The Theory and Practice of Islamic Rage

Major Stephen Coughlin lost his contract with the Defense Department some years ago for pointing out in his briefings exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood has accomplished in its penetration of the Pentagon and various agencies of the federal government.

The following video is excerpted from a series of briefings Maj. Coughlin gave under the auspices of the Center for Security Policy. This sample describes the ideological motivation and the modus operandi of the ongoing “Days of Rage” in the Middle East that have unfolded over the past week. The riots and attacks by Muslims on American targets are ostensibly a response to a movie entitled Innocence of Muslims, yet Maj. Coughlin described them with exactitude before they occurred.

The current crisis is part of the ten-year plan launched by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which has been covered at length in this space over the last few years. None of the violence is accidental or spontaneous — it has all been coordinated at the highest levels by OIC, working through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

The quotes below are from a briefing by Maj. Coughlin that I attended several years ago:

Our own assessments are made based on our own Western perception of events. When we say to ourselves, “Why do they do that?” the answer is “This is just like when Christians do such and such.” Or we say, “It’s all a question of interpretation…”

When briefing about these ideas, my own experience — I have never known this not to happen this way —is that someone always says, “This is all a matter of interpretation.” My response is, “Oh, really? What Islamic law have you read?” And that person will be startled, because he not using the word interpretation in the professional understanding of the term.

When I ask someone, “What interpretation of Islamic law have you read?” his reply will typically be, “What are you talking about? I’ve never read it.” The first thing that has to happen in interpretation is that someone has to read it, and then they might have grounds for an actual substantive disagreement. But whenever someone tells me it is all a matter of interpretation, I know they have not read it.

When most people say it is a matter of interpretation, they are really using the Postmodern definition of interpretation, which holds that there is no truth, that everything is a matter of interpretation. And since no one’s personal truth is more valid than anyone else’s, if someone adheres to the Postmodern viewpoint, he does not have to show a factual basis to argue that there is a difference of interpretation. He simply theorizes in his own mind that there could be an alternate interpretation, and argues that case as if he knew it were true.

My response to such objections is: “That is not a professional basis for disagreement. This is a professional briefing, I am citing my authorities, and if you cannot likewise show a professional basis by citing Islamic law, the you cannot argue interpretation. It is simply unprofessional.”