Eric Holder Refuses to Say 'Radical Islam' Is a Cause of Terrorism Committed by Muslims

This YouTube clip from the attorney general's testimony today will be the most painful two minutes of video you will ever watch.

Mr. Holder would obviously rather get a root-canal than utter the words "radical Islam" (despite the fact that his description of the American people as "a nation of cowards" on race and of Bush officials as war criminals seemed to roll of the tongue without much difficulty).

You'll be pleased to discover, via the AG, that there is an infinite variety of reasons why Muslims commit terrorist attacks. Those reasons, of course, have nothing to do with Islamic doctrine, which is why, even as we speak, agents are struggling to understand what might possibly have driven Faisal Shahzad to try to blow up Times Square. (I guess Mayor Bloomberg will be pleased to know that opposition to the healthcare bill hasn't necessarily been ruled out yet.)

How can you ever hope to stop something when you refuse even to speak its name?

Interesting, by the way, to hear Mr. Holder has become such an expert in Islam that he now purports to know more about the subject than people who have spent years studying it. He referred to al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki as beholden to "a version of Islam that is not consistent with the teachings of it." I wonder if he will enlighten us on what exactly Awlaki has gotten wrong.

Hopefully, Mr. Holder will at least let Secretary Clinton know because the State Department is showcasing the Dar al-Hijra Islamic Center — Awlaki's old Virginia haunts, where the imam used to minister to 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood mass-murderer — as the model depiction of Islam in America. (See Steve Emerson's reports at the Investigative Project on Terrorism, here and here).

Stephen Coughlin said the same thing as McCarthy [and got fired]:

“The 9-11 commission has been completely undermined. You cannot defeat an enemy you are not allowed to define. By definition, this administration has no strategy to defeat this enemy since they refuse to define it.”

Stephen Coughlin

Jihad: The Political Third Rail – What They Are Not Telling You is a conference featuring some of the premier American and international voices of resistance to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. This inaugural event of the Freedom Defense Initiative (FDI), a new activist organization founded by myself and Robert Spencer, will be held at the Mariott Wardman Park Hotel, the site of CPAC, on February 19 from 10AM to Noon, in the Virginia Ballroom.

Speaker Spotlight: Steve Coughlin [Who refused to moderate his position on Islam & got fired]

Late in 2007, Major Stephen Coughlin, USAR, the Pentagon’s lone expert on Islamic law (Sharia) on the Joint Staff, was asked by Hesham Islam, special assistant for international affairs for the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon R. England, to moderate his statements about Islam’s doctrines mandating warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. In response, Coughlin, cited Islamic sources to show that he was portraying Islamic teaching accurately. According to journalist Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, Islam and other Muslims in the Pentagon then began campaigning to have Coughlin fired, calling him a “Christian zealot with a pen.” Ultimately, Coughlin’s contract was not renewed.

This was despite the high quality of Coughlin’s work. Said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney: “Steve Coughlin is the most knowledgeable person in the U.S. government on Islamic law.” LTC Joseph C. Myers, Army Advisor to the Air Command and Staff College, told the truth: “The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice.”

Coughlin insisted that we must speak clearly about the nature of the threat we face. In his thesis [PDF file], “‘To Our Great Detriment’: Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad,” submitted to the National Defense Intelligence College in July 2007, he argued that the politically correct refusal to name the enemy was placing the United States at a strategic disadvantage.

Even worse, according to terrorism expert Steven Emerson, Hesham Islam was “an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators.” Gertz reported that Islam had brought Muslim Brotherhood operatives into Pentagon community outreach programs: “Coughlin came under fire from pro-Muslim officials after a memorandum he wrote identified several groups that are being courted by Mr. Islam’s community outreach program as front organizations for the pro-extremist Muslim Brotherhood.”

Islam also prevailed upon England to host members of the Islamic Society of North America, a Brotherhood organization, at the Pentagon in April 2008, “raising concerns,” said Gertz, “that the deputy defense secretary does not understand clearly the nature of the Islamist threat he is working against as the No. 2 official.”

The Stephen Coughlin affair illustrated most vividly the infiltration at the highest levels of the U.S. government. At the Freedom Defense Initiative event, Coughlin will make his first public appearance since the sad and telling events that led to his termination from the Defense Department. His message about Muslim Brotherhood influence at high levels of our government is deeply disturbing – and it is crucial that he be heard.

Synopsis of Couglin's Speech
(which, of course, was not covered by the MSM. You'd think they'd be a touch curious. It's entirely possible that his firing will be mentioned in future history books as a watershed event in US security policy)

Robert Spencer introduced the next speaker – Stephen Coughlin – a former Pentagon Islamic law specialist who was fired from his job for his analysis of Islamic infiltration.

Coughlin provided a clear and cogent analysis of the Islamic threat. He explained that the question of whether or not these terrorists are following ‘true’ Islam is irrelevant from a fact-driven perspective. They have repeatedly told us these are the reasons they fight jihad.

A vital part of Coughlin’s discussion dealt with the doctrine of abrogation within Islam. This doctrine states that Mohammed was given progressive revelation of Allah’s will, and that the later Koranic verses supersede and nullify earlier contradictory more peaceful verses. This is something that is recognized by ALL schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

Coughlin also demonstrated that since the 9-11 commission report, political correctness has expunged words such as Muslim, enemy, Al-Qaeda and Islam from official government documents including the Ft. Hood massacre report.

Coughlin:

“The 9-11 commission has been completely undermined. You cannot defeat an enemy you are not allowed to define. By definition, this administration has no strategy to defeat this enemy since they refuse to define it.”

NewsRealBlog

Former Defense Department analyst Stephen Coughlin was exceedingly informative, and his point that official American self-censorship regarding Islam and jihad has given the enemy a "decisive victory in the information battlespace" was truly chilling.

Coughlin, whose perceptions got him crosswise with Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England’s Muslim sidekick Hesham Islam and later excluded from the DoD, insisted that those entrusted with protecting Americans from Islamic terrorism have a “professional duty to know” about the roots of said terrorism’s doctrine in Islamic scripture and tradition.

After all, he pointed out, the murderous rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, by Muslim U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan had a “doctrinal driver,” as evinced by Hasan’s own presentation to his Army medical colleagues calling for Muslim service personnel to be accorded conscientious objector status lest “adverse events” occur.

The enemy, Coughlin observed, has stated his doctrine. Can we, he enquired, be politically correct and threat-focused at the same time? No way – because, he concluded, “You cannot defeat an enemy you will not define.”

Coughlin's thesis on jihad doctrine may be accessed here. It is lengthy but gripping, and is a must-read.

Greenspiece Blogspot

Coughlin (and other speakers) Presentation Clips here and here

For those who may not read Coughlin's thesis, here is a synopsis by Carol Iannone, a blogger for National Review:

"'To Our Great Detriment': Ignoring What Extremists Say about Jihad," submitted to the National Defense Intelligence College. [NOTE: Complete thesis linked above in pdf format]:

I've been reading Stephen Coughlin's master's thesis...and I can see why it got him into trouble. He frankly declares that this administration has been wrong on the relation of Islam to jihadism and terrorism. While members of the administration sternly warn of the dire threats we face and how we must know our enemy, they themselves are lost in illusions about that enemy. The enemy is not Islamo-Fascism, but the jihadist elements of Islam itself.

Coughlin points out that on the basis of very little, Bush, Rice, and other Administration people blithely declare Islam a religion of peace that has been hijacked by a few violent extremists for their own agenda, an agenda which they insist has nothing to do with Islam. They ignore all the evidence from Islamic sources that support violence in the name of spreading or defending the faith and bypass the professed and frequently stated aims of the jihadists.

Coughlin's thesis suggests that there are not two schools of thought on Islamic terror, those who think it is simply a criminal problem and those who think it is a war we will be fighting for a long time, but three. First, there is the view that largely comes from the liberal-left, that thinks there really is no Islamic threat, that it's really America and its actions that have called forth violence from Muslims, that if there is violence, it is from a tiny few and can be managed by the world community like an international criminal problem. Then there is the conservative-right view, that there is indeed a terrible threat, a virtual World War Four, and the threat is from Islamo-Fascism, not from Islam itself, but from the aberrations of radicals who are creating some distorted blending of Islamic beliefs with 20th century fascist concepts. This is only a recent development, according to this view, not centuries old, and therefore we can be very hopeful about stomping it out.

About ten percent of the world's Muslims do believe in Islamo-Fascist jihad, and that is a serious number, but ninety percent of Muslims don't believe in it and want what we all want, material security and prosperity. In fact, the underlying causes of terrorism arise from the material deprivation and lack of freedom and opportunity in the Muslim world. There is thus no conflict between Islam and liberal democracy and modernity in general, and certainly no clash of civilizations. The Islamic world will not be able to resist the march of liberal democracy and the irresistible call of freedom. This view is largely that of President Bush.

The third view says that there is indeed a problem with Islam itself, that even if only a minority of Muslims will ever take up jihad, most Muslims know that that is mandated by their religion and they do support it in belief and sometimes financially. The term Islamo-Fascism is really a euphemism for those who wish to deny or ignore the violence inherent in Islam.

This view sees that jihad has been a feature of Islam from its beginnings and that martyrdom is honored and rewarded in Islam. This view also finds that Islam may well be in conflict with liberal democracy. Muslims are told that they are meant to Islamicize the countries they live in, through "peaceful" means if they can, and violent means when necessary, and we already see signs of this in Europe and America.

So, to return more strictly to Coughlin's thesis, he says that we are hampered in dealing with the enemy and in producing good intelligence for our strategic plans because instead of listening to what the enemy is saying, we impose our own hopeful, optimistic kind of view on the Islamic world, that everyone is really like us at heart and that we will see this in the end.

SOURCE

And lastly, an Interview [YouTube] with Stephen Coughlin: Who's Innocent, According to Shariah?

The most heinous and barbaric crime in this world would be to stop an individual to think freely. And when such a crime is legalised in the form of a religion, one can easily imagine how disastrous it can be. Islam is such a religion.

Islam imposes a threat to the whole world which is far worse than deforestation, nuclear destruction or AIDS. It is an insidious, devilish disease creeping into the veins of the world. Every individual must realise the destructive and evil nature of this religion, for it eats away at the very foundation of humanity which is an individual's ability to think individually and act accordingly.

To understand this cruel treatment by the muslims one has to understand why Islam was originated. As Anwar Sheikh, a free thinker has said in his book, Islam is nothing but a Arab National Movement. This movement was the dream of Mohammed who wanted everything under his control. Islam was a convenient religious excuse for him to do this.

For this movement to be successful, Mohammed had to find a way to control mindless people and justify the brutal merciless killings. Thus Islam was devised and propagated by a band of dacoits.

To start with, the Great Mohammed divided the Arabian society in two tight compartments:

* Momins
* Kafirs

The word momin means believer in Mohammed and Allah. In contrast a kafir is a non-believer. The momins did not have to be better men than the Kafirs in terms of character or consciousness. Momins had only to recite the Kalima (incantation)- "there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet." By doing that the 'momins' become qualified to kill as many kafirs as they could or pleased, looting and burning their belongings and enslaving their women and children in the process.

The momins were not of course risking their lives for nothing. Four-fifths of the booty and prisoners captured in war was theirs in accordance with the law laid down in the Quran by the prophet himself. The prisoners included quite a number of fair and young maidens who could set any momin's mouth watering. No wonder that the infant state of Islam at Medina was able to assemble very soon quite a number of dedicated swordsmen without spending a penny from its own coffers. The principle of free enterprise applied to plunder an pillage was functioning with full force.

The prophet of Islam proclaimed that Allah has assigned the whole world to the momins. Not a patch was to be left for the kafirs to dwell. But it seems that Allah's knowledge of geography was not so good. It looks like Allah's Prophet Mohammed had not heard of many lands beyond Syria, Iraq, Persia, Ethiopia, and Egypt. Notwithstanding this lack of geographical knowledge, the prophet divided the world in two contending spheres--darul-Islam(the zone of peace where the muslims were the dominant element) and darul-Harb (the zone of war where the kafirs or non-muslims held sway).

Anwar Sheikh says,

"The philosophy that lies behind Islam is stunning and proves the consummate political skill of the Prophet Mohammed: by declaring all Muslims as one nation and the non-Muslims as another, he created the Two Nation Theory, perpetually setting Muslims against non-Muslims. Again, he stressed that in this struggle the Muslims would be victorious."

We see this philosophy in practice in the modern times. The partition of India was based totally on this. Here Pakistan and Bangladesh are darul-Islam whereas India is darul-Harb. The recent religious wars in Bosnia were also based on this.

Anwar Sheikh further says,

"I am referring to the prophet's declaration that Allah has made him the Model of Practice for his followers. It has come to mean that the Muslims must copy him in everything, they must eat, drink, walk and talk like him, even must look like him, that is, they grow beard like his, have a similar hair-cut and dress like him. This is what is called followings the Sunnah .i.e., the Prophetic: Model which is the guarantee of salvation. One can easily say that Islam has been designed to induce respect and love for Arabia. There are express commands of the Prophet, which state that a person is not Muslim until he loves him more than his own father and mother. The idea is that people must be weaned from their own nationalities and motherlands, and attached firmly to Mecca. This is the reason that the Muslims of India call their own homeland as the battlefield and Arabia the fountain of peace and celestial glory. Now, it is perhaps, easy for you to understand why the Muslims of India partitioned their own motherland for practicing the Arab cultural values in Pakistan (and Bangladesh)."

To ensure the superiority of darul- Islam the prophet, Mohammed took the following steps:

1. When Adam was evicted from paradise, he came to Mecca where he built the first house of God. Thus, he identifies Godliness with Kabba, a sanctuary of Mecca where God lives.

2. For the purpose of imposing Arab psychological superiority on non-Arab Muslims, he decreed that they must prostrate five-times- a-day facing Mecca. This is not only an act of submission to Mecca, the capital city of Arabia, but also proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God lives in Mecca, otherwise why should people prostrate in that direction?

3. A Muslim must not defecate himself or answer the call of nature facing Mecca. It is a blasphemous act in view of the sanctity of Mecca.

4. When Muslims die, they must be buried facing Mecca, which is the guarantee of their salvation.

5. To make sure that the Arabs enjoy economic opulence, the Prophet made Hajj as obligatory ritual for his followers. It is a pilgrimage to Mecca. There are countless Indian Muslims who sell their homes and personal belongings to undertake this journey.

The muslims must love Arabia because the prophet did so. They must follow him as the Divine Model of Practice. This is what Islam expects of muslims. If they don't, they are sure to enter hell because the Prophet will not intercede on their behalf. Intercession is the special power of the Prophet Mohammed. He will recommend paradise for his followers on the Day of Judgment. His recommendation is final and Allah cannot deny it. It is available to all murderers, rapists, arsonists, cheats, thugs, pickpockets and pimps provided they are followers of the Prophet. On the contrary, all Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Christians will be cast into a flaming hell, no matter, how pious and God-fearing they may have been. Piety has no meaning and value without believing in Mohammed and the greatness of his homeland. Intercession is the climax of the Prophet's National wisdom--It is this Muslim belief which gives them the hope of free sex and economic abundance, and they feel obliged to kill in the name of Islam. This is why they are ever ready to stab their motherland. After all, caring about one's country entails sacrifices whereas the comforts of paradise are sweet and splendid. And it is especially so when they involve no moral responsibility.

After reading the above passages you should be able to comprehend the true nature of a muslim and the reason behind the countless killings, rapes, arsons, and loots done by muslims throughout history. Now I will quote from the Quran below to support what I have stated above. The chapters and verse numbers are also stated here for refernce.

Verses from the Koran:

VIII/12: When thy Lord inspired the angels (saying:) I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.

Here one can clearly see that the Quran is openly saying to the muslims to give a torturous death to those who are non-believers of the Islamic faith.

XCVIII/6: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the people of the Scripture and idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

From the above passage you can clearly see that according to Mohammed, Allah has reserved a special place for non- muslims--HELL!

IX/5: Then when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor- due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

This verse tells us that muslims are free to convert non-muslims by force and brutality. If unsuccessful in doing so, they are free to kill.

IX/73: Oh Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

LXIX/30-37: (It will be said)Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. And then insert him in a chain whereof the length is seventy cubits. Lo! he used not to believe in Allah the tremendous, and urged not on the feeding of the wretched. Therefore hath he no lover hear this day nor any food save filth which none but sinners eat.

Here we get a description of how to punish Non Muslims. This is in practice even today in Islamic countries. In fact, the Sikh Gurus and their families were tortured by muslims as prescribed in the Quran. For example, Sikh guru Tegh Bahadur on refusing to accept Islam, was brought to the prison in a cage like he was a wild animal. Three of his disciples were murdered in front of him. One of them was Bhai Mati Das. He was sawed alive. The other was wrapped up in cotton and burnt alive. Bhai Dyala, the third one, was boiled alive. Guru Tegh Bahadur himself was brutally tortured and killed in a similar fashion. We see further support of these types of torments in the verses below.

XLIV/43-50: LO! the tree of Zaqqum (The tree that grows in the heart of hell bearing fruits like devil's heads) - the food of the sinner. Like molten brass, it seetheth in their bellies as the seething of boiling water. (And it will be said): Take him and drag him to the midst of hell, then pour upon his head the torment of boiling water. Saying: TASTE! LO! thou wast forsooth the mighty, the noble! Lo! this is that whereof ye used to doubt.

IX/123: O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you and let them find harshness in you and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).

IV/144: O Ye who believe! choose not disbelievers for your friends in place of believers. Would you give Allah a clear warrant against you ?

This verse clarifies the fact that a true Muslim can never be a friend of a person of another faith. People who believe otherwise are under delusion.

http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/kafir.html

There Is No Such Thing As A Moderate Or Modern Muzlum! When push comes to shove, the Koran says they are ALL Replicas of Muhammad!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.