Analyst's note: Absolutely must read. You will note that this couple look, and have "normal" sounding names just like they nice young people next door. This may have been true at one time, but this couple - the husband a former member of the U.S. Navy - are Muslim converts and are now charged regarding an assassination of list 15 people who offended Islam.
Ever wonder what it is about the "religion of peace" that causes so many of even their converts to "go off the deep end?" Even the Muslim converts are not offended by the jihadism. In fact, Islamist Jihadism all too often is one of the first concepts which they accept. Perhaps we should begin to actually understand the mind of this enemy.
To quote Dr. Walid Phares, from his Op Ed "Ignoring the Ideology of al Qaeda is a Threat against National Security" ...
"[...] In reality, abandoning the use of terms such as “Jihadists” or even “Islamists” in defining the threat is a strategic set back in the war of ideas fought against al Qaeda, the Taliban, Shabab al Jihad, Hezbollah, the Pasdaran and all other adherents to Global Jihadism. It is the equivalent in a classical war, of banning the use of radars, AWACs and broadcast. In short, this is a shortcut to utter self defeat.
The premise of the new national security doctrine regarding the identification of the threat and the appropriate names to use is flawed in its root. Linguistically Jihad doesn’t translate into “Holy Struggle,” for the latter in Arabic is “al Nidal al muqaddass.” In its substance Jihad doesn’t mean a purification of oneself in abstract, like Yoga. Theologically it is a call for efforts on behalf of Allah (Jihad fi sabeel Allah) which could take different forms, some of which could be in the battlefield. It is originally a theological notion that US Government officials have no business in defining or redefining as M. Brennan and the national security doctrine of President Obama are attempting to. The United States secular Government shouldn’t enter the fray of stating that Jihad is legitimate or illegitimate from a theological standpoint. Instead they should identify if a particular ideology self described as "Jihadist" is or isn't a source of threat and radicalization.
ÇáÌåÇÏ Jihad is a Theological Notion
ÇáÌåÇÏíÉ Jihadism is an ideology
However, and that’s the Administration’s second intellectual mistake, “Jihadism” is not the same thing as Jihad: the first is an ideological notion while the latter is originally a theological notion. The Administration’s experts have tried to link Jihadism, and thus the “Jihadists” to the controversially debated concept of Jihad. This is academically flawed: For Jihadism is a movement in contemporary times and their ideology has been established for almost a century. There are geopolitical in nature and involved in conflicts, wars and radicalization. More importantly they’ve declared a war against the US and have waged it for decades. Whatever is the debate about Jihad as a notion, the Jihadists exist in reality and they are the foes of democracies.
[....] If these terms define the enemy within the Arab and Muslim world, who are we trying to confuse here? The only possible answer is that these words would be banned, so that the American public doesn’t use them not that the Muslim world is offended. This looks like a war of ideas to disable American citizens' understanding by making them believe that the very words that Arabs and Muslims use to isolate the Terrorists also offend them.
Enough of the background color on the story, let me return to the source regarding Creeping Jihad in Alaska.
"We told you in January that ‘Jihad Is Creeping in Alaska.’ We told you then it wasn’t good news and so . So it’s no surprise that arrests of Muslims, converts, for planning to wage jihad have occurred in Alaska. Again, kid glove treatment by the courts. Hat tip Atlas.
A King Salmon husband and wife are set to plead guilty in federal court today to lying to the FBI about an assassination list created by the husband to avenge alleged crimes against Muslim civilians.
