[ April 19, 2024 ]
Is the foe religious or political?
By Robert Spencer
Recently the Wall
Street Journal published an analysis of Obama’s foreign policy failures
that, aside from a few nods in the direction of the reigning politically
correct fictions about the relationship of the jihad doctrine to Islam itself,
was surprisingly clear-sighted: “Feith and Cropsey: A Foreign Policy Failure to
Acknowledge the Obvious,” by Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey. Andrew McCarthy
later responded to it in National
Review. Both pieces together illustrate how both the Left and the Right
misunderstand the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism, and make erroneous
policy recommendations as a result.
Feith and Cropsey rightly criticized the Obama
Administration’s “refusal to accept that the terrorism threat is part of a
larger problem of Islamist extremism” and its “belief that terrorism is spawned
not by religious fanaticism but by grievances about social, economic and other
problems for which America bears fault.” They did nod here and there to
politically correct niceties, assuring their readers that “it is clear that not
all Muslims embrace extremist Islamist ideology—perhaps only a small minority
do,” and claiming that the Islamic supremacists’ “claim to speak for the true
Islam” was “disputable,” even though there is no large-scale Muslim movement
against the jihadist understanding of Islam anywhere in the world.
Story continues below advertisement
Despite these flaws, Feith and Cropsey’s analysis is
generally right on the mark, particularly when explaining the wrongheaded policies
that have flowed from Obama’s denial of the truth of the problem:
The problem with ignoring ideology
is made clear—unintentionally—in President Obama’s National Counter-Terrorism
Strategy, released in June 2011. In it he writes: “We are at war with a
specific organization—al-Qa’ida.” But America also has to work aggressively
against Hezbollah, he notes a few pages later—and against a number of terrorist
groups in South Asia, he further adds, “even if we achieve the ultimate defeat
of al-Qa’ida in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater.”So our problem is substantially
broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What
all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores
that.
It was good to see this analysis in the normally dhimmi WSJ,
but Andy McCarthy saw a problem with it in “The Real Foreign-Policy Failure: A
response to Doug Feith and Seth Cropsey” in National
Review. “The real cause,” McCarthy asserted, “is ideology, not
religion. The distinction is worth drawing because, for the most part, Islamist
terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious tenets
— for instance, ‘the oneness of Allah.’” He declares that Islam’s “theological
tenets are every bit as deserving of the First Amendment’s guarantees as any
other. But Muslims must accept that, in America and the West, it is not Islam
but our traditions — especially the separation of church and state —
that set the parameters of religious liberty. This way, Islam, the religion,
is protected, but Islamic supremacism, the totalitarian ideology, is
not. The latter undeniably draws on Islamic scripture, but it is categorically
akin to Communism or National Socialism, not to religious creeds.”
This is true as far as it goes: a distinction does indeed
need to be made in American law between Islam as a religion and Islam as a
political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, and at variance with our
Constitutional principles and freedoms in numerous ways. But it is off the mark
to say that “the real cause is ideology, not religion,” and that “Islamist
terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious tenets
— for instance, ‘the oneness of Allah.’” A moment’s glance at the names of
jihad terror groups around the world shows that it is precisely zealousness for
Islam’s religious tenets that fuels jihad terrorism. Take, for example, the
Supporters of Tawheed, a banned
jihad group in Wales. What’s “Tawheed”? The oneness of Allah. Then there is
the Tawheed
and Jihad group in Gaza that recently murdered an Italian peace activist.
And exactly the same name, Tawheed
wal-Jihad, was used for his group by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the jihad leader
in Iraq.
Aside from Tawheed itself, the names of jihad groups are
invariably religious: Hamas is an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement.
Hizballah is the Party of Allah. The group that murdered Ambassador Stevens and
the others in Libya was Ansar al-Sharia — supporters of Islamic law. And on
and on.
The key point that McCarthy misses here is that the
distinction between the religious and political realms is a Western realm that
has no foundation in traditional Islam. These groups are fighting for political
and religious goals simultaneously, and see no difference, much less opposition,
between the two. In fact, Islamic apologists have frequently criticized the
Judeo-Christian West precisely for drawing such a distinction. This doesn’t
mean that he is wrong in saying that we have to combat the political and
supremacist aspects of Islam as such, but one principal reason why the problem
of identifying our foe properly has proven to be so intractable is that the
religious and the political in Islam are completely intertwined and not
separable in any organic way found within Islam itself.
This, too, has to recognized before there can be any real
progress made in public policy on this issue.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad
Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam
(and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His
latest book is Did Muhammad Exist?.
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
9 Comments
11 years ago
The West no longer fights holy wars, but Muslims do. That is the elephant in the room.
We are allowing the proliferation of Salafism in the name of freedom of religion. What a huge folly that is! And a deadly folly, too.
Did we learn nothing from 9/11?
11 years ago
Exactly the reason why talking solely about issues like halal food or hijabs doesn’t get the message across. Leftists think the problem is one of intolerance on the Right. As Mr. Spencer explains, the real issue is Islamic supremacism which is an ideology which claims that their religion is the culmination of the Abrahamic tradition, their prophet the final prophet, and their obligation to make the world Muslim and submit to allah is absolute. Not all Muslims believe all that, some claim to be devout and still not believe in supremacism, but the mainstream version of the religion does teach that. That’s the big elephant no one talks much about: Islamophobia/Islamorealism. Terror is just a tactic to accomplish that goal of supremacism but the real goal is domination or as they call it, submission.
11 years ago
I am a little confused by Andrew McCarthy’s statement that “The real cause is ideology, not religion.” How do you separate the two, particularly in a religion like Islam where the primary source of its ideology comes from its primary holy text, the Koran?
For example, a Muslim would have 1st Amendment protection to walk around carrying a sign with a quote from Koran 98:6 reading “Non-believers are the most vile of created beings.” The sign carries both a religious and an ideological message. If you or I walked around carrying a sign that read “Muslims are the most vile of created beings” we would probably be arrested.
11 years ago
For me, Robert makes an un answerable case in favour of taking the whole view. If we look at the history of the Venician Republic it fought the Turks for 400 years while STILL trading with them because it was in their INTERESTS to trade with them. I believe the Western powers are fighting a similar war today, while trading with them for the same reasons.
Unless and until muslims residing in our countries are forced to remove the passages in Koran that demand jihad, they will continue the policy of trying our patience and defences indefinatly.
The key to winning this as far as winning in our countries goes is to leave your watch at the roadside, as in Easy Rider, and assume the long haul is the future, maintaining our strength, our advanced society and rejecting PC attempts to disarm ourselves culturally and in every other way.
11 years ago
THE ENEMY WITHIN
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero
11 years ago
(italics stuck on here for some reason; my efforts to correct it were obviously unsuccessful.)
Hey, Sir Mr. Spencer.
The hour’s late, nonetheless, having read your comments, my brief I’m compelled to post:
First, my first notion on reading McCarthy’s statement there was, putting it “family friendly”—what garbage, what a line of nonsensical refuse.
Second: With your title “Is the foe religious or political?” in mind, aiming to be brief here, to your statements—a number of them beg for highlighting:
“Both pieces together illustrate how both the Left and the Right misunderstand the threat of jihad and Islamic supremacism, and make erroneous policy recommendations as a result.”
Amen, Sir. Amen.
Next:
“So our problem is substantially broader than al Qaeda—and even broader than al Qaeda and its affiliates. What all these groups have in common is Islamist ideology—yet Mr. Obama ignores that.”
Indeed, as did Bush and company.
Next:
“it is off the mark to say that ‘the real cause is ideology, not religion,’ and that ‘Islamist terror is not fueled by Muslim zealousness for Islam’s religious tenets’”
Again, Amen, Sir.
As you know, anyone well versed in Islam knows you are 100% accurate in that assertion; what’s more, the Islamic “sacred texts” easily corroborate and substantiate that fact.
To your final statement I highlight:
“[the reason why] the problem of identifying our foe properly has proven to be so intractable is that the religious and the political in Islam are completely intertwined and not separable in any organic way found within Islam itself.
This, too, has to recognized before there can be any real progress made in public policy on this issue.
Well stated, Robert. Amen.
So too no separation between Shariah and Islam—the Shariah of Islam is simply just that—the code of law (according to Islam) given to man by the last prophet give to human kind. Simply put, Islam and its guidance are one—Inseparable.
With respect,
Debi Brand
11 years ago
robert:
cogent, well stated. and, in my view, authoritative.
these few following remarks are meant only to illustrate your point of the unity of world and religious view in islam.–
it is informative to read arabic/muslim articles on the architecture of mosques. the mosque is seem in islam much like a cavalry fort was seen in this country as we pushed into the american west. it was a military base, a center of commerce, a center of culture and the spread of culture, and it was designed to provide protection and a base of operation in war.
the same with the mosque. all of the architecture is designed to fulfill all those functions, as well as religious instruction, and religious and social discipline.
and, most mosques have madrassas, and most madrassas have small mosques in them.
there is, in short, no distinction between the religious and the secular in islam, as you so well point out. it is the same. the mission of the one is the mission of the other.
john jay
11 years ago
Its a political system, of course. It has a religious component to hide the political side. The west believes it to be a religion as there is little education on the dangers of Naziism and its sister, islam.
11 years ago
Robert Spencer, Roger Kimball (& Andrew McCarthy): These articles, and you, their authors, are: WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!!
Robert, you said: “This is true as far as it goes: a distinction does indeed need to be made in American law between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political system that is authoritarian, supremacist, and at variance with our Constitutional principles and freedoms in numerous ways.”
NO.
You CAN’T separate the secular from the “religious” in islam, simply because it’s really always been ALL only a secular (us-versus-them, and might-makes-right) affair anyway!
Moslems ARE atheists!
While all “real” religions, at WORST, only say:
“Obey our silly rules, or GOD (/’the gods’) will get you!”
ONLY islam says:
“Obey our silly rules, or WE will get you (‘for god’)!”
So obviously, moslems are only atheists because they have NO faith in their god’s abilities or desires to pay any attention to them or to anyone alse ever anyway, not even a desire nor ability to enforce even it’sown us-versus-them, might-makes-right creed.
Allah is described in the Qur’an as a big, bad, remote, scary thing, so the group called “islam” and it’s rule-book, the Qur’an, are the only gods they can worship and obey.
So, static islam itself is the false idol they continue to worship – and it’s about as responsive to human needs as the rocks they used to worship!
MOSLEMS FEAR ALLAH, AS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO IMAGINE ANYTHING WORSE THAN AN OMNISCIENT, OMNIPOTENT, CAPRICIOUS UNKNOWABLE AND UNKNOWN BEING. COMPARED TO SUCH A THREAT, EVEN THE HOPE OF IT’S OPPOSITE – OF A RATIONAL SET OF PRINCIPLES AND PHYSICAL LAWS LIMITING SUCH A BEAST – SEEMS DANGEROUSLY NAIVE AND IN FACT LIKELY TO FOCUS ITS WRATHFUL AND PAINFUL ATTENTIONS ON THE IMAGINER.
THUS ALLAH IS PORTRAYED AS ONLY HATING THE NOTION THAT IT’S POWER IS LIMITED OR SPLIT; THAT IT IS, IN FACT, LESS THAN OMNIPOTENT. SO ALL SHARIA ‘LAWS’ BASED ON THIS SUBJECTIVE FEAR ARE NATURALLY AND BY DEFINITION, DELIBERATELY IRRATIONAL (CAUSE AND EFFECT CANNOT BE HELD TO CONSTRAIN ALLAH’S POWERS OF INFLICTING RANDOM PAIN)!
THUS TO MOSLEMS, ALL FACTS ARE ONLY OPINIONS, BECAUSE NO ONE CAN EVER KNOW ANYTHING, SINCE ALLAH IS IN CHARGE AND HE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE HIS MIND ABOUT ANYTHING &/OR EVERYTHING ANYWAY!
IDOLATRY is an excuse to remain criminally, negligently, delinquently irrational; to enjoy the “right” to remain ignorantly, irresponsibly WRONG! (“The Allah Made Us Do It”)!)
To criminals who pretend to believe that all facts are only opinions, of course all laws are also held by them to be only suggestions! AND VICE-VERSA!
THEY HAVE NO PRINCIPLES BEYOND THIS CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT, DELINQUENT TREASON TO RATIONALITY!
IF SOMETHING HAPPENED, THEN ALLAH WILLED IT TO HAPPEN, SO IT CAN’T HAVE BEEN BAD, BY DEFINITION! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, EVERY TIME! And if I’M BAD (as a delinquent criminal moslem) since I got away with it, then it was really ALWAYS a GOOD thing anyway, so no one has any right to attack ME by accusing me of anything, either!
This is why these criminals (and their liberal enablers) push for their backwards “anti-Blasphemy” notions that it should be “illegal” to accuse any criminals (moslems) of their crimes, if doing so might hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!
Here’s islam’s “holy Message from god” as exemplified by the collective words and deeds of it’s Founder:
“I will save humanity by lying to, extorting, torturing, robbing, burning out of their homes, kidnapping and ransoming, enslaving, raping and murdering everyone who even only verbally disagrees with me – and you can, too!”
-Muhammad-
Muhammad was really only a con-man and bandit-king, an arch-criminal who always blamed “god” for his own penchant for committing crimes. If Moe got away with committing a crime (and he tried them all, enthusiastically, more than once, but instead of ever showing contrition, bragged about how much fun it was to commit them, and advised everyone else to join in the fun, too), then it was held to be “obvious” that “god” wanted him to get away with having committed those crimes!
Criminals believe in idolatrous group-might-made-rights (which is of course only what all criminals pretend to believe in – if they can take your stuff by force, then they have a ‘right’ to it) which automatically deprives all real human citizen individuals of theirs!
So lying (fraud) is also their favorite tactic, because it’s the most basic form of theft (it’s the theft of the Truth) and theft IS crime! Of course, their first lie is to them selves: “I have a right to your stuff, simply because I have the ability to take it without asking you!”
Muhammad’s islam pretends that objective, right-and-wrong morality are all false concepts which don’t really exist – because, as moslems, only the big bad scary capricious unknown and unknowable idol of allah is responsible for everything, including both “good” and “bad,” as their main #1 excuse for their crimes!
Islam is NOT A RELIGION (at all, much less one “of peace”)! It’s ONLY an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME-syndicate!
The ‘theological’ notion of Allah’s “oneness” is CRUCIAL to their main criminal, might-makes-right alibi, that “we aren’t responsible, and no ones is every really a criminal anyway, because we’re really all only victims anyway:
“God told us to commit these crimes! Whee!”
AND – IF ALLAH *ISN’T* OMNIPOTENT, THEIR MAIN EXCUSE: (“THE ALLAH MADE US DO IT!”) FAILS!
;-(
