I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

By HASSAN BUTT

2nd July 2007

Daily Mail

From the article:

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

This is how I think. It is good to see the idea of religious reform of Islam getting more and more press coverage as time goes on.

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

Hey I was going to post this to your other thread about seeking rational muslims, but you beat me to it!

If there are many like him (hope), maybe they can do something afores we all gits blown up.

Steve

[BaalChatzaf]

Hey I was going to post this to your other thread about seeking rational muslims, but you beat me to it!

If there are many like him (hope), maybe they can do something afores we all gits blown up.

Steve

Master Yodah says: Do not your breath hold until prevail reasonable Muslims, else blue turn you will.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Steve Gagne]

Well, Dr. Bob, Lord-of-the-Shard(s) (Lord of the Shattering of the Vessels?!? ),

One can always hope for the best possible outcome.

But on another thread it was asked what the islamist fanatics have that the russians & the chinese didn't have. The answer to that, of, course is: BABIES. They're having enough to clean out Europe & Russia & China & India & repopulate them. Which is exactly what they intend to do. So yeah, demographics have got us by the balls.

Kill em all? Afores we ALL gits blowed up? :nuke: It's like trying to eradicate roaches.

But maybe it's like the old saw about the 131-year old man who married a 20-year old girl,

"DIDN'T WANT TO, HAD TO!"

[Jody Gomez]

Sounds good, but until our leaders can muster the courage to name Muslims as the threat, muslims will continue in silence.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

[BaalChatzaf]

Sounds good, but until our leaders can muster the courage to name Muslims as the threat, muslims will continue in silence.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1

Even if PM Brown will not name Britain's pain, the British public will do it anyway. The Brits know it is the Jihadis that are attempting these outrages. Eventually the Soccer Thugs will burn down the Mosques and the police will stand idly by while they are doing it. It is simply a matter of time. The British people will take the law into their own hands if the government will follow through properly or if less blood thirsty Muslims fail to control their extreme elements.

If this keeps up I expect (hell! I pray and devoutly wish for it) there will be a Krystal Nacht for British Muslims. The Day is coming! The solution is very simple. Muslims must learn to behave themselves and eliminate from among their own number those who will not. If British Muslims will not police their population then the non-Muslims of Britain will.

The Brits are not always wise but if they are pushed sufficiently they will do The Right Thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited July 4, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sounds good, but until our leaders can muster the courage to name Muslims as the threat, muslims will continue in silence.

Jody,

See the following:

Building Moderate Muslim Networks

This is a free PDF monograph you can obtain simply by clicking on the link above. You can read it online, download it to your hard drive and print it out (217 pages). It was sponsored by the Rand Corporation. (No relation to our beloved. )

Daniel Pipes even recommends this document and this is precisely the approach I have been arguing for. See his latest article for New York Sun:

Bolstering Moderate Muslims

April 17, 2007

I did read part of this report and it is very encouraging on the ideological front.

The powers that be behind the scenes are making sure moderate Muslim networks are now receiving funding if they adopt individual rights, separation of church and state, etc. It will take a while to catch up to the spread of the fundamentalist Sunni type Islam (Salafi or Wahhabi or whatever you want to call it) heavily funded by Saudi Arabia, but that is the basic strategy now being implemented. This is even endorsed by Daniel Pipes while sitting on a panel beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan in public. I am seeing more and more indications of the results of this effort and I find it a welcome change from the previous silence from moderate Muslims about terrorism and radical Islamism.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Jody; I agree with your post about our leaders. I continue to be appalled at Bush and the religion of Peace. After reading Christopher Hitchen's "God is not Great" I wonder if any religion can be called that.

[galtgulch]

Ba'al,

Your Yoda saying betrays your pessimism. All humans have a volitional conceptual consciousness. Even devoutly religious people of any faith. All should be open to listening to reason and I have encountered more than one Christian who were open enough despite upbringing to listen to reason. One of them even considers me to be his own personal saviour for helping him see the light.

galt

[nealelehman]

Hi Galt et al

You state that " All humans have a volitional conceptual consciousness. Even devoutly religious people. All should be open to Reason {reality based rationality implied ?} ---despite upbringing"

My reading of "Epistemology" is that we all have the Faculty, the potential to develop true concepts, if and only if our concepts are based on perceptions of Reality, with correct differentiation, integration, unit formation and then proceeding to higher level concepts and their processing using valid rules of Logic.

Having this potential does not mean that any individual practices Rand's deductive system flawlessly.

She identifies many ways/fallacies by which men come to false concepts and hence can reason falsely. Shew also identifies how men can reach false conclusions from true starting premises by errors of Logic.

My lifelong dream has been to bring all the religious/atheist/agnostic/humanist leaders/gurus of the world together in one grand closed room to engage and debate until agreement on all issues and questions are resolved. No agreements to disagree. No cop outs. All discussion recorded and subject to rational inquiry.

I believe this could not happen until the participants first thrashed out agreement on Epistemological ground rules. I tbeleive such leaders should be invited to engage in this {mandatory?} beginning step.

What do you think? Could Objective Living initiate such a request? Could a formal Proposal be drafted for coordination with proper Agencies? Could a call for volunteers for a team to do so be issued? It would be an honor if I could help.

My best wishes to all

Neale Lehman

Ba'al,

Your Yoda saying betrays your pessimism. All humans have a volitional conceptual consciousness. Even devoutly religious people of any faith. All should be open to listening to reason and I have encountered more than one Christian who were open enough despite upbringing to listen to reason. One of them even considers me to be his own personal saviour for helping him see the light.

galt

[Steve Gagne]

Sounds good, but until our leaders can muster the courage to name Muslims as the threat, muslims will continue in silence.

Jody,

See the following:

Building Moderate Muslim Networks

This is a free PDF monograph you can obtain simply by clicking on the link above. You can read it online, download it to your hard drive and print it out (217 pages). It was sponsored by the Rand Corporation. (No relation to our beloved. )

Daniel Pipes even recommends this document and this is precisely the approach I have been arguing for. See his latest article for New York Sun:

Bolstering Moderate Muslims

April 17, 2007

I did read part of this report and it is very encouraging on the ideological front.

The powers that be behind the scenes are making sure moderate Muslim networks are now receiving funding if they adopt individual rights, separation of church and state, etc. It will take a while to catch up to the spread of the fundamentalist Sunni type Islam (Salafi or Wahhabi or whatever you want to call it) heavily funded by Saudi Arabia, but that is the basic strategy now being implemented. This is even endorsed by Daniel Pipes while sitting on a panel beside Yaron Brook and Wafa Sultan in public. I am seeing more and more indications of the results of this effort and I find it a welcome change from the previous silence from moderate Muslims about terrorism and radical Islamism.

Michael

I haven't finished it yet -- it is dense reading, like the Quran. One wants to hope, but for every report like the one you cite., there are ten of these:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56643

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

Of course al-Qaida is an evil organization and it needs to be stamped out, including the murderous ideology behind it. But there are huge differences between the report you are reading and what you posted: Al-Qaida bakes little boys.

Two things jumped out at me from the article you linked:

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al-Qaida directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently.

. . .

The moral equivalency argument needs to be crushed. We detain someone without due process and AQI bakes a child and feeds him to his family. Yet many people in the West are saying, 'We're no better.'

The first point is that these are Muslims fighting Muslims. When people start targeting ALL Muslims as if they were the same and collectively a threat to the West, all they have to do is look and see that they are not organized into a unity at all.

In fact, this kind of news is a strong factor towards convincing Muslims to become moderates and denounce the terrorists. Obviously, this is not possible right next door to al-Qaida operatives and the people there have very good reason to be intimidated, but it is possible (and happening) in Muslim countries where al-Qaida does not have a strong foothold.

In Iraq, they can get away with baking little boys (for now). Let them try that here in the USA or England or any other country with a sizable Muslim population and see what happens. This holds for many countries that are Muslim. Hell, let them even try that in Iran (which is Shia) and see what happens.

Notice that the report you are reading talks about funneling funding to countries with large Muslim populations that are more moderate around the world, then once this rest of the Muslim world is speaking out against fundamentalist Islamism, doing more work in the hot spots in the Middle East. It's a good strategy.

As for saying that we are no better than these al-Qaida psychopaths and thugs because we have strong and sometimes unfair detainment policies of suspects and enemies, there are no words to express the contempt I have for that view.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Re this request for non-Muslims to start a 'dialogue' with the non-'peaceful' Muslims:

~ Pointlessly suicidally-accelerating for non-Muslims...UNTIL...the 'PEACEFUL' Muslims START such a 'dialogue' with their news-headline-filled war-making brethren.

~ While THEY, the 'PEACEFUL' ones, show no basis, nor interest (!) for a 'dialogue' with the war-mongers (if they have tried, please link to where such was shown), much less show them a judgemental accusation of "You are Koranically WRONG!", then, what basis do non-Muslims have?

~ NONE. --- Like, who talks against a pointed gun/knife/explosive, other than for the purpose of stalling while attempting to outmanuever? Only suicidal idiots...or cowards using others as shields.

LLAP

J:D

Edited July 26, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Addendum:

~ Has the 'converted' article-writer showed an attempt to 'start a dialogue' (which he advises non-Muslims to do) with his war-mongering brethren?

~ If so, now THIS I'd be interested in.

~ If not, what point considering the worth of his article's concerns...about the rest of 'us'?

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

I think you missed the point. Moderate Muslims are not making dialog with fundamentalist Islamists, Salafi jihadists, Al-Qaeda, etc.. They are repudiating them. I have posted several links in the Mideast section and News. This is growing.

Michael

[John Dailey]

Mike:

~ I really don't think that I 'missed "the" point' of the article-writer. The article-writer's 'point', after his (miraculous?) unexplainedly-acquired humanitarian-perspective, regardless his brainwashed upbringing, was that all us chilun-non-Muslims ought to start a 'dialogue' with the war-mongering, stone-throw-1st, hate-disagreers 'radical' Muslims.

~ *My* point, thereupon, is: why don't such 'peaceful'-oriented Muslims (as the writer obviously is...now...somehow) start this 'dialogue' with bomb-throwers...1st; rather than clearly expect all us judgemental-Western-non-Muslims to initiate lemming-suicide?

LLAP

J:D

[nealelehman]

Hi John Dailey

Doesn't the skilled Crime Negotiator talk to the person holding the pointed gun and often

avoid a violent bloodbath? Maybe we could all learn from his methods and his example?

What do you think?

Neale Lehman

~ Pointlessly suicidally-accelerating for non-Muslims...

--- Like, who talks against a pointed gun/knife/explosive, other than for the purpose of stalling while attempting to outmaneuver? Only suicidal idiots...or cowards using others as shields.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

~ I really don't think that I 'missed "the" point' of the article-writer. The article-writer's 'point', after his (miraculous?) unexplainedly-acquired humanitarian-perspective, regardless his brainwashed upbringing, was that all us chilun-non-Muslims ought to start a 'dialogue' with the war-mongering, stone-throw-1st, hate-disagreers 'radical' Muslims.

John,

I reread the article because you have this interpretation and I cannot find it anywhere. I saw this passage:

But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.

I don't take this to mean that Muslim leaders don't want to talk about theology with radicals (although by banning them, they obviously do not want to). I take it to mean that they don't want to talk about the tricky parts of Islamic theology with their congregations, or anybody at all for that matter. Thus when the radicals approach members of the congregation with the 2-world argument, etc., there is no intellectual ammunition for them to respond with. The radicals manage to convert by the intellectual default of the Muslim leaders. When the Muslim leaders are asked by their congregation about these issues, they receive a James Taggart-like "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me." So the radicals win.

That is a far cry from proposing that we dialog with killers.

Here is what Rand wrote in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, "The Anatomy Of Compromise," p. 144.

The three rules listed below are by no means exhaustive; they are merely the first leads to the understanding of a vast subject.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

The radicals are obviously more consistent in (1), more evil and irrational in (2) and have the advantage in (3).

Back to the article:

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.

When he says "Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss" and "the Muslim community" (that has to "slap itself awake from its state of denial") he is talking about moderate Muslims, not the killers.

Although it is not covered in the article, I do think the idea of a Muslim leader publicly and fearlessly rebutting a radical based on reinterpreting the Koran, when one appears to spread the venom, would be an inspiration to his congregation. And although Mr. Butt is not asking for dialog with killers, I believe that this would be in line with his thinking. The basic message I got from him is that people (moderate Muslims) have to have good ideas in their heads so they will not accept bad ones (Islamist fundamentalist terrorism) when they are presented by recruiters.

What's wrong with that?

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

~ Re this request for non-Muslims to start a 'dialogue' with the non-'peaceful' Muslims:

~ Pointlessly suicidally-accelerating for non-Muslims...UNTIL...the 'PEACEFUL' Muslims START such a 'dialogue' with their news-headline-filled war-making brethren.

~ While THEY, the 'PEACEFUL' ones, show no basis, nor interest (!) for a 'dialogue' with the war-mongers (if they have tried, please link to where such was shown), much less show them a judgemental accusation of "You are Koranically WRONG!", then, what basis do non-Muslims have?

~ NONE. --- Like, who talks against a pointed gun/knife/explosive, other than for the purpose of stalling while attempting to outmanuever? Only suicidal idiots...or cowards using others as shields.

LLAP

J:D

John

I don't remember where I saw it -- I'll have to do some looking when I have the time -- but I saw last year where a leading Muslim university professor in Yemen was working with anti-extremist forces, and what they were doing was Koranic challenges to captured Al_Qaeda members and proponents of Wahhabism, resulting in something akin to anti-cult "deprogramming" sessions. IIRC, it is working successfully. Get back to you l8r on that.

Steve

Edited July 26, 2007 by Steve Gagne

[Steve Gagne]

Ok so I didn't get it quite right ... but here is a story of the story from TimeLine #81, May/June 2005.

The Koran Challenge in Yemen

By Mac Lawrence

As reported in The Christian Science Monitor, a young judge in Yemen is helping defuse terrorism by challenging al Qaeda prisoners to a debate.

In the article, James Brandon writes that Judge Hamoud al-Hitar began the experiment with five defiant terrorist prisoners. “If you can convince us that your ideas are justified by the Koran,” Hitar is reported to have said to the militants, “we will join you in your struggle. But if we succeed in convincing you of our ideas, then you must agree to renounce violence.” If the prisoners did agree to no more violence, they would be released and offered job training and help to find work.

Yemen is particularly notorious as a breeder of terrorists. As the Monitor article noted, it is Osama bin Laden’s ancestral home, provided the majority of recruits for his Afghan camps, had a record of kidnapping foreigners, and was behind the attack on the USS Cole.

The steps taken by the Yemen government to combat terrorism have apparently avoided the use of force wherever possible, despite pressure particularly by the United States. As one highly placed Yemeni was quoted in the Monitor: “It’s only logical to tackle these people through their brains and heart. If you beat these people up, they become more stubborn. If you hit them, they will enjoy the pain and find something good in it—it is a part of their ideology. Instead, what we must do is erase what they have been taught and explain to them that terrorism will only harm Yemenis’ jobs and prospects. Once they understand this, they become fighters for freedom and democracy, and fighters for true Islam.”

Yemen’s efforts so far have been so successful that one European diplomat is quoted in the Monitor as saying: “Yemen has gone from being a potential enemy to becoming an indispensable ally in the war on terror.” Hitar’s dialogue program has certainly played a part. More than 350 former prisoners have made it through the dialogue program, none of whom has left the country to fight elsewhere.

“An important part of the dialogue is mutual respect,” the Monitor quotes Hitar as saying. “Along with acknowledging freedom of expression, intellect, and opinion, you must listen and show interest in what the other party is saying. If you study terrorism in the world, you will see that it has an intellectual theory behind it.” And, as the dialogues showed, what the terrorists had been taught did not hold up when they studied the Koran.

Though U.S. pressure to use force persists, and some in the Yemen government agree, the Monitor notes that “Hitar has been invited to speak to antiterrorism specialists at London’s New Scotland Yard, as well as to French and German police, hoping to defuse growing militancy among Muslin immigrants,” and “U.S. diplomats have also approached the cleric to see if his methods can be applied to Iraq.”

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

I became curious about this person, so I Googled him. In 2004-2005, there were a lot of reports about his approach, then articles were more difficult to find. After some digging, I came up with two interesting pieces of information.

New cabinet reshuffle replaces only 11 out of 32 ministers

06/04/2007

Sana'a, NewsYemen

From the article:

President Saleh's advisor for atomic energy affairs Mustafa Bahran was named to replace Mujawar in the electricity and energy portfolio and Hamoud al-Hitar, a judge who famously led a dialogue with Islamic militants during the past few years, was appointed as religious endowment and guidance minister.

So the Judge Hamoud al-Hitar was appointed a minister in June of this year. He is doing good work, but it is not all roses. I also came across the following:

Yemen and the U.S.: Different Approaches to the War on Terrorism

By Andrew McGregor

Terrorism Monitor (of the Jamestown Foundation)

May 10, 2007

From the article:

Reforming Terrorists with Islam

The most unusual aspect of Yemen’s counter-terrorist efforts is a broad effort to reform religious extremism (both Shiite and Sunni) and replace it with a moderate approach to Islam. This task (rooted in traditional Yemeni methods of conflict resolution) has been handed to Yemen’s recently appointed minister for Endowments and Religious Guidance, Judge Hamoud Abdulhamid al-Hitar, who states, “The strategy will be an important factor in treating their mistaken ideas” (Yemen Observer, April 30). As the leader of Yemen’s Dialogue Committee, al-Hitar developed a policy of confronting incarcerated militants in debates designed to expose their misinterpretations of Islamic doctrine and challenge the legitimacy of al-Qaeda-style jihadism. Using “mutual respect” as a basis for the discussions, al-Hitar points to numerous successes in reforming the views of extremist prisoners, some of whom later provided the security apparatus with important intelligence. Hundreds of terrorism suspects have passed through the program. Recidivism is untracked, however, and there are reports that some of those released went to Iraq to fight U.S.-led coalition forces. The list of graduates is closely guarded, and ex-prisoners are warned not to discuss their participation in the dialogues, thus allowing a degree of deniability should graduates return to terrorism.

Within Yemen, al-Hitar is widely believed to be a member of the feared Political Security Organization (PSO). When 23 terrorism convicts escaped from a PSO prison in the national capital of Sanaa last year, their tunnel emerged in al-Hitar’s mosque. The mass escape was clearly assisted by some PSO agents. The fact that the escapees included several convicted of bombing the USS Cole placed a severe strain on U.S.-Yemen relations.

For two years, the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Guidance has kept a close watch on unlicensed Quranic schools suspected of promoting political violence, although none have been closed so far. A corps of “religious guides” (both men and women) has been tasked with promoting “the noble values of Islam” and to establish the principles of moderation and tolerance in areas where the government fears extremism is feeding on a lack of religious knowledge (Saba News Agency, April 25). Saleh has challenged the country’s religious scholars and preachers to “clarify the facts” of Islam for the Muslim community, especially in rebellious Sa’dah province, where preachers have a “religious, moral and national duty” to eradicate sedition.

It looks like al-Hitar was involved in gaining freedom for some of his "graduates," much to the irritation of the USA. Still, his "deprogramming" system is better than nothing since it is a step in the right direction. Only an Islamic religious authority can correct corrupted thinking about Islam in a fanatic. I don't think John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand, etc., would have much impact at that level. But after the change in thinking of a terrorist, I see a possibility of him being open to new ideas.

According to this article, the Ministry of Endowments and Religious Guidance has been keeping surveillance on the "breeding grounds" some ARI intellectuals wanted to nuke a while back. This article was written in May. Now Judge Hamoud Abdulhamid al-Hitar is the new Minister of Endowments and Religious Guidance and he has a much different agenda than the leaders in those "breeding grounds." It will be interesting to see what his role and success will be.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ Ok; maybe I jumped too quickly on one of his closing points...

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims [ahem!] start openly to discuss [takes 2 to tango!] the ideas that fuel terrorism.

~ Such a 'dialogue' thence can ONLY be with 'moderates.' Like, there aren't some going already? So far, to what point?

~ Yes, he makes a valid and sound analysis of the problem within Islam, both the religion AND the culture/believers, re the fundamentalists (a term he never uses, but instead only 'radicals' and 'extremists') and the non-fundies. However, shouldn't this be in an Arabic newspaper? His points, here, are falling on a choir...unless he means *we*, non-Muslims, should attempt 'dialogue' with...the fundies.

~ My questions about his 'change-of-mind's source still stand.

LLAP

J:D

Edited July 29, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

~ On a related note, THIS news article might be of relevent interest...to those who find attempts at 'rehabilitation' of worth.

Truck Bomber Turns Against Jihad

~ Presumably, if working as advertised, there are some techniques that maybe all prisons everywhere (especially our own pardon-happy ones) are overlooking?

LLAP

J:D