Open Thread Regarding ISIS

[AUUSN 823]

Obama vs. the generals

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-obama-overrules-his-generals-in-fight-against-islamic-state/2014/09/15/0cff59a0-3ce1-11e4-9587-5dafd96295f0_story.html?hpid=z2

"An air-only counterterrorism effort will fail because the Islamic State is not, as Obama claimed in his address, “a terrorist organization, pure and simple.” The group governs a swath of territory the size of the United Kingdom. It rules cities. It collects taxes. It controls natural resources and is bringing in $3 million a day in oil revenue. It has a conventional army — one that has won battles against other conventional armies. As Obama’s own defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, has put it, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.”

Everything, apparently, except ground combat.

[AUUSN 823]

[AUFAN78 3,897]

Obama vs. the generals

http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

"An air-only counterterrorism effort will fail because the Islamic State is not, as Obama claimed in his address, “a terrorist organization, pure and simple.” The group governs a swath of territory the size of the United Kingdom. It rules cities. It collects taxes. It controls natural resources and is bringing in $3 million a day in oil revenue. It has a conventional army — one that has won battles against other conventional armies. As Obama’s own defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, has put it, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.”

Everything, apparently, except ground combat.

Do you feel it is remotely possible to win without a US led ground campaign?

[AUUSN 823]

Obama vs. the generals

http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

"An air-only counterterrorism effort will fail because the Islamic State is not, as Obama claimed in his address, “a terrorist organization, pure and simple.” The group governs a swath of territory the size of the United Kingdom. It rules cities. It collects taxes. It controls natural resources and is bringing in $3 million a day in oil revenue. It has a conventional army — one that has won battles against other conventional armies. As Obama’s own defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, has put it, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.”

Everything, apparently, except ground combat.

Do you feel it is remotely possible to win without a US led ground campaign?

No. We need to be on the ground.

[AUFAN78 3,897]

Obama vs. the generals

http://www.washingto...ry.html?hpid=z2

"An air-only counterterrorism effort will fail because the Islamic State is not, as Obama claimed in his address, “a terrorist organization, pure and simple.” The group governs a swath of territory the size of the United Kingdom. It rules cities. It collects taxes. It controls natural resources and is bringing in $3 million a day in oil revenue. It has a conventional army — one that has won battles against other conventional armies. As Obama’s own defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, has put it, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess, they are tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.”

Everything, apparently, except ground combat.

Do you feel it is remotely possible to win without a US led ground campaign?

No. We need to be on the ground.

Agreed.

[WarTim 3,456]

No doubt about it.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Face the brutal truth about ISIS

This will take years. It could well fail. And it's necessary.

It was inevitable: Our post-Iraq isolationist funk is finally ending. And it’s ending, of all places, right back in Iraq.

President Obama, a mere week after saying ISIS is a problem that needs to be “managed,” is now promising to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the terrorist organization that controls a proto-state in huge swaths of Syria and Iraq. He plans a “systematic campaign of air strikes” alongside support for the new Iraqi government and relatively “moderate” Syrian rebels.

The President is the most reluctant of warriors. He campaigned on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even the most casual observer could see that he was spectacularly uninterested in doing the first thing about Syria’s civil war.

What forced his hand is the fact that the Syrian civil war is no longer the Syrian civil war. It’s a regional war that is exploding into Iraq and to a lesser extent into Lebanon. It long ago sucked in Iran and Hezbollah and is now dragging in Washington, kicking and screaming.

The erstwhile hawkish Republicans have been hardly more interested in getting involved than Obama, what with Syria’s terrorist-supporting President Bashar Assad battling it out with other terrorists. Sarah Palin summed up the mood of her party’s right wing when she wrote “let Allah sort it out” on Facebook.

Why not, right? Iraq has proven to be all but unfixable, and so has Afghanistan.

The reason we must reject the tempting tendency to close our eyes and hope this problem goes away is that Allah doesn’t always sort things out according to American interests.

Life is filled with things we don’t want to do but have to do anyway. No one wants radiation or chemotherapy, but if you get cancer, you’re going to have to take it despite the fact that it might not work and that it will certainly feel like it’s killing you.

Let’s not kid ourselves. ISIS — or ISIL as the President calls it — is cancerous. And it is not a benign tumor. It is metastasizing and will not stop growing stronger and deadlier until it is dealt with aggressively and, at the absolute minimum, contained.

Erbil, the capital of Iraq’s Kurdish autonomous region, would quite possibly have fallen a couple of weeks ago if the U.S. hadn’t halted an ISIS advance with a series of air strikes.

As we wade back in, it behooves those of us who support military action to be honest about two big things.

First: There will be no clear end. We fought these guys before, when they called themselves Al Qaeda in Iraq. They ruled much of the same territory they currently hold until U.S. forces, in alliance with the Sunni tribes, ran the bastards out on greased rails.

They disappeared into the shadows and stayed there for years, not daring to pop up their psychotic heads until Assad lost ground next door to a ragtag rebellion. We could defeat them all over again this year, and they’ll spring back in 2015 or 2016, perhaps in the same place and perhaps somewhere else.

Just because this is going to be a very long fight doesn’t mean it’s an unnecessary one.

Yes, it’s true, ISIS or no ISIS, there’s virtually no chance the U.S. has the power to turn Iraq or Syria into Belgium. But so what? We don’t have to. All we have to do is back a third faction that can weaken ISIS and Assad so they don’t become even bigger menaces than they already are.

Supporters of deeper U.S. engagement must also acknowledge that American efforts could easily fail. The “moderates” may prove to be an impotent force, especially since Washington sat on the sidelines for so long while ISIS grew into a behemoth. It’s also possible that the “moderates” will prove to be insufficiently moderate and give us no shortage of headaches and regrets down the road.

But you wage a proxy war with the proxies you have, and the fact that it might not work out is no reason to play golf while the problem festers.

This is obvious now, if not to everyone, then at least to the President and leaders of both political parties. When the downsides of interventionism pile up, as they did after Iraq and Afghanistan proved so disappointing, we swing toward isolationism.

And when the downsides of isolationism become harder to ignore, which is happening now that ISIS is blitzkrieging its way across the region, we swing back again. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Don’t get too bent out of shape if this bothers you. The cycle will begin anew and we’ll reverse course yet again. Because Syria and Iraq aren’t the only unfixable countries. The entire Middle East has been a disaster for thousands of years and, even if the U.S. does everything right, there’s no chance whatsoever that it will change any time soon.

link

[Tigermike 3,029]

September 11, 2014 10:00 PM

It’s Not a Misnomer

The Islamic State has everything to do with Islam.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

When you are dealing with an administration whose officials look you in the eye and tell you the Muslim Brotherhood is a “largely secular” organization, it’s tempting to laugh off the idiocy spouted by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry about how the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam. We should resist the temptation, though, because there is a dangerous purpose behind the laughable assertion.

Obviously, Bing West and Daniel Pipes are correct that the terrorist group is entirely Islamic. As I’ve been arguing here more times and for more years than I care to remember, what we presume to call “radical Islam” (a/k/a Islamic supremacism, Islamic extremism, political Islam, Islamism, and whatever other “Islam [fill in the caveat]” terms we devise to avoid considering whether Islam itself inevitably breeds terrorism) is not very radical among the world’s Muslims. There are pacific constructions of Islam, too, but it is silly not to acknowledge that Islamic supremacism is a mainstream interpretation of Islam. It is firmly rooted in Islamic scripture and endorsed by many of Islam’s most influential scholars. Indeed, when you read what the scriptures say, there is a good argument that the pacific constructions are the ones that are radical revisionism.

This point has been made so many times it should hardly be necessary to point out that Obama and Kerry, like Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton, and like many Bush-administration officials before them (including President Bush), are dead wrong when they deny the nexus between Islamic doctrine –– the literal scriptures –- and terrorism, decapitations, totalitarian government, repression of women, rabid anti-Semitism, the murder of homosexuals, and so on. Still, it would be a serious error merely to observe that they are wrong, snicker at their fecklessness, and move on.

There is a reason they are taking a position diametrically opposed to reality.

Obama and Kerry, like transnational progressives in both of our major political parties, believe there are “moderate Islamists” who are the key to stability in the Middle East. Now, the term “moderate Islamist” is contradictory: an Islamist wants government by sharia, Islam’s totalitarian societal framework and legal code. There is nothing moderate about sharia. Those who want it implemented are not “moderates” even if they don’t commit mass-murder to get their way. Sharia is also anti-liberty, anti-equality, and anti-Western. Therefore, we should oppose Islamism just as we oppose other freedom-killing ideologies. That doesn’t mean we need to go to war with all Islamists, but we should work to diminish their influence and we should never regard them as a solution to anything.

Notwithstanding their abhorrence of the West, “moderate Islamists” are regarded by Obama and Kerry as potential allies: people, groups, and, in the case of Turkey, for example, countries that we can work with to solve the problems plaguing the Middle East and overcome our own security challenges. It is thus critically important to Obama and Kerry for the public to believe that (a) all Islamists are not basically the same and ( there is a sharp difference — a day-and-night difference — between “moderate Islamists” and terrorist organizations like the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. If, instead, the public becomes convinced that all Islamists, violent or non-violent, adhere to essentially the same ideology, the administration’s goal of working with Islamic supremacists becomes politically untenable.

It is impossible to convince people that non-violent (or, at least, purportedly non-violent) Islamists are not representative of Islam. The administration tried that with its “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood flyer . . . and has been embarrassed ever since by the howls of laughter. Most significant Islamist groups are rooted in or affiliated with the Brotherhood. Not only do these groups claim the mantle of Islam’s representative; our government concedes that status to them.

It is vital to Obama and Kerry that the public sees these Islamist groups as having nothing in common with the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. And since the latter, like the “moderate Islamists,” define themselves by their adherence to Islam, Obama and Kerry have no alternative: They must deny them standing as true Muslims. That is why they assert that the claim of Islamic State jihadists to be faithful Muslims waging holy war in the name of Islam is fraudulent — and, just as ridiculously, they assert that jihad has nothing to do with violence.

The problem, of course, is that “moderate Islamists” and violent jihadists are bound together by sharia-based Islamic ideology. Yes, they have their differences, but those differences are mainly about tactics; and, to the limited extent they are doctrinal, they are irrelevant as far as we are concerned because the differences do not affect the core Islamist belief that we are the enemy.

Many violent jihadists who go on to join al-Qaeda and, now, the Islamic State (an offshoot of al-Qaeda) got their start in the Muslim Brotherhood. They seamlessly graduate from Brotherhood teaching to insatiable jihad because Brotherhood teaching lauds jihad. In fact, the transition happens because many of those who receive Brotherhood instruction become frustrated by the contradiction between the Brotherhood’s aim of a worldwide caliphate and endorsement of jihad to achieve it, on the one hand, and its counsel of patience in pursuing it, on the other.

It is precisely because Islamists share an ideology rooted in Islam, and what they see as a divinely mandated mission of conquest, that a Muslim can so predictably evolve from student to sharia adherent to “moderate Islamist” to not-so-moderate Islamist to terrorist. It happens frequently. And the common ideology rooted in Islam also explains why so many “moderate Islamists” financially and morally support violent jihadist organizations even if they don’t take up arms themselves.

The Islamic State has presumed to declare a caliphate. Al-Qaeda franchises think that is hasty — especially since someone else is running the caliphate — and would proceed more gradually, setting up emirates and hoping for more consensus among Islamists. Both organizations want to confront the West only violently; the Muslim Brotherhood, on the contrary, teaches that, while violent jihad has its place (see Hamas), it is valid to negotiate with the West, to infiltrate the West’s institutions, and to achieve whatever conquest can be achieved without violence.

Among the Islamists themselves, these differences are extremely controversial and cause bitter disputes. But as to us, the differences are beside the pont: They do not change the reality that these are all Islamist groups, they all hate and want to conquer the West, and they all want repressive sharia implemented. Some groups are more of an immediate threat than others; some of them need to be defeated militarily while others require a different approach; but all of them are enemies of the United States and all of them support terrorism.

And all of them are Islamic.

link

[homersapien 11,374]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

This article seems like a blatant attempt to characterize ISIS as Islam, meaning it is representative of all Muslims.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

ISIS is Islamic is true. ISIS is Islam is false. There is a critical difference.

Now if this guy want to argue that all Islam leads to ISIS (radicalism) then he is making a theological argument which has no place in this particular thread.

Ironically, that is exactly what ISIS is trying to achieve with their rhetoric (for Muslims) and their actions (for everyone else). They want a religious war. The majority of Muslims do not.

[Tigermike 3,029]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

No I didn't know where else to post it.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

It's also obvious that those 1.2 billion Muslims may not be on the front lines with ISIS but they don't mind ISIS doing the dirty work for them. President Bush and President Obama and Western leaders around the world are going out of their way to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, whereas ISIS declares itself to be proudly Islamic and the heir to ancient caliphates.

Watch the video.

[AUUSN 823]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

No I didn't know where else to post it.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

It's also obvious that those 1.2 billion Muslims may not be on the front lines with ISIS but they don't mind ISIS doing the dirty work for them.

Great, another one...

[homersapien 11,374]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

No I didn't know where else to post it.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

It's also obvious that those 1.2 billion Muslims may not be on the front lines with ISIS but they don't mind ISIS doing the dirty work for them. President Bush and President Obama and Western leaders around the world are going out of their way to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, whereas ISIS declares itself to be proudly Islamic and the heir to ancient caliphates.

Really? It's "obvious" all 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS doing their dirty work?

Like USN pointed out, who are ISIS killing for the most part? You think it's obvious 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS killing other Muslims?

That's insane.

And as I pointed out in my post, ISIS is clearly Islamic in that they are self-identified Islamists. That doesn't make them representative of all Muslims.

I imagine Obama used that terminology (if he did) to express the thought that ISIS is not representative of all Islam and should therefore be considered non-Islamist.

It's like Christians protesting that the Westboro Baptist Church is not really Christian, even when they self-identify as Christian and cite biblical scriptures to justify their actions.

ISIS is no more Islam that Westboro Baptist Church is Christianity.

[Tigermike 3,029]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

No I didn't know where else to post it.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

It's also obvious that those 1.2 billion Muslims may not be on the front lines with ISIS but they don't mind ISIS doing the dirty work for them. President Bush and President Obama and Western leaders around the world are going out of their way to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, whereas ISIS declares itself to be proudly Islamic and the heir to ancient caliphates.

Really? It's "obvious" all 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS doing their dirty work?

Like USN pointed out, who are ISIS killing for the most part? You think it's obvious 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS killing other Muslims?

That's insane.

And as I pointed out in my post, ISIS is clearly Islamic in that they are self-identified Islamists. That doesn't make them representative of all Muslims.

I imagine Obama used that terminology (if he did) to express the thought that ISIS is not representative of all Islam and should therefore be considered non-Islamist.

It's like Christians protesting that the Westboro Baptist Church is not really Christian, even when they self-identify as Christian and cite biblical scriptures to justify their actions.

ISIS is no more Islam that Westboro Baptist Church is Christianity.

Are you really that stupid?

[homersapien 11,374]

So now it's OK to introduce political opinion by proxy?

No I didn't know where else to post it.

If Obama or anyone else said that ISIS was not Islamic, then that was an obvious error in either logic and/or syntax. In either case, it is clear to me the intent was not to characterize the 1.2 billion Muslims as being the same as ISIS, which is obvious.

It's also obvious that those 1.2 billion Muslims may not be on the front lines with ISIS but they don't mind ISIS doing the dirty work for them. President Bush and President Obama and Western leaders around the world are going out of their way to proclaim that ISIS is not Islamic, whereas ISIS declares itself to be proudly Islamic and the heir to ancient caliphates.

Really? It's "obvious" all 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS doing their dirty work?

Like USN pointed out, who are ISIS killing for the most part? You think it's obvious 1.2 billion Muslims don't mind ISIS killing other Muslims?

That's insane.

And as I pointed out in my post, ISIS is clearly Islamic in that they are self-identified Islamists. That doesn't make them representative of all Muslims.

I imagine Obama used that terminology (if he did) to express the thought that ISIS is not representative of all Islam and should therefore be considered non-Islamist.

It's like Christians protesting that the Westboro Baptist Church is not really Christian, even when they self-identify as Christian and cite biblical scriptures to justify their actions.

ISIS is no more Islam that Westboro Baptist Church is Christianity.

Are you really that stupid?

Perhaps. Why don't you explain what you are referring to.

[Tigermike 3,029]

Op-Ed: Heavily Shackled Humanity

ISIS is pure, uncomplicated Islam in its most genuine, original form

"I studied the Koran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad". (Alexis de Tocqueville)

ISIS is pure, uncomplicated Islam in its most genuine, original form

President Obama made another revelation recently, claiming that ISIS “speaks for no religion”. According to John Kerry, ISIS does not represent “the face of Islam”. It is not their personal opinion. Respected professors, journalists, columnists, philosophers from Paris to San Francisco share this view. They really want to believe in it, otherwise the idea that true evil comes from the West only, and the Islamic movement is no more than a form of "national struggle of the oppressed people", becomes meaningless.

Unfortunately, ISIS is pure, uncomplicated Islam in its most genuine, original form.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is religion that interprets the divine revelation literally; they believe that the fulfillment of God's laws is the only way to perfection, salvation and harmony.

God in all of these religions is anthropomorphic, omnipotent and immanent. Like a father, He is strict and at the same time fair to His children; He knows their every step and judges them according to His laws. He may be jealous, merciful, rigid, compassionate and solicitous. He can reveal his face and can conceal it, but the believer doesn’t have any other option except to believe that the Father on Heaven cares about him no matter what.

His laws are irreversible.

His will determines everything and everyone: tasks of a government, relations between the ruler and his subjects, punishments for crimes, individual freedoms, gender relations and the state of minorities, public aid to the weak and feeble.

Human intervention in Divine instructions is blasphemy which inevitably results in a severe punishment. Moreover, the followers of fundamentalist religions are inclined to believe in "conspiracies of evil".

Time and misery, humanistic ideal and rational thinking have changed the nature of religions, but not Islam. Muslims were never and aren’t aware of their own blind hatred and fanaticism, they are not appalled by these, they’ve never undergone a catharsis which will allow them to look inside themselves.

Islam has never known reflections, doubts and spiritual dissatisfaction, as prophetic Judaism in the epoch of Judges and Kings, or Christianity. Movements of spiritual protest, as the Essenes were in Jewish history, or Waldenses, Cathars and Hussites in medieval Europe, were unfamiliar to Islam. It is proud of its own perfection, immutability, monumentality.

Islam has never known reflections, doubts and spiritual dissatisfaction.

It strives to expansion, which is prescribed by the Qur'an and Hadith. Religious commandments and regulations of Islam are neither a choice nor an allegory. These are literal and undeniable Divine commandments: very specific and covering the areas of human existence to full extent.

Muslims strongly believe that Allah reveals himself in every sign and every phenomenon: they find His name in shape of clouds, spots on animals, a mole on skin, interweaving of tree’s branches, contours of stones.

Islam divides humanity into Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) with righteous, divine laws of Islam, and into Dar al-Harb (House of War) with chaos, infidelity and false (or at best, imperfect) teachings. House of Islam and House of War are doomed to confrontation which must end by triumph of “true religion”. “Islamic state” (Caliphate) based on Sharia laws via “jihad” is a divine mission of Islam, and other interpretations of the Koran and the sacred texts – "Hadith" do not exist.

The problem is not the ruthless uprooting of heresies, but in the fact that the heresies simply do not exist. There were countless attempts in the Medieval Europe to undermine monolith of Dogma and return the spirituality to Christianity: from the Troubadours to Proto-Renaissance to Lollards and Waldenses.

We have never seen anything like this in the Muslim world. Only in Sunni Islam minor disagreements have occurred about the way to create a "World State of Sharia": by preserving immutable and indestructible law ("Salafis") or by adopting modern political tools, such as democratic elections, the parliamentary system and legal institutions (“Muslim Brothers”). But the main goals remain the same. In Shia Islam only ayatollahs have supreme, exclusive and undisputable power, without any hint of rational or humanist understanding of religion.

The enemies of Islam are subject to destruction and humiliation. Judaism and Christianity for Muslims are the ugly, weak shadow of only one true religion. The Yazidi, followers of dualism, are "servants of Evil" and must be destroyed physically, and in terrible agony, as "children of Satan."

"Conspiracy Theories" are not prejudices of ignorant masses, but an integral part of the ruling elite. In July 2014 Iranian state TV translated a discussion with Valliollah Naghipourfar, cleric and professor of Teheran University, who claimed that Zionists use genies to undermine Iran; in April 2013 well-known Iranian cleric and close confidante of Ayatollah Khamenei warned about “global Jewish sorcery”; in December 2010 Said Mohamed Abdel-Fadli Shusha, governor of South Sinai, spoke about a shark sent by “Mossad” to hurt tourists in Egypt”; in Gaza HAMAS arrested 150 women, accused them in witchcraft and the list goes on.

The doctrine of fundamentalist Islam sees death through "jihad" is a blessing, that’s the reason the Sunni Hamas, and Shiite "Hezbollah" say that "they love death." Therefore, they are doing everything possible to communicate this simple idea to the ordinary, and not too zealous, coreligionists by slighting and intimidating them.

It is only in our time of neo-Marxist clichés and naivete that Islam could be called "a religion of peace." Philosophers and historians of Enlightenment and 19th century, unlike our contemporaries, were not hypocrites.

David Hume described the Quran as an "absurd performance" of a "pretended prophet" who lacked "a just sentiment of morals". Voltaire called Muhammad "the founder of a false and barbarous sect" and "a false prophet". Helvetius wrote that Islam dreamed to conquer the world “by fire and sword”. Alexis de Tocqueville: "I studied the Koran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad".

The Church historian Philip Schaff: “Mohammedanism conquered the fairest portions of the earth by the sword and cursed them by polygamy, slavery, despotism and desolation; the moving power of Islam was fanaticism and brute force”. Ernest Renan called Islam "the heaviest chains which have ever shackled humanity".

Escapism has always been inherent in people. But it has never manifested itself with such power on the scale of an entire civilization as we witness today..

link

[Tigermike 3,029]

Does moderate Islam exist?

Until the leading Islamic scholars provide a peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the IS, the existence of a “moderate Islam” must be questioned.

The guiding principle of the Islamic State (IS) is that Muslims must fight non-Muslims all over the world and offer them the following choices: Convert to Islam, pay a humiliating tax called “Jijya,” or be killed. This violent doctrine was the primary justification for the Islamic conquests by the early Muslims.

Following the latest in a long string of inhumane and barbaric attacks by the IS, who only offer these three options to non-Muslims, it becomes mandatory to ask whether this principle IS uses is Islamic or Un-Islamic.

In other words, can a young Muslim become more religious—and more obedient to Allah—without subscribing to this ancient brutality? Will he be able to find an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts this principle, or at least teaches it in a different way (i.e., contextualizing it in time and place)?

The sad answer is: No, he cannot.

Traditionally there are five sources for Islamic Law: the Koran, the Hadith of Prophet Mohamed (such as Sahih Al-Buchakry), the actions of the disciples of Mohamed (Sahaba), the four schools of Islamic jurisprudence, and the Tafseer (or Interpretations) of the Koran.

If a young Muslim were to do some research to examine whether what the IS is doing is in fact Islamic or Un-Islamic, he would find some shocking results.

The literal understanding of the Koran 9:29 can easily be used to justify what the IS is doing. “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humiliated."

But perhaps this young Muslim will decide to see if the Hadith of Al-Buchakry may explain it differently. The following Sahih (authentic) Hadith in Al-Buchakry also supports the violent IS ideology: Sahih al-Bukhari 6924—Muhammad said: “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘La ilaha illallah’ (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and whoever said ‘No God other than Allah’ will save his property and his life from me."

Feeling uncomfortable with the literal interpretations of such texts, the young Sunni Muslim might try to find an answer in the actions of the Sahaba. Sadly, the Sahaba (Disciples of Mohamed) were the ones who first used these principles to justify the Islamic conquests and the subjugation of non-Muslims to Islam.

The fourth source for Islamic law is the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence, namely: Al-Shafeii, Al-Hanbali, Al-Hanafi, and Al- Maleki. These four schools, without a single exception, support the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims and offer them the following choices: Convert to Islam, pay a humiliating tax called “Jijya,” or be killed.

The fifth, and last hope for a young Muslim to hold a less horrific view of Koran 9:29 is to find a Tafseer (an interpretation or commentary) that interprets it differently.

A basic search of almost ALL approved interpretations for the Koran supports the same violent conclusion. The 25 leading approved Koran Interpretations (commentaries)—that are usually used by Muslims to understand the Koran --unambiguously support the violent understanding of the verse.

So where might a young moderate Muslim find a non-violent understanding for such a verse?

Saying that “Islam is the religion of Peace” or condemning the IS as being “un-Islamic” without condemning the principle that Muslims must fight non-Muslims to subjugate them to Islam is not just hypocritical but also counterproductive as it hides the true cause of the problem and impedes the efforts to solve it.

Similarly, not calling the IS the Islamic State (to avoid using the word Islamic)—as suggested by some Islamic scholars—is not going to change the painful fact that the IS is using an approved and unchallenged principle of the Islamic theology. Such scholars need to work on providing peaceful alternatives to the current violent theology instead of asking the world not to call the IS the Islamic State.

In brief, there are certainly many moderate “Muslims.” Until the leading Islamic scholars provide a peaceful theology that clearly contradicts the violent views of the IS, however, the existence of a “moderate Islam” must be questioned.

Important note: A modern and peaceful interpretation of Koran 9:29 is available at “Modern Interpretation of the Quran” [in Arabic] written by the author of this Op-Ed (Dr. T. HAMID).

The book (which could currently be the only available peaceful interpretation for the verse) has not been approved yet by the leading Islamic institutes but has gained more than two Million (2M) followers (Likes) mostly from young Arabic speaking Muslims since it was created in May 2013.

The writer is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and a one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of the terrorist organization JI with Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, who later became the second-in-command of al-Qaida. He is currently a senior fellow and chairman of the study of Islamic radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. www.tawfikhamid.com

link

[homersapien 11,374]

http://www.huffingto..._b_5611232.html

A Muslim's Ramadan Message to ISIS: You Don't Speak for Islam

Qasim Rashid

I wrote EXTREMIST specifically to respond to anti-Islam extremists and extremists claiming to act in Islam's name. ISIS falls into the latter category. Below is a summarized version of EXTREMIST's refutation of ISIS's inhumane platform.

The terrorist organization ISIS has set a new low standard of barbarity and inhumanity. Their most recent act of terrorism is a demand that Christians either convert, pay the jizya, leave their homes, or be killed. Their destruction of an 1800-year-old church in Mosul is painful, condemnable without exception, and wholly in violation of every Qur'anic principle. In fact, the Qur'an 22:41 specifically commands Muslims to protect Churches from destruction.

Nothing in Islam or Prophet Muhammad's example supports ISIS's barbarity. The below modified excerpt from my book EXTREMIST addresses the issue of jizya and dhimmis directly -- and shows without question that ISIS's acts have nothing to do with Islam, and Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. Indeed, it is an insult to 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide to call IS as "Islamic State." The more accurate term is Ignorant Savages.

Let's start with dhimmi. Dhimmi is a historical term referring to non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim state. (1) The word literally means "one whose responsibility is taken" or "people with whom a covenant or compact has been made." (2) Dhimmi describes citizens of a Muslim state afforded security over their persons, property, and religious practice in return for a tax (the jizya). Historically, when empires won battles and wars, common people were subjugated, looted, and forced to work as laborers and serve in the military. Islam did away with such practices by affording all non-Muslim subjects the special dhimmi status. (3)

Regarding dhimmis Prophet Muhammad said, "If anyone wrongs a man with whom a covenant has been made [i.e., a dhimmi], or curtails any right of his, or imposes on him more than he can bear, or takes anything from him without his ready agreement, I shall be his adversary on the Day of Resurrection." (4)

Prophet Muhammad also made it clear that protecting the lives and honor of dhimmis was the responsibility of the Muslims, and failing in this regard would incur God's wrath: "Whoever killed a Mu'ahid (a person who is granted the pledge of protection by the Muslims, i.e. a dhimmi) shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling)." (5) At the conquest of Mecca, Prophet Muhammad had the upper hand against those who had persecuted him for more than two decades. He could have silenced his enemies forever. Instead, he turned to the Meccans and declared, "I say to you what the Prophet Joseph said to his brothers: 'No blame against you! You are free.'" (6)

Even before the conquest of Mecca, the Charter of Medina set the precedent for the treatment of mua'ahids (dhimmis are those non-Muslim subjects who become subjects after a war. If there is no war and there is a negotiated settlement, then they are called mua'ahids). When Prophet Muhammad was popularly appointed Medina's ruler, he entered into a pact with the Jewish communities of Medina. Through this pact, he granted equal political rights to non-Muslims. They were ensured complete freedom of religion and practice.

After the Prophet Muhammad's demise, non-Muslim inhabitants of the fast-expanding Islamic empire enjoyed the same dignified treatment. (7) When Hadhrat Umar, second khalifa of Prophet Muhammad, conquered Jerusalem, he entered into a pact with all inhabitants of the city, declaring:

In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, most Beneficent. This is a covenant of peace granted by the slave of Allah, the commander of the faithful 'Umar to the people of Jerusalem. They are granted protection for their lives, their property, their churches, and their Crosses, in whatever condition they are. All of them are granted the same protection. No one will dwell in their churches, nor will they be destroyed and nothing will be reduced of their belongings. Nothing shall be taken from their Crosses or their property. There will be no compulsion on them regarding their religion, nor will any one of them be troubled. (8)

A dhimmi assassinated Hadhrat Umar in 644 CE. Rather than lashing out against dhimmis, at his deathbed, Hadhrat Umar specifically ordered:

I urge him (i.e. the new Caliph) to take care of those non-Muslims who are under the protection of Allah and His Messenger in that he should observe the convention agreed upon with them, and fight on their behalf (to secure their safety) and he should not over-tax them beyond their capability. (9)

Indeed, Hadhrat Umar merely followed Prophet Muhammad's noble teaching regarding Christians who live under Muslim rule. In a famous letter that Prophet Muhammad wrote to the Christians of Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai:

This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity near and far -- we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant until the Last Day (end of the world). (10)

Contrary to ISIS's barbarity, Prophet Muhammad's example shows that Islam demands equality for all citizens.

Next, I transition to ISIS's demands regarding jizya. The jizya tax was the only tax imposed on non-Muslims; it was typically lower than taxes on the Muslims of that state and was paid by fewer people. The term jizya comes from same Arabic root as jaza', which means "reward" and "compensation." So, according to Sharia or Islamic law, this money was returned to the minorities. The jizya tax, like other taxes, creates accountability on the part of the government to do right by its citizens. In Christian-ruled Sicily, for example, the Christian officials had such a tax for minorities -- and they too called it "jizya."

Thus, non-Muslims paid jizya as free citizens of the Muslim state in return for the protection of their civil and political liberties. Aside from this, Muslims were also taxed, and often at a rate heavier than the jizya. Additionally, Muslims were obligated to perform military service, from which all non-Muslims were exempt. (11)

Jizya served as the sole citizen tax to assure protection from all foreign attacks. Thus, if protection could not be promised, then jizya was impermissible. In The Preaching of Islam, Thomas Arnold records a statement of the Muslim general Khalid bin Waleed: "In a treaty made by Khalid with some town in the neighborhood of Hirah, he writes; 'If we protect you, then Jizya is due to us; but if we do not, then it is not.'" (12)

Abu Ubaida was a famous Muslim commander of Syria. When he entered the city of Hims, he made a pact with its non-Muslim inhabitants and collected the jizya as agreed. When the Muslims learned of a massive advance toward the city by the Roman emperor Heraclius, they felt they would not be able to protect its citizens. Consequently, Abu Ubaida ordered all the dues taken as jizya to be returned to the people of the city. He said to them, "We are not able to defend you anymore and now you have complete authority over your matters." (13) Al-Azdi records Abu Ubaida's statement as follows:

We have returned your wealth back to you because we detest taking your wealth and then failing to protect your land. We are moving to another area and have called upon our brethren, and then we will fight our enemy. If Allah helps us defeat them we shall fulfill our covenant with you except that you yourselves do not like it then. (14)

The response that the people of Hims gave to the Muslims further substantiates that as dhimmis they were not in any way oppressed but instead lovingly embraced:

Verily your rule and justice is dearer to us than the tyranny and oppression in which we used to live. (15) May God again make you ruler over us and may God's curse be upon the Byzantines who used to rule over us. By the Lord, had it been they, they would have never returned us anything; instead they would have seized all they could from our possessions. (16)

Blinded by their own egos, the leaders of ISIS ignore this beautiful history. Professor Bernard Lewis observes that dhimmis welcomed the change from Byzantine to Arab rule. They "found the new yoke far lighter than the old, both in taxation and in other matters, and that some even among the Christians of Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam to that of Byzantines." (17)

Moreover, the jizya was not forcefully collected. It was a tax paid willingly as a favor for the protection of the state. Hadhrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmadra, second khalifa of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, notes:

The expression "with their own hand" is used here in a figurative sense, signifying (1) that Jizya should not be forcibly taken from the People of the Book but that they should pay it with their own hand i.e. they should agree to pay it willingly...; or (2) that they should pay it out of hand i.e. in ready money and not in the form of deferred payment; or (3) that they should pay it considering it as a favor from Muslims, the word, yad (hand) also meaning a favor. (18)

Moreover, the Muslim state exempted from jizya those dhimmis who chose to serve in the military. Sir Thomas Arnold elaborates:

When any Christian people served in the Muslim army, they were exempted from the payment of this tax. Such was the case with the tribe of al-Jurajima, a Christian tribe in the neighborhood of Antioch who made peace with the Muslims, promising to be their allies and fight on their side in battle, on condition that they should not be called upon to pay jizya and should receive their proper share of the booty. When the Arab conquests were pushed to the north of Persia in A.H. 22, a similar agreement was made with a frontier tribe, which was exempted from the payment of jizya in consideration of military service. We find similar instances of remission of jizya in the case of Christians who served in the army or navy under the Turkish rule. (19)

Furthermore, only employed men paid this tax while women, the elderly, the ill, and the unemployed were exempt. (20) But while non-Muslim women were exempt from the jizya, Muslim women were required to pay the zakaat regardless of whether or not they worked.

In reality, the jizya tax was an agreement between those non-Muslims who chose to live in Muslim lands and under the Muslim government. The Spanish Almorvids, for example, are a living testimony to the integrity and compassion with which Muslims treated Jews and Christians. Historian Gwendolyn Hall cites Francisco Codera, who wrote in 1899 while citing ancient Spanish historians:

The Almoravids were a country people, religious and honest...Their reign was tranquil, and was untroubled by any revolt, either in the cities, or in the countryside... There was no tribute, no tax, or contribution for the government except the charity tax and the tithe. Prosperity constantly grew; the population rose, and everyone could freely attend to their own affairs. Their reign was free of deceit, fraud, and revolt, and they were loved by everyone.

...learning was cherished, literacy was wide-spread, scholars were subsidized, capital punishment was abolished... Christians and Jews were tolerated within their realms. When the Christians rose up in revolt, they were not executed but were exiled to Morocco instead. The Almoravids were criticized, however, for being excessively influenced by their women. (21)

At a time when the West drowns in misogyny, perhaps the West could learn a thing or two from the Almoravid Muslims and ensure that women become "excessively" influential.

In sum, as Muslims we hold fast to the word of our beloved Master Prophet Muhammad regarding dhimmis; i.e., the protected: "By God, Christians are my citizens and I hold fast against all that displeases them."

ISIS must be brought to justice for their crimes against Christians and all humanity. Whatever religion they claim -- it is not Islam.

Footnotes

1. Juan Eduardo Campo, ed., "dhimmi," in Encyclopedia of Islam (Infobase Publishing, 2010), 194-95.

2. Edward William Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (London: Willams & Norgate, 1863), 975-76.

3. H. Patrick Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World (Oxford University Press, 2007), 218-19.

4. Sahih Sunan Abu Dawud, #3052. (Emphasis added.)

5. Sahih Jami' Bukhari, vol. 9, Book 83, #49.

6. Zadul-Ma'ad, vol. l, 424.

7. Glenn, Legal Traditions, 219.

8. Tarikh at-Tabari, 2/308.

9. Sahih Jami' Bukhari, vol. 4, Book 52, #287.

10. Prophet Muhammad, "Prophet Muhammad's Letter to St. Catherine's Monastery at Sinai," in ZMD Corporation, Muslim History: 570-1950 C.E., trans. Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq (Gaithersburg, MD), 167.

11. See http://www.alislam.o...=922®ion=E1&CR. Accessed August 12, 2012.

12. Thomas Walker Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith (2007) 6

13. William N. Lees, Futuh ash-Sham ed. (Culcutta: Baptist Mission, 1854), 1/162.

14. Ibid. 137-38.

15. Ibid., 1/162.

16. Ibid., 138.

17. Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002), 57.

18. See http://www.alislam.o...=922®ion=E1&CR. Accessed August 12, 2012.

19. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam, 61-62.

20. Ibid., 60.

21. Gwendolyn Midlo Hall, Slavery and African Ethnicities in the Americas: Restoring the Links (2005), 6.

[homersapien 11,374]

Are you really that stupid?

Perhaps. Why don't you explain what you are referring to.

Still waiting.

Anyone can find insane material to link on the internet. Especially if one is insane themselves.

You are capable of independent thinking aren't you?

[AUDub 11,148]

Great, another one...

You must be new here.

[homersapien 11,374]

Are you really that stupid?

Says the guy who refutes Islam by quoting Jewish bloggers from "The Jerusalem Post" and "Arutz Sheva".

:laugh:

[AUUSN 823]

Great, another one...

You must be new here.

Indeed! Let's see here:

Desert Storm = protecting muslims.

Operations in Somalia = protecting muslims.

Operations in Bosnia = protecting muslims.

Operation Northern and Southern Watch = protecting muslims.

Operation Iraqi Freedom = WMD protecting muslims.

Operation Enduring Freedom = protecting muslims.

Operations in Libya = protecting muslims.

[AUDub 11,148]

Indeed! Let's see here:

Desert Storm = protecting muslims.

Operations in Somalia = protecting muslims.

Operations in Bosnia = protecting muslims.

Operation Northern and Southern Watch = protecting muslims.

Operation Iraqi Freedom = WMD protecting muslims.

Operation Enduring Freedom = protecting muslims.

Operations in Libya = protecting muslims.

Yup. It's a sad state of affairs that we have such bigoted attitudes on this forum concerning Islam.

[AUUSN 823]

Moderate Muslims' quandary about IS

Author: Mustafa Akyol Posted September 12, 2014

Since 9/11, one of the most frequently asked questions in the West has been, “Why don't moderate Muslims speak out against extremists?” This question was, in fact, a bit unfair. Many Muslim opinion-leaders did condemn 9/11 and other crimes of al-Qaeda and its ilk, but they did not receive much coverage in the Western media. But it is also true that the Muslim world's “moderate” majority — those who oppose terrorism in the name of Islam — could have done a better job challenging the extremists.

Author Mustafa Akyol Posted September 12, 2014

Translator(s)Ezgi Akin

A similar question is relevant for the so-called Islamic State (IS) — a ruthless group whose violence has even proven too much for al-Qaeda. While many Muslim governments, from Saudi Arabia to Qatar, are now joining forces with the United States to fight against this new threat in Iraq and Syria, it is worth asking again whether there is enough outcry from religious opinion-leaders against IS.

My answer is: No, there is not enough outcry against IS by moderate Muslims. But this is not because these Muslims are sympathetic to the group's actions. Rather, they cannot accept that the horrors perpetrated by IS have anything to do with Islam. They explain the group away as a Western conspiracy and condemn the West for creating such puppets.

Turkey is a good place to observe this line of thinking. Since the Syrian civil war, both the incumbent Justice and Development Party (AKP) government and its Islamist base have supported the Syrian opposition, paying little attention to the threat of extremists that so worried Ankara’s Western allies. But, about a year ago, Ankara, too, realized that IS is a serious problem. As a result, gradually, the pro-government media began to cast IS as a threat to Turkey and the region.

However, the same media often denied that IS was a reality in itself — a group espousing a genuine Salafist-jihadist ideology. Instead, the group was portrayed as a Frankenstein intentionally created by the United States and its allies, first to “depict Muslims as terrorists,” and then to create pretexts for new military adventures in the oil-rich Middle East.

These days, pro-government papers are full of articles that advance this conspiratorial argument. Many like-minded people share “evidence” on social media for this claim, such as a photo allegedly showing US Sen. John McCain with Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-declared “caliph” of IS. In the daily Yeni Safak, a leading pro-government paper, columnist Tamer Korkmaz summarized the common view:

“The US is now using IS, which it constructed and nurtured as it did with al-Qaeda before. It is now making IS a target, to descend on Iraq and the region once again.”

A more careful observer could note that the United States, in fact, has been worried about IS and its precursor Jabhat al-Nusra for years. One could also note that the Barack Obama government is actually trying to stay out of the Middle East as much as it can, rather than conspiring to “descend on Iraq and the region once again.” But such facts are irrelevant for Turkey's conspiracy theorists. They are thinking wishfully and under the unquestionable presumption that IS is nothing but a Western puppet.

The logic behind this view, which is found not only in Turkey but the Muslim world in general, can be followed in a few steps:

• Extremist groups like IS and its ilk are doing horrible things in the name of Islam.
  
• True Muslims would never do such things.
  
• Therefore the extremists must be fake Muslims manufactured by outside forces who have evil intentions about Islam.
  

In a sense, this line of conspiratorial thinking works because it keeps the moderate Muslim majority mentally at peace, but it has two negative consequences:

First, because of this line of thought, moderate Muslims do little more than condemn the West as the true source of the problem. This is perceived in the West as a lack of reaction to extremism and leads to the common question, “Why do the moderates not speak out?” It only helps feed Islamophobia, which rightly concerns the same moderate Muslims.

Second, since moderate Muslims see groups like IS as mere Western puppets, they do not develop and voice coherent rebuttals of their ideology. This allows these extremist groups to more easily infiltrate the mainstream and gain new recruits. While most of Turkey’s Islamic opinion-leaders dismiss IS as a CIA project, the group continues to recruit Turks to its violent cause, as exposed in the Newsweek article, “The Jihadi Highway.”

This does not mean that no Turks have taken IS ideology seriously or called for a serious ideological confrontation with it. Some notable pieces have been recently published, such as this, this and this. Yet, both Turkey and other Muslim societies need more voices that will take extremism seriously and discredit it with serious arguments.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/09/turkey-iraq-syria-moderate-muslims-isis.html#ixzz3DVWLYapa

[autigeremt 6,630]

It's not bigotry, Ben. Islam is today's communism because of terrorists and their desire for domination over others and blood spilled by the infidel. We expects adults to "grow up" in America but we seem to give others a pass. Why is that? Shouldn't we expect these people to move on and stop killing innocence and embrace life?

[AUDub 11,148]

It's not bigotry, Ben. Islam is today's communism because of terrorists and their desire for domination over others and blood spilled by the infidel. We expects adults to "grow up" in America but we seem to give others a pass. Why is that? Shouldn't we expect these people to move on and stop killing innocence and embrace life?

There are 1.2 billion (with a b!) Muslims in the world today. Do you believe all of them have a desire for domination or spilling the blood of the infidel?