Aug 24 2007

The Battle For Islam Is At Hand

Published by at 8:39 am under All General Discussions,Diyala,Iraq

As we saw al-Qaeda being rejected across Iraq by the local Iraqis, al-Qaeda decided to turn to bombing, kiling and maiming innocent Muslims to try and re-establish authority in regions where they once had support. They did not trying to gain support or demonstrate a better option, they tried to exert control through the jackboot practices reminiscent of Ghengis Kahn and the Nazis (and now we see even clearer the traitorous nature of John Kerry’s actions when he ran from Vietnam to the TV cameras on Capitol Hill as we witness true acts of brutality by al-Qaeda). This has been the status quo for months now as Iraqis stand up and reject al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda retaliates. Each retaliation further infuriates the people of Iraq and increases and spreads the dislike of al-Qaeda.

I had assumed al-Qaeda would realize the terminal nature of their death spiral as they alienate more and more Muslims, especially Iraqis. It was their only hope, in my mind, to salvaging what little support and credibility they have remaining in order to try and regroup and reach back out to the people they want to lead so desperately: the Muslims of the world. But that would impying al-Qaeda has some brains and sense and can overcome their lust for brutality and domination long enough to think things through. Clearly they are not able to break from the maniacal desire to control through fear, torture and murder.

In Diyala Province al-Qaeda is trying really hard to hold onto to their last base of operations. They are so desperate they have ratcheted up their actions against the Iraqis:

Al Qaeda fighters kidnapped 15 Iraqi women and children after attacking two villages north of Baghdad on Thursday and killing a religious leader who had been trying to form an anti-al Qaeda tribal alliance, police said.

Police said 32 people had been killed in an hour-long battle between villagers and al Qaeda. The attackers, who struck just after dawn, dragged the imam of the local mosque, Younis Abd Hameed, and three worshippers outside and executed them.

Residents said the local fighters were loyal to the Sunni Arab “1920 Revolution Brigade,” which has increasingly clashed with al Qaeda, and had repelled the attack.

The fighting underscored a growing split between Sunni Arab militants and al Qaeda, which U.S. forces have sought to exploit as they try to quell sectarian violence.

We don’t have to “exploit” anything. The dynamic has changed radically now in Iraq. al-Qaeda is the invading enemy massacring Iraqi Muslims by the thousands each month. And we, with the Iraqi security forces we are helping to build up, are the defenders of innocent Muslim Iraqis. al-Qaeda still tries to attack us, but they are not impairing our military abilities at all. So they have been forced to focus their efforts on trying enslave the local population. Which is just accelerating their defeat in Iraq:

A total of 237 gunmen have been killed and 300 arrested in a security crackdown in Diyala province since June 19, an Iraqi security official told the independent Voices of Iraq on Friday.

“Seven thousand soldiers took part in these operations in addition to 3,821 recruits enlisted in 35 security training centres all over the province,” Major General Abdul-Kareem al-Rubaie, Diyala chief of operations, said.

We kill them, arrest them, find their caches and destroy them and al-Qaeda responds by killing an Imam and kidnapping women and children. This is the death spiral for al-Qaeda. They could have lost Iraq with the image of having done a valiant effort trying to take on the Great Satan – that would have been crippling to their cause but not terminal. Now they are losing and making America out to be the protector while they skulk away as warriors who could only take on children. The Battle for Islam is at hand and it may be on the way to a very favorable conclusion for mankind and Islam itself.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “The Battle For Islam Is At Hand”

  1. WWS says:

    They can’t change their tactics now anymore than the nazis could change theirs in April 1945. It’s not just that they’ve committed to ultraviolence as a modus vivendi; but once they made that commitment every member of the organization who *didn’t* think that was a good choice either left or (more likely) was killed by his more violent partners. They have self selected their group to the point that now, more than ever, they consist only of *literally* homicidial maniacs who are absolutely incapable of surviving in any kind of civilised society.

    In the long view, this is why terroristic organizations always destroy themselves in the long run, and it’s akin to the fundamental weakness of Evil itself. Destruction as an end in itself is an acid that can never resist (or be prevented from) destroying the bottle that contains it.

    This is one area in which I think differently from many others on the subject, who’ve said that terrorism is the greatest threat to western civilisation. It is a great threat that has to be dealt with, of course, but terrorism as a tactic will destroy the moslem societies it springs from long before it destroys any part of the west. Palestine and Hamastan being a notable case in point. This is why the moslem world has to deal with the idea of “jihad” seriously and soon – if they don’t it is they themselves who will be destroyed by it.

    Of course, we should work to avoid this along with them because there’s going to be an incredible amount of collateral damage to go around if that much of the world goes up in flames.

  2. dhunter says:

    Very favorable conclusion for mankind and Islam if the Dems and mainstream media allies of AlQaeda don’t force the Honorable George W. Bush and American Military to surrender first.

  3. The Macker says:

    A fine theory, but we can’t passively wait for the terrorists to self destruct. We did too much of that under Carter and Clinton.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    I just finished Paul Fregosi’s book, “Jihad” and he referred to an author of the past (Creasley?) where this author said that Islam must be redone from scratch in order to eliminate Jihad. Unfortunately, Islam is immovable.

    Paul explains why Jihad is imperialism, btw.

  5. Dc says:

    A point often missed:

    Do you want to know “why” there is a battle for “islam”?
    It’s not beause we invaded Afghanistan. It would not have been even if we had killed Osama. It is because we invaded Iraq.

  6. Terrye says:


    I am not so sure about that.

  7. WWS says:

    Macker, I agree completely that we can’t wait passively to be attacked. In fact, I still believe in the “flypaper” theory that has received so much scorn in “proper circles”; meaning that there has to be some defined battlefield to attract these terrorist types like moths to a flame, one that they cannot resist. Iraq is just such a conflict, and our biggest problem may in fact be our biggest success – every crazed fighter in the arab world is still being drawn to that place, to fight and die. The problem is the numbers of those willing to die are far higher than most people wanted to believe at the start. We need to give all of those who feel that way a time and a place to die for their beliefs, and then we must make sure that they die for their beliefs. I know that’s not a very “nice” thing to say, but it’s military reality. It’s one of the reasons I think that pulling out of Iraq too early would be a way to destroy all of the gains we have made so far. This is a fight to the death between us and Al Qaeda, and we must treat it that way.

    Now, I still believe that Al Qaeda is even more dangerous to the muslim world than it is to us – and the Iraqis who have started to figure this out are turning into our best allies, as they should for their own survival.

  8. Dc says:

    What has turned the face of Islam is what is going on in Iraq…not anywhere else. And I mean that in the deepest sense…not just cheering when the “home team” gets a good hit. But, the reality of who these various groups are, what they “really” stand for, and what they “really” do…(not the media/poster/propeganda version).

    It’s easy enough to cheer on Osama, hold up his poster, etc…who gave the west a blackeye…from his cave in Aghanistan….and ignore the soccer fields used as execution stadiums. It’s very different when they come to Iraq, to their neighborhood, murder your family, sometimes whole villages at a time, etc…and try and enforce their “cause” onto people. It has exposed the roots of the Salifist to the rest of Islam and the world…not the propeganda they present to people to gain support, money or weapons, or even suicide “martyrs”. It is not a mistake that Zarqawi, the Lion of Mesopotamia, the great islamic warrior killed exponentionally more Muslims in Iraq than he did Americans. They are there now, his successor, trying their best to forment civil war between Islamic tribes by murdering one side to seek retalliation from the other. Attacking Mosques. Butchering people, including women and children for the sake of “Allah”.

    Today, people are running from the man-eating tiger, whom they once cheered when it ate their enemies in another village…only to find it has now come to their village NOT to be celebrated or to bring victory for them and Islam but to eat them and their family. This has happened because of Iraq. It has forced their hand, exposed them for who they really are…outside of their PR videos, etc., and that their mission is not for “Islam”. The man-eating tiger holds no such discretion amoung men…it eats “everybody”.

  9. Dc says:

    Even shortly after 9/11, it would have been unthinkable to have said what was just said above…that Muslims have more to fear from Osama and people/movements like him…than we do.

    That simply was not part of the vocabulary of discussion “until”, they started slaughtering the same muslims they claimed to be fighting “for” in Iraq. That is what exposed them….confrontation.
    Prior to that, public and general perception was “very” different about the same people we are speaking about.

  10. Dc says:

    I would add this as well: The “Arab League” is not to happy about us breaking with the long held tradition of supporting sunni/arab dictators of shiah/other ethno-religious majorities land for the sake of “stability” either.

  11. docdave says:

    Pardon me for being sceptical but the underlying truth is that Islam has a 1400 year history of doing much the same that muslims are doing today. Maybe the level of their violence has ratched up a bit but consider that the west has made much of this possible with the oil revenues that are used to arm and recruit terrorists. Even in areas that we have pacified, Afghanistan and Iraq, there is still strong undercurrents to declare Islam as the national religion and establish Islamic law, Sharia. Given that Islam is intolerant and totalitarian, it’s very difficult for me to envision a world where followers of Islam reside peacefully with non-muslims.

  12. Dc says:

    The current violent strain of wahhabist and salifist offshoots…are not 1400 years old…but turn of last century (salafi Egypt in late 1800s, Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia in early 1900s). It was the Wahhabism movement that “reinstituted shirah law”.

    These people we speak of having nothing to do with gov/royal families, etc.. and their oil revenue). Osama, Zawahiri, etc..etc…are not members of gov anywhere….they are assassinators of them. Most of them have been working to overthrow those same govs/dictators/royal families and oil barrons that we have supported. They are funded privately. Osama has his own inherentence from his fathers construction company.

    If they were funded nationally by govs…it would not be so hard to bring them into account for what they do. Otherwise…what is your suggestion here? That we should stop buying their only product for their entire GDP and let them eat sand?

  13. DC: you are having a discussion about a topic of which you know nothing about!

    The “roots” of Salafiyyism and Wahhabism are NOT 1800’s & 1900’s as you allege, the Salafiyyah movement has an 1100 History, going back to Muslim theocrat Ibn Tamiyah; who reinterpreted Islam in the face of it’s really first major military setbacks at the hands of the Mogols!

    Ibn Tamiyah was perplexed how “Allah’s Religion” could in fact, be defeated, when every single aspect of Islam states that it is the ONLY religion, the ONLY true monotheistic religin, the ONLY “revealed” religion, the ONLY “true” religion, etc.

    It was Ibn Tamiyah who coined the term “Salafi”, meaning “pious ancestors”, and decided that the only way that “Islam” could be defeated by the Mongols, meant that it wasn’t “true” Islam anymore, it had been corrupted by Shia, Christian, Hindu, Sufi, Pagan, and even Gnostic and Scientific hereasies!

    Thus, Allah was sending Islam a message, that they had to return to their “roots” in true Islam, in order to be successful!

    THAT is the beginning of the Salafiyyah movement; it is in FACT, an 1100 year old theocratic movement, WITHIN Islam!

    Every single Anti-Western, Anti-Christian, anti-Muslim movement, staring in the 12th Century, had it’s basis, and it’s motivation, in Salafiyyah Islam.

    Mecca & Medina have for centuries, since then, been cranking out Salafiyyah inspired Imams, who have spread the Salafiyyah creed across North Africa, down to West Africa and East Africa, into the Balkans, the Caucuses, Central Asia, India & Pakistan, the entire Middle East, and as far east as Indonesia and the Southern Philippines!

    Outside of the Saudis themselves, the Yemenis have been the primary advocates and proselytizers of Salafiyyah Islam, the so called “Hadramuti”, Salafiyyah Imams from the Hadramut Wadi in Yemen, have been migrating from their to Pakistan, Lebanon, India, and the Aech province of Indonesia for at least 300 years, spreading Salafism!

    If you know anything then, about the modern make up of Al Qaeda, and this history of Salafism, you’ll recognize that Bin Laden, despite his father’s Saudi citizineship, is in fact, a “Hadramuti” (makes sense now, doesn’t it??); and that he has found some of his most fervent supporters in Yemen, Pakistan, India, the Aech Province of Indonesia and Mindanao in the Southern Philippines!

    Starting to make sense?

    Obviously, the modern (1920’s ) Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt, 1020’s; appears to be modern, but his ideological leaders, Hassan al Banna, and Syed Qutb, from where to you think THEY took their theological inspiration??

    From Ibn Tamiyah of course!

    Qutb’s innovation was the so-called innovation of “jahiliyyah” or “Godless ignorance” state of society, was not even his own, it was Ibn Tamiyah’s!

    Even the Wahhabiyyah, 1800’s from Saudi, appear to be “modern”, and you state that, but that is only their name, and the melding of the Royal and Imamian lines of authority; in fact, their ideological inspiration was Ibn Tamiyah.

    People like to make this argument, about the current crop of Jihadis, being “modern”, to in fact, blame the West, and the US and Christianity as being the cause of this current “Islamic problem”.

    It is NOTHING of the sort.

    This 1100 year old theological movement within Islam, was began as a reaction to a MONGOL invasion! It had nothing to do with the West nor the US nor Christianity.

    And it only reinforced what was already within Islam, and that was the concept of JIHAD!

    I don’t want to hear any crap about the Crusades either; Christians and Jews were in Jeruselum for 600 and 1500 years respectively, BEFORE Islam; it was the Muslims who invaded the “Holy Land” and took over it, it was never a historical venue for them, they were a Pagan, Moon-Godess worshipping group of tribes confined the armpit of the world in southern Arabia, until Muhammed had his so-called “revelations”, that enabled him to brainwash a group of gullible family family members and supporters into thinking he was a prophet, all designed to increase the wealth and prestige of his family of traders, and evict the wealthy Jewish and Chrsitian tribes who up until that point, had controlled the pilgrimage toursit trade to the Pagan worshipping sites!

  14. Sorry, was typing so fact, I paid no attention to spelling:

    It was the MONGOLS, not the “Mogols”; as I don’t want to confuse you with that term, which is really “Mughals”

  15. Terrye says:

    Islam needs to reform, like Christianity did. For them it is still the 7th century. Their refusal to reform is why the Enlightenment has passed them by and why these radical movements can take root.

    I know there are people like Robert Spencer who think there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, that the religion itself can not be reformed because jihad makes that impossible.

    I disagree. There are more than a billion Muslims, we can not make enemies of them all and right now Muslims all over the Middle East are rejecting Osama and AlQaida.

    The Crusades were complex, essentially they began as a defensive movement to stop the spread of Islam which was making head way in the Middle East and Asia…however, over time the Crusades became something else as well. But it would be absurd to assume that if not for the Crusades there would not have been a war, the truth is if not for the Crusades there might well not be a Europe.

    I think there is hope that Islam can reform and I think there are jihadis who fear just such a thing is possible, that is one reason they fight. They fear enlightenment and the modern age.

  16. Dc says:

    According to what I’ve read…most muslim scholars attribute the term “salifism” to a resurgent traditional movement founded in the late 1800s, based on teachings of the old ways and older writings..some of which you mentioned. One would assume resurgent traditional etc..meant that at the time it was happening…that it meant such things were NOT being practiced or very limited practice, etc. or more succinctly, that the old ways were not being followed at that time.

    That’s my understanding of it. And there are numerous resources that use that understanding of it. I appreciate your knowledge on the subject and will certainly look into it more based on what you’ve written.

  17. DC: many conflicted sources out there!

    Even the “Wiki”; if you look up “Salafism”, it will basically state what you say above originally, 1800’s; Saudi/Wahhabis started it, then in Egypt in the 1920’s and the Muslim Brotherhood!

    But, if you know enough to look up Ibn Tamiyah, you’ll see something opposite:

    The best thing to do, is to review the original source for people such as al Banna, Qutb, and Ibn al Wahhab; even Bin Laden and Zawahiri.

    All claim inspiration and to be following the precepts laid down by Ibn Tamiyah.

    Additionally, IF “Salafism” didn’t exist before the 1800’s; it would have been impossible for Salafiyyah anti-Colonial movements to have existed before then, but we know that to be the case; Salafi style Imans have been coming out of the mosques in Mecca and Medina for centuries!

  18. Terrye says:

    Well as far as that is concerned you can find connections between the Davidians and the Mormon church, but the latter denies the former. The KKK burned crosses for a reason. That Phelps character who goes around to the funerals of American soldiers with his idiot fan club and his signs proclaiming America is doomed because of homosexuality can be compared to earlier preachers as well. But that is not the point.

    Christianity had a very bloody history as well, and I am not talking about the Crusades, but it survived and reformed. The point is major elements of Islam have neglected to do the same. But that does not mean they can’t.