A Pentagon analyst specializing in Islamic law has been removed from his position after coming into conflict with associates involved in outreach to the Usual Suspects, according to Bill Gertz. Andrew Bostom elaborates, and discusses an historical parallel, observing that the analyst, Stephen Coughlin, has demonstrated
...that “Jihad fi Sabil Allah”—“Jihad in the cause of Allah,” is the animating principle which underlies the threat of global jihad terrorism, and how this understanding should form the basis for rational, effective threat development assessment, and war planning.
Or, the actions of his superiors being interpreted, Coughlin was sacked because he apparently refused to practice historical revisionism, and presented jihad as an integral aspect of classical Islamic doctrine, and not some sort of false consciousness necessitating a non-Islam theory of Islamic extremism.
Further interpretative efforts will be eschewed, inasmuch as this contributor already believes that he has entered the Twilight Zone, or some parallel universe or strange dimension hidden within a 'fold' of space-time, within which the law of non-contradiction no longer obtains, such that it is possible for jihad to be both jihad and not-jihad simultaneously.
Comments (13)
This is alarming, because it looks as though they would blindfold our national security capacities, rather than have some dishonest political operators say 'we're being discriminated against'.
The military used to be more resistant to this. Now it looks as if they will allow Islamic enemies to infiltrate the upper reaches of the pentagon itself. Conceptually there should be little difficulty in seeing that what they call moderate Islam is Islamic no more than Unitarianism is Christian: it may often be called so, just for convenience sake, as there are high similarities, yet the essential differences are more important and can't be overlooked. Self-blinding folderol mustn't be allowed to take over the military at this level: governments can fail in every way other than this. The penalty is the downfall of the government, if they have indeed done this.
Posted by John S Bolton | January 6, 2008 11:05 PM
Well said. And thanks for introducing me to that link with the non-Islamic theories of Islam.
Posted by Scott W. | January 7, 2008 7:57 AM
Lawrence Auster has done yeoman work in cataloging those non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism, which make for both amusing and dispiriting reading.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2008 8:02 AM
Maximos--
If we stipulate that all committed Muslims are potentially supporters of violent Jihad against Western targets, what ideas have you concerning what would constitute, "rational, effective threat development assessment, and war planning" based on this stipulation?
Posted by Rodak | January 7, 2008 8:22 AM
Glad you blogged this here, Maximos. We are so, so crazy and not serious. Or at least our leaders are.
Posted by Lydia | January 7, 2008 8:46 AM
Coughlin was sacked because he apparently refused to practice historical revisionism, and presented jihad as an integral aspect of classical Islamic doctrine
But to say that jihad (i.e., perpetual belligerency)is intrinsic to Islam is to discriminate between religions. That's un-American. Coughlin may have been fired for violating one of the principles of our political system, religious indifferentism.
Posted by George R. | January 7, 2008 9:39 AM
I've not the slightest inkling of the policy implications Coughlin derived from his analyses of Islamic jurisprudence. For my part, I'd advocate a legislative measure, or constitutional amendment, should such be necessary, stipulating the obvious: that the doctrines of jihad and sharia are inimical and contrary to the republican traditions of the United States; and, constituting sedition, are therefore proscribed. Additionally, an immediate cessation of all Muslim immigration seems eminently reasonable, as does the closure of all the Islamic advocacy organizations, such as CAIR, and others. Should such measures fail to promote the quiescence of the Muslim population resident within the United States, a proposal such as that of Steve Sailer - essentially, offering financial inducements to depart for countries of origin - should be contemplated.
Posted by Maximos | January 7, 2008 12:35 PM
Maximos--
Wouldn't such measures merely have the effect of driving their targets underground, making their activities even more difficult to monitor? It seems that we have no good idea of the size of the legitimate Muslim population here, since the census does not include info on religion. Estimates seems to run somewhere between a million-and-a-half to seven million, which is quite a spread. Even if one could cut off future legal immigration, there would still be the problem of angering several million legal residents and citizens already here by cutting them off from relatives abroad, and making business and educational travel difficult or impossible. It seems like a major logisitical nightmare to me. Worse, in some ways, than the problem with Mexican illegals.
Posted by Rodak | January 7, 2008 1:52 PM
But to say that jihad (i.e., perpetual belligerency)is intrinsic to Islam is to discriminate between religions.
Jihad is or is not intrinsic to Islam. Of course most Moslems and all Islam books say it is.
But leaving that aside.
If Jihad is intrinsic to Islam, it means that Islam is a religion AND polictical system that just happens to be incompatible with US Constitution.
Posted by mik_infidelos | January 8, 2008 5:58 AM
Wouldn't such measures merely have the effect of driving their targets underground, making their activities even more difficult to monitor?
Yes, and it is much more difficult to monitor drug trade because we made drug trade illegal. Solution is obviously to legalize drugs.
Adn while we at it, why not legalize bank robbery? Then we will be able to easily monitor bank robbers.
Posted by mik_infidelos | January 8, 2008 6:02 AM
Even if one could cut off future legal immigration,
Immigration is not an eathquake or thunderstrom. If US has will it could be stopped virtually completely.
there would still be the problem of angering several million legal residents and citizens already here
Ruling elites have no problems angering tens of millions native-born Americans by keep borders open. Why it should be different with Mussulman?
by cutting them off from relatives abroad, and making business and educational travel difficult or impossible.
You mean you propose to keep Muslims in the USA and not allow them to visit their relatives in their respective garbage dumps of countries? You are tougher on Muslims than most restrictionists.
And US Muslims will be free to travel to, say, Egypt, to get the best education possible.
Business travel between US and Ummah should be allowed under the same restrictions as existed for trade between the US and Soviet Union.
Posted by mik_infidelos | January 8, 2008 6:13 AM
Solution is obviously to legalize drugs.
Given the unmitigated disaster that has been the "War on Drugs", which has resulted in more persons incarcerated in the U.S. than in, unbelievably, China, I'd have to agree with that statement (sarcastic though it was.)
We can't build prisons fast enough to hold them all. If people want to destroy their lives with drugs, they will do so, whether drugs are legal or not. Let them. It stands to reason that if your habit is made less expensive, you will need to commit less crime to maintain it. Legal drugs would be less expensive drugs. The moral issues involved are just as bad in the case of alcohol. Prohibition there accomplished very little, other than enriching the Mafia. Prohibition creates a black market that enriches criminals and elevates crime rates.
Posted by Rodak | January 8, 2008 9:53 AM
For my part, I'd advocate a legislative measure, or constitutional amendment, should such be necessary, stipulating the obvious: that the doctrines of jihad and sharia are inimical and contrary to the republican traditions of the United States; and, constituting sedition, are therefore proscribed.
Maximos,
This is nicely said. And with this in mind I back away from my original opinion. It would not necessarily involve a violation of religious neutrality to legislate against certain parts of Islam on these grounds.
Also, there is precedent in such things as legislation against the practice of Morman polygamy and court rulings against certain religious practices deemed harmful or abusive toward children.
Posted by George R. | January 8, 2008 10:00 AM