• Editorial note:  The link to the article by Anne Speckhard, Ph.D and Ahmet S. Yayla, Ph.D is a bit “glitchy”.  I have just re-posted the link.

I continue to read articles  which shows signs of corruption with intermingling of research regarding Islamic State whilst combining an apologetic tone for a “true Islam”.

Here is my current selection:

Eyewitness Accounts from Recent Defections from Islamic State: Why they joined, What they Saw, Why they quit


I feel like I have been to a Masquerade party.  There is an embedded apologist tone which is first signaled in the final sentence of the Abstract. And the signal is sent again and again throughout the writing. It is subtle, but it is there.

“While IS claims to represent true Islam, its cadres are in fact known for their ideologically twisted interpretation of Islam and ruthless treatment of fellow Muslims as well as subjugation of Christians and Yazidis.”  (pp 96,97)

“trainers rely on twisted interpretations from the Holy Quran and from more or less well known Hadiths… violent interpretations of Islam…” page 104

My belief? You have to understand Islamic law to understand Islamic State.

As I read the work of the researchers I note elements of Fard -the obligatory commands of Allah, and Hadd applications – within Islamic State day-to-day operations.

Perhaps no place is this more glaringly apparent than in the story of the couple who were flogged because the man was allowed inside the outer gate of the home by the woman.

The Hadd penalties involve the rights of Allah over man, as opposed to the rights of man over his fellow man. So these penalties are much more harsh.  In the case of Arabic and the transliteration of Hadd for adultery the words are much different than the Judaic commands of the Ten Commandments which read, “Thou Shalt Not…”

With adultery, the Arabic sounds softer but it is actually a harder stance. “Do not come near to adultery” then translates to a man standing inside a gate but still outside of the woman’s home. The couple “came near to” adultery, and must be punished.

Jurisprudential writings dating back to the early days of the (original)  Islamic State note  differences between relational and circumstantial proximity for the sexes.  For instance, if a male and female are standing near each other on a crowded street it is not wrong. If that same male and female are standing near each other on a vacated corridor of business or street they are guilty of “coming near to adultery”.

So when Islamic State flogged both the man and the woman they were indeed practicing a true belief of Islam as practiced in a nascent state.

Anyone remember when President Ahmadinejad served as Mayor of Tehran? He made the elevators in buildings gender specific.  So either he watched the film “Fatal Attraction” and saw a world of possibilities. Or he was simply working with a granular application of Hadd penalties.

Again and again, throughout the interviews with former Islamic State members, I note vignettes which are remarkably similar to the way Islam was practiced in the seventh century: an Islam which has not been “twisted” in application, yet rather applied by the newly minted Caliphate.

While I am dwelling in Bitchistan let me note one more thing. I continue to receive the occasional snipe attack against my white paper: Rise as One Man: Islam in the 21st Century (2009) *The choice of my title came from the Covenant of Madinah.

I do believe that Islam is Rising as One Man, albeit the rise is chaotic.

Here is my challenge and it involves imagination:

  • Defund DHS
  • Shut down the original “Five Eyes”
  • Tell our military to take a long holiday
  • Send NATO packing

Now answer the following question:  With the hundreds of billions we spend a year are we merely tightening down the lid on an enormous problem?  And if we all just take a holiday for a year what will the world look like in 2017?

Can Islam Rise as One Man in just one year if all impediments to movement and growth are removed? Just imagine a world without America!   And if Islamism is now both distilled and potentiated in a digital age, is it important that we speak the truth with love?









Published by


You may check out my primary site: Interests: *Geopolitical Islam *Healthy Governance Initiatives *Societal Homeostasis

5 thoughts on “Bitchistan”

  1. As one of the authors on the Perspectives on Terrorism piece I find your opinion to be the type that encourages an “us versus them” view of the world which is exactly what ISIS wants. Many world religions have had shameful periods in their past and carried out violence in the name of their scriptures. Islam is no different in that regard.


    1. Dr. Speckhard:

      Do you realize that Ms. Swofford studied for ten years under a legal mufti and that she has also had correspondence with a grand ayatollah?

      At this point in time, Islamism is the most prevalent and most dangerous form of the “us versus them” view of the world.

      As for shameful period, they will not change until they are called out.


  2. Dr. Speckhard,

    Thank you for the gift of time. We will continue to agree to disagree on the above issue.

    But this remains a Constitutionally-anchored Free Speech zone. Feel free to visit at your leisure.



Comments are closed.