TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

R.J. GODLEWSKI

Not Killing Muhammadanism is Suicidal

It remains a troubling abomination to consider Muhammadanism as a practice of

tolerance and compassion. On the contrary, the mere existence of the Middle Eastern
religion rests on the violent conversion of its founder. The ideology created by
Muhammad ibn Abdallah resembles ancient Aztecan cannibalism and human sacrifice
more than it does orthodox monotheism. Incompatible with modern expectations of
human liberty, free will, and personal responsibility, the global ambitions of
Muhammadanism – and its modern variant, Islam – necessitate stopping at all costs.
To presume otherwise is suicidal for contemporary Western civilization.

Facts versus Fantasy

The quickest way to gauge any ideology is simply to analyze the actions and words of
that belief‟s founder. From this focal point, centuries of subsequent interpretation
remain irrelevant. For instance, centuries of medieval papal imperialism and modern
evangelical opportunism do not dismiss the actions of Jesus. In this context, “Christian”
remains not what modern adherents do but what Christ himself did. Similarly,
Muhammadanism needs defining not by what modern proponents say or do, but
through the actions and words of Muhammad alone.

Well known is the numerous assassinations ordered by, or carried out on behalf
of, Muhammad.1 Less known are the twenty-seven military campaigns that he
personally led and the thirty-eight others that he planned but did not personally lead.2
During one such campaign, Muhammad led 3,000 soldiers against 600 Banu-Kuraiza
Jews who were given an ultimatum – convert to Islam or die.3 They chose death; their
wives and children sold into slavery.4 These examples alone extinguish any classification
of Muhammad ibn Abdallah as a tolerant or merciful individual.

Why, then, despite overwhelming evidence that Muhammadanism exists as the

offspring of a violent cult do modern practitioners and supporters continue to view the
faith as anything but? There are three primary reasons:
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

1. Modern Muslims do not know, or choose to ignore, the violent doctrine expressed
by their Prophet;

2. Modern Muslims remain fully aware of Muhammad‟s violent faith but, for
whatever reason, choose to deceive non-believers;

3. Non-Muslim entities wish to use Muhammadanism as a „tool‟ against competitive

ideologies and faiths towards which they remain hostile.

In the first case, a sizeable portion of the roughly one billion Muslims worldwide may
have erroneously placed too much emphasis on the Judeo-Christian roots of their faith.
They have simply viewed their religion as an extension of such Christian tolerance and
forgiveness sprinkled within the Quran and wrongfully assumed they are the same.
Conversely, they may understand the violent nature of Muhammad and his followers
but choose to secularize their religion into the equal of other, more tolerant, systems of
belief.

In the second reason, Muslims may possess a darker purpose fostered by the
denial of their violence. For instance, many modern proponents advocate that the
Muhammad of Medina represent “what Islam was meant to be” suggesting an image of
“separation of religious and temporal power.”5 Unfortunately, they fail to acknowledge
that following his exposure to Medina, Muhammad transformed himself into the
antithesis of Christian – and therefore, Western – values.6 Shiite Muslims possess a
doctrine of al Taqiyya that permits them to, among other interpretations, deny their
faith in order to fit into indigenous cultures until Islam commands them to take control.
Orchestrated as such, modern Shiite (and Shiite affiliated) Muslims possess the ability
to squash any notions of Muhammad being violent in order to convince Westerners that
Islam represents an honorable religion.

The third reason remains popular with progressive politicians and media
personalities who view Islam not as an enviable faith, but as a decidedly “anti-Christian”
one. Islam thus represents a convenient tool used to, as but one example; assail the
Roman Catholic Church by those who seek socialism. This is verifiable by the number of
Muslim-leaning media organizations who target clergy abuses while simultaneously
ignoring the rampant pedophilia and sex crimes endorsed by orthodox
Muhammadanism. Similarly, those who do not believe in individual responsibility and
initiative, such as both Progressivism and Muhammadanism, explicitly banning
individualism, endorse Islam.

2
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

Any concept of Muhammadanism as a benevolent and tolerant religion flies in

the face of the founder‟s own actions and 1,400 years of Muslim history. Muhammad
ordered the murder of dozens – if not hundreds and thousands – of innocent men,
women, and children, many of whose sole crime was to question or lampoon the
prophet.7 Islam expanded under the auspices of Muhammad‟s violence and quest to
dominant the world leading to the unification of European resolve to send crusades
against the invading Muslim hordes. It remains doubtful that if Muhammadanism was
as modern Muslims expect the world to believe, that is a tolerant, benevolent religion,
that the conquering Mongol armies of the thirteenth century would have been so
inclined to join the faith. Warriors generally do not feel comfortable within monasteries.
Islam offered „something‟ acceptable to a band of bloodthirsty, intolerant, and victorious
marauders and “turn the other cheek” it was not.

Not Popularity Seeking

American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman once said, “If the people raise
a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not
popularity seeking.” British academic Steven Runciman reminded the world that
Muhammad knew of war when he wrote “…Islam unashamedly came with a sword.”
That is, Muhammadanism was indistinguishable from a warrior culture. Although
General Sherman, following the conclusion of the war, fought “unashamedly” for peace,
the infinite wisdom of Christ provided the world with the technique for placing Islam‟s
sword back into its sheath: “…for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword.”8
Fanaticism holds no ability to negotiate.

Modern Islam, however, does not possess a need to negotiate for it rides upon the
shoulders of progressive politicians. Consider the haunting words of former Soviet
Premier Mikhail Gorbachev and compare them with President Barack Obama‟s
infamous statements regarding the future of his nation:

“And if the Russian word ‘perestroika’ has easily entered the international lexicon, this
is due to more than just interest in what is going on in the Soviet Union. Now the whole
world needs restructuring i.e. progressive development, a fundamental change.”

Progressive politicians have “fundamentally transformed” the West into a civilization

ripe for capitulation to Islam. Just as images of Che Guevara had become highly popular
with radical academics, fascination with Islam has become equally popular with the
morally destitute.

3
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

The battle against Islam, however, is not very popular, nor should it be.
Popularity dismisses the individual from needing to concentrate on the facts. For
instance, it is “popular” knowledge that radical American militia types destroyed the
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City during April 1995 when, in truth, Islamic
terrorists designed the bomb.9 It is popular – even officially sanctioned – belief that
American Airlines Flight 587 en route to the Dominican Republic crashed because of
structural failure on November 12, 2001 when, in truth, it was brought down by a bomb
similar to that used previously aboard two Russian aircraft.10 It is also popularly thought
that Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh was simply another individual who
preached that he was Christ come back to earth when, in fact, he once claimed to
descend from Muhammad‟s own („Koresh‟) clan.11

The reason that such things remain popular is because most people do not offer
enough time to think for themselves and tend to accept what others inform them as the
truth. In this regard, the concept of Islam as an equitable religion of benevolence and
tolerance remains unchallenged despite the following facts:

 Muhammad forced his religion upon others despite their objections;

 Islam views Christians and Jews as second-class citizens;

 Islamic nations do not permit non-Muslims to practice their own faiths freely;

 Arab Muslims will lie, cheat, and steal to protect Allah (and their families);

 In Islam, there remains no doctrine of „free will‟; all aspects of a Muslim‟s life are
considered preordained – or “already written” – and cannot be changed in the
mind of the individual;

 Sharia Law – of whatever flavor – represents the law of traditional Islam and
pervades society, economics, entertainment, domestic life, education, science,
and war;

 There remains no single Islamic leader today who speaks for a significant portion
of the global Islamic community, leaving the door open for various opportunists
and malcontents who wish to define “Islam” to fit.

Even if a mere 10-15% of Muslims subscribe to the „letter‟ of Islamic Law, the total
number who represent an extremely violent sect approaches 100-150 million individuals
– more than the total number of persons serving in the militaries of the world during

4
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

the Second World War.12 Fighting such an „army‟ warrants a decidedly unpopular
process.

Getting “Nasty” with Islamists

Bruce Hoffman, writing that some argue against “over-militarizing” the war against
terrorism in favor of law enforcement techniques, reminds the world of the
uncomfortable fact that even “good police work” against fanatical terrorists often
involves “nasty and brutish means.”13 By concentrating on prosecuting the “war” against
terrorists as a garden-variety police operation replete with handcuffed prisoners and
lengthy trials, America begs to repeat the errors of General George Crook during the
Plains Indian Wars when his contemporary, General Nelson A. Miles, lamented “Crook’s
policy was to treat those Indians at the Apache reservation more as conquerors than
prisoners. They have been petted and, if that policy is continued, they will furnish
warriors for the next twenty years.”14

To battle against fanatical Muhammadans under the pretext of law enforcement

operations suggests a belief that such individuals will surrender upon a simple “Halt!”
They will not. Radical Islamists possess “a lot in common with psycho-murderers,
spaced-out drug addicts, and sadistic killers” and are not beyond reveling in their ability
to slice and dice victims, gouge out their eyes, slice off their tongues, or torture them for
days with exposed electrical wires.15 Such individuals cannot be “petted” or permitted to
furnish warriors for the next several decades. They need destruction and this entails
tracking them down wherever they may reside.

In the intelligence field – from where our greatest assets against terrorism are
aligned – there is a pragmatic duplicity of sorts involving “lying, cheating, stealing”
while overseas and working within the bedrock constitutionality of America to fight
against those who lie, cheat, and steal against us here at home. This must be the case in
the war against Muhammadans. While our operatives are overseas, they must employ
every technique, technology, and training to kill our enemies. They must not be
constrained by false precepts of “civility” while the nation‟s enemies resort to brutality.
America won the Plains Indian Wars (1865-1879) – after fighting a brutal four-year
Civil War – because it was not afraid to turn tribes against one another, employ equally
brutal tactics, and forcibly relocate those who would not cease and desist.

Radical Islam will not be destroyed until the non-Muslim world decides to single
out Muhammadanism for destruction. There remains no legitimacy in defining the

5
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

ideology as anything but an affront to individual liberty and inalienable rights. The
Muslim faith survives solely by tyrannical leadership, intolerant doctrine, and forced
conversion. The wreckage in its wake, combined with the lack of scientific, economic,
and religious freedom, attests to its inability to survive within a world where
bureaucracies are failing at an astronomical rate.

Such “too big to succeed” entities will permit the 100-150 million radicalized
Muslims to sway and direct those who do not necessarily share active terroristic or
belligerent tendencies. Like a cancer, the radicalized Muhammadans will likely infect
the modernist Muslims whose devotion to the Prophet‟s ways is less than
fundamentalist in nature. Killing Muhammadanism requires breaking away from the
West‟s reliance upon techniques and technologies that serve little purpose but to
increase the emotional and physical distance from its enemies. This mandates “up close
and personal” tactics that allow the separation of the terrorists from the innocents (both
in literally and political interpretation). To effectively brutalize the enemy, the West
must:

 Target individuals, not institutions. This entails not only seeking out terror
suspects who advocate violence against the United States and the West, but also
denying such individuals sanctuary within mosques, hospitals, and other facilities
routinely given quarter by Western militaries. Targeting individuals means
tracking down and eliminating targets wherever they reside without creating
innocent casualties in the process. It also means targeting imams, clerics, and
political figures who openly or covertly espouse terrorism and political violence;

 Wage war against the Muhammadan ideology. Islam is not a religion. It

represents a complete way of life incompatible with constitutional America and
similar democracies. In this context, Islam (Sunni, Shiite, or any variation
thereof) must be equated with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Communist
Russia – that of an enslaving institution designed to defeat the individual. The
words, deeds, and doctrine of Muhammad must be singled out for elimination
and supplanted with concerns for the inalienable rights of the individual human
person;

 Forfeit attempts to transplant American democracy in the Middle East. The

Arab peoples of the Middle East are incapable of being taught about the benefits
and limitations of American republicanism. Instead of attempting to educate
them about the merits of democracy, the West needs to shore the concept of
individualism and permit the motivated and inspirational to rise according to
their own abilities;
6
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

 Eliminate all aversion to assassination as a tool. Sometimes, battles are won

with a single shot. Those inspiring or instructing low-level terrorists represent
merely a handful. Significant damage to global extremism can be achieved by
eliminating the radical sprout at the bud. Individual extermination (e.g., of
radicalized imams, educators, etc.) should be a first choice, not a last resort.

Conclusions

It remains unconscionable to endure a war against Radicalized Muhammadanism

without the necessary will to emerge victorious at all costs. By virtue of its policies, its
doctrine, and the actions and words of its very founder, Muhammadanism remains fully
incompatible with Western ideals of peace, tranquility, and personal liberties. It exists
as a doctrine that fundamentally blasts Judeo-Christian philosophy, ignores the
inalienable rights of the individual, and seeks to conquer the planet through deceit,
subterfuge, and trickery.

Without a prominent and consistent leadership that will challenge the

radicalization of their religion, modern Islam represents little difference from ancient
Aztecan beliefs. It remains an ideology conducive to opportunism, intolerance, and
human sacrifice. That it seeks to transfer blame (mostly) for the Arab world illuminates
its incompatibility with proponents of secularization of the Middle East. Only those who
can accurately analyze their faults and limitations are able to nourish indigenous,
independent solutions.

Muhammadan doctrine requires challenge without failure; the words and actions
of Muhammad require exposure without prejudice; and the lack of modern Muslim
leadership requires critique without politicalization. Only when the Muhammadan faith
offers viewing with untainted eyes will its true nature reveal itself. Otherwise, it remains
a product of religious affirmative action and a detriment to Western civilization.

The war against radical extremists must take into consideration the foundational
tenets that permit – and even endorse – such fanaticism. Muhammad, as a warrior,
assassin, and political opportunist, did not engage within tolerance, moderation, or
compassion. His various military campaigns sought to impose his new faith by force. His
reinterpretation of previously told directions from God suggests perversion of intent.
These represent neither old nor young transgressions of the faith, but a continual 1,400-
year history of Islamic aggression and belligerence.

7
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

To silence such fanaticism, the West must fight to win and this entails 1.)
Proclaiming Muhammadanism to be a socio-political ideology incompatible with
libertarian democracies; 2.) Invoking every means necessary to eliminate those who
espouse violence against Western or non-Muslim targets; and 3.) Shoring indigenous
assets against the information warfare tactics of Middle Eastern operatives. Simply
remaining “popular” amounts to seeking national suicide. The United States – with or
without its allies – must track down radical Muhammadans wherever they may reside
and employ every means available to terminate their threat against America and the
West. This remains not a matter of political intrigue, but one of pure national survival.

*************
R.J. Godlewski is an independent counterterrorism consultant and president of Tactical Extractions. His specialty is Middle Eastern
Terrorism and Improvised Explosive Device [IED] social networks.

Notes

1 http://www.muslimhope.com/Assassinations.htm

2 Will Durant, The Age of Faith (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1950), 170.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5Reza Aslan, No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam (New York: Random House,
2006), 53.

6 http://rjgodlewski.com/DarkMuhammadByRJGodlewski.pdf

7 Ali Dashti, “Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad” (1994), 75-78.

8 Matthew 26:52, New American Bible.

9Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge: International Terrorism and the FBI: The Untold Story (New
York: Regan Books, 2003), 311.

10Yossef Bodansky, Chechen Jihad: Al-Qaeda’s Training Ground and the Next Wave of Terror (New
York: Harper, 2007), 278-279.

11Haha Lung, Mind Control: The Ancient Art of Psychological Warfare (New York: Citadel Press, 2006),
193.

8
TACTICAL EXTRACTIONS COUNTERTERRORISM PAPER 02-2010

12Estimates of the total number of combatants during 1939-1945 approximate 105,542,100 individuals.
Source: John Ellis, World War II: The Encyclopedia of Facts and Figures (Military Book Club, 1993),
253-254.

13Bruce Hoffman, “A Nasty Business” in Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Understanding the New
Security Environment: Readings and Interpretations (Dubuque: McGraw-Hill, 2006), 402.

14Robert L. Utley, “Crook and Miles, Fighting and Feuding on the Indian Frontier,” MHQ: The Quarterly
Journal of Military History 2, No. 1 (1989): 81-91.

15Eugene Sockut, Secrets of Street Survival – Israeli Survival: Staying Alive in a Civilian War Zone
(Boulder: Paladin Press, 1995), 98.