Raymond Ibrahim was disinvited from speaking at the Army War College.

His book Sword and Scimitar is about the military conflicts between Islam and the west.

I won't be reading the book.

Ibrahim makes a very elementary mistake here.

Can you see it?

"Although the book and its narrative revolve around historic warfare, it offers, as you observe, many lessons of contemporary relevance. Take for example the question of whether the behavior of Islamic groups such as the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is Islamic or not."

" Those many 'experts' who insist ISIS is just a gang of 'terrorists' who have 'nothing to do with Islam' will be hard pressed to explain why over a millennium of leading Muslims—caliphs, sultans, emirs, ulema and jurists of the highest order—have said to and done in Europe the same exact things ISIS says and does to 'infidels' today."

What is Ibrahim's mistake?

Al-Azhar University--the Vatican of Sunni Islam--said this:

"Al-Azhar cannot accuse anyone of heresy."

""Al-Azhar officials explain their position by saying that a Muslim remains a Muslim as long as he has not renounced the shahada – that is, the declaration that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet – and that terror organization activists' actions are criminal and that all-out war should be waged against them, but that they should not be declared heretics because only a shari'a judge can issue such a ruling."

This whole issue is being approached in multiple pre-failed ways.

Al-Azhar is correct: They have no religious grounds to declare terrorists non-Muslims.

So Ibrahim is making the argument that Muslims are disavowing terrorism as being non-Islamic, but in reality the highest authority in Sunni Islam--Sunnis make up 90 percent of Muslims--is stating that terrorists are Muslims.

Ibrahim's position is not coherent.

He states that the Koran can't be rewritten, which is true.

Okay, so what next?

Are we supposed to kill all Muslims?

This was the problem I had with the anti-Islam people after 9/11.

What did they want?

There was never a real answer. All they did was point out problems that we all already knew.

Mohammed bin Salman carried out the Stealth Reformation, which took place from 2015 to late 2017.

What he did was brilliant.

First, he DENIED that a reformation was taking place.

I approve. All I care about are actions.

The MbS reinterpreted the Koran.

He said that Muslims are required to spread the WORD of Islam.

And he said that because of modern technology, the word HAS BEEN SPREAD.

And finally, he said that all people have the freedom to choose their own beliefs, so Muslims can now go about their business.

A Pakistani asked me, "Who's Mohammed bin Salman to make these decisions?"

"He's the Muslim with the most firepower," I said.

At this moment, I see no need to have a Grand Discussion with Muslims about Islam. THEY are doing the bulk of the fighting against terrorism.

Because Muslim cultures value "face," it may never be possible to have that Grand Discussion.

But do we need it?

I oppose holding TODAY'S Christians responsible for things that the Conquistadors did in the name of Christianity.

Is it necessary to have today's Muslims go on an apology tour for their entire history?

Today's Muslims are doing incredible things without admitting that they are.

Al-Azhar University has recognized the validity of non-Abrahamic religions. That's a MASSIVE change.

The ramifications can't be calculated.


They didn't go out and have a parade announcing this change.

Westerners are hung up on words.

Don't we know that Middle Easterners are masters of word acrobatics?

How about simply concentrating on ACTIONS?

Saudi Arabia is rapidly becoming the freest Arab nation. THAT deserves some goodwill.

We need--in my humble opinion--to have a period of transition during which Muslims BANK goodwill from us.

In other words, we SHUT UP and watch.

"Oh, but maybe they're lying!"

If they are, we'll find out soon enough, won't we?

But they aren't.

They're sharing technology with us, which is why the US Army has created the experimental Multi Domain Task Force (MDTF).


"The goal is to have an Army with so many capabilities that there would be “nobody foolish enough to go against us,” General Brown said.




The Gulf Cooperation WAS decades ahead of us in terms of land and air forces.

But they shared the technology.

I wonder if the US armed forces will finally overcome internecine rivalry?

I hope so.


My cousin Matthew, West Point Grad., lead a platoon in the orchards of Afghanistan.

There's bitterness a plenty on both sides.

Thankfully "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset is not a lost concept.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.