From an interesting overview-interview with Alastair Crooke:
What deficiencies does the West have in its understanding of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant [ISIL]?
First, the West is trying to assert that there is a "true" Islam, and that ISIL is a heretical deviation from this "true" Islam. This assertion is really a projection of the Christian experience: In fact, Islam wears many faces, and there is no authority -- unlike Christianity -- that can bestow on any one orientation the mantle of being the true Islam. Only one orientation makes the bold claim to be true Islam, and that is Wahhabism. When Western policymakers say that the ideology of ISIL is a "heresy" and must be de-legitimized, in this respect, they do not understand ISIL.
ISIL follows precisely the teachings of Mohammad Abd-al Wahhab. They model themselves on the first two caliphs -- particularly in their conduct of the wars against apostasy-- almost identically. If you are saying that ISIL is not Islamic or non-Muslim, then you are saying that Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah and other Wahhabist Gulf States are not Muslim, either. The leaders of the West have to accept that if you say ISIL is not Islamic or is non-Muslim, then they have to answer the question: Was King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia Muslim? ISIL is a neo-Wahhabist emergence, precisely following the works of Mohammed Abd-al Wahhab. It is true Islam, in this sense, and most Muslims know this.
You were critical of the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, who said that “we are fighting an ideology not a regime” in regards to ISIL.
Because what he was saying was that ISIL does not follow Islam. And then the Americans are surprised when Saudi Arabia does not send troops to fight it. But he is not understanding the principles on which Saudi Arabia is based. It was founded jointly by Mohammed Abd-al Wahhab and Ibn Saud in the 18th century, and these same practices were first emulated by King Abdulaziz in the 1920s -- and are now being emulated by ISIL.
The principles are the same, but the West simply calls ISIL terrorists.
A "terrorist" labeling is one that intentionally "shuts down" further thought; it polarizes into good and evil, and of course by definition it is not possible to "negotiate" with evil. So "terrorism" as a term simply precludes the bother of having to think or understand. So ISIL become just "terrorists" and Westerners cannot understand their allure, and yes, they have allure for many young Muslims.
All I am saying is that one needs to understand them more deeply. ISIL use terror as a deliberate military strategy, but that is not the end of it: They are deeply embedded in one orientation of Islam: Their doctrines are pure Wahhabism, original Wahhabism. And their methodology is derived from the wars of the Ridda [A.D. 632 and 633].
Crooke is the director and founder of Conflicts Forum based in Beirut. He was formerly an adviser on Middle East issues to Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief. He also was a staff member of Senator George Mitchell's Fact Finding Committee that inquired into the causes of the Intifada (2000-2001) and was adviser to the International Quartet. He facilitated various cease-fires in the Occupied Territories and the withdrawal of occupying forces on two occasions. He has had 20 years' experience working with Islamist movements and extensive experience working with movements such as Hamas, Hezbollah and other Islamist movements in Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Middle East. He was a ranking figure in the British intelligence, MI6. He is a member of the UN's Alliance of Civilization's Global Experts. His book, "Resistance: The Essence of the Islamist Revolution," was published in 2009.
That article shows what we meant when we said the following in our immediately previous post, "If the US Were as Israel, Only the Insane Would Call it a Modern Democracy. Here's Why," which you really should also read in it's entirety:
As packed as that article is, it only gives an overview. It doesn't even hit every highlight because there are so many. It does cite enough sources that if one checks into them and then studies the issues raised, one will obtain a very deep understanding of what's been going on, on the political and secular levels. For a religious, financial, and economic understanding, one must deliberately study the religions involved (in addition to finance and economics; especially banking and monetary reform) and do a great deal of thinking for oneself.
However, I disagree with Alastair Crooke concerning his statement:
...Islam wears many faces, and there is no authority -- unlike Christianity -- that can bestow on any one orientation the mantle of being the true Islam. Only one orientation makes the bold claim to be true Islam, and that is Wahhabism.
First, the only authority in Christianity that can do what Alastair says is Jesus Christ. The closest human beings can come to it is via the words and deeds of Jesus as stated in the Gospels.
Secondly, despite claims to the contrary in what claims to be Islam, the same holds true for Islam. Rather than Jesus being the figure, it's Mohammed. Rather than the Gospels being the text, it's the Qur'an.
I make this argument in the following linked posts (in reverse chronological order; newest on top):
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)