WHAT PLANET IS HE LIVING ON?
THIS MAN NEEDS TO BE REJECTED
BY CONGRESS!
SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:
STILL GIVING MUSLIMS THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT, WHEN THE EVIDENCE SHOWS VIOLENCE IS ALL THROUGH THE KORAN & IN MANY COUNTRIES & GROWING?
SORRY, BUT IT'S NOT ISIS' MISINTERPRETATION
OF THE KORAN!
GENERAL MCMASTER AND THAT (JIHADIST) "PERVERTED INTERPRETATION OF RELIGION USED TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE"
BY HUGH FITZGERALD
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
President Trump has chosen Lt. General William McMaster as his new
National Security Adviser. As a three-star general, McMaster’s
appointment will require Senate confirmation,
and one hopes that the Senators before they vote will take the
opportunity to examine his understanding of Islamic terrorism. For
surely this is the greatest threat not only to American security, but to
that of the entire West.
General McMaster has pronounced on the subject of Islamic terrorism
twice in the last year, in almost identical language, and what he said
suggests that he has missed something important about the ideology of
Islam.
In May 2016, in
a speech
he delivered on “Harbingers of Future War: Implications for the Army”
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, General McMaster
referred to “groups like ISIL,
who use this irreligious
ideology, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence.
They depend on ignorance, and the ability to recruit vulnerable
segments of populations to foment hatred, and then use that hatred to
justify violence against innocents.”
Apparently well-satisfied with his original formulation, General
McMaster repeated it, almost verbatim, in a speech to the Center for
Leadership and Excellence at the Virginia Military Institute on November
21, 2016, ringingly declaring that “we will defeat today’s enemies,
including
terrorist organizations like Daesh, who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and justify horrific cruelty against innocents.”
This description of Daesh – the Islamic State – as “
cynically using
a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and justify
horrific cruelty against innocents” is most peculiar. For whatever else
you can say about Daesh or other Muslim terrorists, the adverb
“cynically” is the least applicable to their actions. Al-Baghdadi,
Al-Awlaki, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Nidal Hasan. Omar Mateen, Adam
Gadahn, Aafia Siddiqui, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, and all the other stars
in the terrorist firmament have not been cynics, but rather, the
reverse — the truest of true believers. And what they truly believe(d)
in is what Islam’s texts inculcate, including the view of non-Muslims as
cosmically ungrateful (in not accepting the message of Muhammad), their
“vileness” Qur’anically established (8:55; 98:6), their continued
insubmissive existence as
kuffar seen as a colossal affront to Islam.
Muslims have a duty to spread Islam by means of Jihad, which
overwhelmingly means the use of violence, though it can be conducted
through other means – as, for example, Jihad of the Pen/Tongue, to
spread Islam’s message. Today, along with violence, a new instrument –
demographic conquest – is being used to overwhelm the Infidels and
spread Islam. “New” because never before in history have millions of
people dedicated to the longterm destruction of others been allowed by
those others to settle deep behind what ought be regarded as enemy
lines, as Muslims have now been allowed to settle throughout Western
Europe. If Muslim numbers do surpass those of the indigenous
non-Muslims, Muslims will be in a position to offer non-Muslims a
choice: either to convert to Islam, or be killed, or to accept the
permanent status of dhimmi, with all of its attendant disabilities. And
there is no end to Jihad; it should continue until the whole world is
ultimately subjected to Islam. There is nothing – pace General McMaster — “cynical” about any of this.
As for those phrases repeated by General McMaster about this
“perverse interpretation of religion [used] to justify violence” which
becomes, in his longer variant, a “perverted interpretation of religion
to incite hatred and justify horrific cruelty against innocents,” the
only “perverted interpretation” of Islam is, I’m afraid, that of General
McMaster himself, who appears certain that Islam properly understood
cannot possibly inculcate anything that might “incite hatred and justify
violence” against non-Muslims. I’m not sure which would be worse: that
he may think he must pretend to believe this nonsense in order to avoid
being accused of Islamophobia and to safely rise high in the Washington
ranks, or that he really believes it.
Perhaps before they vote, some Senators will press him on this,
trying to find out what McMaster thinks Islam, mainstream Islam, teaches
and how it differs from that “perverse interpretation” to which he
keeps referring. The exchange ought to be instructive. For example, the
Senators might ask him, while reporters are present and cameras
whirring, what he remembers from the Qur’an on the subject of Infidels.
What, a probing Senator might ask him, under the guise of refreshing his
memory, does he make of Qur’an 98:6, describing Infidels as “the vilest
of creatures”? Would he regard it as a “perverse interpretation” of
that verse to think it inculcates hatred toward non-Muslims, or isn’t it
in fact clear in its declaration of such hatred, and should he not be
willing to recognize that this is a perfectly straightforward, if
disturbing statement, with no “perverse interpretation” necessary?
Or take the famous Verse of the Sword, Qur’an 9:5: “When the sacred
months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them,
besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere 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.” What “perverse interpretation” of this
pellucid call to violent Jihad is needed to make this verse “incite
hatred”? It’s dripping with murderous hatred already. The Senators could
continue to quote from the more than one hundred Jihad verses in the
Qur’an or stories from the Hadith, that is, verses that exhort the
killing of Infidels. Or they might read out, and ask for General
McMaster to comment on, the description of the mass killings of the
600-900 bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, by Muhammad and his
followers, or the accounts of the pleasure Muhammad (“
al-insan al-kamil,”
the Perfect Man, and “uswa hasana,” the Model of Conduct) took in
learning of the murders of those who mocked him (Asma bint Marwan, Abu
Afak), or the descriptions of the many military campaigns he took part
in not only against his sworn enemies, but simply against those who,
like the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, were known to
be prosperous. For the Khaybar farmers had not been fighting against
Muhammad; they were a target for this covetous warlord simply because
they were both well-off and ill-defended. The Khaybar attack gives the
lie to the Muslim claim that Muhammad only fought defensive wars.
Muhammad and his men despoiled the Khaybar farmers, who had done nothing
against them, of both their property and their women; the loot was
enough of a lure. Or was this aggressiveness all a matter of Muhammad’s
“perverse interpretation” of Islam?
It would be perfectly appropriate for the Senators to ask General
McMaster what “perverse interpretation” of Islam he thinks the Islamic
State or Al-Qaeda labor under, to explain exactly where the terrorists’
interpretation of Islam distorts or veers away from the basic tenets of
Islam, as conveyed by any mainstream madrasa’s lessons, or any orthodox
imam’s sermons?
General McMaster refers to “groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology” and whose members “
depend on ignorance,
and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment
hatred.” Again he should be asked, what is the “ignorance” that members
of the Islamic State depend on to obtain recruits? Is General McMaster
suggesting that these potential recruits are “ignorant” of the real
meaning of Islam – the peace and tolerance and
convivencia
about which the small army of apologists (John Esposito, Pope Francis,
Karen Armstrong, Barack Obama, Reza Aslan, Omid Safi, and so many
others) constantly prate? Is General McMaster quite convinced that it is
“ignorance” of Islam that helps “groups like ISIL [ISIS]”? How is it
that so many “ignorant” Muslims could manage to remain unaware of
Islam’s pacific essence, and thus be easily inveigled into believing the
“perverse interpretation” of the faith, as something violent,
hate-filled, cruel, that is the very opposite of what, in the General’s
view, is the essence of Islam? Is this what General McMaster purports to
believe? Isn’t it, rather, that those who join ISIS or Al-Qaeda are not
ignorant at all, but know perfectly well what the texts of Islam
inculcate, and rightly understand the meaning of Islam as a warlike
doctrine of conquest and subjugation? And aren’t they quick to offer
textual support from the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira, for their every act
of terror? And hasn’t Islam meant conquest through violence, and
subjugation, of many different kinds of Infidels, over many different
lands, for the past 1400 years?
Many of the Senators voting on General McMaster’s appointment will
prefer not to press these points. Most Democrats will agree with his
pollyannish remarks on Islam. Most Republicans may simply wish to defer
to the general as a Trump appointee, wrongly assuming that he must,
therefore, be “tough” on Islam. Few senators will have the stomach to
discuss Islam truthfully in public, knowing they will then have to
endure the usual idiotic charges of bigotry and “Islamophobia” from
those whose minds are made up, and who do not want to be confused with
facts. But it would take only a handful of senators, possibly from both
parties, offering piercing questions, to strike a blow for common sense
and our common security. Ideally, a few of them will choose to read
aloud Qur’anic verses or stories from the Hadith that inculcate hatred
of, and violence toward, Infidels. The General should be asked what
exactly those recruited by terrorists are ignorant of, and why he
considers them, as a result, more “vulnerable” to the siren song of the
Al-Baghdadis and Bin Ladens. Does he think these recruits are less
educated, or more impoverished, and because of that easier to inveigle
into terrorism? The data suggests otherwise.
Many studies have concluded that Islamic terrorists are both better off economically and better educated than the average Muslim.
If they are particularly “vulnerable” to those texts that preach
violent Jihad, this means not that they are “ignorant” and susceptible
to accept a “perverse interpretation” of the faith, but that they are
prepared to take Islam to heart, not shirking their duty to engage in
violent Jihad (or to “strike terror”), but acting upon what Islam
demands of its followers; they are having their Islam straight up, as
determined Jihadists, and not on the rocks of self-interested
calculation that might make some hesitate to sacrifice themselves for
Islam. It’s hard to understand what General McMaster means by his use of
the word “ignorance” in reference to these recruits. Is he suggesting
that their knowledge of Islam is incomplete, and that if they were to
learn more, they would
of course come to realize that only a “
perverse interpretation”
of Islam would lead to violence? Does he believe that his understanding
of Islam is superior to that of Al-Baghdadi or Bin Laden? After being
confronted in those hearings with those 100-plus Jihad verses, and many
other verses, too, that teach contempt for the Infidels, those that
characterize them as the “vilest of creatures” and instruct Muslims not
to take Christians and Jews as friends, “for they are friends only with
each other,” would General McMaster still maintain his rosy view of
Islam? It is not those more ignorant of Islam who are inveigled by
terrorist masters but, rather, those who, becoming ever more devout,
study the texts closely, take to heart the endless litany of hatred
toward Infidels, feel keenly the duty of Jihad, and become terrorists
fully conscious of what they are doing. We would all prefer to believe –
it would be such a great relief – that General McMaster is right, and
that Islamic terrorism is a result of a “perverse interpretation” of
Islam, one having no relation to the “real” Islam. How comforting it
would be to believe that Muslim terrorist masters “depend on ignorance”
(of the real, peaceful Islam) – how comforting, and how false.
Perhaps, made aware of comments critical of his knowledge of Islam, such as these you are reading, or here,
General McMaster might give himself, by way of preparation for his role
as national security adviser, a short course in Islam that would
disabuse him of his hitherto complacent understanding. He could then
simply tell the sympathetic senators that he has had occasion to study
both Islamic texts and Islamic terrorism more fully, and based on that
study, wishes to revise his previous statements, made last year, so that
they would read something like this: “The many Islamic terrorist
groups, such as the Islamic State, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, and
many other groups and groupuscules, are able to recruit Muslims using an
interpretation of Islam that is not necessarily accepted by all but is
certainly accepted by a great many – far too many – Muslims, and candor
compels me to admit, following a re-examination of the Qur’an and other
Islamic texts, that this version of Islam should be considered not
aberrant but mainstream.”
And then he might add: “It is up to us to figure out how best we can
help those born into Islam, without any choice in the matter, who
recognize those troublesome aspects of their faith that are inimical to
real peace and real tolerance, and for which they would like to find a
solution, if such is possible.” An unflinching statement like that, from
General McMaster, despite the subsequent howls of protest by CAIR and
the Southern Poverty Law Center, would be enough – would be more than
enough – to clear a good many minds of cant.
