Understanding Islamic Society

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby member_20317 » 08 Feb 2013 15:27

Ask the man...

But seriously besides asking him his sect and patron pir, perhaps you can also ask his name. Shias typically would use recognizable surnames. Mirza may be either a Ahmadiya or a Shia but really small chances of a Sunni. Sunnis would avoid surnames and so the second name of the person and of his father should differ.

Also political view can be talked about say about the present situation in Syria. Or social mores like mention a Muttah/Misyar and see the reaction.

Waise despite all this I too have difficulty figuring out.

Any more ideas out there.

But yes asking a man would be the shortest way.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 09 Feb 2013 00:16

^^ Bring up something like Kerbala. Mahatma Gandhi reportedly chose 72 companions to accompany him on his Dandi March. He said he did it in remembrance of Hossein, who had 72 companions in his army at Kerbala, and who was fighting a much mightier imperialist force. Ask about Kerbala - Hossein is loved and revered by all Moslems, Shi'a and Sunni, so it is not offensive to anyone. Then ask about the guys he was fighting against, and what that was all about...

Or you can inquire about certain traditions that are exclusive to Shi'a, such as the Du'a known as Du'a-e-Komeyl. Usually every Shi'a at least knows about this Du'a, and many attend its tearful and wailing recitations on a regular basis. Shi'a theologians consider its tearful recitation as cathartic and essential for maintaining mental and spiritual balance. But most Sunnis may never have heard of it, or if they have, it doesn't form a staple part of their diet.

----------------------------

One phenomenon observed in all Moslem communities anywhere in the world - and certainly in the subcontinent - is masjid politics. This is about who controls what in the Masjid, who gets to represent the local community to the public, who gets to make use of masjid facilities or for what activities, and even who gets to enter the masjid or not (women for example).

In these changing times, especially in India, masjid politics often involves clashes between the aspirations of the educated youth and their semi-educated parents' or grandparents' generation, and like most conservative castes in India, the caste "elders" usually want total control over political affairs and expect obedience from the younger gen. But the urbanized younger gen sometimes chafe at this control, question some traditions, and often gravitate towards Islamist ideologies that, while being more "egalitarian" are also more obscurantist w.r.t. the kaafir cultures or ideas.

E.g. in Kerala, what's happening is that scores of women who want to learn more about the deen are turned away from the Sunni mosques either literally or structurally. But the Jama'at e Islami and Salafi mosques invite them with open arms. Most of these women cannot understand the difference in ideologies, and start learning whatever they are taught in the study circles at these mosques. This is disastrous because now their children, too, will imbibe from their mothers and move automatically into these non-traditional Sunni lines.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 09 Feb 2013 01:11

UK: Are female converts to Islam part of a new wave of feminism?
“Being Muslim keeps me from wanting to impress others and gives me more personal confidence,” says Chantelle, a 19-year-old convert from Hackney. Today, she goes by the name Khadija, as a sign of respect for Muhammad’s first wife and insists there’s more to British women trading bare midriffs for abayas than what meets the eye. “I wear the hijab because I want to. Because it’s between me and Allah. It’s not a fashion statement. Yes, I don’t go to clubs and don’t sleep around. It gives me a comfort which I know so many of my friends would love to have.”

One of those friends is Monique, who recalls how Chantelle’s embracing Islam inspired a raw honesty and emotion in her, helping her sense power and security in a head-to-toe cover-up: “I can’t really say for certain that I became Muslim because I read the Qur’an. But in a weird way, I felt Chantelle had more freedom than I did by covering herself, instead of letting it all out like me. I thought to myself ‘this was worth trying’. I can’t say I don’t miss our clubs and parties but I’d rather live like this. We still do what other girls do but it’s more toned down if you catch my drift. I haven’t looked back since”.

Then there was 32-year-old mother of two, Jessica. Defiant, unrelenting and unapologetic, she sat before me, niqaab-clad- a far cry from her early adolescent years which were “adrenaline soaked” and “godless”. “I’m just so thankful to Allah that I’ve left everything behind. The hangovers, the guilt, the promiscuous sex. Basically, I feel completely transformed and hate to be reminded of my past because that was me then, and this is me now”.

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2382
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Brad Goodman » 09 Feb 2013 04:07

skaranam wrote:while talking to a muslim...how do i find out if he/she is a Shia / Sunni / Barlevi / Ahemediya / Bora..or what ever


doesnt take long. Take them to resturant and they start rattling their food restrictions and then segway into ROP 101 and eventaully how their clan is right and others are misguided.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 18 Feb 2013 09:26

Why Is Divorce on the Rise Among US Muslims?
“A recent study conducted by Dr. Ilyas Ba-Yunus, a sociology professor at State University of New York, found an alarming increase in divorce rate among Muslims in North America reaching 31%.” (The Muslim Tribune)
Factors include:
- Materialism and changing gender relations
- ***** and Illicit Relationships
- Domestic Violence and Emotional and Verbal Abuse
- Interference of Parents and In-Laws

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 20 Feb 2013 02:26

Rediscovering Islam in a Post-Divorce Landscape
Written by a white American lady who had married and converted, then divorced, rebelled, but then came to acceptance once again of the Islam she had imbibed along the way ... but this time through a new relationship with a non-Moslem man. In telling us her story, she also reveals things about what many women born into Islamic culture go through. It has this nugget, an increasingly common situation:
like many divorced Muslim women, there is a strong likelihood I will develop significant relationships with men outside of the faith.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby ramana » 21 Feb 2013 23:13

Dated EPW article by Yoginder Sikhand

Mass conversions to Hinduism among Indian Muslims

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby JE Menon » 24 Feb 2013 18:30

>>like many divorced Muslim women, there is a strong likelihood I will develop significant relationships with men outside of the faith.

This is not in the least surprising...and I have seen two examples. To generalise, I would put it like this: in a secular, passively religious milieu committed to fundamental gender equality (not necessarily equity) non-Muslim men are quietly looking for more "old-fashioned" - i.e. clear division of labour understanding - women; and Muslim women are looking for anything but Muslim men (of the actively religious type) wherever they can get away with it.

akashganga
BRFite
Posts: 367
Joined: 17 Mar 2010 04:12

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby akashganga » 25 Feb 2013 04:29

Came across this in google search:

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2012 ... u-culture/

This guy is a s___head.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby shiv » 25 Feb 2013 07:49

sivab wrote:MJA has blind spots. He says since the arrival of islam in India, no one in history had criticized Hindu faith.

Maybe he is right, but that is because it is the oldest. But since the arrival of Muhammad, no one has been allowed to criticize Islam which is why a whole lot of Muslim yahoos behave like suicidal spoiled brats looking for a fight. Islam needs to be criticised too because too many people behave like they have a serious mental disease and they do it in the name of Islam and claim that they should not be criticised because Islam is above criticism. It is not. Killing someone over a religious disagreement is a mental disease.

The typical argument that has been perfected over centuries and drilled into young Muslims minds is that Islam is the latest version and therefore greatest and everything else must be rejected in favour of Islam. Anyone who argues is told that out of date religions and false gods are out to attack Islam out of jealousy and that is why people argue against Islam. It's not me against you. I am innocent. It is you against me, victimizing and criticizing me and my perfect faith. And Islam already has solutions documented in the Islamic trilogy Quran, sunnah and hadith that anyone who opposes Islam will be punished.

Alllah will punish them it is claimed. But sometimes Allah will make some Muslim punish them. Therefore when people talk about Kashmir or Pakistan or any Islamic sponsored violence they will say "Don't victimize us. Don't criticise Islam. It is the perfect religion. Or else we will not be able to predict the consequences" - meaning that some yahoo is allowed to be violent. As recently as 3 days ago Sajjad Lone said just that on TV

The best solution in Islam is to allow Muslims to fight and kill each other in Islamic countries and laugh as we watch but impose laws that force them to live in harmony in non Islamic countries. That is normally called "Anti-Islamic laws" But balls. No religion is above criticism

wig
BRFite
Posts: 1906
Joined: 09 Feb 2009 16:58

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby wig » 25 Feb 2013 09:59

Kashmir’s first music doctorate quits music after ‘spiritual transformation’

Kashmir’s first doctorate in music has quit music that too, he says, after going through a ‘spiritual transformation’. Shahzad Asim, who completed his PhD in music in 2009 making him the first man from Kashmir to do so, says he quit music because he has realised it was “haraam”, or forbidden, in Islam.

Asim was once a rising star in Kashmir’s music industry with the release of six music albums, in which he had sung and composed music till 2010. His songs “Loola baryo”, “Brahm dith saaqi” and “Trovthas be kyazi sare-rah” became instant hits. “I will not continue with music, I have left it,” Asim said.

Talking about his transformation from a musician to a ‘thinker’, he says music has been part of a rigorous discourse in Kashmir over recent days when an all-girls rock band quit following a fatwa by region’s Grand Mufti who termed the music as “haraam”.

The debate, which continued to grab headlines for over a week, ended when 2001 Parliament attack convict Mohammad Afzal Guru was hanged on February 9 shifting the line of discourse.

“Music been declared ‘haraam’ because a person cannot resist it. There are 90 per cent chances that music can take you to the devil and only ten per cent, which is in its purest form, can be the way to meet God,” he says citing examples of Azaan, call for prayers and recitation of Quran.

Asim claims to have solved all unresolved questions of life, death and ‘nature’ by trying to understand the mechanism and ‘chemistry’ of music.

The 32-year-old former medicine student claims he has a scientific reasoning for all his conclusions. His reasons also have basis in Kashmiri Sufism, a local form of Islamic mysticism.

Asim, a resident of north Kashmir’s volatile Sopore town, opted out of studying medicine before becoming a professional musician. He did his graduation and post graduation in music and completed his doctoral thesis titled ‘Secrets of Music’.

During his talk, Asim traverses on the timeline of centuries and ideas as varied as the process of life and death to many unexplained cosmic occurrences to Mughal emperor Akbar’s court musician Tansen. He uses religious scriptures and references as basis for many of his conclusions.

“Time will come when science will reach the point where they will understand what I am saying,” he says. "I have answers for how the music works, what is, its mechanism and chemistry which is beyond what science has understood so far.”

Before his ‘spiritual transformation’, Asim was working on a film ‘Sukoon’ which was completed in 2010 and is yet to be released. “I will release at an appropriate time,” he said.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130225/j&k.htm#4

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 27 Feb 2013 23:51

Ahl-ul-Bayt News Agency (Shi'a):
Islam spreads more rapidly when attacked

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 28 Feb 2013 02:41

X-posting from Bharatiya thread:

RamaY wrote:Islam spreads more rapidly when attacked: Ahlul Bayt News Agency (Iran)

It happens ONLY when the conquered societies are pulled out of Islam. Islam draws strength from that weakness of its opponents.

Other than that, the sympathy Islam gains in enemy society can easily be replenished if the opponent converts the occupied territories.

Imagine USA/NATO force converted entire Iraq and Afghanistan into Christianity after their invasions. Islam would have lost 30-40 muslims.

The bolded part is true - but here "weakness" doesn't just mean lack of physical strength or the act of aggression. In fact, because it draws energy from a deepset "victimhood and vengeance" mentality, mindless aggression will drive Islamism deeper into the minds of the host population. This is true even if it recedes in its external formalism for some time.

RajeshA wrote:There were some posters in NYC calling Islamics saveges. But it doesn't really help crack Islamic society, in fact it may have the opposite effect. Islam thrives on siege and confrontation mentality.

Actually when "siege and confront" is applied correctly to Islamist society itself, then its case can be cracked open. But this "siege and confront" is not based on mindless or systematic aggression for its own sake. Rather, it must be based on proper purva-paksha in addition to physical containment and confrontation.

The "siege and confront" method must be applied with knowledge, clarity, moral courage, relentless patience, and high purpose. By "bracket and broadside" one must hold the Islamist's attention to what is being preached to him/her.

Engagement with Islamism in any mode such as arrogance, rage, fear, lust (for something they have) or grief will increase its sense of moral superiority. While Islamists will throw all of these at you, if you respond similarly then you lose points! We need to understand how this works. Pakiness is like p0rn0graphy - either way it sucks you in. If you try "control" by physical "will" and "force", then it will ultimately give way to the "release" cycle where you succumb to the forces you are trying to control -- because those modes that Islamism thrives on exist within you as much as they do within the host Moslem society. Therefore this war is unlike others, it has a dimension whose importance is much higher than previous wars. Simple dominance and punishment-drive psy-ops cannot work here. If you are the stronger party, then they identify with the converted slaves that the Meccan mushrikeen tormented for converting. If you are the weaker party, then your contemptible humiliation is decreed by Allah, your weakness of heart is proof of the inferiority of your faith, or your rage stems from the fear of your inferior religion and race dying out. Therefore, instead of dominance mentality, an enhancement drive mentality must be used.

If one is the physically stronger party, then generosity, justice but firmness must be demonstrated, with a penetrating eye on taqiyyah, and a willingness to test the mettle of any swaggering Islamist, exposing their moral corruption and setting an example of one's own. America does that but the Islamists always point out the public "indecencies" and decadence widespread in the West.

If one is the weaker party, then great physical courage and boldness must be demonstrated in confronting fear and death, while also constantly preaching the higher philosophy to them without any rancour. Add to that confronting the social evils within one's own society and reforming it. The best example of this is the epic of the Sikh Gurus. Its unlikely to be emulated in modern times, and fortunately we don't have to do it all over again - we must pick up that thread and build upon it.

In India, first of all we have to wrest the dialectic initiative and redefine the framework of the discussion. Then we need to demonstrate our commitment to the truth by internal reform and cohesion. Then we need to aggressively preach that to all others. I believe the example of the Sikh Gurus is most relevant to India at this stage because Hindutva is not really the overwhelming "majority" in Akhand Bharat, and not even in "India". Even in India it faces internal groups that are the local branches of multinational majorities.

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby member_19686 » 28 Feb 2013 03:05

The only time Islam got a swift kick in its backside and was exterminated root and branch was post Spanish reconquista.

I don't know how much "generosity" the Spanish demonstrated but they sure got 400 years of peace out of their actions & have been a never ending itch for the Ghazi's since then about how Darul Islam became Darul harb again.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 28 Feb 2013 03:16

^^ Surasena,

1. Its a brute force and fighting to the finish solution that remains a part of the example I cited - of the epic Sikh episode in Indian history - though it was not carried to its conclusion because of other factors. So all options are always on the table.

2. Its a "solution" I suppose, though I don't know how beneficial that was all around. The Spanish conquistadors proceeded to inflict the same genocide on races on other continents that never did a thing to them.

3. Spain and Western Europe did make "progress" thereafter in certain civilizational iterations, but in the end I think it tends to hollow out the spiritual foundations of earlier iterations.

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby member_19686 » 28 Feb 2013 03:31

Well the Japanese did the same with Xtianity & did the opposite after Xtianity was wiped out, they closed off their country and went into peaceful isolation for 250+ years until they were forced open at gunpoint by Protestant Christian USA so that they could receive the wisdom of our "Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ".

The Spanish would have committed that genocide on other continents regardless because they subscribed to a very similar meme as the Muslims and the Anglo-Saxons outdid them when it came to genocide in the New World though they never fought a war exterminating Islam at home like the Spanish. So I wouldn't be be quick to draw a causal relationship between Spanish violence against Muslims in Spain & their violence in the New World, both of them were in part caused by a third factor involving "The Lord Jesus".
Last edited by member_19686 on 28 Feb 2013 03:33, edited 2 times in total.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby brihaspati » 28 Feb 2013 03:33

^The very last significant "cleansing" before the post reconquista inquisition phase, [the evacuation of Alhambra] was apparently a negotiated exit. Safe passage with life, limb, women and what material could be "carried" on fourlegged transport - were allowed to the Muslims.

There seems to be some indication of ex-Muslims switching sides and becoming aristos.

On conquest, however, when the castles have resisted - usually persistent resistance was rewarded with slavery, as happened in the fall of Malaga. The leader I think was imprisoned in the same sort of hell hole [simply dugout rock cut holes into which prisoners were dropped from the top small hole] the muslims employed to imprison captured Christian soldiers.

The Inquisition was the precursor of the Stalinist and Leninist purges [yes Lenin started the game]. It is a well known process of every totalitarian system. At first pretend tolerance, hide the insecurities in leadership as well as future plans of control by terror. Once a sufficiently audacious force that can overwhelm the existing regime is assembled and succeeds [it doesn't have to be the majority] because long-term terror plans for purification were not divulged and more people gathered under the banner than they would had they known - purges are started.

This purge is to thin the layer of top elite and reduce competition. So the Reconquista was over and Inquisition started later - this time to fish out suspected hidden sympathizers of Islam and Judaism.

The anti-Judaism of the Spanish is actually connected to a long forgotten episode of the early foundation of the Islamic empire in Spain. The Christians in then Spain were primarily Gothic settlers of Roman enforced-army-duty source, and they adopted Arrianic Christianity - perhaps out of their long Germanic hatred of Italian/Romanic Christianity, as the Roman and Byzantine Church by extension saw Arrianites as heretic. The Byzantines were accused of and suspected of using the Jews settled in Gothic Spain for subversive activities - in return for promise of "homeland/political-autonomy" in Judea. The Byzantine Christian governor of the outpost on the African side of Gibraltar "changed sides" overnight to the Moorish expeditionary force and helped the army cross over. Meanwhile, a similar real or cleaver propaganda threat emerged of a Byzantine naval expedition simultaneoiusly to attack the Goths on two fronts.

The Jews of Spain were apparently caught red-handed working for these two forces [or accused as such] and massacred. The Goths however lost, and their king and other top aristos were beheaded on the battlefield, and the "queen" immediately fell in love with the conquering Muslim leader, "converted" and "married" the latter.

Thus the myth or reality of Judaic betrayal wove into the narrative of resistance carried by those Gothic survivors who escaped north to the hills, and were perhaps the later founders of [or joined pre-existing groups to found] the twin Christian enclaves united in marriage to give the final push.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 28 Feb 2013 03:37

Surasena wrote:The Spanish would have committed that genocide on other continents regardless because they subscribed to a very similar meme as the Muslims and the Anglo-Saxons outdid them when it came to genocide in the New World though they never fought a war exterminating Islam at home like the Spanish. So I wouldn't be be quick to draw a causal relationship between Spanish violence against Muslims in Spain & their violence in the New World, both of them were in part caused by a third factor involving "The Lord Jesus".

The causality between reconquista and later colonial genocide is not in historical terms, it is in the mentality that produces that "solution". That mentality has to be one of last resort, from a dharmic standpoint - when the identity of the other has become so chronically stuck in taqiyyah hostility that a new physical body is needed for them to continue their spiritual evolution.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 28 Feb 2013 03:39, edited 1 time in total.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby brihaspati » 28 Feb 2013 03:39

The Moorish North African Muslims were one of the first known innovators of the infamous "start of David" marking game. They forced jews settled in North Africa to sport the star in yellow publicly. This was copied by the Brits - then still England, but was not really taken up by mainland Europe until much much later.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 28 Feb 2013 03:40

B ji, the European colonialists copied a large number of memes from the Islamist empires that were their competitors and enemies. But Islam itself had copied several such memes from roman Christianity in the 5th and 6th centuries.

brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby brihaspati » 28 Feb 2013 03:54

All the bad ones were lapped up. Look up use of crucifixion, flaying alive and salting, organized rape on a defeated resisting town/city - from Romans. Iconoclasm was copied from Byzantines. But neither Romans nor Byzantines nor Parthians nor Copts nor even the ancestral Qureysh had the innovation of khula or hila. That appears to be genuine invention. Neither Romans, nor Byzantines, nor Copts, nor Parthians had the public display of "star of David" thingie. That is a genuine invention. Romans and Byzantines did not support polygamy either [lots of problems stemmed from this].

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5435
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby SBajwa » 28 Feb 2013 06:37

by Carl
In fact, because it draws energy from a deepset "victimhood and vengeance" mentality, mindless aggression will drive Islamism deeper into the minds of the host population.


and the people who are poor with only one male earning livelihood(couples between 18-45 years of age who have kids every 9 months) are very very very easy pray of these Jihadis.

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5435
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby SBajwa » 28 Feb 2013 06:41

by Sursena
The only time Islam got a swift kick in its backside and was exterminated root and branch was post Spanish reconquista.


and we the peaceful Vishnu,Shiva,Mahavir, Buddha, Nanak believing indians must do the same!!! i.e. Kick Islam out of the world!! if we can!!!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 28 Feb 2013 08:36

May I request posters to not prescribe solutions for any supposed "Islamic Problem" in India. We are on this thread only to understand.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 28 Feb 2013 19:06

The Islamic Core, the Wolves & the Dogs (Cont.)

I'd like to come back to something I had proposed earlier

What constitutes the Islamic System?

The model I propose is that there is an Islamic Ideological Core and all the Muslims in the world are like dogs on a leash, which the Islamic Ideological Core holds in its hands. Each Muslim knows he is bound to Islam and its core. Now Islam may deem it fit to give a lot of slack to the leash and there may even be some few Muslims who may think that they are free of this leash because of the slack, but most know that it is there and those who forget, their memory loss would be assured to be one of a temporary nature. The Islamic Ideological Core always keeps wolves among the dogs to ensure that the dogs do not forget their leash, or try to break it.


I contend that though this model one can explain anything and everything that has to do with Islam.

Okay big claim! :mrgreen: I don't know! But one can test!

Context: Europe
We often see Islamic violence on non-Muslims! Why? Even in societies that have often given the Muslims a good deal. In Europe most Muslims are living on state benefits. It doesn't mean they don't work. It just means that beside the money they earn from work, they are willing to suck the state dry as well. All this can be excused as just the attitudes of exceedingly greedy and shameless people. That in itself is not something uniquely Islamic.

What however is conspicuous is that there is a strong streak of feelings against the host society, even though they have been living off the taxes of hard-working people. In India one has an example of Hajj subsidy. So the animosity, hostility remains against the non-Muslims. It is basically incurable, and Islamics cannot be integrated in host societies, in any other society.

One could say, there is a strong streak of cultural allegiance on the part of Muslims and hence they do not tend to leave their Islam and join others. Is it wrong to have a strong cultural affiliation? Not per se, but there is a strong undercurrent of hostility as well, as mentioned earlier, and that is not healthy. But that is just the starting of what is not healthy.

So does this hostility manifests itself?

There are plenty of examples of Islamics conducting rapes of women, bullying and intimidating local kids of non-Muslims, being involved in gangs, enforcing Shariah in their neighborhoods including on non-Muslims, etc.

So one can ask why do they do it? How can a conservative society that is so religious not be in a position to stop their boys from conducting themselves in such a manner?

Such cognitive dissonance happens when one does not understand how Islam works. For the time being one does not need to look at the Qu'ran or the Hadiths in order to understand Islam. Normally when people want to understand more of Islam they go look for some book which explains the sacred texts of Islam and Islam's history. Some end up reading a book which goes on and on about the beauty of the creed and the glorious achievements of Islam, and calls all the violence an exception to the rule and some end up reading a more critical piece which can explain the violence in terms of Islamic history and the tenets of the creed.

But lets try to understand Islam using a much simpler model - The Islamic Core, the Wolves & the Dogs!

Disclaimer: referring to Muslims as Dogs is not meant to be an insult. The term is to be understood only within the model and is neutral! It is only for analysis sake!

If Islam wants to expand in a host society, one would expect it abide by the rules of the host society, lay low and expand. Why does it resort to violence then?

The reason is because the Islamic Core always needs to be protected by the Wolves! So anytime there is any attack on the Islamic Core be it in the form of Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses, Jyllands-Posten's Danish Cartoons, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Submission, Taslima Nasrin's Lajja, Mark Basseley Youssef's Innocence of Muslims, the Islamic Core gives full sanction for the Wolves to go out and hurt the Kufr where possible. Of course the reaction is intended to have maximum effect.

The terror unleashed is supposed to cower down the Kufr, and to making him acknowledge that they cannot touch the Islamic Core for otherwise there will be a heavy price to pay!

In order to keep normalcy and peace Western governments and of course GoI succumbs to such intimidation. There are other reasons like keeping the Saudis happy for the sake of business deals. For many in these governments the price to pay for freedom of thought and speech becomes too high. Again it is understandable.

But basically that is one function of the Wolves - to keep the non-Muslims frightened into not challenging the Islamic Core.

More than just intimidating the Kufr, the Wolves main function is to keep the flock of Dogs in their place, so that no Dog ever comes to the idea of breaking its Leash and running away from Islam or his responsibilities to it. The punishment for apostasy is death. But the Wolves are useful to keep the Submission of the Dogs absolute. Every Dog helps the Islamic Core in its own way. To that we may come later on. The Wolves ensure that the voice of the Islamic Core is heard from all the Dogs in the herd, when confronting the Kufr. Thus the Kufr is to be intimidated by the loud barking of all the Dogs and not just the growling of a few Wolves.

The only way to overcome this fear of the Wolves is to give in to their guidance completely and try to support them in their cause, whatever it may be, often it is by giving them respect, obedience, funding and sanctuary. The herd of Dogs helps to protect the Freedom of the Wolves. The Wolves can mingle in the crowd of Dogs, and one may not easily locate them. The network of Dogs helps the Wolves to hide themselves better in the case of a counter-attack from the Kufr.

But the strength of the system lies in the ability to generate Wolves. Of course the respect that is accorded to a Wolf by the Dogs, makes every Dog want to be a Wolf, but for that the Dog needs training and has to show his worth. This is where the Kufr comes in.

All the intimidation on the Kufr is part of the training for the Dog to qualify himself as a Wolf. The most noted quality of the Wolf is the ability to strike terror and fear, so any Dog wanting to become a Wolf needs to imbibe that quality. Many Kufr ask themselves what have they done to invite such hostility from some Muslim. That is the wrong question. The Kufr is just giving another opportunity to the Dog to prove himself as a candidate for Wolf. In fact, if the Kufr refuses to give the Dog this opportunity, the Dog would demand it and try to make a mountain out of a molehill.

In Kufr societies which are exceptionally passive and peaceful, the Dogs are even more provocative. They are looking for the fight, some fight, any fight with which they can prove their worth to other Wolves, so as to be taken in into the pack.

One of the easiest ways to prove one's manhood is to violate the women of the other, to call Kufr women prostitutes, to take them as concubines and then to dispose of them, for marriage is often to a proper Muslim girl. Much of this is in fact accepted in Western societies as the individual right of the Western woman to decide with whom they have relationships. But for the Muslim, a different perspective in at play.

The Islamic Core knows that as it spreads out in the world the Dogs have a weakness. As males they want to have females, and Kufr women can prove quite tempting, so the Islamic Core has in fact, taking the example of yore, turned a weakness into a strength as it Islam is often tend to do. If there is a challenge, the Dog is prodded to deal with it which strengthens the Islamic Core, rather than weakens it.

So the Islamic Core has in fact degraded the status of European (and others) women to that of prostitutes, to be used and then thrown away. In Norway one sees a strong increase in the number of rape cases by Muslim men of Norwegian girls. In Britain one sees child sex rings operated by Pakistani men. In Germany and other continental countries one often sees Arabs, Turks enjoying European women but at the same time passing them from one to another till they are finally shown the door. The Islamic Core gives maximum support to this attitude. Basically it reiterates that the Kufr world is for the Dog to use and abuse but never to be taken in by it.

So all Dogs who go through this route - scorn, use, abuse, rape, etc. in their own way win their right of passage as a Wolf-candidate. The more intense the abuse by the Dog of Western women, the more sure he can be of being accepted as a Wolf, because the more he is accepted as being beyond temptation by Western ways. Again the abuse need not be only in words but in deed, i.e. either through rape, or through having multiple European girlfriends (aka concubines), the more the better as proof of both his manhood, but more importantly his incorruptibility.

Another way for Dogs in Europe to get corrupted is through the propaganda of Western values and Western civilizational knowledge and progress. As far as values are concerned, the Islamic Core ensures that there is no abuse of Islam in the mainstream media. For that they have Gulf countries as support whose Sheikhs often have close relations with the economic and political elite in Europe. They also have the threat of violence to stop the media. But often this is the work of so-called "Moderate Muslims" in Europe. It is their job to cry discrimination and Islamophobia and tell the West that such criticism would only radicalize the Islamic youth and make the (non-existent) integration process more difficult. So basically the "Moderate-Muslims" simply deliver the threat in a language compatible with Western values of respect for freedom of religion, etc. So these Dogs too have their use.

But Western values are rubbished by the Islamic Core relentlessly as Western decay and they cite *****. Often the Dogs are encouraged to attack Gays in Europe, also as a rite of passage.

All the Western progress, the Muslims are told does not mean a thing. A mobile is a device like a toaster to be used. There is no reason for Muslims to feel awed by all the gadgets that come out, and to consider the West superior. Moreover the West is only delivering jizya to them even in all these services and products. The main aim is the Islamization of Europe, and these Europeans who today look like masters would in the future simply be the slaves, and slaves one must not respect.

So all these challenges that the Muslim in Europe faces as temptation is turned into a rite of passage.

As the population of Muslims increase in Europe, in America, in India, in China, one would more and more Islamic violence on the Kufr. More and more Dogs would want to earn their rite of passage to Wolf. And what better way to go about it then letting their most base instincts, their most perverse thoughts free reign. Women in Europe, in India and elsewhere would increasingly become a target. They will become a target as a means of provocation of the Kufr. If the Kufr responds there will be a fight, giving more Dogs an opportunity to become Wolfs. If the Kufr submits, then the Kufr is already broken and gives many more Dogs the courage to try to submit more Kufr, forcing the Kufr to seek the protection of the Wolves, thus expressing one's willingness to convert!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 28 Feb 2013 20:45

The Islamic Core, the Wolves & the Dogs (Cont.)

Understanding Green on Green

The main aims of Islam is to protect the Islamic Core, to breed Wolves and to expand.

Wolves are those which provide Islam its sword, and keeps the Dogs, the pledged to the Islamic Core, in line. This breeding of Wolves, i.e. converting Dogs into Wolves, requires that Dogs (and Wolves) constantly prove their eligibility to be recognized as Wolves, which brings respect, obedience, funds and sanctuary from the Dogs and Jizya from the Kufr, and in turn sustains the Islamic Core.

So the interested Dogs and the Wolves need to be kept in training, always in war mentality. However when the Kufr in a land are finished off, and all that remains are Dogs, that only those who have submitted to the Islamic Core, then the only way to train Wolves is by letting them feed off the Dogs under the protection of other Wolves.

Then the Islamic Core discovers its own fault-lines and tries to repair them in the only way it knows, through the Wolves. On the one hand these Islamic fault-lines are repaired by forcing the Dogs on the other side either to come over or to die resisting.

So it is a question of who has more and better Wolves!

This is of course a phase which is autophagious/cannibalistic but in this struggle to finish off fault-lines, in this struggle to become still more purer, more Wolves are born on both sides, possibly faster than the Wolves die in such a civil strife, so in the end the Islamic Core has more Wolves at its disposal. The death of Dogs doesn't matter. There will be more litters. Even Wolves can be sacrificed. New Wolves will replace the dead ones.

So what has happened in Pakistan is that all the Kufr are gone and so are the prey for the Wolves and the training ground of the Dogs. So the only way to train the Dogs is to start a purification process.

There are already calls to make Pakistan a Sunni Islamic State.

There can be no Wolves if there aren't constant kills on the Kufr most preferably but also on other rival Wolf Packs. If a Wolf is not steadily showing off his insatiable appetite towards others, he will lose his status and respect in society, and another Wolf will take over.

In fact if there is no possibility of winning Zar, Zoru aur Zameen from others, then the Wolf may even start feeding on the Dogs itself who are under his "protection". His brutality on his own people can increase.

Of course every Dog would like to marry off the women of his family to the Wolf, thus bringing him closer to the Wolf, so even without brutality, there is much appeasement and indulgence that the Wolves get from the Dogs.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 01 Mar 2013 00:16

RajeshA wrote:Understanding Green on Green
...
Wolves are those which provide Islam its sword, and keeps the Dogs, the pledged to the Islamic Core, in line. This breeding of Wolves, i.e. converting Dogs into Wolves, requires that Dogs (and Wolves) constantly prove their eligibility to be recognized as Wolves, which brings respect, obedience, funds and sanctuary from the Dogs and Jizya from the Kufr, and in turn sustains the Islamic Core.

So the interested Dogs and the Wolves need to be kept in training, always in war mentality. However when the Kufr in a land are finished off, and all that remains are Dogs, that only those who have submitted to the Islamic Core, then the only way to train Wolves is by letting them feed off the Dogs under the protection of other Wolves.


This is a verse often quoted by radical Sunni jihadis who kill Shi'as:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ قَـٰتِلُواْ ٱلَّذِينَ يَلُونَكُم مِّنَ ٱلۡڪُفَّارِ وَلۡيَجِدُواْ فِيكُمۡ غِلۡظَةً۬‌ۚ وَٱعۡلَمُوٓاْ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مَعَ ٱلۡمُتَّقِينَ

"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
- Qur'an 9:123

The disbelievers "who are near to you" refers to those from within the community who harbor preferences of their own different from the 'Absolute True' version. During the Prophet's life itself this meant those tribes or individuals who converted, but who still liked some things from their ancestral tradition, or who explored other ideas of their own.

Islamism has an obsession with "fitna" (sedition), and the "hypocrites" (munaafiqeen). Fitna is something that comes from within -
1. Thoughts arising within one's own mind, the whispering of the devil (waswasah). In fact, according to Sufism, this waswasah is itself obsession, but from the way "fitna" is preached, it seems that the priesthood has an obsession with killing obsession!
2. Women are fitna - direct words of the Prophet.
3. Moslems with deviant faith or lack of commitment (such as not being enthusiastic to participate in communal and political events, including making offensive war against the infidel.

You are also right that the dogs need to prove who is more qualified to become a wolf. Islam encourages nomadic and fighting memes and has contempt for the sedentary, individualistic and bourgeois tendencies:

لَّا يَسۡتَوِى ٱلۡقَـٰعِدُونَ مِنَ ٱلۡمُؤۡمِنِينَ غَيۡرُ أُوْلِى ٱلضَّرَرِ وَٱلۡمُجَـٰهِدُونَ فِى سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ بِأَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ وَأَنفُسِہِمۡ‌ۚ فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡمُجَـٰهِدِينَ بِأَمۡوَٲلِهِمۡ وَأَنفُسِہِمۡ عَلَى ٱلۡقَـٰعِدِينَ دَرَجَةً۬‌ۚ وَكُلاًّ۬ وَعَدَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡحُسۡنَىٰ‌ۚ وَفَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلۡمُجَـٰهِدِينَ عَلَى ٱلۡقَـٰعِدِينَ أَجۡرًا عَظِيمً۬ا

"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home, sedentary lifestyle) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home, sedentary lifestyle) by a special reward-"
- Qur'an (4.95)

Modern Islamists over the last 150 years have worked on this. Allama Ek-ball also borrowed a lot of his idealization of his "mard e khaaki" ubermensch from Nietzsche (and the rest from Bhartrhari). Of course, nothing wrong with encouraging the adventurous abandonment of "tradition" for the good of humanity...but this idealization of roving violence independent of all other considerations is definitely a problem.

From the beginning, after the Prophet passed away, those who were closest to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) (the "core") first fought to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (known as the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then, within the closer community, the early Meccan converts battled the later ones - hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had welcomed them, helped them settle in and joined the community. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife (Ayesha) and favorite daughter (Fatima) - a schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 01 Mar 2013 00:56, edited 2 times in total.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RamaY » 01 Mar 2013 00:21

^

That is why Bji says

Kill the wolves and wolves wannabees.
Put male dogs to work
Takeaway and own all female dogs.

Edited....
Last edited by RamaY on 01 Mar 2013 01:47, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 01 Mar 2013 00:43

If somebody wishes to propose certain interaction models or solutions, there is a thread for it. Here is only analysis!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 01 Mar 2013 00:47

RamaY ji,

As a supporter of World Wildlife protection, I object. :wink:

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 01 Mar 2013 01:55

Carl ji,

actually the system is not much different than our own philosophical schools, the Sampradayas. They often used to have intellectual debates with the condition that whoever loses the debate would become the disciple of the other and adopt his worldview.

Islamics simply have their debates among the sects using force and intimidation.

In both cases the "debaters" hone their skills at the means they use!

Externally also the Dharmic may try to explain his worldview to the other using intellect. The Islamic uses coercion as a form of dialogue.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby ramana » 01 Mar 2013 01:59

Carl and RajeshA, Do you see parallels to Communism and Islamism in ther way they handle their own adherents and attitude towards women?
They pretend to be liberating while they want to have community rights over the women.


I say Communism is Islamism without the mask of religion.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby RajeshA » 01 Mar 2013 02:08

ramana garu,

my knowledge of communism says something quite different. In communism they were often interested in using the productivity of the women. In fact they were encouraged to again go working after around eight weeks of motherhood leave. Otherwise I think Communists were generally respectful of women.

I am talking about Eastern Europe but even in Najibullah's Afghanistan, women were much more liberated.

I would say the women in the West in the 50s, 60s and even today had a much more traditional role than those living under Communism.

So I personally don't see that parallel.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4677
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby sanjaykumar » 01 Mar 2013 02:40

The suffragette movement, equal pay in fact suitability for employment, child care are all communist innovations. A debt never acknowledged by the freedom loving intellectuals of amreeka.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 01 Mar 2013 02:50

ramana wrote:Carl and RajeshA, Do you see parallels to Communism and Islamism in ther way they handle their own adherents and attitude towards women?
They pretend to be liberating while they want to have community rights over the women.

I do see this parallel, and it is a very good observation ramana ji.

There are differences too, in the way they go about it. RajeshA ji has noted these differences, but I think it is wrong to conclude that just because Communism subverts all "traditional" roles it is more "liberating".

Islamism in its native non-taqiyyah mode uses anger and demands submission. It uses traditional roles as the excuse to enforce submission and control over women.

Whereas Communism uses the past abuses of traditional roles to subvert the very purpose of those traditions, and "liberate" women from that primary purpose. Motherhood is certainly a very essential part of any woman's basic purpose. I mean motherhood in all its aspects -
- Wanting to conceive and produce good children,
- Creating a positive and happy environment in the home that will go a long way in raising psychologically healthy children and members of society,
- Acting as the first educators
- Acting as motivators for Dharma in their spouses, and keeping their spouses honest, etc.

Thus, as mothers and as spouses, women have a primary role in maintaining the Dharmic health of society. Men have a tendency to either go astray or lose the plot. Women keep them true. To subvert this role of women is to subvert dharmic civilization. Communism does this by appearing to come and "help" women and "liberate" them from the admitted abuses of the past. It is typical abuse of dialectics and neglect of psychohistory - to take an abusive situation and superimpose it on all history in a way that occludes its original purpose and motivation.

This doesn't mean that women shouldn't go out and work, get a high education, participate in many other fields of life. A true balance encourages this, because again it increases their experience, wisdom, and therefore makes them better mothers and spouses. A true "reformer" would keep the basic purpose and implement it in present time. A wolf in sheep's clothing would try to subvert the original purpose by appealing to some externals. That's what Communism does in all its aspects. The fact is we can see in several communist societies that family and woman have been degraded, and this affects birthrate among other things. Note that Communist ideas infiltrate into all societies, including the pseudo-"liberal" sections of democratic societies.

Woman is a good example, and Communism and Islamism treat their weaker followers in general using the same tactics. Communism gives "justice" to many in order to cover up for its pre-meditated killing off of large number of worthy and capable individuals in society - because those worthy and capable individuals will threaten its reign. Such purges are a definite characteristic of all Communist societies. It is also seen in Islamist societies, where either they are killed (or sidelined), or they must start speaking in a language that does not cause "fitna" in Islamist society (watch modern Turkey). They must put their talents at the service of Islamism. Thus, several older schools of thought, mysticism, art and science became "Islamic Sufism", "Islamic Art", etc.

Here are some Vedic quotes about the intended purpose and roles of women:
Woman – Foundation of knowledge
Woman – Hallmark of true valor
Woman – Sunrise of enlightenment
Mother – the true identity of woman
Manu Smriti and Women

I personally am a liberal, and I believe reform and liberation is much needed in many aspects of Indian life. But I would take the "liberative" aspect of communism, and keep out the rest of the insidious trash.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 01 Mar 2013 02:54, edited 2 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby ramana » 01 Mar 2013 02:52

And also the status of women in revolutionary bands is a pinter to the commonality of thinking.

I will let Bji eloquently describe it.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 01 Mar 2013 02:56

ramana ji, we had a brief discussion on this earlier on this thread:

viewtopic.php?p=1401573#p1401573

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby ramana » 01 Mar 2013 03:02

Wow. Full circle I guess.

Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby Agnimitra » 16 Mar 2013 03:02

Body of newborn baby found in Lostock, Bolton
The body of a baby, believed to be a newborn, has been found in a country lane in Greater Manchester.

The body, which was wrapped in clothing and plastic bags, was found by walkers in the Ox Hey Lane area of Lostock, Bolton, on Thursday afternoon.

A note was also found requesting the baby receives an Islamic burial.

Police said the age, sex or ethnicity of the baby is not known and it is not yet known whether the baby was alive when it was left at the scene.

...

"The answer undoubtedly lies somewhere in the community and I want to ask the Bolton community as a whole whether they know of anyone who may have tried to conceal a birth or who recently have been pregnant but now is without a baby or appears withdrawn, upset or in physical discomfort," she added.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55040
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Understanding Islamic Society

Postby ramana » 17 Mar 2013 02:03

Explaining the Denial
Denying Islam's Role in Terror

by Daniel Pipes
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013, pp. 3-12 (view PDF)

http://www.meforum.org/3466/islam-terrorism-denial
Print Send RSS Share: Facebook Twitter Google +1
Be the first of your friends to like this.

Over three years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009, the classification of his crime remains in dispute. In its wisdom, the Department of Defense, supported by law enforcement, politicians, journalists, and academics, deems the killing of thirteen and wounding of forty-three to be "workplace violence." For example, the 86-page study on preventing a repeat episode, Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, mentions "workplace violence" sixteen times.[1]

Indeed, were the subject not morbid, one could be amused by the disagreement over what exactly caused the major to erupt. Speculations included "racism" against him, "harassment he had received as a Muslim," his "sense of not belonging," "mental problems," "emotional problems," "an inordinate amount of stress," the "worst nightmare" of his being deployed to Afghanistan, or something fancifully called "pre-traumatic stress disorder." One newspaper headline, "Mindset of Rogue Major a Mystery," sums up this bogus state of confusion.[2]

U.S. officials' denials of Islam's role in terrorism might be humorous if they were not so frightening. During congressional testimony in May 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly sparred with his congressional questioners over the possible part played by "radical Islam" in inciting the actions of domestic terrorists and refused to acknowledge its decisive role.
In contrast, members of congress ridiculed the "workplace violence" characterization and a coalition of 160 victims and family members recently released a video, "The Truth about Fort Hood," criticizing the administration. On the third anniversary of the massacre, 148 victims and family members sued the U.S. government for avoiding legal and financial responsibility by not acknowledging the incident as terrorism.[3]

The military leadership willfully ignores what stares them in the face, namely Hasan's clear and evident Islamist inspiration; Protecting the Force mentions "Muslim" and "jihad" not a single time, and "Islam" only once, in a footnote.[4] The massacre officially still remains unconnected to terrorism or Islam.

This example fits in a larger pattern: The establishment denies that Islamism—a form of Islam that seeks to make Muslims dominant through an extreme, totalistic, and rigid application of Islamic law, the Shari'a—represents the leading global cause of terrorism when it so clearly does. Islamism reverts to medieval norms in its aspiration to create a caliphate that rules humanity. "Islam is the solution" summarizes its doctrine. Islam's public law can be summarized as elevating Muslim over non-Muslim, male over female, and endorsing the use of force to spread Muslim rule. In recent decades, Islamists (the adherents of this vision of Islam) have established an unparalleled record of terrorism. To cite one tabulation: TheReligionOfPeace.com counts 20,000 assaults in the name of Islam since 9/11,[5] or about five a day. In the West, terrorist acts inspired by motives other than Islam hardly register.

It is important to document and explain this denial and explore its implications. The examples come predominantly from the United States, though they could come from virtually any Western country—except Israel.
Documenting Denial

The government, press, and academy routinely deny that Islamist motives play a role in two ways, specific and general. Specific acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims lead the authorities publicly, willfully, and defiantly to close their eyes to Islamist motivations and goals. Instead, they point to a range of trivial, one-time, and individualistic motives, often casting the perpetrator as victim. Examples from the years before and after 9/11 include:

* 1990 assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York: "A prescription drug for … depression."[6]
* 1991 murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney: "A robbery gone wrong."
* 1993 murder of Reverend Doug Good in Western Australia: An "unintentional killing."
* 1993 attack on foreigners at a hotel in Cairo, killing ten: Insanity.[7]
* 1994 killing of a Hasidic Jew on the Brooklyn Bridge: "Road rage."[8]
* 1997 shooting murder atop the Empire State Building: "Many, many enemies in his mind."[9]
* 2000 attack on a bus of Jewish schoolchildren near Paris: A traffic incident.
* 2002 plane crash into a Tampa high-rise by an Osama bin Laden-admiring Arab-American (but non-Muslim): The acne drug Accutane.[10]
* 2002 double murder at LAX: "A work dispute."[11]
* 2002 Beltway snipers: A "stormy [family] relationship."[12]
* 2003 Hasan Karim Akbar's attack on fellow soldiers, killing two: An "attitude problem."[13]
* 2003 mutilation murder of Sebastian Sellam: Mental illness.[14]
* 2004 explosion in Brescia, Italy, outside a McDonald's restaurant: "Loneliness and depression."[15]
* 2005 rampage at a retirement center in Virginia: "A disagreement between the suspect and another staff member."[16]
* 2006 murderous rampage at the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle: "An animus toward women."[17]
* 2006 killing by a man in an SUV in northern California: "His recent, arranged marriage may have made him stressed."[18]

This pattern of denial is all the more striking because it concerns distinctly Islamic forms of violence such as suicide operations, beheadings, honor killings and the disfiguring of women's faces. For example, when it comes to honor killings, Phyllis Chesler has established that this phenomenon differs from domestic violence and, in Western countries, is almost always perpetrated by Muslims.[19] Such proofs, however, do not convince the establishment, which tends to filter Islam out of the equation.

The generalized threat inspires more denial. Politicians and others avoid mention of Islam, Islamism, Muslims, Islamists, mujahideen, or jihadists. Instead, they blame evildoers, militants, radical extremists, terrorists, and al-Qaeda. Just one day after 9/11, U.S. secretary of state Colin Powell set the tone by asserting that the just-committed atrocities "should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists."[20]

Another tactic is to obscure Islamist realities under the fog of verbiage. George W. Bush referred once to "the great struggle against extremism that is now playing out across the broader Middle East"[21] and another time to "the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies and who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."[22] He went so far as to dismiss any Islamic element by asserting that "Islam is a great religion that preaches peace."[23]

In like spirit, Barack Obama observed that "it is very important for us to recognize that we have a battle or a war against some terrorist organizations, but that those organizations aren't representative of a broader Arab community, Muslim community."[24] Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, engaged in the following exchange with Lamar Smith (Republican, Tex.) during congressional testimony in May 2010, repeatedly resisting a connection between Islamist motives and a spate of terrorist attacks:

Smith: In the case of all three [terrorist] attempts in the last year, … one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam. Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?

Holder: Because of?

Smith: Radical Islam.

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. It's one, I think you have to look at each individual case. I mean, we are in the process now of talking to Mr. [Feisal] Shahzad to try to understand what it is that drove him to take the action.

Smith: Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people ...

Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do things. Some of them are potentially religious...[25]

And on and on Holder persisted, until Smith eventually gave up. And this was not exceptional: An almost identical denial took place in December 2011 by a senior official from the Department of Defense.[26]

Or one can simply ignore the Islamist element; a study issued by the Department of Homeland Security, "Evolution of the Terrorist Threat to the United States," mentions Islam just one time. In September 2010, Obama spoke at the United Nations and, using a passive construction, avoided all mention of Islam in reference to 9/11: "Nine years ago, the destruction of the World Trade Center signaled a threat that respected no boundary of dignity or decency."[27] About the same time, Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, stated that the profiles of Americans engaged in terrorism indicate that "there is no 'typical' profile of a homegrown terrorist."[28]

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, rightly condemns this mentality as "two plus two must equal something other than four."[29]
Exceptions to Denial

Exceptions to this pattern do exist; establishment figures on occasion drop their guard and acknowledge the Islamist threat to the civilized world. Gingrich himself delivered a uniquely well-informed speech on Shari'a in 2010, noting, "This is not a war on terrorism. Terrorism is an activity. This is a struggle with radical Islamists in both their militant and their stealth form."[30]

British prime minister Tony Blair offered a stirring and eloquent analysis in 2006:

This is war, but of a completely unconventional kind. … What are the values that govern the future of the world? Are they those of tolerance, freedom, respect for difference and diversity or those of reaction, division and hatred? … It is in part a struggle between what I will call Reactionary Islam and Moderate, Mainstream Islam. But its implications go far wider. We are fighting a war, but not just against terrorism but about how the world should govern itself in the early 21st century, about global values.[31]

The current British prime minister, David Cameron, gave a fine analysis in 2005, long before he reached his current office:

The driving force behind today's terrorist threat is Islamist fundamentalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological. During the last century a strain of Islamist thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence.[32]

In 2011, as prime minister, Cameron returned to this theme when he warned that "we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie. That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism."[33]

The former foreign minister of the Czech Republic, Alexandr Vondra, spoke his mind with remarkable frankness:

Radical Islamists challenge practically everything that our society claims to stand for, no matter what the Western policies were or are. These challenges include the concept of universal human rights and freedom of speech.[34]

George W. Bush spoke in the period after October 2005 about "Islamo-fascism" and "Islamic fascists." Joseph Lieberman, the U.S. senator from Connecticut, criticized those who refuse "to identify our enemy in this war as what it is: violent Islamist extremism"[35] and sponsored an excellent Senate study on Maj. Hasan. Rick Santorum, then a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, gave a notable analysis:

In World War II, we fought Naziism and Japanese imperialism. Today, we are fighting against Islamic fascists. They attacked us on September 11th because we are the greatest obstacle to their openly declared mission of subjecting the entire world to their fanatical rule. I believe that the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from Nazism and Soviet Communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose.[36]

Antonin Scalia, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, observed in an opinion that "America is at war with radical Islamists."[37] A New York Police Department study, Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat, discusses "Islamic-based terrorism" in its first line and never lets up. It contains explicit references to Islamism; it states, "Ultimately, the jihadist envisions a world in which jihadi-Salafi Islam is dominant and is the basis of government."[38]

So, reality does on occasion poke through the fog of denial and verbiage.
The Mystery of Denial

These exceptions aside, what accounts for the persistent denial of Islamic motives? Why the pretense that no elephant fills the room? An unwillingness to face the truth invariably smacks of euphemism, cowardice, political correctness, and appeasement. In this spirit, Gingrich argues that "the Obama Administration is willfully blind to the nature of our enemies and the forces which threaten America. … it's not ignorance; it's determined effort to avoid [reality]."[39]

These problems definitely contribute to denial, but something more basic and more legitimate goes further to explain this reluctance. One hint comes from a 2007 Ph.D. dissertation in politics submitted by Gaetano Ilardi to Monash University in Melbourne. Titled "From the IRA to Al Qa'eda: Intelligence as a Measure of Rational Action in Terrorist Operations," it refers frequently to Islam and related topics; Ilardi has also been quoted in the press on the topic of radicalization. Yet in 2009, as acting senior sergeant of the Victoria police, he was the most vociferous of his twenty law enforcement colleagues insisting to this author that the police not publicly mention Islam in any fashion when discussing terrorism. In other words, wanting not to refer to Islam can come from someone who knows full well the role of Islam.

Confirming this point, Daniel Benjamin, the Obama administration's coordinator for counterterrorism in the U.S. State Department, explicitly refutes the idea that silence about Islam means being unaware of it:

Policymakers fully recognize how al Qaeda's ideologues have appropriated Islamic texts and concepts and fashioned them into a mantle of religious legitimacy for their bloodshed. As someone who has written at length about how al Qaeda and the radical groups that preceded it have picked and chosen from sacred texts, often out of all context, I have no doubt my colleagues understand the nature of the threat.[40]

Ilardi and Benjamin know their stuff; they avoid discussing Islam in connection with terrorism for reasons deeper than political correctness, ignorance, or appeasement. What are those reasons? Two factors have key importance: wanting not to alienate Muslims or to reorder society.
Explaining Denial

Not wanting to offend Muslims, a sincere and reasonable goal, is the reason most often publicly cited. Muslims protest that focusing on Islam, Islamism, or jihad increases Muslim fears that the West is engaged in a "war against Islam." Joseph Lieberman, for example, notes that the Obama administration prefers not to use the term "violent Islamist extremists" when referring to the enemy because using such explicit words "bolsters our enemy's propaganda claim that the West is at war with Islam."[41]

Questioned in an interview about his having only once used the term "war on terror," Barack Obama confirmed this point, stating that "words matter in this situation because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle is through the battle of hearts and minds." Asked, "So that's not a term you're going to be using much in the future?" he replied:

You know, what I want to do is make sure that I'm constantly talking about al Qaeda and other affiliated organizations because we, I believe, can win over moderate Muslims to recognize that that kind of destruction and nihilism ultimately leads to a dead end, and that we should be working together to make sure that everybody has got a better life.[42]

Daniel Benjamin makes the same point more lucidly:

Putting the emphasis on "Islamist" instead of on "violent extremist" undercuts our efforts, since it falsely roots the core problem in the faith of more than one billion people who abhor violence. As one internal government study after another has shown, such statements invariably wind up being distorted in the global media, alienating Muslim moderates.[43]

This concern actually has two sub-parts for two types of Muslims: Those who would otherwise help fight terrorism feel insulted ("a true Muslim can never be a terrorist") and so do not step forward while those who would not normally be involved become radicalized, some even becoming terrorists.

The second reason to inhibit one's talk about Islam concerns the apprehension that this implies a large and undesirable shift away from how secular Western societies are ordered. Blaming terrorist attacks on drugs gone awry, road rage, an arranged marriage, mental cases going berserk, or freak industrial accidents permits Westerners to avoid confronting issues concerning Islam. If the jihad explanation is vastly more persuasive, it is also far more troubling.

When one notes that Islamist terrorism is almost exclusively the work of Muslims acting out of Islamic convictions, the implication follows that Muslims must be singled out for special scrutiny, perhaps along the lines this author suggested in 2003:

Muslim government employees in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps need to be watched for connections to terrorism, as do Muslim chaplains in prisons and the armed forces. Muslim visitors and immigrants must undergo additional background checks. Mosques require a scrutiny beyond that applied to churches and temples.[44]

Implementing such a policy means focusing law enforcement attention on a community that is defined by its religion. This flies in the face of liberal, multicultural, and politically correct values; it also will be portrayed as illegal and perhaps unconstitutional. It means distinguishing on the basis of a person's group characteristics. It involves profiling. These changes have unsettling implications that will be condemned as "racist" and "Islamophobic," accusations that can ruin careers in today's public environment.

Islam-related explanations may offer a more persuasive accounting than turning perpetrators into victims, but the imperative not to tamper with existing social mores trumps counterterrorism. This accounts for police, prosecutors, politicians, and professors avoiding the actual factors behind Islamist attacks and instead finding miscellaneous mundane motives. Those soothing and inaccurate bromides have the advantage of implying no changes other than vigilance against weapons. Dealing with unpleasant realities can be deferred.

Finally, denial appears to work. Just because law enforcement, the military, and intelligence agencies tiptoe around the twin topics of Islamic motivation and the disproportionate Islamist terrorism when addressing the public does not stop these same institutions in practice from focusing quietly on Islam and Muslims. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that they do just this, and it has led to an effective counterterrorism effort since 9/11 with close scrutiny on everything from mosques to hawalas (informal Muslim financial exchanges). As a result, with rare exceptions (such as the Fort Hood shooter), Islamist terrorist networks tend to be stymied and successful assaults tend to come out of nowhere from perpetrators characterized by sudden jihad syndrome.
Arguing against Denial

While respecting the urge not to aggravate Muslim sensibilities and acknowledging that the frank discussion of Islam can have major consequences for ordering society, this author insists on the need to mention Islam. First, it is not clear how much harm talking about Islam actually does. Genuine anti-Islamist Muslims insist on Islam being discussed; Islamists posing as moderates tend to be those who feign upset about a "war on Islam" and the like.

Second, little evidence points to Muslims being radicalized by mere discussion of Islamism. Quite the contrary, it is usually something specific that turns a Muslim in that direction, from the way American women dress to drone attacks in Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan.

Third, while conceding that discussion of Islam has costs, ignoring it costs more. The need to define the enemy, not just within the counsels of war but for the public, trumps all other considerations. As the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu observed, "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles." Karl von Clausewitz's entire theory of war assumes an accurate assessment of the enemy. Just as a medical doctor must identify and name a disease before treating it, so must politicians and generals identify and name the enemy to defeat it.

To censor oneself limits one's ability to wage war. Avoiding mention of the enemy's identity sows confusion, harms morale, and squanders strengths. In brief, it offers a recipe for defeat. Indeed, the annals of history record no war won when the enemy's very name and identity may not be uttered; this is all the more so in modern times when defining the enemy must precede and undergird military victory. If you cannot name the enemy, you cannot defeat him.

Fourth, even though law enforcement et al. find that saying one thing in public while doing another in private works, this dishonesty comes at the high price of creating a disconnect between the high-flying words of politicians and the sometimes sordid realities of counterterrorism:

* Government employees at risk: On the one hand, out of fear of being exposed, public servants must hide or lie about their activities. On the other, to do their work effectively, they must run afoul of studiously impartial government regulations, or even break the law.
* A confused public: Policy statements piously reject any link between Islam and terrorism even as counterterrorism implicitly makes just such a connection.
* Advantage Islamists: They (1) point out that government declarations are mere puffery hiding what is really a war against Islam; and (2) win Muslim recruits by asking them whom they believe, straight-talking Islamists or insincere politicians.
* "Security theater" and other pantomimes: To convince observers that Muslims are not specifically targeted, others are hauled in for show purposes, wasting finite time and resources.[45]
* An increase in resentments and prejudices: People keep their mouths shut but their minds are working. An open public discussion, in which one could condemn Islamists while supporting moderate Muslims, would lead to a better understanding of the problem.
* Vigilance discouraged: The campaign of "If You See Something, Say Something" is fine but what are the costs of reporting dubious behavior by a neighbor or a passenger who turns out to be innocent? Although vigilant neighbors have been an important source of counterterrorism leads, anyone who reports his worries opens himself up to vilification as a racist or "Islamophobe," damage to one's career, or even a law suit.[46]

Thus does the unwillingness to acknowledge the Islamist motives behind most terrorism obstruct effective counterterrorism and render further atrocities more likely.
When Denial Will End

Denial is likely to continue until the price gets too steep. The 3,000 victims of 9/11, it turns out, did not suffice to shake Western complacency. 30,000 dead, in all likelihood, will also not suffice. Perhaps 300,000 will. For sure, three million will. At that point, worries about Muslim sensibilities and fear of being called an "Islamophobe" will fade into irrelevance, replaced by a single-minded determination to protect lives. Should the existing order someday be in evident danger, today's relaxed approach will instantly go out the window. The popular support for such measures exists; as early as 2004, a Cornell University poll showed that 44 percent of Americans "believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans."[47]

Israel offers a control case. Because it faces so many threats, the body politic lacks patience with liberal pieties when it comes to security. While aspiring to treat everyone fairly, the government clearly targets the most violent-prone elements of society. Should other Western countries face a comparable danger, circumstances will likely compel them to adopt this same approach.

Conversely, should such mass dangers not arise, this shift will probably never take place. Until and unless disaster on a large scale strikes, denial will continue. Western tactics, in other words, depend entirely on the brutality and competence of the Islamist enemy. Ironically, the West permits terrorists to drive its approach to counterterrorism. No less ironically, it will take a huge terrorist atrocity to enable effective counterterrorism.
Addressing Denial

In the meantime, those who wish to strengthen counterterrorism by acknowledging the role of Islam have three tasks.

First, intellectually to prepare themselves and their arguments so when calamity occurs they possess a fully elaborated, careful, and just program that focuses on Muslims without doing injustice to them.

Second, continue to convince those averse to mentioning Islam that discussing it is worth the price; this means addressing their concerns, not bludgeoning them with insults. It means accepting the legitimacy of their hesitance, using sweet reason, and letting the barrage of Islamist attacks have their effect.

Third, prove that talking about Islamism does not lead to perdition by establishing the costs of not naming the enemy and of not identifying Islamism as a factor; noting that Muslim governments, including the Saudi one, acknowledge that Islamism leads to terrorism; stressing that moderate Muslims who oppose Islamism want Islamism openly discussed; addressing the fear that frank talk about Islam alienates Muslims and spurs violence; and demonstrating that profiling can be done in a constitutionally approved way.

In brief, even without an expectation of effecting a change in policy, there is much work to be done.

Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum. He initially delivered this paper at the Institute for Counter-Terrorism in Herzliya, Israel.

[1] Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., Jan. 2010.
[2] The Australian (Sydney), Nov. 7, 2009.
[3] Associated Press, Nov. 5, 2012.
[4] Protecting the Force: Lessons from Fort Hood, p. 18, fn. 22.
[5] "List of Islamic Terror Attacks," TheReligionOfPeace.com, accessed Dec. 19, 2012.
[6] The New York Times, Nov. 9. 1990.
[7] The Independent (London), Sept. 19, 1997.
[8] Uriel Heilman, "Murder on the Brooklyn Bridge," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2001, pp. 29-37.
[9] The Houston Chronicle, Feb. 26, 1997.
[10] Time Magazine, Jan. 21, 2002.
[11] "Terror in LA?" Honest Reporting (Toronto), July 8, 2002.
[12] Los Angeles Times, Oct. 26, 2002.
[13] Daniel Pipes, "Murder in the 101st Airborne," The New York Post, Mar. 25, 2003.
[14] Brett Kline, "Two Sons of France," The Jerusalem Post Magazine, Jan. 21, 2010.
[15] "Italy: McDonald's Jihad Foiled," Jihad Watch, Mar. 30, 2004.
[16] The Washington Post, Jan. 11, 2005.
[17] Los Angeles Times, July 30, 2006.
[18] San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 30, 2006.
[19] Phyllis Chesler, "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, pp. 61-9.
[20] Dateline, NBC, Sept. 21, 2001.
[21] Remarks, The Islamic Center of Washington, D.C., June 27, 2007.
[22] Remarks, UNITY 2004 Conference, Washington D.C., Aug. 6, 2004.
[23] Al-Arabiya News Channel (Dubai), Oct. 5, 2007.
[24] Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Feb. 3, 2009.
[25] Testimony before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Washington, D.C., May 13, 2010.
[26] Testimony before the U.S. House Committee for Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 2011.
[27] Remarks, U.N. General Assembly, New York, Sept. 23, 2010.
[28] "Nine Years after 9/11: Confronting the Terrorist Threat to the Homeland," statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Washington, D.C., Sept. 22, 2010.
[29] Newt Gingrich, "America Is at Risk," American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., July 29, 2010.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, Aug. 1, 2006.
[32] Speech at the Foreign Policy Centre, London, Aug. 25, 2005.
[33] Munich Security Conference, Feb. 5, 2011.
[34] Alexandr Vondra, "Radical Islam Poses a Major Challenge to Europe," Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2007, pp. 66-8.
[35] Joseph Lieberman, "Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?" The Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2010.
[36] "The Great Test of This Generation," speech to the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., National Review Online, July 20, 2006.
[37] Scalia J., dissenting, Lakhdar Boumediene, et al., Petitioners, Supreme Court of the United States v. George W. Bush, President of the United States, et al.; Khaled A. F. Al Odah, next friend of Fawzikhalid Abdullah Fahad Al Odah, et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al., June 12, 2008.
[38] New York: 2007, p. 8.
[39] Gingrich, "America Is at Risk."
[40] Daniel Benjamin, "Name It and Claim It, or Name It and Inflame It?" The Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
[41] Lieberman, "Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?"
[42] Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees, Feb. 3, 2009.
[43] Benjamin, "Name It and Claim It, or Name It and Inflame It?"
[44] Daniel Pipes, "The Enemy Within and the Need for Profiling," The New York Post, Jan. 24, 2003.
[45] Daniel Pipes, "Security Theater Now Playing at Your Airport," The Jerusalem Post, Jan. 6, 2010.
[46] M. Zuhdi Jasser, "Exposing the 'Flying Imams,'" Middle East Quarterly, Winter 2008, pp. 3-11.
[47] "Fear Factor," Cornell News (Ithaca), Dec. 17, 2004.

Related Topics: Terrorism | Daniel Pipes | Spring 2013 MEQ This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Neela and 32 guests