At the end of Wednesday’s Defeat Jihad Summit, some of the invited speakers discussed the concept of “Radical Islam” (or “Islamism”, or “Islamic Fundamentalism”, etc.) vs. “Islam”, with no modifiers.
The excerpts below include contributions from the following people:
- Diana West, author of American Betrayal
- Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin
- Robert Muise of the American Freedom Law Center
- Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
- Former CIA officer Clare Lopez
- Admiral (ret.) James “Ace” Lyons
- Stephen Coughlin again
- Fred Fleitz, Center for Security Policy
- Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for editing and annotating this video:
There’s a lot that could be noted about what various speakers said in the above video. Rather than point out anything in particular, I’ll leave it to our readers to add any observations they might have in the comments.
I noticed all the politicians used the modified forms of Islam. I guess it is politically safe to do so. I am trying to remember the Republican Senator’s name from Texas, but anyway, he only used the modified Islam terminology. Gingrich occasionally used the unmodified word, but made sure that he dampened its effect by resorting to the politically safe terms.
Islam is islam is islam. What is there to understand?
That’s what Turkey Erdo keeps saying. He’s one of the proverbial camels with a couple of NATO nostrils. Erdogan is very bullish on ISIS. I imagine he will take a flying leap at a rolling western border one of these days.
http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/07/orthodox-versus-heterodox-muslims.html
is worth reading for proper nomenclature. Excerpt:
The only piece of information missing from most peoples’ understanding is that the “radicalized” Muslims are not really radical. They are orthodox. They are simply doing what it says in their scriptures they are supposed to do. They’re not “hijacking” their religion or misinterpreting it.
Muslims who shy away from following Muhammad’s example (e.g., Quran 47:4) are called heterodox; there are harsher words too: hypocrite(s), munafiq(un).
And what Stephen Coughlin is desperate to remind us is this: for the so-called “moderate” Muslim there is no authoritative school upon which he may appeal to counter the “radicals” within Islam. Whereas, the Caliphitic and civilizational jihadis have the backing of THE authoritative school of Islam, Al Azhar University in Cairo.
And we must NEVER use the term fundamentalist, as that term has its origin in the secular attempt to smear orthodox Christianity; to employ it as a description of Caliphitic — sharia-demanding Muslim types — is to conflate the peaceful followers of Jesus Christ with the murdering followers of Mohammed.
I’ve posted this comment numerous times on various blog sites: ISIS is the living, breathing, personification of _true_ orthodox islam. Those “moderates” who are not practicing taqqiya or kitman, who aren’t trying to deceive their infidel “friends” or neighbors are apostates. According to the qu’ran, they should be treated more harshly than an infidel. They are betrayers, people who have turned their face from allah, and the qu’ran commands the faithful to kill them.
Anyone identifying themselves as muslims who refuse to kill, torture, rape, moelst and rape (of female children, especially – but don’t forget “bacha bereesh”) should choose a new faith. Once you take the violence and deviancy out of that trashy novel, there is nothing left to recommend it. But – if you decide to continue to call yourselves muslims, be prepared to be treated as one when it all goes bad.
A “Muslim” who opposes Islam should, indeed must, cease to be called a Muslim. Islam is immutable, according to Islamic scholars. An individual’s belief and primary loyalty is all their own. Self-identifying as Muslim rather than non-Muslim is quite enough for me to recognize this as a renunciation of a citizenship in any free state, in favor of the worldwide Islamic Ummah.
Please stop this nonsense from Andy McCarthy that we must view less pious Muslims as non-threatening. The women, at best, become Jihadi factories.
Diana West’s point at the start is spot on. To call pious Muslims enforcing Sharia as extremists you are lying so as to conform to Islamic slander laws, pretending that there is some non-violent non-threatening Islam.
As I have said before, if helping a “moderate” Muslim against a Sharia insistent compliant Muslim then supporting an apostate from Islam is even better.
Any Muslim that does not believe a specific part of the Qu’ran has effectively rejected Islam and by definition, is an Apostate. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. One either believes the entire Qu’ran or they do not. There is no middle ground. ISIS has stated that their first phase of operation is to do internal house cleaning before they attack Israel and the west. They are crucifying Muslims that are moderate. Ultimately all Muslims will be pushed to orthodoxy or be killed. Here in the US, our politician’s heads are so far up their [lower tract] that although they see it coming, they will insist on Islam’s positive intent as they cut their throats.
Implying a ‘moderate islam’ must exist, Andy McCarthy’s statement “a bridge too far” is a consistent disappointment to hear from him (ff 10:00 mark). John Guandolo redresses that notion well however,(@20:00 minute mark).
You may have missed my post yesterday on the same portion of the Summit with my comments: http://counterjihadreport.com/2015/02/13/defeat-jihad-summit-panel-debates-the-use-of-qualifiers-when-referring-to-islam/
Is there anything else one need know about islam, I’m thinking…not! Why the subject is up for debate is not as much about islam as it is a reflection of just how far off the beaten path we have come. Dorothy Sayers knew, when in 1949, she translated the following [Canto 1] from the original Italian:
“Midway this way of life we’re bound upon,
I woke to find myself in a dark wood,
Where the right road was wholly lost and gone.
Ay me! How hard to speak of it that rude
And rough and stubborn forest! The mere breath
Of memory stirs the old fear in the blood;
It is so bitter, it goes nigh to death;
Yet there I gained such good, that, to convey
The tale, I’ll write what else I found therewith . . . .”
I have read that passage, and thought of it, many times in recent years …
I notice Ron Radosh wasn’t there.
He wouldn’t be seen dead at the same event as Diana West.
But Andy McCarthy was. God bless him.
“I notice Ron Radosh wasn’t there.”
LOL
Downloaded the video direct from the other site to watch later when I have time to take notes etc btw.
Stephen Coughlin is warning us…Is anyone listening? Who is Coughlin you ask!
Stephen Coughlin a leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists in his new book: “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad”.
On page #12 Coughlin writes, “I had entered the Intelligence Directorate adhering to the traditional methods of analysis. Soon, however, I discovered that within the division there seemed to be a preference for political correctness over accuracy and for models that were generated not by what the enemy said he was, but on what academics and “cultural advisors” said the enemy needed to be, based on contrived social science theories.”
It seemed the enemy was aware of this as well. Forces hostile to the United States in the War on Terror appeared to have successfully calculated that they could win the war by convincing our national security leaders of the immorality of studying and knowing the enemy.” (snip)
https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/catastrophic-failure