By WILLIAM MAYER
July 15, 2013 – San Francisco, CA – PipeLineNews.org – A language war has been and continues to be waged at the highest levels of the national security institutional apparatus, the DOJ and the rest of government. In a more inclusive sense this has also taken place throughout the Western world.
The CIC has deliberately cut the eyes out of those who are tasked with protecting America from external and internal threat.
The institutions being targeted are those which define and create our culture. This concept of change from the indisde out isn't new. For example it was recognized and championed by leftist intellectuals such as Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was a 1930s era Italian Communist theoretician who spent considerable time in Mussolini’s prisons for sedition. Of course neither Mussolini nor Gramsci were at all comfortable with non-totalitarian rule. Gramsci had extraordinary perceptual insights into how customs, language, religion/belief structures etc., might be forcibly changed, pushed as it were in a direction that the culture would not normally have taken under its own inertia.
It was his hypothesis, since proven entirely correct, that if the culture wasn't friendly to a particullar ideology [Marxism in his case] then specific techniques ccould be put into play in order to make the common man aware of his existence as a member of the proletariat, a claimed oppressed class, and the workers' supposedly miserable plight and status in life.
If this project succeeded then the proles would welcome and end even foster the revolution. Examples of the institutions to which we he referred included tje legal and judicial systems, legislative bodies,, the bureaucracy, entertainment industry, the educational aristocracy, religious organizations and the mass media among others.
Metaphorically, this is a game of Texas No-Limit Hold’em poker being played with the highest stakes imaginable with the future of the U.S. and Europe in the balance. In this massive gambit, a single misplayed hand could permanently obliteration, what we treasure most, the freedom and liberty guaranteed by out secular republican democracy..
Below, from an August 28, 2012 piece:
"…The Italian Communist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci, in the early part of the 20th century, identified the process of cultural transformation, which is entirely what the left is about, as "marching through the institutions," slowly taking over the mechanisms whereby culture is created and molded; the print and electronic news media, the arts, the law, the universities, government, organized religion...nothing that contributes to the nature of a society is left untouched by this process.
When this happens we are bound up in Dostoevsky's contention, a truism it seems, that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.
This is a rejection of the concept of revealed truth, of immutable moral precepts which originate at a level above man's existence. Under this construction both Judaism and Christianity entirely lose their ability to provide guidance in human affairs.
Why not kill, or covet your neighbor's wife or goods. Why set aside a time of contemplation of things larger than yourself?" [source William Mayer, The Sound of Silence Screaming - The West's Cultural Malaise and its Bearing on Resisting External Threat, PipeLineNews.org]
But what does this have to do with Islam?
From the waning days of the GW Bush administration and with a far greater degree of zealotry, bleeding into the years of Team Obama’s looming tyranny, no effort has been spared in "sanitizing" the government’s bureaucratic language with an eye towards permanent burial of any negative reference to Islam’s many defective attributes. In many ways this is an example of a self-imposed Shari’a compliance, keeping in mind that "insulting" Islam or its prophet are grave offenses under Islamic law. In a very concrete way removing Islam from the terrorism equation renders the term impossible to understand in a contextual manner.
PipeLineNews has covered this matter extensively, in a 2011 piece we noted:
"…To see how far this mindset of censorship has progressed, consider that on November 9, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on DOJ's now infamous gun running program "Fast and Furious," Senator Dick Durbin [D-IL] directed the following to AG Eric Holder, 'we have found that the FBI agents who were given counter terrorism training were unfortunately subjected to many stereotypes of Islam and Muslims, for example FBI agents in training were told...If nothing else, the similarity between Durbin's question to the AG and Ackerman's post is a remarkable coincidence isn't it?
'Islam is a highly violent radical religion
Mainstream American Muslims are likely to be terrorist sympathizers.
The Arabic mind is more likely to be swayed by ideas rather than facts.
Holder was apparently ready for the question because as Durbin was framing it, the AG could be seen referring to what appeared to be prepared notes on the matter. His response served to embellish Durbin's clear implication that the civil liberties of American Muslims are under siege:
The information you just read is flat out wrong.
[it's]...inconsistent with what we have been trying to do here at the Department...
those views do not reflect...the views of the Justice Dept, the FBI..
...that person is not being used anymore by the FBI...and we are reviewing all of our materials, our training materials to ensure that kind of misinformation isn't being used anymore because it can undermine...the really substantial outreach efforts that we have made ...that kind of training sets back those efforts...have a process underway to make sure that mistake does not happen in the future...'" [source, C-SPAN video of testimony, http://www.c-span.org/Events/Lawmakers-Question-Holder-on-Operation-Fast-and-Furious/10737425323/]
We contacted Mr. Durbin's office on multiple occasions to determine the source of the quotes he used regarding counter terrorism training. As we go to press the Senator's office has not responded, however we did find a potential source for not only Mr. Durbin's query, but his whole line of questions in that matter.
That source was Wired's "Danger Room," edited by Spencer Ackerman. In a Sept. blog posting the claim is made the FBI Teaches Agents: Mainstream Muslims Are Violent... ...the Islamic practice of giving charity is no more than a funding mechanism for combat.."
From outward appearances, Mr. Ackerman seems to be in lock-step [alongside Mr. Durbin] with the campaign undertaken since 9/11 by Islamists to attack any statement which reflects poorly on Islam as being Islamophobic. This could easily be a first step in having such declarations classified as "hate crimes," as they are in much of Europe where they are punishable by fines and potential jail time. Unfortunately these police state tactics seem not to be of much concern on the Continent.
Spencer Ackerman, for those not familiar with his bio, was part of the JournoList debacle, wherein it was revealed there existed a group of hundreds of lefty journalists who communicated via a listserv protocol [the "JournoList"] and basically conspired to advance their ideology via news manipulation.
As the Daily Caller, which broke the story, revealed, '...In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists.'" [source, http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/#ixzz1dFXQAbL6] So propagandizing under the guise of journalism is second nature to Ackerman.
We find it unsurprising that a Democrat Senator might read the rants of shill journos and then use them to advance the Obama narrative, that under this regime one will not speak ill of Islam or its prophet.
These proscriptions against the denigration of Islam are elemental components of Shari'a, Islamic law, specifically its "blasphemy/apostasy" codes, as Ms. Shea heretofore noted. Therefore the "sanitization" operation that the administration has put into motion, enacting these self-blinding policies, is in a very real sense, advancing Shari'a principles in pursuit of a perverse and divisive multiculturalism.” [source, William Mayer, The Obama/Holder War On National Security, November 14, 2011, PipeLineNews.org]
Thus the most illustrative descriptors which might be used to identify and denote the enemy – Ideological Islam, fanatical/literalist/fundamentalist Muslims, Islamic terrorism, jihad, Shari’a based violence, mujahideen etc., - have been excised from the official lexicon, leaving us willfully blind [as Andy McCarthy has so succinctly put it] as to who or what challenges we face.
It is elemental in any ideological struggle [and this matter certainly falls into this category] one must first identify the enemy. From this any tactician worth his salt will develop a threat doctrine and from that a methodology of combating it.
The West's successful war against Soviet Marxism proves the value of such a strategy. It was no accident that global communism fell before such an onslaught. tour response as well as that of our allies was no accident, it was carefully plotted and then executed. This has been a basic strategic theorem going back at least to Sun Tzu’s "Art of War," an ancient Chinese manuscript which counsels that without knowing and understanding your enemy any chance of victory is hopeless.
For an in depth analysis of proven methodologies for defeating totalitarian ideologies of all stripes please refer to [William Mayer, Review: Fighting the Ideological War: Winning Strategies from Communism to Islamism, June 26, 2012, PipeLineNews.org], as the piece clearly identifies the ideological aspects of Islam. As the Art of War counsels, know thyself but know thy enemy better.
In 2003 the Middle East scholar Dr. Daniel Pipes wrote about the dangers inherent in being abstemious when describing who or what the enemy is:
"...If the government is unwilling to state what its goal is or who its enemy is in a war you cannot effectively deal with it. I mean who are we looking for, who are our allies, what are the methods to be pursued?...My view is that our war is not a war on terror, but it is a war on militant Islam, or more specifically a war on Jihad. I think militant Islam is an Islamic version of the radical utopian movements that took roots and became strong in the West about a century ago in the 1920s..." [source, Dr. Pipes' views on Islamic Terrorism and Turkey].Pipes analyzes what Dr. Samuel P. Huntington termed The Clash of Civilzations, in a more global manner using the terminology [paraphrasing] "clash between civilization and barbarism" [please reference, It's Not a Clash of Civilizations, It's a Clash between the Civilized World and Barbarians ] In setting up this distinction Pipes cleverly cuts through the intellectually and politically charged clutter often associated with Huntington's thesis, while retaining the power of of the idea. Also please refer to Pipes' rather historic debate with "Red" Ken Livingstone [see, My Debate with London Mayor Ken Livingstone]
Under Obama and his hand-puppets - the dull witted now-ex Department of Homeland Security’s Janet Napolitano for example - this war against the truth and logic has been extended right down to the American war colleges, where instructors [including FBI field intelligence agents] who do not follow the official line are banished.
Additionally, instructional materials casting Islam in a negative light have been redacted to the point of multicultural idiocy,,,all for the single purpose of not riling the oh so excitable "radical" Muslims. The question arises that what harm might that do given the fact that these folks are already globally at war with the infidels?
With this as prologue, let's proceed to develop the thesis question which remain: is Islam itself so defective internally [ideologically] that it is irredeemably warlike and expansionist?
Judaism and Christianity have previously grappled with the question. Their historically violent excesses have been ground away over the millennia; Mosaic law is no longer enforced in anything resembling a harsh manner and it remains the basis of Western law. Yes violation of its chief precepts such as, thou shalt not murder, steal and plunder are punishable. In the case of murder it can result in capital punishment. This should not suggest that Western secular law reiterates Jewish and Christian “religious law.” This is as it should be; these moral truths are the core of our civilization and recognized to a greater or lesser degree in all other cultures as well as Islamic law, the Shari’a.
Therefore Judaism, Christianity and Islam recognize this ancient sense of justice, "an eye for an eye," it's universal. These religions however differ on just what constitutes murder, theft or unlawful killing.
Contemporary Christian theology encourages pacifism and turning the other cheek. Many Christians believe that intentional killing is killing nonetheless, regardless of the circumstances; capital punishment is condemned.
Judaism has similar attributes.
Islam differs though, where according to both the historical as well as contemporary interpretations, in many cases it is punishable by torture - note the barbaric sentences still being meted out in Saudi Arabia where every Friday those found guilty of violating elements of the Shari'a meet have a rendezvous with Islamic justice, delivered at the edge of a blade.
We have and continue to reject the contention that all three are related under the umbrella of being “Abrahamic faiths." That claim is made because neither Judaism nor Christianit textually support the use of religious warfare simply to extend the reach of the faith. What excesses there did exist, witness the Jesuit led Spanish Inquisition, have been cauterized completely from practice, thankfully. Yet even the Jesuits had no theological basis for proceeding with their mad project, i.e., they were not able to quote chapter and verse as an endorsement for their barbaric behavior. The actions of these men were evil, period and it thus remains an ever present burden on observant Catholics.
Lastly,the twin forces of the Reformation and Enlightenment, broke the back of whatever theocratic notions remained.
Obviously both Europe and America are secularized, though less so Europe, courtesty of an influx of jihadists.
Islam is based primarily on the Qur’an, believed to be the literal word of Allah as revealed to Mohammed and the Hadith[s], essentially the way of the prophet…examples of his life to be used as guideposts for correct behavior. We have almost exclusively covered for nearly 15 years the national security implication of a "runaway," interpretation of Islam. We were and remain unwilling to define exactly what Islam is. We would never be that presumptuous since we neither fluent in Arabic nor are we imams. Because of this we are much less rigorously following that dictum; the evidence to the contrary is considerable to the point of becoming overwhelming, allowing serious observers to regard Islam itself as an warlike ideology of triumphalist totalitarianism disguised under cover of religion..
This is the most contentious nexus imaginable because if Islam is simply an ideology - not dissimilar to Soviet communism, Fascism and other violent utopian variants – then it doesn't deserve the protection afforded religion under the First Amendment. The question is whether Islam is so imbued with the spirit of violent jihad [as well as the pre-violent stealth variety] as to render further distinctions pointless.
We do know for a fact that jihad has been near the core of Islam since its inception and commonly understood – within the global Muslim community - as fighting in the way of Allah to extend the reach of Islam, warfare justified by "religious" principle. This of course is the jihad with which we are all unfortunately familiar with and which continues today. Consider the historical record regarding what changes take place under an Islamic system.
The ancient Egyptian and Babylonian cultures [circa 3,000 BC, and here ignoring the advanced Asian cultures of the same period] were the most advanced intellectually on the planet. From them we got the scientific and mathematical basis of our culture, the idea of a written language and many of the aspects of what is today seen as high culture. This while Europe was largely Neolithic. Egypt and the Babylon were the centers of learning, experimentation and the like. However this advanced cultural direction became increasingly stultified upon the advance of Islam, which swept before it Christian Northern Africa, up the Iberian Peninsula and to the center of Europe, Spain [Andalusia to the jihadist] was occuppied by the Islamic Moors for nearly a thousand years. To the East much the same occurred. Though still open to contention, it's clear that the great Library of Alexandria was burned and most likely as a result of the Islamic jihad [circa 640-650 AD] Muslim jihad against Northern Africa. Some try to blame the teaching of “Pope” Theophilus of Antioch, but the Catholic Church simply recognized him as a Coptic Christian bishop and not in any sense a Pope.
Thus it appears that since its very early history Islam has been not only warlike but also anti-intellectual, despite claims by modern Muslim apologists.
Islam must additionally deal with another blight - slavery. – though far more prevalent during earlier period, it actually it remains an issue of concern with 300,000 Saudi Arabian slaves counted as recently as 1962 though all were, de jure, manumitted at about the same time. [source, John Laffin, Case studies on human rights and fundamental freedoms: a world survey". Willem Adriaan Veenhoven, Winifred Crum Ewing, Stichting Plurale Samenlevingen (1976). p.452. ISBN 90-247-1779-5]
We believe that in a fundamentalist Islamic understanding, defining the slave in terms of being sub-human because he is not Muslim renders such behavior justifiable religiously. This harkens to the concept of the "normative" Islamic understanding that the world is divided into two parts, Dar al Islam [the House of Islam] and Dar al Harb [the House of War]. Thus you were either Muslim or a perceived threat and therefore an enemy. There appears to be little in the way of middle ground here.
Undoubtedly Islam proved to be an irresistible force, however one borne on the wings [as persuasively argued by Middle East Historian, Dr. Daniel Pipes who has generously offered this work in a downloadable .pdf format, Slave Soldiers and Islam] of slave soldiers and a slave cadre of administrative public servants, the Islamic bureaucracy. Without this slave led onslaught, Pipes argues quite convincingly, Islam might well not have survived. In the Islamic system, slaves could iand did distinguish themselves and rise to high power, sometimes just below the Caliph himself. - differing in a major way from the Western slave holding experience, which simply treated these unfortunate human beings as chattel. This is not meant to justify the seemingly more benevolent Islamic slave experience, these people were still slaves often forcibly taken from their families at a very young age whereupon they were winnowed into the structure of Islamic culture. The brightest or bravest having the capability of advancement, with the proviso that many of these people were pressed into military service to expand the Islamic dominion.
According to the historical record many of the African slaves were sent to that fate by Muslim slave traders often using captives supplied to them as a result of African inter-tribal warfare. But it is inarguable that as Islam congealed, scientific advancement was increasingly strangled to the point where today it is of little consequence. as an example of this stultification of “progress,” compare the tremendous number of patents issued to Israelis during a given year with the paucity of the same coming out of the entire Muslim world. The imbalance is obvious.
Analagous to the beilef of some fundamentalist Christians, the Qur’an is all that matters while leaving the young essentially illiterate. Thus the West progressed and Islamic culture became frozen in time. Art, music, the sciences are all tertiary to the religious imperative of expanding the reach of Allah and understanding his revealed word. Literally interpreted. With the doctrine of abrogation incorporated, Islamic religious warfare became justified as dominant almost from its inception.
In this sense Islam is an ideology operating under the guise of religion, breeding the implications of our thesis statement – does Islam deserve the protection of the First Amendment, is it a religion or an ideology?
There is no doubt that Islam can be observed in a secular manner and this is done by millions of devout Muslims, though mostly in the liberal West. These folks practice their faith but can coexist - from only from within a secular non-Islamic culture. Countless other examples exist. These people are friends, neighbors, co-workers and the like. While their belief system markedly differs from that of the dominant Judeo-Christian culture they are nontheless seculatized.
The question arises, is this really Islam that these countrymen are practicing, or is it some mutant variant? This we can’t definitively answer.The key here is secularity. The few intellectual warriors have been roundly condemned, sometimes even declared taqfir – no longer Muslims- a kind of Islamic excommunication, they do pay an unacceptable price.
The manhandling is unfortunate in the extreme because it is these reasoned voices that represent the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the Jewish and Christian world outside the West. Without them, as interpreted by 10th century Islamic law, Islam becomes solely an ideology, corrosive, warlike and incompatible with our version of a modern world. It differs not at all from Fascism and other totalitarian forms of political organization such as Marxism and the like. As so defined, it's impossible to afford such the protection of protection of First Amendment, but it is exactly this aspect of Westernism behind which the Islamists hide. Domestically the jihadists though relatively fewer in number have been elevated by the MSM where they have been appointed official spokesmen for the Muslim world. Here we are of course referring to the American wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, et al. Relying on the judicial rulings of U.S. vs. Holy Land Foundation prosecution – these groups represent national security risks. They form the tip of the Islamist spear in North America.
Fortunately we can see the result of Muslim Brotherhood, with Team Obama’s major assistance to what is a de-facto imposed – jidadist "democratic" rule in Egypt where the proposition of one person, one vote, one time is operative. Despite assurances to the contrary, in Egypt waiting in the wings are even more radical Islamists, the Salafi types who find the "moderation," of MB rule to be not properly directed at further "purifying" Islam into its combative historical existence. These people are mortal enemies, though our government, and the culture forming institutions fear even broaching the subject.
So we come full circle…is the problem Islam itself or is it anomalous?
Is Islam fatally and internally defective as to render it irreconcilable with our republican democracy?
An objective observer must note, all of the Islamists liberally quote from the Qur’an by way of justification for their actions. As referenced in a recent radio interview on KSFO radio, the well respected expert on Islamic terrorism, Stephen Emerson, drew attention to a recently issued statement from the terrorist group, Ansar-al-Shari’a in which it was declared that, “change comes by the bullet alone, not the ballot."
Islam is fatally flawed This is the reason why forever writing off a significant portion of the global population uuponr an unsupported declaration that Islam is unsalvageable. Our feelings about this matter are totally conditional. This is an observation grounded in reality. As long as the inertia within the ummah continues to support jihad, regardless of mitigating factors such as exactly how many within this body have opted out such a strict interprettion this practice it remains outside the boundaries of what is acceptable. What has been happening with all too many who have little appreciation for
That notion is impossible to dismiss. Where previously our judgment has been that Islam is what it is, given the buildup of overwhelming proof there seems little doubt that the soul of Islam may well be corrupted beyond redemption. Whereas Catholics no longer burn heretics, the same cannot be said for an alarming proportion of the Islamic world where such brutality is the norm and backed up by a long historical record, encompassing all of Islam’s major schools of jurisprudence. In this understanding violent jihad is integral to Islam, it is a "religious," duty and required of all Muslims who so believe, risking the condemnation of being declared taqfir [a kind of Islamic excommunication] lest they stray. So we leave our readers to thoughtfully ponder this. We will however make the judgment that it seems that the operative definition of Islam as widely practiced without a doubt remains highly aggressive and warlike.
The final question here is simple, will the devout Muslim secularists triumph in their attempts at a grand Islamic Reformation?
Islamic jurisprudence has ruled that "the gates of ijtihad are closed." Regarding ijtihad - the process of defining and interpreting the constituent parts of Islam - the great Islamic scholar, al-Bukhari, uclose examination determined [circa 850] that even at that early point in the intellectual development of Islam, the process of ijtihad had already been abusive, excessive and produced inauthentic rulings. Hence from that point onward Islamic ideology became increasingly locked into that period’s very aggressively jihad friendly interpretation].
If these gates of change remain closed, then normative or extant Islam is simply an ideology which should be afforded no special protection under American, or Western for that matter, law. Whatever happens, the process of redefinition must forever remain out of the West’s hands. If the reformers - who are stifled even here in America protected by this administratio - do not triumph then jihadist Islam reigns supreme.
In closing, much hangs in the balance. It’s beyond argument that the warriors – the mujahideen – who fly upon this expansionist ideology are in no way apologetic, they proudly quote chapter and verse in support of their barbarism. Any thought of granting them the protection of our foundational document courts cultural suicide.
© 2013 PipeLineNews.org LLC. All rights reserved. Beila Rabinowitz contributed to this piece.