Hirabah-Not-Jihad push part of Muslim Brotherhood "strategic disinformation, denial and deception"

Jihad Watch ^ | 20 Sept 2007 | David Spencer

[Barbarian6]

[E]fforts by a Washington lobbyist named Jim Guirard to stop military and government officials from using the word "jihad" for the...global jihad. Their contention is that Islam is a religion of peace, that the jihadists' use of the language of jihad is illegitimate on Islamic grounds, and that Americans and other non-Muslims can help delegitimize the jihadists by employing other Arabic terms for them and their activities -- terms which brand them criminals.

This idea sounds terrific, but it has many serious flaws.... And now it has come to light that the whole enterprise may be a Muslim Brotherhood deception campaign.

"This assessment makes the point that the Muslim Brotherhood should be considered a threat organization and the affiliated US domestic Muslim NGOs and associations identified in the strategy document should likewise be considered part of the Muslim Brotherhood network, that these are “front” functional organizations operating as links and nodes of the overall network. Exceptionally important in the analysis is the role of the “Truespeak” organization and Jim Guirard who has been arguing in DoD circles and academic institutions that the term jihad should be suspended from the GWOT lexicon to be replaced by hiraba. This analysis demonstrates that “Truespeak” contributors are part of the Muslim Brotherhood threat network, with the implication that this entire communication and lexicon effort is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign.

Those involved in strategic communication or IO, whether senior leaders, practitioners or analysts should take a close note.

This analysis begins to provide clear I&W for domestic threats that DoD, DHS and the USG must come to terms with."

[Barbarian6]

Analysis from a military officer and former DIA analyst...must read to understand the domestic threat in America in its details.

Bold conclusions drawn by the analyst that matches most in this discussion group's sentiments but backed here with intelligence community bona fides and background.

Must read.

[SampleMan]

How long until we find the Jihadi funding for CAIR?

[sageb1]

That’s Robert Spencer, not David Spencer.

[rawcatslyentist]

Ishaq:327 “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Warm fuzzies for everybody!!!!!!!

[theBuckwheat]

So, if it is not called “jihad”, when the faithful follower of the Religion of Peace dies while killing infidels, does he still get the virgins no matter that he called actions something else?

[VOA]

“Bold conclusions drawn by the analyst that matches most in this discussion
group’s sentiments but backed here “

For those that have read the book below, those “sentiments” are grounded
in historical fact:

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries
by Paul Fregosi
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-West-Muslim-Conquests-Centuries/dp/1573922471/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-3544524-8230031?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190298661&sr=1-1

And I’d recommend the book “Alms For Jihad”, except the chicken-shiite
publisher has withdrawn the book at the first sign of displeasure
from some Saudi.

Saudis Sue for Secrecy
The New Media Journal ^ | August 11, 2007 | Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879734/posts

[Popocatapetl]

Eventually, however, there might be a different reason to drop the use of the word jihad in its negative connotation.

Jihad, as a concept, is heavily interwoven in the Koran, so much so that it cannot be ignored or disregarded. In turn, this means that if a “Reformation” of Islam is to occur, the word jihad must be kept, but abstracted to a peaceful meaning.

That is, an obvious component of “Reformed” Islam would still have to embrace the concept of jihad, but as a singularly *spiritual* pursuit, not of actions in the world.

(In a strange way, this is much like the old Christian argument during their Reformation, of what matters more, good intentions or good acts.)

The Reformists argument would be thus: “Allah curses those who carry our violence and destruction in His name, calling it jihad. See how those who do this *always* fail, which is proof that Allah despises them.”

“However, those who embrace jihad as a purely spiritual struggle, while remaining peaceful in the world, are richly rewarded by overcoming their enemies, spreading their faith, and living in prosperity and peace. And this in turn, is clear proof that they are favored by Allah.”

Now it is a given that this interpretation stretches the concept of jihad to the limit. However, religions have never had much problem with being terribly hypocritical in their doctrines.

So, if when the Reformists come along, if what they preach is to the choir, what their followers want to hear, it will respond with a loud “Ismallah”, of agreement, and thereafter, among the Reformists, the word jihad will be as inoffensive as the word prayer, having much the same meaning.

Hopefully, some time later, Reformist Muslims will be horrified at the very suggestion that jihad could result in physical violence at all.