Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Two Ang Mos claim that ISIS is Islamic

Two Ang Mos claim that ISIS is Islamic, so that they can pursue the thing that Ben Affleck spoke out against.

Obama Is Wrong That ISIS Is 'Not Islamic'

Alastair Crooke
Fmr. MI-6 agent; Author, 'Resistance: The Essence of Islamic Revolution'


"We are fighting an ideology, not a regime." - U.S. Secretary Of State John Kerry
"Now let's make two things clear: ISIL is not 'Islamic.' No religion condones the killing of innocents, and the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al-Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria's civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way." - U.S. President Barack Obama

Let us be plain: President Obama's (and Kerry's) basic premise that America and its allies are fighting a deviant, un-Islamic ideology, which must, and can be delegitimized by gathering together the Sunni Arab world to pronounce it "un-Islamic," simply underlines how little they "know" about ISIS -- with which they are about to go to war.

There is no "true Islam" in Islam. There has never been any central "authority" in Islam that could define such a thing. For better or worse (mostly for the better), Islam wears many faces. But paradoxically, there is one contemporary orientation that does make the big claim of being "true Islam": Wahhabism.

As Professor As'ad AbuKhalil notes:
"What Mohammed Ibn 'Abdul-Wahab insisted upon -- and what is followers today insist upon -- is that men with the sword judge on behalf of God here on earth, and on all matters, small and big. This is where the Saudi Kingdom and ISIS fit. They are outside the boundaries of mainstream Islam, in that they refuse to even concede that they speak as representatives of a sect. Wahhabis (of all stripes) protest to even the name of Wahhabis: we are only Muslims, they assert; i.e. they alone are Muslim and everyone else is a kafir [unbeliever] who should be fought as ancient pagans at the time of Mohammad. Wahhabis claim that they represent the 'true Islam' when the strength of Islam throughout the ages is that there is no such thing as 'the true Islam.'"
So the only claim to being "true Islam" is that proclaimed by Saudi Arabia -- and asserted by ISIS, too. Just to be clear, this joint claim derives from them both sharing the same doctrinal foundation: - ╩┐Abd al-Wahhab's key text, The Book of Monotheism.

ISIS, in short, is as Wahhabist -- or more so -- as the Saudi King, Abdullah. There is here, surely, a delicious irony in Obama and Kerry taking upon their shoulders the task of seeking the "delegitimization" of the very doctrine from which the Saudi kingdom is derived.

So, the only upholder of "true Islam" and custodian of Mecca happens to share the "same" Islam as ISIS. How can King Abdullah then denounce it? And how could any Muslim, familiar with the issues, take any such denunciation -- were it to be made -- seriously?


John Kerry would be right if he said al Qaeda is an ideology and not a regime. But he is wrong about ISIS. Unlike al Qaeda which only had an "idea," ISIS has a clear purpose: to establish God's "principality" here and now. It has a doctrine for how to bring such a state into existence (drawn from the wars launched to establish the original Islamic State); it holds a territory greater in size than that of Great Britain; it has large financial resources; it has a handsomely equipped army (courtesy of the U.S., the U.K. and others), one that is led by competent commanders; and it has a leader who, many find, spoke well (on the one occasion that he has appeared publicly).

In brief, this development (the "Islamic State") may be much more serious, be more grounded, and have much wider appeal than western bluster about "thugs" and "mindless killers" would imply.


A number of Gulf and Arab states have signed up with Washington to fight ISIS, but only because they plan to insert a Trojan Horse into the "war" agenda.

Their troops hidden in the belly of the wooden "horse" are gathered -- not to fight ISIS -- but to fight a quite different war. They want to turn it into a renewed offensive against President Assad and Syria. Indeed, at their preliminary summit in Jeddah, the Arab States agreed to a new Arab security architecture that would subvert the "war on ISIS" into war not just on ISIS, but also on President Assad and all Islamists (plainly they hope to pull the West into a larger war with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.). Leading Saudi commentator, Jamal Khashoggi made the Saudi plan clear in a recent op-ed:

"We can thus say that eliminating ISIS also calls for the elimination of Assad ... The operation must target Moscow's ally in Damascus and topple him or pave the way to toppling him. Perhaps this is the logical explanation as to why Saudi Arabia approved training camps for the moderate Syrian opposition. It's tantamount to declaring an indirect war on the Syrian regime ... The Jeddah alliance is everyone's opportunity for a new beginning. It is not limited to its immediate task of eliminating ISIS but also includes the possibility of expanding towards reforming the situation in Iraq and Syria."
America's position is the nuanced one that it will not "coordinate" with Damascus, but, it will "deconflict" (Kerry's words) with it.

Syria's armed forces demonstrably have militarily effectiveness, and America knows it -- and the only other game in town (as its expression goes), is ISIS. So, America, it seems, has conceded -- as a sop in order to keep the Gulf engaged -- to some Saudi diversion of the "war against ISIS" into a war, retargeted, to unseat President Assad.

This reorientation sits comfortably with the Gulf exculpatory narrative that ISIS is no armed neo-Wahhabist vanguard movement, but merely a natural Sunni "reaction" that arose out of Assad's and former Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki's sectarian policies.

Saudi Arabia will -- as its contribution to defeating ISIS -- then train and arm 5,000 "moderate" Syrian oppositionists to return to Syria. The U.S. understands full well that its (and its Saudi sponsor's) objective will be to bring down Assad -- and not to fight ISIS (with whom the Syrian "moderates" reportedly coordinate in battle and have a non-aggression pact).

Syria's army is 130,000 strong, plus a further 100,000 auxiliaries. It is not likely that Saudi's Syrian brigades -- which have had a dismal record so far -- will bring down President Assad, but they will make U.S. policy incoherent and Syria more bloodstained.

If there are two main protagonists in Syria -- the Syrian Army and ISIS -- then America has no choice: It must prefer Assad, but it cannot be seen to be doing so, without offending Saudi Arabia. So America enters the conflict with one arm tied behind its back (by its own Gulf allies).

In ISIS' strategically important Syrian backyard, America has no visible and direct partner -- indeed, as former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and Syria Ryan Crocker commented: "We need to do everything we can to figure out who the non-ISIS [Syrian] opposition is. Frankly, we don't have a clue" -- but can only work with Assad in a deniable and indirect way (which it is doing).

But the U.S. cannot really hope to prevail against ISIS in such a convoluted manner -- and with its Gulf allies (and many American think tank allies, too -- see here, here and here) trying to muddy the waters by inserting their own Saudi-trained "moderate" army in order to weaken Assad at the same time that America is "deconflicting" with him.


Even in Iraq, the anti-ISIS coalition limitations will become more clear. Air attacks will become perceived not as attacks on ISIS but as attacks on the very Sunni communities into which it has merged and melted away. (The Iraqi government already has had to halt such strikes for this reason).

The Iraqi Shiite will defend their territories with utmost vigor, but may well choose to stay aloof from entering the Euphrates Valley with its long history as a militant Sunni heartland. Baghdad will not wish to pursue the war into a full-court sectarian conflict, and the Peshmerga will have neither the capability nor the will to do more than protect their own communities. In sum, ISIS may find that there is actually a notable lack of regional will to repair the fracture of Iraq -- but instead a will that seeks to contain it as is.


Is the Islamic State a threat then? It is worth recalling that -- unlike al Qaeda -- ISIS' primary aim is not so much to provoke America into an overreaction and self-implosion (as Bin Laden thought the Afghan war had done to the Soviet Union).

ISIS is not, of course, indifferent towards America, but it's primordial focus rather, is on founding God's Principality on earth, and instituting God's Law. It is not surprising then, that U.S. officials say that there is no present threat to the U.S. homeland.

ISIS is about seizing territory militarily, securing its frontiers, eliminating idolatry and heresy and physically establishing a Caliphate.

Obama is wrong: Ten Koranic verses that prove ISIS is Islam


September 11, 2014 

President Barack Obama took to the airwaves Wednesday to announce his non-strategy strategy for dealing with ISIS.

ISIS is that “JV” group of terrorists that Obama and other apologists claim is “not Islam.”

After six years of lies and distortions from the “Islamic-Lite” White House, nothing could be further from the truth. Muslims tell non-Muslims to read the Koran to find out just how un-Islamic ISIS really is.

Most Muslims know that non-believers will not actually read the Koran, but just to show how wrong they are, following are ten direct quotes from the book which is said by all Muslims to be the “revealed word of Allah through the Prophet Muhammad.”

Pre-verse notes: Islam is ambiguous. So is the Koran. One reason analysts have difficulties comprehending the president is because he, too, is ambiguous. It is part of his Islamic Indonesian upbringing. Therefore, black is white, left is right, up is down and so on.

The Koran is not chronological. Chapters written in Medina, during Muhammad’s time as a warrior, are mingled with the prophet’s time in Mecca when he was peaceful.

Islamic clerics will tell you that the Koran cannot be translated, it can only be interpreted. That is also Islamic mumbo-jumbo which means that only imams can make the words say what they true mean. In other words, they can say anything the clerics want them to say.

[True. Which is why Islamic "interpretation is always subject to consensus, and no single imam, or cleric, or self-declared Caliph, can speak for all Muslims “without consensus from all Muslims". Of course this does not apply to non-Muslims, hence Bob Taylor presumes his right to speak for the Muslims, or declare that ISIS is Islam. ]

With those clarifications in mind, here are ten verses taken from the N.J. Daewood translation of the Koran which is said to be one of the most accurate translations. Verses are listed in numerical order except for the last which is the most important of the ten.

Judge for yourself how “un-Islamic” ISIS really is.

Koran 3:32 “The day will surely come when each soul will be confronted with whatever good it did. As for its evil deeds, it will wish they were a long way off. God admonishes you to fear Him. God is compassionate toward His servants.” ISIS believes they are God’s servants.

Koran 4:24 This verse requires explanation before reading. In 630, toward the end of Muhammad’s life, the Muslims won a major defensive victory in the Battle of Autas. Following the battle, Muhammad’s warriors wanted to know whether it was justified to have sex with their captive women since the women were married. Conveniently Muhammad had one of his “revelations” and said it was acceptable and justified because the women were victims of war.

“Surely God is forgiving and merciful. Also married women, except those you own as slaves. Such is the decree of God.”

Koran 5:33 “Those that make war against God and his Apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides or be banished from the land.”

Koran 9:5 This is one of the most frequently quoted verses in the Koran. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them. Besiege them, and lie in ambush for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.”

Koran 9:8 The reference here is to what we term today as “moderate Muslims.” “How can you trust them? If they prevail against you, they will respect neither agreements nor ties of kindred. They flatter you with their tongues, but their hearts reject you. Most of them are evil-doers.”

Koran 9:29 “Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.”

Koran 9:73 We often hear the argument that Muslims also kill Muslims. This verse justifies such killing. “Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Muslims can also be “unbelievers” if their own beliefs do not conform with those of the Muslims who are in power.

Koran 47:35 “Therefore do not falter or sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand. God is on your side and will not grudge you the recompense of your labors. The life of this world is but a sport and a diversion.”

Koran 47:29 “Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. You see them worshipping on their knees, seeking the grace of God and His good will. Their marks are on their faces, the traces of their prostrations.”

The final verse is taken out of order because it is a key element to understanding the so-called “peace verses” of the Koran. It has to do with abrogation which simply means that if the prophet changes his mind and comes up with a solution to a problem that is better than the original, then the new solution takes precedence. This occurs throughout the Koran and more often than not justifies the war passages over the peaceful ones.

Koran 2:106 “If we abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten, we will replace it by a better one or one similar.”

Call it the “rule of convenience.” How many times have we seen Barack Obama incorporate the same strategy during his presidency?

These are the actual words of the Koran. They speak for themselves. To say that ISIS is not Islam is denial of the first order.

[Extract from the other post:
“It is not permissible to quote a verse, or part of a verse, without thoroughly considering and comprehending everything that the [Koran] and Hadith relate about that point,” ]
The bigger the lie, the better President Obama likes it. Oh, and by the way, you can keep your own doctor, too.

Bob Taylor has been traveling the world for more than 30 years as a writer and award winning television producer focusing on international events, people and cultures around the globe.

[So who gets to decide what is or is not Islam? 

Obama? Because his middle name is "Hussein"?

Alistair Crooke? Because he is a former MI6 and has a book to sell? 

Bob Taylor because he can quote Koran?

Or Muslim Scholars? Because, well, they are Muslim Scholars? And they wrote an open letter to ISIS explaining why ISIS is wrong and un-Islamic?]

No comments: