he committed, and asked for release so that he can “re-establish myself as a good, caring and productive member of society” in California.
These efforts fit a broader pattern of Islamist mendacity; rarely does a jihadi stand on principle. Zacarias Moussaoui, 9/11′s would-be twentieth hijacker, came close: his court proceedings began with his refusing to enter a plea (which the presiding judge translated into “not guilty”) and then, one fine day, pleading guilty to all charges.
Shahzad, 30, acted in an exceptional manner during his appearance in a New York City federal court on June 21. His answers to Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum’s many inquisitive questions (“And where was the bomb?” “What did you do with the gun?”) offered a dizzying mix of deference and contempt. On the one hand, he politely, calmly, patiently, fully, and informatively answered about his actions. On the other, he in the same voice justified his attempt at cold-blooded mass murder.
The judge asked Shahzad after he announced an intent to plead guilty to all ten counts of his indictment, “Why do you want to plead guilty?” a reasonable question given the near certainty that guilty pleas will keep him in for long years in jail. He replied:
I want to plead guilty and I’m going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
Shahzad insisted on portraying himself as replying to American actions:
“I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I’m avenging the attacks,” adding that “We Muslims are one community.”
Nor was that all; he flatly asserted that his goal had been to damage buildings and “injure people or kill people” because
“one has to understand where I’m coming from, because … I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier.”
When Cedarbaum pointed out that pedestrians in Times Square during the early evening of May first were not attacking Muslims, Shahzad replied:
“Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same.”
His comment reflects not just that American citizens are responsible for their democratically elected government but also the Islamist view that, by definition, infidels cannot be innocents.
However abhorrent, this tirade does have the virtue of truthfulness. Shahzad’s willingness to name his Islamic purposes and spend long years in jail for them flies in the face of Obama administration efforts not to name Islamism as the enemy, preferring such lame formulations as “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters.”
Americans – as well as Westerners generally, all non-Muslims, and anti-Islamist Muslims – should listen to the bald declaration by Faisal Shahzad and accept the painful fact that Islamist anger and aspirations truly do motivate their terrorist enemies. Ignoring this fact will not make it disappear.
♦ CI CENTRE COURSE: 361–The Global Jihadist Threat Doctrine
By Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Muslim reformer, CI Centre instructor and author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam
The war on terror and the US military confrontation with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is considered to be one of the longest wars in our modern history. It has actually surpassed WWII in duration. The jihadist-related terrorism phenomenon has not been defeated yet, ‘Home Grown Radicalism’ in the US is increasing, and the Taliban is regaining power and killing more US troops. This state of affairs should lead us to think that the US may be fighting the correct war but in the wrong locations.
Traditionally, military confrontations occur in a physical territory or a geographically describable piece of land and ends with military control over this territory. The global nature of the jihadist phenomenon and its ability to span the globe from Indonesia to Spain and from Russia to the US makes it very difficult – if not virtually impossible – to confront it at a territorial level. Furthermore, the use of the internet to transmit radical teachings by someone like Al-Awlaqui in Yemen to effect Major Nidal Hasan – who conducted the Fort Hood massacre in Texas and Faisal Shahzad – who recently attempted to explode a car bomb in Times Square in NYC – add another dimension to the problem and further support the idea that we need to think outside traditional warfare tactics and a territorial way thinking when we deal with the phenomenon of Islamist radicalism and terrorism.
When we look deeper into the phenomenon of terrorism we need to ask ourselves: What makes a person decide to go get a bomb or a weapon just to kill some innocent people without achieving any materialistic gain for themselves? In other words, what happens in the brain of such an individual to make them take such a destructive, frequently self-destructive, decision?
Studies in physiology tell us that an impulse(s) has to originate in the mind of this individual that will ultimately make them make such a decision and take such an action. This impulse could represent an impulse of hatred, revenge, animosity, or other forms of negative feelings toward others.
Hence, the real territory in the war on terror is actually the brain (“Brainistan”), and our real challenge is to fight this impulse in the minds of these individuals and to replace it with an impulse of love, forgiveness, and humility.
Electrical impulses in the brain that make an individual choose the path of violence over the path of peace can be either nourished or inhibited via education, ideology, cultural behaviors, and other factors that affect the psychology of a human being.
Humans are born equal. One of the main differences between us is the way and the quality of the education we receive. If we acquired an education that promotes love and harmony it is likely that we will become good human beings. On the contrary, if our education and upbringing created hatred toward others, suppressed our human conscience, and created a feeling of superiority above others, the outcome can be completely different.
In ‘Brainistan” the tools of winning the war on terror are approaches to education that encourage critical thinking, uphold the use of our human conscience, and ultimately teach us how to be able to love others irrespective of their religious backgrounds and views. The main challenge that faces us in ‘Brainstan’ is, on one hand, to create an impulse of love and tolerance toward others in the minds of the youngsters in the Muslim world to protect them from becoming terrorists, and on the other hand, to suppress the existent impulses of hate in the minds of those who have been already radicalized. This does not in any way mean that we ignore or underestimate the physical nature of the threat posed by the terrorists, but mainly points out that our confrontation in this war has to be extended beyond the physical territory in Afghanistan or Pakistan to include and give more focus to fighting it in “Brainistan” as well.
By Dr. Tawfik Hamid, Muslim reformer, CI Centre instructor and author of Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam
. . . . . Ritualistic Islam that is limited to the practice of the five pillars of Islam in a mosque is probably not at war with America, but theological Islam that teaches Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and offer them one of the following three options: to convert to Islam, to pay a humiliating tax (Jizia), or to be killed, or promotes the use of violence to establish Shariah laws instead of secular constitutions is certainly at war with America.
It would have been much better if Brennan avoided going into Islamic theology by stating that jihad means “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” While this meaning for Jihad is correct in some circumstances, it ignores the broader and well-established definition of the word in the approved Islamic theological books as a war to spread the religion.
Brennan also did not mention that jihad is predominantly used in the Arab media to describe the spread of Islam via wars. We also have not seen Islamic peaceful groups or organizations named “jihad.” We only see the word predominantly used by the violent groups.
Since, unlike Brennan, Arabic is the native language of the leaders of many — if not most — of these groups, their understanding and usage of the word has more credibility than his definition for the word.
Brennan may also need to explain the verses in the Quran that use the word “jahid” (An Arabic word that means to perform jihad) {At-Tauba [9:73]
9:73 O Prophet! (“jahid”) against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be cruel to them. Their abode is hell — an evil refuge indeed}.
Brennan must inform us if this meaning for jihad is also “to purify oneself or to wage or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.”
It would be better if Brennan avoided talking about jihad until reading enough about it, otherwise he’ll give the audience selected information about the topic is unscientific and can be misleading. I was shocked with these comments about jihad as I assume that the president’s principal adviser on counterterrorism should have studied jihad meticulously as it represents the ideology that is used by the terrorists to justify their acts.
Pretending that jihad is only a peaceful concept jeopardizes our national security efforts simply because it is not predominantly taught in such a peaceful way.
For example, jihad is defined in several mainstream Islamic books including Minhaj Al-Muslim, which is written by one of the leading Islamic scholars in Saudi Arabia and published globally. It defines jihad in the following order:
1. Fighting the disbelievers;
2. Using violence against the sinners;
3. Resisting the devil; and
4. Resisting a person’s own desires.
The “wisdom behind jihad” as the book described (Vol 2 Page 167), is that Allah alone is worshiped. Interestingly, the book quoted many violent verses and hadith to support the violent meaning of jihad and on the contrary provided strong theological evidence that the hadith that supports a peaceful meaning of the word as a “weak” hadith or in other words ‘unbinding’ (Vol 2 Page: 167).
The assumption that jihad represents only a peaceful concept can be accepted only after the Muslim world changes the definition of the word in its mainstream Islamic books and clearly rejects the traditional violent interpretations of the word.
Ignoring the violent definitions of the word jihad to sugarcoat the meaning of the word is dangerous, as it limits our ability to know the facts and the true nature of the threat.
