DISARMED IN THE WAR OF IDEAS

National Defense Intelligence College ^ | July 2007 | Stephen Collins Coughlin

[Cannoneer No. 4]

It is the conclusion of this thesis that Islamic law forms the doctrinal basis for the jihadi threat that can only be understood through an unconstrained review of the Islamic law of jihad. Answering the three research questions, it turns out that:

• When the Chairman said that we have yet to read what our enemy’s have said, he confirmed that we have failed to do a doctrine-based threat assessment of the enemy;

• Had the IC done so, it would have quickly found that the doctrinal basis of the jihadi threat is the law of jihad in Islamic law in just way the enemy claims; and

• The only way to understand this doctrine is to return to a threat-based analysis of the enemy that starts with an undelegated and unconstrained assessment of those motivating doctrines the enemy self-identifies as being the basis for his cause of action.

Discussion

From the earliest Islamic legal authorities to modern American 7th grade school texts on Islam, it turns out that all agree that Islam is a complete way of life governed by Islamic law. There was nothing to indicate that there are recognized forms of Islam that are not governed by Islamic law. The national constitutions of most Muslim countries, and all Arab countries surveyed, formally reflect this subordination. All the Islamic authorities identified jihad as a duty incumbent on all Muslims at the communal and individual levels. When the authorities spoke to Islamic law of jihad, its meaning was limited to that of warfare against non-Muslims to establish the religion. Because this finding is in line with Quranic verses from surahs from the later periods of revelation, it reflects abrogation’s doctrinal influence on Islamic law. Because jihad’s legal status reflects scholarly consensus, it means that the rules of jihad as stated in Islamic law are absolute and hence cannot be contravened or annulled. Hence, if Islamic law is to serve as the measure, and there is no doctrinal basis to argue that it should not, there may not be an Islam that is not under obligation of jihad that remains in force until the world has been claimed for Islam. As Qur’an Verse 2: 216 suggests,438 the requirements of jihad are objective and do not appear to be sensitive to the personal preferences of believers. As al-Shafi’i stated in his Risala, a duty of jihad arises when one learns that it is a requirement.439 Hence, education on jihad seems to be pegged to the capabilities of Islam to carry the requirements forward. This conforms to concepts of progressive revelation that “extremists” like Sayyid Qutb emulate when templating their “extremist” ideology.

Under the Current Approach, this entire line of inquiry has been effectively shut down by objections that do not extend beyond surface assertions that “Islam does not stand for this” or “there are a thousand different interpretations of Islamic law” (so what’s the point in looking?). The consequences of uncritically heeding this advice have been the ongoing failure to understand the nature of the enemy. “Extremists” state that they fight jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes. This fact remains true regardless of whether the enemy is ultimately correct in its understanding of Islam. Hence, there are Islamic drivers to the WOT that simply must be taken into account when developing the doctrinal template of the enemy. Failure to account for Islamic law will result in a failure to recognize the laws of jihad that the enemy consciously emulates. When a doctrinal template fails to account for legal doctrines of jihad that the enemy self-identifies as the basis of his doctrine, the resulting enemy COAs will be fatally flawed as will be the ensuing friendly COAs.

Recalling that the disclosure of any information about Islam or Muslims that would cause a non-Muslim to question Islam violates strict Islamic laws on slander, it may help to explain why those beholden to such a standard could earnestly insist that “Islam has nothing to do with it” in the face of evidence that would normally argue otherwise in other circumstances. Because a slander concerning Islam can easily qualify as an insult to Islam, the consequences, as noted earlier, can be severe. This would be true even if the slander was factually accurate. This may help explain why the writing of a thesis such as this could lead to strong accusations that it is either an insult or slander to Islam even when every point asserted is verified and validated. Either way, choosing to ignore the information that lies beneath the surface of such claims is to submit the information that drives decisionmaking and analysis to the disclosure requirements of Islamic law. This is submission.

Enforcing such a prior constraint on information flows is fundamentally inconsistent with IPB processes that demand unconstrained access to all relevant data, including that data that some would rather remain beneath the surface. The Current Approach constrains because it was designed to do so. IPB runs on unconstrained flows of information. Hence, the two processes are mutually exclusive. Given both our inability to develop a descriptively accurate understanding of the nature of the enemy and our broad frustration with the current state of affairs in the WOT, it may be time to ponder deeply what was meant when Majid Khadduri said that “the universality of Islam, in all its embracing creed, is imposed on all believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military”440 that Pakistani Brigadier S. K. Malik said was the point where Quranic concepts of war are won -- at the war of will phase. To break from the slow submission cycle that leads to the destruction of our confidence, a recommitment to a process driven by facts along with an associated commitment to ruthlessly go wherever those facts may take us is recommended. With IPB, we already have a methodology capable of taking us down that path.

Finally

It is not the objective of this paper to get readers to believe the positions asserted but rather to convince them to submit those assertions to an intense threat analysis in furtherance of generating facts able to service a functional threat model of the enemy in the WOT. If, in furtherance of creating a working threat model, points in this thesis are successfully challenged, this thesis will still have served its purpose. Having said that, it is the position of this thesis that it will not fail if decisionmakers and analysts return to an IPB methodology that begins with an unconstrained, undelegated, systematic, factual analysis of the threat doctrine that the enemy self-identifies as being driven by Islamic law. Following such a process has the benefit of meeting professional standards for competent analysis. This thesis cannot succeed, however, if the response is to outsource it to subject matter experts willing to volunteer their information under the sole condition that it be accepted both uncritically and unconditionally. This is not only true because such an approach fails to meet the professional standard, but also because it fails the standard for the same reason that it will lead to defeat in the WOT.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

PurpleMan found this document.

IC -- Intelligence Community

COA's -- Courses of Action

IPB -- Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield

Islamic law forms the doctrinal basis for the jihadi threat

we have failed to do a doctrine-based threat assessment of the enemy. During the Cold War, constant study of Soviet military doctrine was a continuous duty of all professional soldiers. Knowing vehicle types and numbers in a doctrinal Advance Guard of a Motorized Rifle Regiment was critically important for American Armor officers. The enemy's military doctrine is the basis for his strategy, operational art, and tactics and must be understood by those who would defeat him.

Our leaders have deprived our defenders of this understanding of the IslamoFascist/hirabist/jihadi, prolonging the war at the cost of American lives.

choosing to ignore the information that lies beneath the surface of such claims is to submit the information that drives decisionmaking and analysis to the disclosure requirements of Islamic law. This is submission.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[Cannoneer No. 4]

This is Chapter 6 of “TO OUR GREAT DETRIMENT”: IGNORING WHAT EXTREMISTS SAY ABOUT JIHAD which starts on page 224 of the .pdf.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

ping

[DB]

Ron Paul says that if we just go home they won’t bother us.

You mean it is the duty of a good Muslim to make jihad against the infidel, the great Satan regardless of where he is?

Say it isn’t so...

Ron Paul is a fool.

[kalee]

ping

[GOPJ]

ping

[FreedomPoster]

The main thrust of this paper is handily summarized with a 5-letter acronym I’ve been using for some time:

ROPMA

[GOPJ]

Ron Paul says that if we just go home they won’t bother us.

Ron Paul puts himself (with his Western values of independence and fair play) into what he imagines are similar feelings of radical Muslims. In short, he's a well meaning fool. Useful idiot? Arabs have a history of respect for violent take-overs, forced submission of populations and accepting "fate".

This reminds me of what a policemen told me years ago in defense of gun control. He said the average homeowner, when confronting a violent criminal, will say, "put your gun down or I'll shoot" at which point the criminal shoots the homeowner. The homeowners' sense of "fair play" puts him at a complete and total disadvantage. Dealing with Islam as if it was only a religion, is a similar mistake.

[freema]

Ping, Star.

[PGalt]

Thanks very much for the ping. Thanks very much for posting, Purple Man. Thanks for another ping Cannoneer. Through 4 Chapters (taking notes). Bring a pen and paper to this reading. WOW!

[GOPJ]

In standard application, templating the doctrinal threat is done to capture threat elements in ways that reflect how the enemy would execute its vision if unconstrained by environmental considerations. In effect, the doctrinal template reflects the enemy’s “pure” vision unconstrained by competing views, interpretations or assertions of correctness. To accurately capture the enemy’s doctrine, therefore, the doctrinal template should always reflect what the enemy says its doctrine says and should always be assessed as true and valid. Considerations that cannot be shown to meet this threshold should be excluded. It can be no other way. To fully appreciate the threat posed by Mein Kampf, one had to start with the assumption that it was true and valid because it was true and valid for those who believed it, governed in furtherance of it, and killed because of it.

Your right - this stuff is pure gold.

[Jacquerie]

We’ll never read at length in the MSM how the religious and political aspects of islam are inseparable.

As with the communist threat, the left refuses to acknowledge that islam itself, not so-called radical islam or fascistic islam, but islam as learned by the masses is also a threat to western civilization.

Why do we allow a political ideology bent on our destruction to openly recruit new followers?

[forkinsocket]

Arabs have a history of respect for violent take-overs, forced submission of populations and accepting "fate".

This is totally true. Middle Eastern mentality = respect for the strong & hatred for the weak. This is part of the reason why Palestinians are mistreated by Arabs across the Arab world.

[buffaloKiller]

I have posted recently on FR this position:

“To: weegee; F15Eagle
I’m of the notion that Islam MUST be declaimed as a religion and then FORCEFULLY disenfranchised, at least here in USA (if not all Western society).
Because it is a fascist and imperialist political idealogy along with Communism and Nazism and marxistLiberalism, it must be outlawed and its adherants required to verifiably recant or leave America, sooner than ASAP.
As harsh as this may sound, what national and cultural security can be insured when we allow our enemies to safely reside and prosper in our midst. All the while actively efforting to destroy USA.
It will come to this because it MUST, if we are to survive.
38 posted on 01/11/2008 2:37:56 PM PST by buffaloKiller “
#-—————————————————————————#

The paper posits this notion without saying it.
Let me suggest, as the only way to get this notion implemented, that Gen. Peter Pace should be drafted for the Republican party’s nomination for POTUS.
We are quickly running out the clock on decisions necesssary to our survival.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Bump.

[SandRat]

Has anything changed from what Winston Churchill said in 1899?

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries.

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science the science against which it had vainly struggled the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

[StarCMC]

True and disturbing.

[nuconvert]

Thanx for the ping. I've read the first 33 pages so far. He is absolutely right, that we have to know the enemy and that too many of the people making decisions Do Not. He also makes the point that trying to include in the discussions whether the extremist/enemy view of islam is the "true" practice of the religion, just gets in the way of what the enemy is conveying as far as what they believe is true.

This seems to go to the core of what has probably gotten him in trouble - the inablity or unwillingness of some to disregard that discussion and just look at what the jihadists are putting forth as their doctrine and what they believe to be the truth.

[nuconvert]

I will also add, that not knowing the enemy is the main problem behind our difficulties and inability to deal properly with the Iranian regime.
There are very few people that I know of, who really have a handle on the workings inside the regime and the culture and religion. With very few exceptions, (Michael Rubin stands out) those are Iranians. Unfortunately, discerning and detecting the “good “ from the “bad”, IOW the truly democratic/regime change Iranians from those who aren’t, isn’t easy. And I see people in government and elsewhere fooled quite often.