Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Richard Grenell on jihadis: ‘They are Radicals. The Radicals must be defeated. Muslims call them Radicals, too.’

By

Grenell was responding to Florida state Senator Randy Fine, who wrote: “Muslim terror has attacked the United States — again. The blood is on the hands of those who refuse to acknowledge the worldwide #MuslimProblem. It is high time to deal with this fundamentally broken and dangerous culture.” Can Richard Grenell, whom Trump has designated to be his Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions, explain how Islamic jihad terrorists are “radical” in terms of mainstream Islamic teaching? Can he explain one tenet of Islam that they ignore, misinterpret or misapply? Can he really defend the proposition that opposing Islamic jihad terrorism violates the religious freedom stipulation of the First Amendment?

Unfortunately, Grenell will not see all these questions, and no one will bring them to his attention.

Comments

  1. Islam is not a religion. It’s a political system masquerading as a religion. I wish someone would bring this before the Supreme Court

    • It’s both. But there is no doubt that Muslims hide behind their vicious creed being a religion, which all too many Americans foolishly believe must be benignant by its very nature.

  2. They are not “radical” Muslims, they are doctrinaire Koran literalists.

  3. There is a reason why there is such a reluctance, in the West, to recognize that it is Islam itself (not some fantasy subset called “radical Islam”) that is murderous, oppressive and savage.

    That is because, once one recognizes that it is Islam itself that is the problem, one is staring in the face of an ineluctable truth. Namely, that there are 2 billion Nazis in this world who, to some degree or other, want to eradicate our cherished way of life. It is a realization almost too horrible to face. Hence the attempt to fantasize some benign Islam into existence.

    During World War Two, though the forces arrayed against us were awful, I believe that we thought that Evil was contained within some countries; that therefore they could be overcome.

    The thought that we could lose our civilization to these vast hordes of people who fervently believe in this evil ideology, is almost too appalling to contemplate.

    • some good points; now if only those in *charge*….or about to be….could face that reality.

      No matter how large the storm, how strong the winds, if the right measures aren’t taken, there will be no longer a ship. the storm cannot be ignored and the crew survive.

    • crown, there were people in denial before WWII as well–who though that Fascism count not really be that bad, or who even lauded it as “modern”.

  4. Twisted thinking abounds:
    “historian Tom Holland, reflecting on the Rotherham grooming gangs [in 2015], posted: The true nightmare of #Rotherham is that the motives of those who turned a blind eye, however monstrous the consequences, were indeed noble. It wasn’t the indifference that was noble,” he clarified, “But the concern not to demonise a minority. Caring for the weak. The Christian thing.”

    Amid renewed interest in the subject of grooming gangs, this week, Mr Holland has received a lot of criticism. He replied: My position remains: The authorities have a responsibility to preserve good race relations. This is a noble goal. In the context of the grooming gangs, this goal resulted in fatefully wrong decisions being taken.10 years on, the tragedy of this is even more evident.”

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/ignoring-rape-gangs-road-hell-paved-ass-covering-cowardice

    So: these motives and turning a blind eye, the result being industrial jihadi rape, trafficking, and torture can still be seen as noble? Has he examined what happened, at all?
    So: jihadis who are traffickers, torturers, and rapists are weak and must be cared for and that’s a “Christian thing”? Hint: it’s not.
    So: minorities must not be “demonized,” even when they’ve in fact “demonized” themselves?
    So: “The authorities have a responsibility to preserve good race relations.” Were there, can there, should there ever be good relations between governments meant to protect children from rape jihad and said rape jihadis or anyone in their communities who fail to stop them? Why?
    So: Islam is not a race, but should be granted carte blanche under the lie that it is, indeed, a race? Why?
    So: Why the hellbent on continuing to mention only Rotherham when the list of cities is lengthy? Does he believe that fact will also lie hidden as he may have believed the whole situation would lie hidden? Why did he believe after ten years to reflect that he’d had anything right on this, ever?

    • You pose some great questions, HP. Too bad he won’t answer them; nor will those who *think* his way.
      And your “hint” is correct. it is not Christian to stand by and know young children are being raped, some murdered, and then have a cup of tea with the rapists/murderers because they have a different set of beliefs which can be called “race.”

      It’s totally as if they feel sympathy for the rapists because people don’t like them, actually despise them, because they are filthy rapists.

  5. Grenell is either ignorant or lying. Whichever, it still results with the elephant in the room being ignored.

  6. Richard Grenell says, “You aren’t helping.”

    Au contraire. You, you Sir, are not helping when you do not tell the full truth, but try to cover up reality. This is a lethal type of gaslighting, where you are manipulating the truth that Islam in its fundamental tenants is not a religion of peace, hoping to achieve some untenable political goal.

    Richard Grenell says, “There’s this thing called the First Amendment which guarantees religious freedoms.”

    Yes, and it also prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. Citizens are free to speak the truth about Islam without fear.

    Islam is a clear, and now present, danger to the US Constitution and the freedoms it protects. Islam is contrary to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every one who is not Muslim.

  7. He’s a problem. Senator Fine is right. And so is Mr. Guandolo right to demand that he list those books which would help mozlums to see the light.

    In recent years, some mozlums have raped little boys in swimming pools, grabbed young girls and women and when confronted, they cry it’s my ****culture*****. How many have claimed it was their **religious** freedom to do those things?

    In years past, the government has stepped in to stop people from practicing various tenets of their religions.
    Stopping snake handlers, smoking certain mind-bending plants, refusing to take their children to doctors, forcing blood transfusions on children, and invading religious compounds to seize guns, etc..

    And yet, they want to allow mozlums carte-blanche when it comes to Freedom of Religion.
    mozlums want to take over the nation and destroy the Constitution.
    mozlums want to be free to snatch up little children for rape and call it marriage.
    mozlums want to mutilate little girls and are doing so…as evidenced by the so-called doctor in MI who does that and was not prosecuted.
    mozlums want to sit on their backsides and collect extortion from the rest of us
    And they freely tell us that it is their goal to kill all Christians and Jews and anyone else who refuses their offer….submit, pay extortion, convert and bow down, or be murdered.

    If grenell can’t grasp these facts, Mr. Trump should change his mind about making the man “special.”

    • The gov and its msm have no problem attacking various practices of Christians but we’re invariably the problem when islam shows itself for what it is. Douglas Murray recently mentioned this approach; deal only with those who expose the problem instead of the actual problem. He asked if Obama has sunk to demanding we blame Quakers every time jihadis attack.

    • SH: good points.There are a small number of ethnic Mexicans and Peruvians in the U.S. who may worship the pagan deities of the ancient Aztecs, Mayans and Incans, but they don’t have the right to practise human sacrifice and/or cannibalism under the guise of “religious freedom.”

      Moreover, the Hubaal which the Islamofascists worship is every bit as bad as Tlaloc, Quetzacoatl, Huitzilpochtli or Inti, perhaps even worse.

      • Thank you, Mike.
        And for the most part, they are still against polygamy.

        islam seems to be all of those you mentioned, bloodthirsty murderers, rolled into one…the worst of them all. And they have their lawyers to defend them when any thought is given to stopping the evil.

    • “”mozlums want to mutilate little girls and are doing so…”” : DO NOT FORGET LITTLE BOYS, BUDDY .

      • How about *buddy,* you don’t shout at me. and the *dr* in MI* wasn’t being charged with hurting little boys. Until the charges were dropped.
        Furthermore, I can make a comment and not include everything you wish to be covered.

        Feel free to make your own comments as you wish.

  8. > Richard Grenell on jihadis: ‘They are Radicals. The Radicals must be defeated. Muslims call them Radicals, too.’

    No, muslims don’t call them radical, muslims call them muslims too. Only they reinterpret the Quran “differently” but not wrongly, as Quran is can be reinterpret at will as long as it benefits muslims.
    So, the jihadis is simply some devoted muslims who follows Quran instruction consistently.

    • mozlums call them heroes, freedom fighters, and other words which are in arabic, and praise the actions of the murdering scum.

  9. This reminded me of a discussion from the 60’s ( a long time ago) we had in Hebrew school about religious freedom and the limits imposed by the US Constitution. I went through a search with perplexity.ai to remember the case(s) involved. Was it about using snakes in religious ceremonies? That one was a TN case – which banned the use of poisonous snakes.

    “State Ex Rel. Swann v. Pack, which was decided by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1975.
    This case determined that the State of Tennessee could enjoin a religious group from handling snakes as part of their religious services. The Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the state’s right to prohibit snake handling in religious ceremonies, citing public safety concerns.”

    The SCOTUS case I was remembering was:

    “Reynolds v. United States, decided by the Supreme Court in 1879. This landmark case established an important principle regarding the limits of religious freedom under the First Amendment.

    Key points about Reynolds v. United States:

    The case involved a challenge to federal anti-bigamy laws by members of the Mormon Church, who claimed that polygamy was part of their religious practice.
    The Supreme Court upheld the anti-bigamy laws, ruling that while the government cannot interfere with religious beliefs, it can regulate religious practices.

    **The Court drew a distinction between religious belief and religious conduct, stating that the First Amendment protects the former absolutely but allows for some regulation of the latter.

    Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for the Court, famously argued that allowing religious belief to be superior to the law of the land would ‘permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.’

    This decision established the principle that the government can restrict religious practices when they conflict with generally applicable laws, even if those laws burden religious exercise. This concept has been influential in subsequent Supreme Court decisions regarding religious freedom.”

    So I kind of agree with you and Grenell at the same time. There are millions of Muslims who do not adhere to the teachings about jihad. Who am I to tell them they are not real Muslims? They can and must decide what Islam is, regardless of what someone else says. For these people jihadists are “radicals” and not acceptable. From a practical point of view it is up to Muslims to come to terms with their own religion and how to practice it in a contemporary context. This is true in every religion, that there are debates about their beliefs and practices.

    “Can he really defend the proposition that opposing Islamic jihad terrorism violates the religious freedom stipulation of the First Amendment?” Of course not. He is not saying that the Constitution guarantees religious freedom to jihadis or that we can not criticize Islamic jihad terrorism. He is saying that there are Muslims who oppose jihad terrorism and still feel they are able to practice their religion freely. There is no necessity to condemn and ban Islam if Muslims make the adjustments to its practice to be compatible with our society. Telling Muslims they can’t be Muslims isn’t helpful. It doesn’t make sense to call it “Muslim terror” if people can practice Islam without the jihad doctrine.

    • I see your points, RCCA.

      “There is no necessity to condemn and ban Islam if Muslims make the adjustments to its practice to be compatible with our society.”

      Realistically, that is an “if” that has not worked. Dr. Mohamed Zuhdi Jasser is trying to make these “adjustments”. He and Robert Spencer have talked about it here:
      https://www.mzuhdijasser.com/7514/worlds-most-wanted-moderate-islam

      Seems to me you end up with “you can preach Islam, but you are forbidden to practice all of it”; or you can practice Islam, just not the terror/jihad parts.

      Just one example: The penalty for a Muslim leaving Islam is death. All major Sunni and Shia schools of jurisprudence agree that is, and has always been, the penalty. An Imam could drive that teaching home at the Mosque during Friday prayers, but no Muslim can practice that.

      Very troubling! Very unrealistic, because that is exactly what happens in many predominantly Muslim countries, and what has happened throughout the history of Islam.

      • Thank you. That’s exactly what I am saying and what the US Constitution is saying: you can be a Muslim or whatever religion you choose but you can not practice all of your beliefs here in the US. We can and do impose limits on religious practices and this has been an integral part of the history of the US, not just some new rules against Muslims.

        What percentage of Muslims actually engage in Islamic jihad/terrorism even though it is genuinely called for in the religion? Not a majority, thank goodness. IOW, ordinary Muslims who are not strict followers are also not considered apostates or risking death for their behavior. They consider themselves Muslims and I do understand why they would be offended by the generic term #Muslimterror as if being Muslim equates with being a terrorist and they need to be “dealt with.”

        I do understand that technically speaking Islam is Islam and there is no such thing as “radical Islam” but in practice, many if not most, Muslims do differentiate themselves from those they consider radicals who do commit violence in the name of Allah.

  10. Perfectly said, randy fine. You are spot on. Now if only all the other politicians and non Muslim citizens would also see the fundamentally broken and barbaric and downright evil thing called islam as clearly as you see that pile of crap then we could deal appropriately with it. What a pile of excrement islam is.

  11. Of course jihadwatch readers know there is no peaceful Islam, no Islam where apostates and blasphemers are not expelled from the family or killed. Richard should state simple truths. Like, “Jihadists are guaranteed a place in heaven. As long as this is the case we will have jihadists taking innocent lives both non-Muslim and Muslim.”

    That statement can be easily defended. Muslims will appreciate hearing honesty and will respect those who understand their religion. Note, there is no mention of it being evil or unconstitutional et cetera, just a simple statement of fact. Let the listener put two and two together.

    Truthfulness will begin to break down the islamophobia wall that has been erected by Islam to deflect honest non-judgmental discussion and will lead to greater understanding by the non-Muslim and Muslims that don’t know their religion. This will in turn begin a process of putting pressure on Islamic institutions etc…The more people that understand Islam the more civil society can exert pressure on Islamic institutions to do something about Islamic problems such as jihadists killing to defend the faith.

  12. Senator Randy Fine is right. I’ve now found a new person who Gov DeSantis should appoint to Sen Rubio”s vacated seat in the US Senate

  13. They call it religion but it is more. Islam is a Government. How can any country allow a separate Government live under their roof?
    The darn thing is a GOVERNMENT.

  14. The moderate muslim will hold the feet of the infidel while the radical muslim cuts off his head.

  15. Islam is a Criminal, Terrorist Ideology and System of discrimination, deceit, hatred, and violence against all Non-Muslims that funds, teaches, and incites acts of polygamy, hatred, rape, genocides, murder, etc. in the Quran. Allah in Qur’an 8:39 says, “And engage in war with them[Non-Muslims] until there will not be sedition and the religion will be completely to Allah…” Allah in Quran 9:111 says, “Surely Allah has purchased from the believers[Muslims] their souls and their money so that they may have the garden[Heavenly Paradise]. They engage in war for the sake of Allah, so they kill and are killed…” For this killing act, a sacred and holy act, deceitful Allah spiritually rewards Muslims with Paradise.

    • ABSOLUTELY, THAT would be a dream come true !!! John was one involved in the Holy Land trials.. He knows what he’s talking about!!

  17. Trump sends a bad signal by placing this ignoramus into a position of power. I’d hate to think, with this appointment, Trump has decided to ‘kick the can down the road’, for convenience sake.
    One might assume that Trump would have opted to address head on one of the world’s most pressing problems, namely the metastatic cancer of Islam.
    A resting viper is still a viper.

    • Trump has been much better than most recent presidents, but there is still a great deal he does not undestand about the threat of Islam.

  18. when the word radical is used in recent decades, it is usually vague at best. The word means pertaining to the root, or in politics, advocating a change in society at the root. radical does not mean extremist.
    I agree with Robert’s suggestion that Grennell could probably not say in what way ISIS is radical. I know a historian who used to teach Islam who called such Muslims reactionary. This indicates that they are not innovating but falling back in some of the earliest teachings of the religion.

  19. when the word radical is used in recent decades, it is usually vague at best. The word means pertaining to the root, or in politics, advocating a change in society at the root. radical does not mean extremist.
    I agree with Robert’s suggestion that Grennell could probably not say in what way ISIS is radical. I know a historian who used to teach Islam who called such Muslims reactionary. This indicates that they are not innovating but falling back in some of the earliest teachings of the religion.

  20. when the word radical is used in recent decades, it is usually vague at best. The word means pertaining to the root, or in politics, advocating a change in society at the root. radical does not mean extremist.
    I agree with Robert’s suggestion that Grennell could probably not say in what way ISIS is radical. I know a historian who used to teach Islam who called such Muslims reactionary. This indicates that they are not innovating but falling back in some of the earliest teachings of the religion.

  21. Richard Grenell on jihadis: ‘They are Radicals. The Radicals must be defeated. Muslims call them Radicals, too.’
    ………………………………………

    There is nothing “radical” about Jihad terror. And why is this fool citing the FIrst Amendmen while tryiing to shut someone up from daring to condemn Islamic terror?

    • Yes, good question, gi.

      Cafeteria Constitutionalism – the Dems do it all the time and Grenell should see that.

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Skip to content