Building Moderate Musim Networks

[abujamal]

As the Kaffir-West led by America continues the War on Islam, this new publication by the RAND corp is providing some detailed strategies in how the West should use collborators from within the Ummah to fight the war against Islamic ideas. Here is an overview with my comments in blue:

Over the past two decades, radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam have gained ground in many Muslim societies. Through the threat of violence, radical Islamists have intimidated or silenced moderate and liberal Muslims, who espouse the key principles of democratic culture, including recognition of human rights, respect for diversity, acceptance of nonreligious sources of law, and opposition to terrorism.

ie Islam is prevailing over Kufr and those who call for it knowingly or unknowingly from amongst us.

Recognizing the parallels between the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge, RAND examined U.S. and allied efforts to build democratic networks and institutions during the Cold War and derived lessons that can be applied to build moderate Muslim networks today.

An admission that this is an ideological war against Islam in the same way the fought the enemy ideology of the cold war, Communism and "terrorism" (they perpetrate most themselves anyway eg 911) is just a cover to not openly admit this is a war on a Islam.

The researchers identified the similarities and differences between the Cold War and the current Islamist challenge, evaluated U.S. programs of engagement with the Muslim world, and developed a road map for building moderate Muslim networks. They recommend that the U.S. government make building these networks an explicit goal of U.S. policy.....Within the United States and Europe, there was already a democratic intellectual movement opposed to communism. What was needed was money and organization to turn individual efforts into a coherent campaign. In almost all of these endeavors, the U.S. government acted like a foundation: It evaluated projects to determine whether they promoted U.S. objectives, provided funding for those that did, and then remained hands-off, allowing the organizations to fulfill their objectives without interference.

Bring it on - those who are openly backed by the Kuffar or secretly promote their agenda will always be finished before they start as the Ummah will does not accept traitors and collaborators.

Comparing the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge highlights important similarities and differences. First, as in the late 1940s, the United States is currently confronted with a new and confusing geopolitical environment with new security threats.

...In both cases, policymakers recognized that the United States and its allies were engaged in an ideological conflict that had to be contested across diplomatic, economic, military, and psychological dimensions. But unlike the Cold War, the current battle involves shadowy groups, not a single entity. The Soviet Union was a nation-state with a clear government structure and defined geographical borders. The radical Islamist threat is comprised of nonstate actors that control no territory, reject the norms of the international system, and are not subject to normal means of deterrence. These differences mean that the United States must develop a new networking strategy to meet the challenge.

In other words, we must kill-off islam before it becomes an actor on the world stage or that will spend the end of Secularism's domination of the world.

RAND recommends that the United States concentrate on the partners, programs, and regions where U.S. support has the greatest likelihood of affecting the war of ideas under way in the Muslim world. The first step in this strategy is for the U.S. government…. and its allies to make a clear decision to help build moderate Muslim networks and to create an explicit link between this goal and overall U.S. strategy and programs.

…The researchers recommend targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young, moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and writers.

Can you think of people and groups who fall in this category?

Functioning again in a foundation-like role, the United States should assist programs that promote democratic education, particularly programs that derive authoritative teachings supportive of democratic and pluralistic values from Islamic texts and traditions, moderate media, gender equality, and advocacy for moderate agendas.

Ie twisting Islamic evidences to promote secularism.

RAND proposes a shift of focus from the Middle East to regions of the Muslim world… the Muslim diasporas in Europe, among Muslims in Southeast Asia and Turkey… Recognizing that radical ideas from the Middle East are being disseminated to the rest of the Muslim world, RAND recommends opening channels of communication that will encourage the dissemination of modern and mainstream interpretations of Islam back into the Middle East from moderate Muslims elsewhere.

That would explain the emphasis of activities in the west by corrupt “Imams”, “scholars” and organisations openly/secretly supported by the governments to not only serve the policy towards Muslims resident in the West in terms of integration, but what many of us have been saying for years that they intend to foment the reformation of Islam into a secular religion alien to Islam and hence the need for the Muslims in the West to act as the first line of defence to keep these collaborating individuals and groups weak and not letting them take root so as to paralyse them here.

Download the full report from here http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG574/

[al-muwahhid]

Salaam,

Those are excellent points... My opinion is that the kuffar are spending a lot of time and effort (and finances) to moderate the muslims. From my perspective I see much funding going into conferences etc in the local community but to be honest the muslims couldn't give a monkey's about combatting extremism. If someone quotes them Quran or Sunnah, they don't have a leg to stand on and most don't bother. The government may say it has spent x amount of millions of pounds on combatting extremism but the fact is this money is not being used for the purpose intended - hah!..

Only the die hard secular so-called muslims tow the goverment agenda, I even know people in the Sufi Muslim Council who are just there for the money, when you speak with them they don't truely believe in the government agenda as they agree with our line to destroy secularism.. although we disagree on the method to do it... As long as we attend these meeting and "hi-jack" the agenda, the kuffar are doomed to failure, Inshallah.

Quote:
Auster: “Pipes's meaning is undeniable: moderate Islam does not now exist. It must be created. Moreover, it can only be created by means of renouncing that which Islam has always been. But, on those terms, can the result still be Islam?” For Auster the problem is: “The fundamental point is that Islam cannot reform itself in any lasting way, because Islam has no source of authority apart from the Koran. In any debate between hard-liners and putative moderates, the hard-liners will have the Koran on their side and will ultimately win the debate.”
END QUOTE
Have a read of this: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/2005/07/does-moderate-islam-exist.html

[Fallujah_Sniper]

Salaamz,

brothers, we can see from this that the Kufaar are now going for the Kill! They want to kill the Islamic Aqeeda and replace it with the new religion called 'Moderate Islam'.

This just goes to highlight the responsibility that us Muslims have here living in the Wset to defend the Deen, and foil and expose the plans of the Kufaar and the help of their Agents.

Jzk

[Psychotic]

Salaamz,

brothers, we can see from this that the Kufaar are now going for the Kill! They want to kill the Islamic Aqeeda and replace it with the new religion called 'Moderate Islam'.

This just goes to highlight the responsibility that us Muslims have here living in the Wset to defend the Deen, and foil and expose the plans of the Kufaar and the help of their Agents.

Jzk

They have been going for the "kill" for a while now, they just thought muslims would acccept the kuffar aqeedah of secularism without a fight. Obviously they dont appreciate the stupidity of their way of life and thought muslims would abandon the undeniable truth for blatant falsehood.

The rand corperation appreciate the mistakes made by the bush administration on the war against islam, and believe that the debate for islam needs to come form within and make the kufar arguments look prominant and hence legitimate, as though numbers carrying a certain idea play a part in something being from islam. But like abujamal said, bring it on. the muslim ummah can see the fight for what it is, and are prepared for this battle of ideas, and as allah tells us in the quran, whenever falsehood meets the truth, there can only been one winner.

[abujamal]

The other thing which struck me is that they RAND is talking about building Agent networks within the Ummah as if it is a new idea! They have been doing this for years, as Muwahid points out, but to no avail which allowed Islam to continue on the ascendancy.

See this thread http://www.hizbuttahrir.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=153&start=0

They did a lot of research of Islam and various muslim groups, and know they are reviewing and critically analysing there strategy and putting forward new strategies owing to the difficulties they have encountered. Shows

1) How scared they are us
2) How hard they are willing to work
3) All the effort they are putting in

This all indicates what an immense problem the secularists will face when the Islamic banner is raised again.

If only more muslims had the commintment to progress Islam on the method of Muhammad saw as the kuffar want to destroy the message, then we would be in business.

[unity]

I would like to see what the "moderates" have to say about this report!

[Peregrine_Falcon]

The primary enabler of "moderate Islam" is the "terrorist" acts that are occurring around the world and the way the West is successfully associating these terrorist acts with the jihadis and takfiris. The jihadi opinion is generally alien to the Muslims, and the takfiri opinions vile. Add to that the fear that is being instilled in the British Muslim community concerning a backlash from the indigenous populations - then you can understand why there is co-operation from the Muslim community to route out "extremism".

However, the basis of this co-operation is quite weak, and what success has been made in the direction of "moderate Islam" is led by a desire to limit the takfiri and jihadi opinions or improve community relations - and not by a desire to redefine Islam and limit it to the spiritual aspect.

Hence, in the long run the kuffar are destined to fail - so long as the basis of struggle with Islam is Secularism.

There is talk of "moderate Secularism" to deal with Islam.

[witness]

Considering many of the point mentioned in this report it would seem like these have already been tried and tested and the results have been negative ie a failure. I just wonder what new things they will try with regards to tiwsting evidences, backing the moderates etc
By comparing this battle with communism is a clear admission that this is an ideolgical war.

[jungle_sniper]

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ يُنفِقُونَ أَمْوَالَهُمْ لِيَصُدُّواْ عَن سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَسَيُنفِقُونَهَا ثُمَّ تَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ حَسْرَةً ثُمَّ يُغْلَبُونَ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ إِلَى جَهَنَّمَ يُحْشَرُونَ

8:36 The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell.

[ivk]

Jungle sniper... a beautiful verse of the Qur'an that summarizes the pointless efforts of the kuffar and their eventual destination.

[Killer_T]

this new report shows that the kuffars efforts have not been successful, ibviously nothing will be successfully for the kuffar no matter how many efferts they invest in. islam will never be defeted and never has been. as the ayah spells out.

[Abu-Musa]

America is also seeking to fund groups who don't engage in Jihad, especially the type that don't use Jihad to confront the occupiers, the rulers and to establish Khilafah by it.

Any takers?

[abujamal]

Don't make me laugh. This is supposed to be a serious forum, not a comical one!

So they are funding those who do not use "Jihad" to establish the Khilafah..... hmmmm interesting. I thought they opposed the establishment of Khilafah full stop, not any particular method.

And even though that is a stupid Statement that "they are seeking...." for which no evidence will be found but mere rantings, there IS evidence that the West are and have funded those claim to partake in "Jihad" out of their naivety (some may say stupidity) in thinking they are fulfilling some obligation....where shall we begin....Afghanistan.....

What's worse is that even when America has been behind an event such as 911, these people like to make stupid claims like the "maginificent 19". Or when Musharaf was installed by America in 1999 into power, some fools were actually claiming they were involved in bringing some "Islamic" leader to power (unless that was an admission to being open collborators on an American project), only to declare takfir on him later!

[al-muwahhid]

America is also seeking to fund groups who don't engage in Jihad, especially the type that don't use Jihad to confront the occupiers, the rulers and to establish Khilafah by it.

Any takers?

Salaam Abu Musa,

Do you have any kind of evidence for this. Any links to kuffar thinktank organisations or any political strategy reports to back this claim?

Or anything which may indicate this from historical facts?

[abujamal]

You don't expect a serious reply al-muwahid, do you? Has anything this guy said based on any type of fact or only expected typical emotional rhetoric? That's where has bothered addressing specific points and dodged the rest eg Jihadis claim to participate in the American 911 project - in itself bringing suspcion on who their handlers are if they did front it for the US govt.

This guy will deny reality and historical facts that his Jihadis inc bin laden all have America origins, that the US was financing and supporting them in Afghanistan in the 1980s etc or he will make excuses for them. This outburst is nothing more than a reaction to the Jihadi arguments on anything not being able to hold water - ie desparation.

[Adam]

Abu Musa,

Involvement over 9/11 was vehemently denied in a specific statement by Bin Laden and co. Full statement can be found on Jihadunspun. Hence those who were the assumed bombers could NOT have been Al -Qaeda as their purported leadership had already denied involvement. No other jihadi organisation claimed responsibility or could account for the accused bombers so who were they and whom did they belong to. Then why has Bin Laden, Zwahiri and co NOT come out with a consistent denial despite continuous allegations of perpetating 9/11. Instead they have slowly fostered the non-involvement into a MYTH of direct planners. WHY? So if Bin Laden and co denied involvement and no other Jihadi organisation claimed responsibility. WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE JIHADI'S CLAIMING CREDIT FOR? THEY DONT EVEN KNOW WHO THE "BOMBERS" WERE AND WHETHER THEY IN FACT DID ACTUALLY CARRY IT OUT. AND WHEN THE JIHADIS BRING STATEMENTS FROM ZWAHIRI & CO THAT INSINUATE INVOLVEMENT. WHY NOT CLAIM RESPONSILBILITY OPENLY. THE FACT IS THAT THE JIHADIS HAVE NO IDEA WHO CARRIED OUT 9/11 AND MANY OTHER BOMBINGS INCLUDING BALI etc. THEY DONT CLAIM RESPONSIBILITY BUT ASSUME THAT IT MUST BE A JIHADI OUTFIT. THIS IS THE WORLD OF JIHADIS. MYTH BUILDING, NAIVETY, STUPIDITY AND EGO. THE AMERICANS, BRITISH, RUSSIANS, PAKISTANI ISI ETC HAVE USED BOMBIMS AND TERRORISM AS A TACTIC FOR DECADES. THE IRONY IS THAT THE JIHADIS ARE NAIVE ENOUGH TO ATTRIBUTE IT TO FELLOW JIHADIS. HOW EASY IT IS TO MANIPULATE THEM AND FOR THE UMMAH TO BECOME MANIPUKLATED BY THEM. FOR THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT ZWAHIRI AND co ARE DOING.

[abujamal]

This is why the question often arises - are these guys being manipulated by the Kuffar out of their stupidity or are they willingly assisting?

This is why the question often arises - are these guys being manipulated by the Kuffar out of their stupidity or are they willingly assisting?

I think even people from the kuffar have realised that America are using the jihadis, and unfortunatley the jihadis are the last to realsie it, read the last paragraph of this article to see how the kuffar are using the jihadis.

Iraq: Iranian Intent vs. Capability
May 09, 2007 23 28 GMT



Summary

Iran has offered to help the United States develop an Iraq exit strategy. While Iran likely has the intent to do this, it might not have the capability. The last four years of instability have exacerbated an already deeply factionalized Shiite community in Iraq, which is why the country is likely to enter another long and violent phase that might not be in keeping with any U.S. time table for disengagement.

Analysis

In an interview with the Financial Times published May 9, Abbas Araghchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister for legal and international affairs, said his country is prepared to help the United States formulate an "exit strategy" from Iraq. Araghchi, the highest-ranking Iranian official to participate in direct public talks in March with then-U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, added that Washington and Tehran have the "same interests" in a stable Iraq. He went on to say that direct talks between the two countries, leading to a "face-saving withdrawal" from Iraq, are possible -- provided the United States demonstrates goodwill.

This is the most direct and public offer that Iran has made to work with the Bush administration to stabilize Iraq. The offer was expected; the two sides have made progress in taking their lengthy back-channel dealings into the public arena. Iran and the United States have been forced by their respective national interests to finally agree to work together in a meaningful way to establish stability and security in Iraq. But it is unlikely they will be able to stabilize Iraq anytime soon -- deep divisions within the Iraqi Shiite political landscape will prevent Iran from bringing all factions in line behind a negotiated settlement. Of course, before an effective security/stability plan can be implemented, Washington and Tehran must first agree on the details of the plan.

The key to bringing all the Shia in line is reducing the number of political actors to a more manageable level, which can be accomplished through the power of money and violence. (A combination of the two tends to work best). But in the case of the Iraqi Shia, factionalism is hardwired into the community's structure. At one level are the three largest political groups -- the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution for Iraq, Hizb al-Dawah and the al-Sadrite bloc. These groups are very willing to work with Iran but cannot seem to work with each other. Then there are numerous smaller Shiite groups peppered across southern Iraq, most of which are at loggerheads with Iran or its allies, or both. Money could satisfy some -- but not all.

Violence, on the other hand, could backfire on the Iranians. The Persian Islamic Republic has used a pan-Shiite identity to maintain influence among Iraq's Arab Shia. Should Iran decide to use violence against those who do not toe its line, it could trigger latent Arab nationalist sentiment among Iraqi Shia, which could prove disastrous for Iranian ambitions in Iraq.

In other words, Iranian readiness to assist the United States on Iraq is one thing; its ability to actually influence events is quite another. Before any agreement can emerge in Iraq's fractured Shiite community, another long phase of violence probably will ensue.

That is the likely scenario regarding the intra-Shiite struggle in Iraq. Factor in intra-Sunni struggles, as well as those involving the Shia, Sunni and Kurds, and a much more violent picture emerges. Further complicating matters are Sunni and Shiite groups imposing deadlines on each other for containing sectarian violence and threatening to pull out of the political system if their demands are not met.

Neither Iran nor the United States has any better options than to work together at this point. In many ways, the current situation is the result of both countries playing the various Iraqi factions off one another in pursuit of their respective goals. In any case, their coming together on Iraq is just the beginning of the process toward stabilization, a process that is bound to conflict with Washington's preferred time table for disengaging from Iraq.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=288328

[abujamal]

You know what they are going to say "it doesn't matter if we help the West as long as we fulfill our obligation" (contradiction) and then bring a terrible non-relevant example to imply the Messenger did what they are doing when the Messenger (saw) outwitted his enemies as in Hudaybiah.

[Abu-Musa]

America is also seeking to fund groups who don't engage in Jihad, especially the type that don't use Jihad to confront the occupiers, the rulers and to establish Khilafah by it.

Any takers?

Salaam Abu Musa,

Do you have any kind of evidence for this. Any links to kuffar thinktank organisations or any political strategy reports to back this claim?

Or anything which may indicate this from historical facts?

Well Dr Ayman az-Zawahri quoted directly from US counter-terrorism advisors in his recent vidoes:


"And here I’d like to read two paragraphs of a study prepared last year by two researchers from the Combating Terrorism Center at the American army’s United States Military Academy:

“The U.S. could discretely fund mainstream Salafi figures like Madkhali who are effective in siphoning off support from jihadis and who do not advocate violence (e.g. by paying for publications, lectures, new schools).”

They go on,

“The U.S. could also fund non‐Salafis, but it currently lacks the expertise necessary to determine who is truly influential. Perhaps a better strategy in the near term would be to pressure Middle Eastern governments to allow greater political participation and visibility for groups that jihadis are threatened by. This approach should vary from country to country. For example, in Egypt, it would be the Muslim Brotherhood; in Saudi Arabia, the Shi’a. Again, it is essential that the U.S. hand not be seen.”

These are not my words, but are the words of two anti-terrorism researchers with the American army.




http://www.ctc.usma.edu/Stealing%20Al-Qai'da's%20Playbook%20--%20CTC.pdf

The section quoted by Dr. Zawahri is in the book under the heading:

5. Religious leaders play a critical role in attracting youth to the movement, providing religious justification for violence, and determining its overall strategic direction. But this cuts both ways, as non‐jihadi religious leaders are able to siphon off support from the movement and challenge its legitimacy.

[Gabriel]

The Jihadis serve the Western governments' cause because they are the 'ugly face' of Islam. They are what allows the Western governments to justify their use of military and economic and political power to carry out their policy of preventing the reestablishment of the Khilafah.
However, the so called moderate Muslims in the West serve the Jihadis because they are the 'nice face' of Islam. They keep on about how Islam is really a peaceful religion that can get along with other religions and ideologies well enough, if it wasn't for these fundamentalist nutters. And the ordinary people of the West want to believe them. Of course it's all nonsense. Islam is an inherently violent ideology, that given the opportunity to grow strong (allowed to establish Khilafah) will spread out from the Muslim homelands like wildfire; and like wildfire will ignite all the land around in its hunger to establish the whole planet as Dar al-Islam.

[abujamal]

....given the opportunity to grow strong (allowed to establish Khilafah) will spread out from the Muslim homelands like wildfire; and like wildfire will ignite all the land around in its hunger to establish the whole planet as Dar al-Islam.

Inshallah

[Gabriel]

If He is willing you'll be successful, of course.
Personally, I'm hoping He's on my side.
We live in interesting times.

[Abu-Musa]

If He is willing you'll be successful, of course.
Personally, I'm hoping He's on my side.
We live in interesting times.

Gabriel which side is your side exactly?

If He is willing you'll be successful, of course.
Personally, I'm hoping He's on my side.
We live in interesting times.

Gabriel which side is your side exactly?

The way at this piont in time to conduct the Islamic Dawah is the same way as Muhammad saw did in the first 13 years in Makkah, which was an intellectual struggle between The Islamic creed and the kufr creed. Once people in a locality embraced the creed completely and whatever WAS GOING TO EMANATE FROM IT IN THE FUTURE then The messenger founded a scociety based on the creed and waged Jihad to spread the society.

WE ARE IN THE MAKKAN STAGE OF THE ISLAMIC REVIVAL - THEREFOROR WE ARE ENGAGED IN AN INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE BETWEEN ISLAM AND KUFR

THE KUFR WE FACE THAT WE NEED TO INTELLECTUALLY CONFRONT IS CAPITALSIM AND THE IDEAS WHICH EMANATE FROM IT - I.E DEMOCRACY FREEDOM HUMAN RIGHTS ETC ETC

IN ORDER TO DEFEAT AN IDEA YOU NEED TO INTELLECTUALLY CONFRONT IT HEAD ON AND DISPROVE IT - LIKE MUHAMMAD SAW DID IN MAKKAH AND MUSAB IBN UMAYR DID IN MEDINAH.

YOU CANNOT DEFEAT AN IDEA BY FIGHTING INDIVIDUALS AS THE IDEA STILL EXISTS IN OTHER PEOPLES HEADS. I.E. IF YOU DEFEAT AMERICA IN IRAQ YOU DONT DEFEAT CAPITALISM - YOU JUST DEFEAT A STRATEGY THAT THE CAPITALIST HAD.

WHAT GABRIEL HAS REALISED BUT ABU MUSA HAS NOT IS THAT THE JIHADIS ARE NOT INVOVELD IN AN INTELLECTUAL WAR BUT INSTEAD THEY RUN FROM LOCATION TO LOCATION IN RESPONSE TO CAPITALIST STRATEGY BUT NEVER ACTUALLY TACKLE THEIR FALSE CREED.

IN DOING SO THEY HAVE NO CHANCE OF DEFEATING CAPTILAISM AND INDEED THEY MOBILSE THE PUBLIC OPINION IN THE CAPILTALIS COUNTIRES TO FUTHER CONDUCT THE WAR ON ISLAM.

THE WEST HAS CALLED THIS A WAR OF IDEAS. AND JIHADIS ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS INTELLECTUAL WAR OF ISLAMIC CREED AND IT RELATED IDEAS AGAINST CAPITALISTIC CREED AND RELATED IDEAS.

LOOKS LIKE JIHADIS LAST TO COTTON ON.

SHAME

HAVING SAID THAT AT LEAST WE WILL KNOW THAT WE WILL HAVE SOMEONE TO FIGHT BESIDE US WHEN THE STATE IS ESTABLISHED.

SUPPOSE THEY WILL COME IN HANDY FOR SOMETHING.

WILL CALL YOU WHEN WE NEED YOU ABU MUSA.

GABRIEL WILL PROBABLY BE MUSLIM BEFORE YOU CHANGE YOUR DEVIANT IDEAS

If He is willing you'll be successful, of course.
Personally, I'm hoping He's on my side.
We live in interesting times.

Gabriel which side is your side exactly?

are you appealing to the non muslims for help, jihadis have done this in the past as well.

[Abu-Musa]

mujahideen

thankyou for you advice

i will take what is good and leave what is bad


I am sure Gabriel can answer a question directed at him without someone else butting in.

[limon]

a.a. w.r. w.b.

abu jamal said "This is why the question often arises - are these guys being manipulated by the Kuffar out of their stupidity or are they willingly assisting?"

perhaps the kufr and shaytaan have made it appear such a contradiction so that muslims will in fact think the jihadi's are working for the kufr when in fact they arn't and -Allah SWT knows best the truth. perhaps with lies and deciet like this they will reduce the threat of more joining in terrorism acts which stifle their (i.e. the kufr) world domination and security. perhaps later they will begin to decieve the ummah that HT are agents for the west as well, because they are non-violent per say.

lies and deceit are work of the shaytaan and we shouldn't fall to their tricks. making assumptions about these points, in such an atmosphere or any atmosphere is not permissible brothers and sisters. if you fall to this perhaps you will become a tool of the kufr and shataan.

W/S

[abujamal]

WSWRWB

Limon - that does not answer the question but merely avoids it by hypothesizing. The point was ver simply this:

Much evidence shows 911 was an inside job by the authorities in order to provide a pretext for the invasions of Afghanistand and Iraq as part of America's Greater Middle East initiative.

Now for Jihadists (inc their supposed leaders) to be taking credit for 911 and be glorifying the "magnificent 19" can mean only one of 2 things:

1. Being manipulated by the Kuffar out of their Stupidity to achieve America's goals.

2. Or they are willingly assisting.

Simple.

Now either you provide evidence that 911 was a purely Jihadi venture by Bin laden and his merry men.

Or you provide a third option to explain them taking credir for an American action?

[Abu-Musa]

It could also mean:

1. The Mujahideen did plan and execute 9/11.

2. The Mujahideen did plan and execute 9/11, the Americans spotted the plans, let it happen and spiced it up by doing things like rigging the WTC with demolition charges.

3. War is Deception. Hence since the Kuffar are accusing us anyway, deceive them by admitting responsibilty. Lure them into a direct and more open confrontation with Muslims, so they reveal their venomous hatred that Allah(swt) tells us is already in the hearts of the Kuffar. The Kuffar in a fit of rage then make it clear to Muslims all over the World that they believe Islam to be an Evil Ideology and they seek to fight the Muslims tooth and nail to prevent them establsihing 'a Caliphate from North Africa to the Phillipines' or "states based on Shari'ah Law on route to one Caliphate of all Muslim Nations".

4. Any combination of 1, 2 & 3.

[abujamal]

If its 1. Then counter the volumes of evidence which show that it was an inside job and how commercial airlinrs could manouvre like that at low altitudes - espoecially by amateurs.

If it is 2. Then the answer is they are manipulated out of their stupidity.

If it is 3. then the jihadists are willingly assisting and facilitating in bringing kuffar to occupy our land, rape our sisters and massacre entire families.

Thanks for confirming the options.

[Psychotic]

If it is 3. then the jihadists are willingly assisting and facilitating in bringing kuffar to occupy our land, rape our sisters and massacre entire families.

This is the consequnce of the silence and the "deception of assuming responsiblity" anyone who would do this is either working for the west or are extremely stupid and would have to share the blame for the blood of our brothers and sisters which has been spilled by the enemies of islam.

[limon]

a.a w.r. w.b.,

there are more than 3 possibilities of what is in fact going on. here are few more

firstly abu jamal asks for evidence that there was no collaboration or stupidity on the part of those who undertook 9/11 and such, but to what extent do we trust kufr evidences from media etc. how do we know that even the kufr evidences which show 9/11 to be a conspiracy are not a part of the kufr plan to deceive and lie. surely if the evidences were so true then the kufr would have realised that such evidence was dangerous for people to view because it would reduce their trust in the kufr leadership, but such a threat i have not seen and the kufr have barely reacted to such evidences, probably in fact allow it to go on to stifle correct thinking by the people.

thus by what standard do we measure the kufr evidences to be truthful, and should we even trust anything from the kufr above what our own brothers and sisters are saying?

secondly, another possibilty is that perhaps the kufr knew exactly what was going to happen from their sources, but decided they needed an excuse to fight the muslims and prevent the revival of Islam as the dominant ideology, thus the kufr may have allowed the jihadi's to carry out the attacks, and perhaps creating further confusion by makiing it seem like the jihadi's were in collaboration through the conspiracies which have arisen from kufr evidences. but then again that doesn't necessitate for us to trust that evidence.

thus knowing full well that the kufr have very tight knit security within their own borders and even external to their borders throught their various agents, it appears a conspiracy that such an attack could even occur without the consent of the kufr who pull the strings. this doesn't however necessitate that the jihadi's were responsible for collaborating and it is another assumption therefore to suggest the jihadi's brought the invasion willingly to the muslim lands, andare hence agents to the kufr. perhaps it was designed in such a way that the jihadi's had planned the attack from a long time before, and were not aware that US could use this attack as an excuse to invade the muslim lands and kill the muslims.

finally, by what assumption and evidence can we even be sure that the kufr needed an excuse to invade the muslim lands like 9/11, they could create lies and deceit and go to war regardless, like they did in Vietnam with their apparent domino theory for communism to spread like wildfire, whence now we see the decline of communism.

there are many possibilities and evidence cannot simply be trusted especially if it is from the kufr themselves, may Allah SWT remove the traitors and give victory to those on the haq inshallah.

w/s

[Abu-Musa]

If it is 2. Then the answer is they are manipulated out of their stupidity.

Thats your opinion, it doesn't establish anything.

If it is 3. then the jihadists are willingly assisting and facilitating in bringing kuffar to occupy our land, rape our sisters and massacre entire families.

Where? Were they there raping them alongside the Kuffar?

Prove exactly when and where the 'assistance' is occuring. You cannot blame Muslims when Kafirs behave like Kafirs.

Attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq were pre-planned before 9/11. We don't stop attacking the Kuffar because they might attack us back.

This all stems from a preset mind of "How do I prove the Jihadis are a bunch of agents" then all the so-called analysis steers in this direction.

If you want to prove an allegation against another Muslim then do it in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence.... rather than analysis. You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.

Allah(swt) says: "And they will NEVER STOP FIGHTING YOU until you turn back from your religion"

The Kuffar are doing what they want to do nobody put a gun to their head to do any of this. We are being fought because we are Muslims it's that simple and it's all their black and white in the Qur'an.

For all we know Allah(swt) sent his soldiers (angels) to help and they smashed the WTC with their fists.

[Abu-Musa]

When you say the jihadis are willingly assisting and facilitating.

These are very specific words it is akin to the assitance of the Northern Alliance and the Shi'ah... and the facilities provided by al-Saud, the Emirate States, Musharraf, Karimov etc. Your accusations against the Mujahideen just don't stick.

[abdul-ali]

You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.
Are you going to prove this allegation "in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence"?

Since you are jumping from pillar to post and can't even substantiate much even with shreds of evidences, I don't really think so.
The Mujahideen did plan and execute 9/11, the Americans spotted the plans, let it happen
Here you admit that the Americans let the "Mujahideen" kill their own people where earlier somewhere you asked why would the US fund and assist the "Mujahideen" and couldn't accept that they would do this.

More evidence of double standards!

[Abu-Musa]

You guys admit that analysis is Dhann by its nature anyway. What's the need of a Court when we already have a confession.

How is this an admission when I am listing a string of possiblities 1,2,3, and 4. Give me an example when someone lists possibilities and one of them is cherry-picked and reffered to as an admission of guilt for something.

The Americans are Kafirs they will do what they damn well please, this does not make the Mujahideen accountable for the actions of the Americans. Unless you now think actions and accountabilitly transfer between people, each being accountble for what someone else does!

If you think the US is funding a group of Muslims, then this is what must be proven before making an accusation.

Bring proof for example a cheque from the US Embassy in Beirut written out for $100,000 to the leader of such and such a group, or record of some other transaction.

[*Saifallah*]

Only someone who carries weak thougts would make an assumption that money is given in cheque to the leader of so and so...i think you need to look a bit mroe detailed and actually realise how money laundering actually works, firstly its about reponsibility to the muslim ummah...its about the whole game how it is being played.....

we cant do actions and not think about the reprcussions they will have against us, that will be futile. its exactly the type of mistake that happened in afganistan agasint russia...when america was supporting the mujahdeen.....and yes well we all know how that turned out....but i guess brother musa thinks its is ok to allow the wolves into the henhouse and kill us from within!!!!...wouldnt it be better to keep the wolves out fullstop.

[abujamal]

a.a w.r. w.b.,

there are more than 3 possibilities of what is in fact going on. here are few more

firstly abu jamal asks for evidence that there was no collaboration or stupidity on the part of those who undertook 9/11 and such, but to what extent do we trust kufr evidences from media etc. how do we know that even the kufr evidences which show 9/11 to be a conspiracy are not a part of the kufr plan to deceive and lie. surely if the evidences were so true then the kufr would have realised that such evidence was dangerous for people to view because it would reduce their trust in the kufr leadership, but such a threat i have not seen and the kufr have barely reacted to such evidences, probably in fact allow it to go on to stifle correct thinking by the people.

thus by what standard do we measure the kufr evidences to be truthful, and should we even trust anything from the kufr above what our own brothers and sisters are saying?

secondly, another possibilty is that perhaps the kufr knew exactly what was going to happen from their sources, but decided they needed an excuse to fight the muslims and prevent the revival of Islam as the dominant ideology, thus the kufr may have allowed the jihadi's to carry out the attacks, and perhaps creating further confusion by makiing it seem like the jihadi's were in collaboration through the conspiracies which have arisen from kufr evidences. but then again that doesn't necessitate for us to trust that evidence.

thus knowing full well that the kufr have very tight knit security within their own borders and even external to their borders throught their various agents, it appears a conspiracy that such an attack could even occur without the consent of the kufr who pull the strings. this doesn't however necessitate that the jihadi's were responsible for collaborating and it is another assumption therefore to suggest the jihadi's brought the invasion willingly to the muslim lands, andare hence agents to the kufr. perhaps it was designed in such a way that the jihadi's had planned the attack from a long time before, and were not aware that US could use this attack as an excuse to invade the muslim lands and kill the muslims.

finally, by what assumption and evidence can we even be sure that the kufr needed an excuse to invade the muslim lands like 9/11, they could create lies and deceit and go to war regardless, like they did in Vietnam with their apparent domino theory for communism to spread like wildfire, whence now we see the decline of communism.

there are many possibilities and evidence cannot simply be trusted especially if it is from the kufr themselves, may Allah SWT remove the traitors and give victory to those on the haq inshallah.

w/s

wswb - Limon, would have expected better from you.

And what is a kufr evidence? Its a fact that jet fuel cannot achieve the temperatures required to melt steel - yet they claimed that's the reason, why the towers collapsed.

They said the heat was so intense that the blackbox flight recorders were destroyed along with all the bodies, butthey found the passport of the main hijacker with his details in tact.

I could go on and on. You cannot simply dismiss these with such a terrible defense. I feel for you as this is part of becoming a non-thinking person who is in justification mode to defend something he wants to believe so badly that it leads to such terrible comments.

Inshallah, for Allah's sake, perhaps apply a little thought.

Salaam

[Abu-Musa]

Only someone who carries weak thougts would make an assumption that money is given in cheque to the leader of so and so...i think you need to look a bit mroe detailed and actually realise how money laundering actually works, firstly its about reponsibility to the muslim ummah...its about the whole game how it is being played.....

we cant do actions and not think about the reprcussions they will have against us, that will be futile. its exactly the type of mistake that happened in afganistan agasint russia...when america was supporting the mujahdeen.....and yes well we all know how that turned out....but i guess brother musa thinks its is ok to allow the wolves into the henhouse and kill us from within!!!!...wouldnt it be better to keep the wolves out fullstop.


There is no assumption being made, I just asked for an example of evidence. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.

The Mujahideen did not let anyone in. The Mujahideen did not open US Military Bases in our Lands and allow them to be used as launchpads.

So it was the Rulers who let the Wolves in. It is the Rulers who are Agents of the Wolves. It is the Rulers who still Colonise our lands on behalf of the Wolves. It is the Rulers who are allied to the Wolves. It is the Rulers who refuse to implement Shari'ah. It is the Rulers who do Kufr Buwah. Point the gun in their direction...

[abujamal]

The Mujahideen did not let anyone in. The Mujahideen did not open US Military Bases in our Lands and allow them to be used as launchpads.


May be you can give us your interpretation of the "Mujahideen's" colloboration with America in Afghanistan and the subsequent "Jihad" against eachother which you have consistently dodged so far?

[Abu-Musa]

I don't need to interpret anything.

One simply needs to look at what certain people from that time even from the various groups fighting said themselves when asked about collaboration with America.

[Gabriel]

Abu-Musa.
Sorry, I'm not here all the time.

Islam is an inherently violent ideology, that given the opportunity to grow strong (allowed to establish Khilafah) will spread out from the Muslim homelands like wildfire; and like wildfire will ignite all the land around in its hunger to establish the whole planet as Dar al-Islam.

My side is not this side.

[abdul-ali]

You guys admit that analysis is Dhann by its nature anyway. What's the need of a Court when we already have a confession.

You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.

Nothing but Dhann, Nothing but lie .... you cherry-picked Dhann in your response and left out 'nothing but', more-over you totally ignored your accusation of 'nothing but lie'. More double standards!

So are you going to prove this allegation "in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence", or just carry on a blinded mission of double standards and hypocracy?

[abdul-ali]

The Americans are Kafirs they will do what they damn well please, this does not make the Mujahideen accountable for the actions of the Americans. Unless you now think actions and accountabilitly transfer between people, each being accountble for what someone else does!

The Jihadist have been playing along with America's inside job, and taking credit for what was ultimately a US controlled action, whether out of naivity or something and Allah knows best.

Also (if letting bombs is all you understand), then you have actual miltary and political targets on your doorstep, yet you go to the trouble of killing indiscriminately ordinary people traveling on trains and planes (including muslims) and think this is somehow leading closer to establising the deen. Only in small minds, really small!

[Abu-Musa]

The point is all we can do is give analysis and hypothesise.

This does not provide a basis to accuse another Muslim of anything.

Analyse all you like but don't accuse Muslims in the process.

The very fact that analysis is not definitive in nature, means it is not sufficient enough to be admissible in an Islamic Court.

Unless we all do a U-Turn and say analysis is definitive.

[Psychotic]

The point is all we can do is give analysis and hypothesise.

This does not provide a basis to accuse another Muslim of anything.

Analyse all you like but don't accuse Muslims in the process.

The very fact that analysis is not definitive in nature, means it is not sufficient enough to be admissible in an Islamic Court.

Unless we all do a U-Turn and say analysis is definitive.

dont quite get your point here brother. Following the discussions, are you saying by either carrying out these atacks or by implying they were responisble , has not facilitated in the killing of our borthers and sisters? This is not an issue of hypothesis or analysis if this is what you are syaing then you are going against reality.

[Abu-Musa]

The discussions have been going on about the possibilities of what may or may not have happened.

Engaging in any form of attack against the enemy in Islam does not make it "facilitating the killing of our brothers and sisters" if the enemy retaliates back against Muslims. This is part of war for two sides to attack each other.

However for regimes to provide the enemy forces with Military Bases and Buildings from which to conduct spying, intellgence, covert operations etc... that is facilitating and providing support to the enemy. Which in effect makes them a Launchpad used against other Muslims.

How can doing a Fard i.e. launching an attack through Jihad - be facilitating the enemy? There is no such principle in Islam.

We cannot suspend an obligation because the enemy might attack us if we do.

The Kuffar will never stop fighting Muslims until we become apostates from Islam.

Allah(swt) says: "And they will NEVER STOP FIGHTING YOU until you turn back from your religion"

So if a Muslim were to say the War between Muslims and Kafirs is over... this could mean two things.

[1] The Whole World is under Islam. Hence there is no Fight.

[2] The Person denying the conflict between Islam and Kufr has apostated himself, since Allah(swt) tells us the Kuffar "will NEVER stop figthing you".


It's about affirming what the Creator(swt) is telling us and accepting it as fact.

[abdul-ali]

You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.
This accusation of yours was not deduced by my analysis, you said it! Are you going to prove this allegation "in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence", or just carry on a blinded mission of double standards, hypocracy and dodging questions?

You have difficulty in discussing points so basic, it becomes neccessary to give you a taste of your own medicine, or put a mirror in front of you.

[abujamal]

You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.
This accusation of yours was not deduced by my analysis, you said it! Are you going to prove this allegation "in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence", or just carry on a blinded mission of double standards, hypocracy and dodging questions?

You have difficulty in discussing points so basic, it becomes neccessary to give you a taste of your own medicine, or put a mirror in front of you.

Lol! How true.

[Abu-Musa]

What I actually said was:

If you want to prove an allegation against another Muslim then do it in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definitive evidence.... rather than analysis. You follow nothing but Dhann and do nothing but Lie.


The Dhann I was reffering to is the inherently non-definate nature of anlaysis.

And IF one was to use that as a basis for an accusation against another Muslim, then it would be Dhann and a False allegation.

Hence you would be following Dhann and the lie would be in the false allegation.

If on the other hand you wanted to cast doubt or prove that something is Dhann, then Dhann is Dhann.

All you need to do to prove a Dhann is show that it is doubtful in order to show it is not admissible in evidence, hence it can be thrown out of Court.

So nobody needs to prove Dhann with definite evidence, because it is by it's nature indefinate. The idea in this context is not to "prove in an Islamic Court in front of a Qadi and bring definite evidence".

Rather reveal doubt and get the case thrown out!

Since analysis is NOT decisive, to be admissible in an Islamic Court.

Double Standards has nothing to do with it. Neither has mirrors or the taste of medicine... Rather it's those that know that we are in a time where we have No Imam and Mutawattir evidence exists to say the Party on the Truth has the characteristic of Fighting to establishing the Deen - yet still ignore it even though they claim to take what is Muttawatir. They should take a look in the mirror and have a long hard think about double-standards.

[abujamal]

As the Kaffir-West led by America continues the War on Islam, this new publication by the RAND corp is providing some detailed strategies in how the West should use collborators from within the Ummah to fight the war against Islamic ideas. Here is an overview with my comments in blue:

Over the past two decades, radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam have gained ground in many Muslim societies. Through the threat of violence, radical Islamists have intimidated or silenced moderate and liberal Muslims, who espouse the key principles of democratic culture, including recognition of human rights, respect for diversity, acceptance of nonreligious sources of law, and opposition to terrorism.

ie Islam is prevailing over Kufr and those who call for it knowingly or unknowingly from amongst us.

Recognizing the parallels between the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge, RAND examined U.S. and allied efforts to build democratic networks and institutions during the Cold War and derived lessons that can be applied to build moderate Muslim networks today.

An admission that this is an ideological war against Islam in the same way the fought the enemy ideology of the cold war, Communism and "terrorism" (they perpetrate most themselves anyway eg 911) is just a cover to not openly admit this is a war on a Islam.

The researchers identified the similarities and differences between the Cold War and the current Islamist challenge, evaluated U.S. programs of engagement with the Muslim world, and developed a road map for building moderate Muslim networks. They recommend that the U.S. government make building these networks an explicit goal of U.S. policy.....Within the United States and Europe, there was already a democratic intellectual movement opposed to communism. What was needed was money and organization to turn individual efforts into a coherent campaign. In almost all of these endeavors, the U.S. government acted like a foundation: It evaluated projects to determine whether they promoted U.S. objectives, provided funding for those that did, and then remained hands-off, allowing the organizations to fulfill their objectives without interference.

Bring it on - those who are openly backed by the Kuffar or secretly promote their agenda will always be finished before they start as the Ummah will does not accept traitors and collaborators.

Comparing the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge highlights important similarities and differences. First, as in the late 1940s, the United States is currently confronted with a new and confusing geopolitical environment with new security threats.

...In both cases, policymakers recognized that the United States and its allies were engaged in an ideological conflict that had to be contested across diplomatic, economic, military, and psychological dimensions. But unlike the Cold War, the current battle involves shadowy groups, not a single entity. The Soviet Union was a nation-state with a clear government structure and defined geographical borders. The radical Islamist threat is comprised of nonstate actors that control no territory, reject the norms of the international system, and are not subject to normal means of deterrence. These differences mean that the United States must develop a new networking strategy to meet the challenge.

In other words, we must kill-off islam before it becomes an actor on the world stage or that will spend the end of Secularism's domination of the world.

RAND recommends that the United States concentrate on the partners, programs, and regions where U.S. support has the greatest likelihood of affecting the war of ideas under way in the Muslim world. The first step in this strategy is for the U.S. government…. and its allies to make a clear decision to help build moderate Muslim networks and to create an explicit link between this goal and overall U.S. strategy and programs.

…The researchers recommend targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young, moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and writers.

Can you think of people and groups who fall in this category?

Functioning again in a foundation-like role, the United States should assist programs that promote democratic education, particularly programs that derive authoritative teachings supportive of democratic and pluralistic values from Islamic texts and traditions, moderate media, gender equality, and advocacy for moderate agendas.

Ie twisting Islamic evidences to promote secularism.

RAND proposes a shift of focus from the Middle East to regions of the Muslim world… the Muslim diasporas in Europe, among Muslims in Southeast Asia and Turkey… Recognizing that radical ideas from the Middle East are being disseminated to the rest of the Muslim world, RAND recommends opening channels of communication that will encourage the dissemination of modern and mainstream interpretations of Islam back into the Middle East from moderate Muslims elsewhere.

That would explain the emphasis of activities in the west by corrupt “Imams”, “scholars” and organisations openly/secretly supported by the governments to not only serve the policy towards Muslims resident in the West in terms of integration, but what many of us have been saying for years that they intend to foment the reformation of Islam into a secular religion alien to Islam and hence the need for the Muslims in the West to act as the first line of defence to keep these collaborating individuals and groups weak and not letting them take root so as to paralyse them here.

Download the full report from here http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG574/

Does this report indicate a possible shift in US policy - ie an open military confrontation with Islam under the "War on Terror" euphemism to an indirect one from within?

[Abu-Musa]

RAND have done quite a few...

Before this they did this one http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1716/

and this one... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG246/

and this one... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG429/

and this one... http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG430/

and this one... http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1620/

[Abeer-al-Janabi]

The point is all we can do is give analysis and hypothesise.

This does not provide a basis to accuse another Muslim of anything.

Analyse all you like but don't accuse Muslims in the process.

The very fact that analysis is not definitive in nature, means it is not sufficient enough to be admissible in an Islamic Court.

Unless we all do a U-Turn and say analysis is definitive.
If analysis was to be definitive then it would be a source of shariah!

[abujamal]

Relevant thread in relation to the recent conference held by 3 dodgy organisations.

[abujamal]

As the Kaffir-West led by America continues the War on Islam, this new publication by the RAND corp is providing some detailed strategies in how the West should use collborators from within the Ummah to fight the war against Islamic ideas. Here is an overview with my comments in blue:

Over the past two decades, radical and dogmatic interpretations of Islam have gained ground in many Muslim societies. Through the threat of violence, radical Islamists have intimidated or silenced moderate and liberal Muslims, who espouse the key principles of democratic culture, including recognition of human rights, respect for diversity, acceptance of nonreligious sources of law, and opposition to terrorism.

ie Islam is prevailing over Kufr and those who call for it knowingly or unknowingly from amongst us.

Recognizing the parallels between the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge, RAND examined U.S. and allied efforts to build democratic networks and institutions during the Cold War and derived lessons that can be applied to build moderate Muslim networks today.

An admission that this is an ideological war against Islam in the same way the fought the enemy ideology of the cold war, Communism and "terrorism" (they perpetrate most themselves anyway eg 911) is just a cover to not openly admit this is a war on a Islam.

The researchers identified the similarities and differences between the Cold War and the current Islamist challenge, evaluated U.S. programs of engagement with the Muslim world, and developed a road map for building moderate Muslim networks. They recommend that the U.S. government make building these networks an explicit goal of U.S. policy.....Within the United States and Europe, there was already a democratic intellectual movement opposed to communism. What was needed was money and organization to turn individual efforts into a coherent campaign. In almost all of these endeavors, the U.S. government acted like a foundation: It evaluated projects to determine whether they promoted U.S. objectives, provided funding for those that did, and then remained hands-off, allowing the organizations to fulfill their objectives without interference.

Bring it on - those who are openly backed by the Kuffar or secretly promote their agenda will always be finished before they start as the Ummah will does not accept traitors and collaborators.

Comparing the Cold War and the current radical Islamist challenge highlights important similarities and differences. First, as in the late 1940s, the United States is currently confronted with a new and confusing geopolitical environment with new security threats.

...In both cases, policymakers recognized that the United States and its allies were engaged in an ideological conflict that had to be contested across diplomatic, economic, military, and psychological dimensions. But unlike the Cold War, the current battle involves shadowy groups, not a single entity. The Soviet Union was a nation-state with a clear government structure and defined geographical borders. The radical Islamist threat is comprised of nonstate actors that control no territory, reject the norms of the international system, and are not subject to normal means of deterrence. These differences mean that the United States must develop a new networking strategy to meet the challenge.

In other words, we must kill-off islam before it becomes an actor on the world stage or that will spend the end of Secularism's domination of the world.

RAND recommends that the United States concentrate on the partners, programs, and regions where U.S. support has the greatest likelihood of affecting the war of ideas under way in the Muslim world. The first step in this strategy is for the U.S. government…. and its allies to make a clear decision to help build moderate Muslim networks and to create an explicit link between this goal and overall U.S. strategy and programs.

…The researchers recommend targeting five groups as potential building blocks for networks: liberal and secular Muslim academics and intellectuals; young, moderate religious scholars; community activists; women’s groups engaged in gender equality campaigns; and moderate journalists and writers.

Can you think of people and groups who fall in this category?

Functioning again in a foundation-like role, the United States should assist programs that promote democratic education, particularly programs that derive authoritative teachings supportive of democratic and pluralistic values from Islamic texts and traditions, moderate media, gender equality, and advocacy for moderate agendas.

Ie twisting Islamic evidences to promote secularism.

RAND proposes a shift of focus from the Middle East to regions of the Muslim world… the Muslim diasporas in Europe, among Muslims in Southeast Asia and Turkey… Recognizing that radical ideas from the Middle East are being disseminated to the rest of the Muslim world, RAND recommends opening channels of communication that will encourage the dissemination of modern and mainstream interpretations of Islam back into the Middle East from moderate Muslims elsewhere.

That would explain the emphasis of activities in the west by corrupt “Imams”, “scholars” and organisations openly/secretly supported by the governments to not only serve the policy towards Muslims resident in the West in terms of integration, but what many of us have been saying for years that they intend to foment the reformation of Islam into a secular religion alien to Islam and hence the need for the Muslims in the West to act as the first line of defence to keep these collaborating individuals and groups weak and not letting them take root so as to paralyse them here.

Download the full report from here http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG574/

Looks like this strategy is increasingly being propelled by the kaffir-west as more organisations and individuals from within the Ummah are executing this.