The Sweet Sixteen of March Badness has been decimated down to the Final Four of Fear.  Boko Haram danced a jungle boogie of death on the Haqqani Network; al-Nusrah Front easily penetrated the Muslim Brotherhood’s too-political zone; Ansaru, in a surprise upset, rode its Sokoto Caliphate-inspired agenda to victory over Twelver Shi`a Hizbullah; Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan [TTP] bearded CAIR into oblivion; ISIS ripped the veils off the al-Mulathimun Battalion; core al-Qa`idah [AQ] sidelined its franchise in the Islamic Maghrib; Ansar al-Din of Mali took out Jemaah Anshourat Tawhid, as the latter—due to defections to ISIS—was down to only four starters; and HAMAS routed the upstart, neighboring Army of Islam (Gaza Strip).  

 ISIS's female hoops team warms up. We couldn't  get pix of the male team, because they decapitated the photographer. 

In the Evil Eight, we first saw Boko Haram pull ahead of al-Nusrah Front: the latter’s capture of Idlib was gruesomely trumped by the former’s novel use of chainsaws in decapitating some 40 Nigerians. Then Ansaru continued its upset trend by sending TTP to a premature meeting with the houris.   ISIS sent AQ slinking back to its Waziristan caves, while Ansar al-Din fell to the that perennial powerhouse HAMAS.  

So the danse macabre card is set: the winner of Boko Haram v. its offshoot Ansaru, in the African terrorism final, will meet the ISIS-HAMAS winner in the all-acronym Middle East conference.  Stay tuned! 

 

 

The Sweet 16 Terrorist Groups of March Badness have been selected! The first rounds were dominated by one-beheading wins and the surprising strength of some Marxist squads,  But eventually the psychopathic, thuggish power of the Islamic groups imposed its will on the less-motivated infidel ones.  

 

Haqqani Network took out the Tea Party, Boko Haram bested Jundullah and MB got the nod over the Marxist PKK. Jabhat al-Nusrah beat Libyan jihadists, BH's rival in Nigeria, Ansaru, advanced as did Hizbullah, leaning on its McFalafel's All-Stars from Iran. CAIR pummelled al-Shabab with subterfuge and Obama administration support, while TTP overwhelmed its Bangladeshi cousin with sheer numbers. ISIS, the #1 seed, easily moved into the Sweet 16 (and proved it's no longer just the "JV"), but the AQ-offshoot al-Mulathimun Battalion eked out an overtime win over Abu Sayyaf. Core AQ beat the fictional Dunedain Rangers, although the latter managed to take out several of the former's #2 leaders. JAT also advanced, as did Mali's Ansar al-Din and, of course HAMAS. Continuity IRA's bid to be the lone non-Muslim group in the Sweet 16 fell short, as the loaded lads were no match for the teetotaling Army of Islam. Who will win the crown? Stay tuned!

 

 

What are the goals of the Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL/”Da`ish?”  Some commentators and journalists seem to think these are simply to continue beheading, oppressing and terrorizing.  But self-proclaimed Caliph al-Baghdadi and his ansar have more concrete aims in mind—based on my reading of ISIS publications, review of its videos, scrutiny of its actions and putting all those in the context of Islamic history.  

Short-term, ISIS wants to consolidate the Iraqi and Syrian territories which it  has occupied into a functioning state.  This plan appears to be working quite well, for ISIS has expanded its area of control since US (and “Coalition”) airstrikes began late 2014.  (If you don’t like Department of Defense-derived “Wall Street Journal” maps, take a look at these of Syria and Iraq by an independent observer—both clearly show ISIS expanding its domain.)  At the same time, it conducts an on-going agenda of both jihad and da`wah—the former mainly against near enemies, but also including appeals for individual sympathizers to go after Western targets where they live; the latter focused on attracting as many Muslims as possible to make the hijrah from their current locales to the Islamic State.  Again, both sides of this Islamic coin are well-spent, from al-Baghdadi’s perspective. 

Long-term, ISIS—as many breathlessly have reported—aspires to not just ruling all the Islamic portions of the Middle East, Europe and South/Central Asia, but Rome and points further west, including the United States.  This may be a hookah-dream, but considering that the ideology—if not quite all the brutal activity—of ISIS has solid grounding in Salafism, both its Wahhabi and Deobandi (South Asian) versions, it’s something that should be taken seriously by non-Muslims. 

It is the medium-term goals of ISIS that should most concern us.  I submit that these primarily are two-fold:  1) to goad us—that is, the United States—into inserting ground troops into, particularly, Syria, as a means of fulfilling the hadith about the great apocalyptic battle  near Dabiq; and 2) to take over Saudi Arabia, or at least to cause such regional instability that Riyadh’s regime fractures, and ISIS Toyotas ride triumphantly into al-Haramayn, the “two holy places” of Mecca and Medina. 

 The circuitous, quasi-road route for ISIS Toyotas to take to Islamic legitimacy.  Cutting straight south would shave many km/miles off this trip.

The first objective I have discussed at length on this website, in many posts going back into 2013. (Feel free to review.)  The second one, thus, I will now address.  The idea had  occurred to me before, but struck home again recently as I was re-reading portions of the insightful  God’s  Caliph:  Religious  Authority in the First Centuries of Islam by Patricia Crone and Martin Hinds (Cambridge, 1986/2003)—in particular this: “[I]t was control of these places [Mecca and Medina] rather than world domination which gave the Ottoman caliphate a certain plausibility, just as it is control of the same places which gives the Sa`udi monarchs a quasi-caliphal role today” (note 18, p. 100).  

In order to have true, historical caliphal legitmacy, one must rule the two most holy sites of Islam.  And while ISIS labels all extant Sunni regimes in the Middle East as ţaghūt, “idolatrous” and/or “tyrannical,” the Sa`udi one which holds sway over Mecca and Medina is obviously the most odious.  So those who think that ISIS will drive toward al-Quds, Jerusalem, first are wrong—its primary near enemy is the Sa`udis, not the Jews/Israelis.  

In addition, those writers and analysts who stress the vast differences between [pseudo-] Caliph al-Baghdadi and his Ottoman predecessors might want to take a few courses in Ottoman history.  While not, institutionally, a fundamentalist Islamic state (if for no other reason than a large, and influential, minority of the Empire was Christian), some Ottoman sultans were not all that dissimilar to the ruler of ISIS.  Murad IV (d. 1640) hated Sufis, Shi`is, tobacco, coffee and alcohol (in that order), waging jihad—both personal and public—against  all of them (although he died of cirrhosis, probably from secretly imbibing).  Murad was heavily influenced by the 17th century Ottoman Sunni fundamentalist movement known as the Kadizadelis, whose ideas ISIS echoes, albeit probably unknowingly.  

Unlike al-Baghdadi, however, Murad led his troops personally into battle and, of course, already ruled the two holy cities down in Arabia (the Ottomans having conquered them in 1517).  Perhaps if Islamic State’s caliph would emulate his Ottoman predecssor regarding the former activity, American forces could ensure that we wouldn’t have to worry about him gaining the legitimacy that comes with the latter.  But if al-Baghdadi stays “above” the fray—conveniently out of it, that is—then ISIS’s goal of extending its caliphate 1400 miles south remains a worrisome one, that should concern not just the Sa`udis but American policymakers.

 Murad IV and his current epigone. The former had a bigger sword, albeit a smaller watch. 

I was on the "Peter Boyles Show," KNUS AM 710, Denver, this morning ostensibly to discuss the Israeli election--but I wound up speaking for most of the 30 minutes on Mahdism.  This is a good primer for those wishing to learn about the topic. 

 

The Mahdi gets validated by Allah--well, actually by a laser from a satellite (according to AJ Quinnell's excellent 1981 fiction book, The Mahdi). 

"You lie," said Wormtongue. "That word comes too oft and easy from your lips," said Gandalf. "I do not lie. See, Théoden, here is a snake. With safety you cannot take it with you, nor can you leave it behind. To slay it would be just. But it is not always as it now is. Once it was a man...."--"The King of the Golden Hall," Lord of the Rings, p. 520.

 Shaving the eyebrows, or shaving the upper lip--both work well for Liars.

Increasingly on social media, especially on Twitter, I am confronted by (passive-aggressive) Muslims who accuse me of lying about Islam.  Following are two recent examples:

 

And:

After that string, ISIS-sympathizer "Jamal" also posted this reply to me:

 

So...."Ali" says that Islamic truth is somehow separate from the Qur'an, and further that reading it in Arabic is irrelevant--which of course goes against 1435 years of Islamic teachings.  Meanwhile ISISite "Jamal," whose first reply to me contained two posters with pictures of President Obama and SecState Kerry over the caption "wanted dead or alive," brands me a liar for asking him about the indisputable beheadings and kidnappings/slavery in which ISIS engages. 

What is going on here? Are such Muslims as Ali and Jamal really that stupid (due to lack of education, or perhaps even incest)? Or do they simply think that we are that stupid--enough to be taken in by taqiyya?  

Perhaps such men been so blinded by the incessant need to apologize for Islam and Muslims, at all costs, that they are no longer capable of even discerning right from wrong, truth from error--or they are, like Gríma Wormtongue, cognizant of the differences but simply, totally subervient to the Lie. M. Scott Peck, in his unsettling but brilliant book People of the Lie, said such folks are immersed in "militant ignorance." I can think of no better term to describe those who slavishly follow a 7th c. literal understanding of Islam, like ISIS--and their enablers, like Ali and Jamal.  Such follow the path of Gríma Wormtongue, abandoning their humanity for lies--all the while throwing up a smoke-screen, accusing others of doing so.  Only when Islam no longer theologically privileges lying to non-Muslims will such madness begin to cease--and that may take decades, if not centuries, alas. 

Of course, there is not much difference between what these Muslims said to me, and a POTUS who denies the Islamic bona fides of jihad or a CIA director who does likewise.  Both are declaiming "you lie" to anyone pointing out the inconvenient theological and historical truths about Islam.  And as long as our leaders emulate Gríma, keeping as many as possible willfully blind to the truth, the West shall remain, like Théoden, enfeebled and incapable of rising to the challenge.  

 

As if I don’t get enough eschatology in my day job—now I’m immersing myself in the topic by night, once weekly, with the new TV show “Dig.”  An FBI agent stationed at the US consulate in Jerusalem gets embroiled in a nefarious eschatological plot, led by a mysterious Orthodox rabbi and a Protestant minister to hotwire the apocalypse via a red heifer and 13-year old holy child who may or may not be the clone of Jesus.  The usual tropes appear: Peter Connelly almost became a Catholic priest before joining the FBI—but now is having an affair with his boss and brooding over the death of his daughter;  Tad Billingham is not just a Protestant cult leader but, of course, merciless and conniving (is there any other kind of fundamentalist Christian?); the Israeli cop chain-smokes, wisecracks incessantly, gruffly orders around subordinates—and has an uncle who knows all about the Urim and Thummim.  And the red heifer connection between Old Testament Judaism and fundamentalist Christian eschatology has been ripped from modern news stories.   

There are a few twists: a Jewish faction seemingly working to stop  (or perhaps hijack?) this attempt to move the apocalyptic needle is called the Essenes—but I wonder whether the modern descendants of those who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls would have Special Forces-level military training? The US Ambassador, revealed as part of the plot, spends her time in the Jerusalem consulate rather than the actual US embassy over in Tel Aviv.  Peter’s dead daughter appears reincarnated in a young American archaeology student whom he meets—the night before she is brutally murdered. 

Of course, the most striking aspect of “Dig” is that it posits a Jewish-Christian cabal trying to spark the coming of the Jewish Messiah/the return of Jesus—or at least the apocalyptic conditions for that to happen.  There are “Christian Zionists” who believe the Temple must be rebuilt so that Jesus can come again (even if the Antichrist has to dwell in it first); there are also some Jewish groups, such as the “Temple Institute,” which wish to do so—although for non-Jesus-related reasons.   (There is even one Muslim group, that of Adnan Oktar of Istanbul, which promotes a Third Temple on the Mount alongside the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque.)  

But in the modern world, the only folks actively attempting to hotwire the apocalypse are Salafi (fundamentalist) Sunni Muslims, most notably ISIS (ISIL/”Da`ish”) and Jabhat al-Nusrah—as I have explained before, at length, in various posts on this site going back to 2013.  ISIS in particular, in the many issues of “Dabiq”—named after the northwestern Syrian town where hadiths say the great victory of Muslims over Christian forces will occur—trumpets its firm belief that the pre-Mahdi End Times are upon us, and that its actions are helping to realize the eschaton. 

Regarding eschatology, the media often “conflate[s] the conservative evangelical view with [that] of all Christians”—as they tend to do with, for example, evolution.   But the mainstream Christian view is not one of knowing when the End will come—much less triggering it.   Regarding Jesus’ discourse on the End of the Age in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, the Lutheran Study Bible says the following: “No one knows when the events Jesus prophesied will take place; therefore, Christians are to focus on the work He has given them” and quotes St. Augustine’s admonition “Let no one then search out for the last Day, when it is to be; but less us watch by all our good lives, lest the last day of any one of us find us unprepared” (LSB, p. 1687).  The Roman Catholic  New Testament of the New American Bible speaks likewise of the Matthew text: “The vigilant waiting…does not mean a cessation of ordinary activity and concentration only on what is to come, but a faithful accomplishment of duties at hand, with awareness that the end…will entail the great judgment…” (p. 110).   Perhaps the best summation of the historical Christian position on the eschaton is found in the Orthodox Study Bible, in commentary on II Peter 3:10-12, which describes Christ returning: “Christians can actually hasten the coming of that day. How? Through evangelism…prayer…and repentance and obedience” (p. 1695).   Not by rebuilding the Temple, killing anyone—even Islamic terrorists—or electing the right folks into office.  

“Dig” is a fun show, and having been to Jersualem thrice, I particularly enjoy identifying all the scenes shot in place where I’ve been.  But I hope it doesn’t refocus the media's and public’s attention away from the apocalyptic cult that really should concern us: ISIS.  

 A pulp-style rendering of Islamic eschatological activism--which I created over at "Pulp-O-Mizer!"

On May 3-4, 2015, the History Department of Boston University will sponsor Praeparatio Califatae: Islamic Apocalyptic Beliefs about the Millennial Era to Come.  Yours truly, along with perhaps half-a-dozen other US academics specializing in some aspects of Islamic eschatology, will be presenting.  

 

Of course I'm going to that conference.  I'd sell my soul to...oh, wait.  

Details are still being fleshed out by the eminent Dr. Richard Landes, BU professor, expert on apocalyptic both medieval and modern, and head of the former Center for Millennial Studies at BU.  But I shall post them as they take form.

This conference should prove valuable to journalists, government and military analysts, and religious professionals.  And it will be interesting as hell!

Who knows? He MIGHT show up in Boston!  

C.S. Lewis, in The Screwtape Letters, famously said that Christians could make one of two equally unfortunate errors regarding demons: one was to “disbelieve in their existence;” the other “to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” After a quarter century of studying Islamic history, I’ve decided that analogous dual pitfalls beckon, and often entrap, Westerners.  

On one hand, Western (mainly, but not only, American) conservatives—politically or in the Christian churches; often both—view Muhammad as nothing more than a demonic charlatan and/or a pedophile, whose religion is satanic or, alternatively, is not a religion at all.   

On the other hand, Western (again, not only American) liberals—in the political realm, and in the mainstream/liberal churches, as well as much of the usually non-liberal hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church—engage in their own massive brand of denial, ignoring empirical and historical data about jihad, failing to differentiate Christian and Islamic doctrines, and even suggesting that Islam and Christianity are equally valid paths to God (as does the Catholic Church in its Cathechism, para 841). 

 Well, not exactly....but two out of three ain't bad. 

I reject both the rock-headed Scylla of my conservative colleagues, and the sucking sychophancy of the liberals’ Charybdis. Instead, consider the tough love approach to Islam’s founder, spelled out by the Anglican cleric  J.M. Rodwell, in his translation of the Qur’an published in 1909 (the best rendering of the Arabic text I’ve yet found, by the way):

If he was indeed the illiterate person the Muslims represent him to have been, then…the Koran is, as they assert it to be, a standing miracle. But if…it was a book carefully concocted from various sources, and with much extraneous aid, and published as a divine oracle, then it…the author is at once open to the charge of the grossest imposture….The evidence rather shews, that in all he did and wrote, Muhammad was actuated by a sincere desire to deliver his countrymen from the grossness of…debasing ideologies…that the end to be attained justified to his mind the means he adopted in the production of the Suras—that he worked himself up into a belief that he had received a divine call—and that he was carried on by…gradually increasing successes, to believe himself the accredited messenger of Heaven…. 

At the same time, he was probably, more or less, throughout his whole career, the victim of a certain amount of self-deception.  A cataleptic [epileptic] subject from his early youth, born—according to the traditions—of a highly nervous and excitable mother, he would be peculiarly liable to morbid and fantastic hallucinations, and alternations of excitement and depression, which would win for him, in the eyes of his ignorant countrymen, the credit of being inspired. It would be easy for him to persuade himself that he was the “seal of the Prophets….” 

It is nearer to the truth to say that he was a great though imperfect character, an earnest though mistaken teacher…and that there must be elements both of truth and goodness in the system of which he was the main author, to account for the world-wide phenomenon, that…has now lasted for nearly thirteen centuries, and embraces more than one hundred millions [at the time of Rodwell’s writing]….

This via media approach to the founder of the world’s second-largest religion will please neither the Hard Right nor the Loony Left—but it has the virtue of being historically accurate. Seeing Muhammad as devout yet deluded, and thus Islam itself as inadequate but not evil, has certain ramifications.  On the one hand, it requires acknowledging that violence against non-Muslims is derived from Qur’anic literalism and Muhammadan emulation—as the Left is loathe to admit. But, on the other hand, unwavering intellectual honesty about Islam and its founder means we must confess some truths inconvenient for the Right—such as the amazing political achievements of the Ottomans, and the undeniable positive piety of many Sufis and some Islamic sects.    

As a Christian, I must remember that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23) applies to me and my co-religionists, not just those of other faiths; but I also know that believing in the oneness of God, and trembling before Him (James 2:19), is no guarantee of salvation.  During this Lenten season, perhaps it would behoove conservative Christians to acknowledge that the Qur’an contains some wheat, and liberal ones to stop turning a blind eye to its legion of chaff—while ceasing to beat each other with the winnowing fork of self-righteousness. 

Muhammad preaching, from a 15th c. Persian work. The Men's Breakfast beforehand probably excluded bacon. 

I was on "NewsmaxTV" earlier today--specifically, Ed Berliner's "Midpoint"show--discussing Israeli PM Netanyahu's address to Congress, the reception thereof, and its connection to the reality of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Here is the link to the first clip (5:38): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4hb0LpM_c4&feature=youtu.be 

And to the second (5:57): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwbXrSTWzLI&feature=youtu.be 

Two major points:

1) As per my post from two days ago, I am off the (conservative) reservation in that I do not believe--based on my years of studying Mahdism, Iranian history, Twelver Shi`i theology and modern Islamic Republic politics--the IRI wants to nuke Israel (for my reasoning, refer to "Apocalypse Row," 3.2.15).

2) I'm a conservative, but not a member of the Tea Party.  My interlocutor during the second clip, (failed) Tea Party Congressional candidate from Texas, one Katrina Pierson, reminded me why: an emphasis on original intention of the Constitution's writers does not automatically translate into expertise, much less wisdom, on any other issue--such as, let us say, March Madness picks, macroeconomis, or Iranian geopolitics.  Ms. Pierson seemed hellbent on painting me as some sort of clueless liberal, just because I dared to say that Bibi Netanyahu was wrong, at least partially, in his assessment of Iran.  But gross ignorance about Iran and, in fact, the entire Middle Eastern political situation (at one point she actually said that Iran was supporting ISIS, which I called her on) remains the hobgoblin of such little minds, Tea party and otherwise.  I wish that it were only the Left that puts political posturing ahead of objective analysis--but, alas, that is not always the case. 

Ali skewering hobgoblins, er, jinn. Long years of study make me able to empathize, but rarely to sympathize, with him and his modern Iranian epigones. 

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will speak to a joint session of the US Congress on Tuesday, March 3, 2015.  If his speech earlier today at the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) was any indication, the Islamic Republic of Iran and its pursuit of nuclear weapons will be the major topic.  Partisan bickering (about whether the Republican majority in the House and Senate wished to insult President Obama) aside,  the central issue boils down to whether Bibi is correct in his long-held belief that the IRI leadership amounts to a “messianic, apocalyptic, radical cult” which must be stopped at all costs from going nuclear (as he first said six years ago).   

He is not.  

Now as my usual friends and colleague sharpen their knives, allow me to explain.  First off, I am a staunch supporter of Israel, as both a Christian and an American, and have been there three times in the last decade.  Also, now that Turkey, under Sultan Erdoğan, has slipped back into Neo-Ottomanism, Israel is the only truly democratic nation in the Middle  East.  Along with the Kurds, the Israelis are our closest allies in that region.  

But that does not mean that everything Israeli is automatically correct.  And this claim that Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to use them on Tel Aviv and thus spark the coming of the 12th Imam al-Mahdi is a gross misreading of Twelver Shi`i doctrines as well as of Iranian politics. 

I examined this issue in depth for the Institute for Near East & Gulf Military Analysis back in 2011, in a paper entitled “A Western View on Iran’s WMD Goal: Nuclearing the Eschaton, or Pre-Stocking the Mahdi’s Arsenal?”  The major points therein follow, after this pictorial message:

Safavid Shah Isma'il (L), founder of the 16th c. dynasty that converted Iran to Twelver Shi`ism. HE would not have hesitated to use nukes (in fact, his turban itself is weaponized).  But Khamenei? Not bloody likely.

Z  Belief in the return of the 12th Imam from ghaybah, “occultation,” is not “fringe” or “extremist” but a mainstay of this brand of Islam (just as is the doctrine of Jesus’ return for all orthodox Christians).

Z The 12th Imam’s reappearance is totally up to Allah’s discretion; nothing humans can do will advance his timetable.  “Hotwiring the apocalypse” depends not on WMD usage or any other violent activity but, rather, hinges on creating the Mahdist state in microcosm (i.e., the IRI) and then waiting on Allah to send the Mahdi to rule it.

Z The anjuman-i hujjatiyeh (“Hujjatiyeh Society”) is not some insane group dedicated to destroying Israel but an organization dedicated to re-converting Baha’is to Twelver Shi`ism—and, furthermore, was banned in the early 1980s for being insufficiently supportive of Ayatollah Khomeini’s clerical rule.

Z As per the excellent article by Ze’ev Maghen, “Occultation in Perpetuum: Shi`ite Messianism and the Policies of the Islamic Republic,” the ruling ayatollahs are probably the most vociferous opponents of a true Mahdist claim on the planet—because acknowleding anyone as such would end their rule of Iran, and with it their wealth, power and privilege. 

Z Twelver Shi`i views of jihad mandate that jihad-i ghalaba, “victorious holy war,” be prohibited until the return of the 12th Imam—NOT employed to importune him to appear.  Usage of nuclear weapons is thus really not allowable for the apocalypse-hotwiring which many pundits impute  to Iran.

Z Yes, some Iranian leaders have spoken, repeatedly, of Israel being “erased from the pages of history.”  But I believe that this means they believe in a gradual demographic disintegration of the “Zionist entity,” and not a mushroom cloud over Israel.

Z It is possible for men to have long beards, wear turbans, express eschatological beliefs and yet still be rational political actors. The Supreme Leader and his cronies all know that were Iran to use a nuclear weapon against Israel, their nation would be a radioactive ruin about 15 minutes later. The Mahdi has no desire to rule over such a wasteland. Plus, it would deprive the clerics of their wives and Rolls Royces.

Z All of the above by no means makes the IRI a peaceful or trustworthy state.  The ruling ayatollahs want nuclear weapons not only to hold onto their power (as per the ruling clique in Pyongyang) but to provide immunity against possible American military strikes and to increase Tehran’s regional clout—just not to summon the Mahdi via a nuclear conflagration.  

President Jarrett, er, Obama and SecState John Kerry are fools to think that any written agreement will disabuse Khameini and his ilk of their lust for nuclear weapons.  But attempting to counter the administration’s naiveté with inane bluster that misepresents our enemy’s beliefs and intentions amounts to falling off the horse on the opposite side.  Instead, let’s try sitting upright on a strong horse and avoiding partisan extremes of misapprehension.