Islam: An Awakening for the Infidel World
31 Aug, 2008
Part 1 – An ideology:
In September, 2001,
The President addresses the nation, identifies the enemy as the particular people involved in the attacks, and defines them by the tactics they used. He makes no declaration of war, but pledges to lead us to victory in the war he intends to wage, which, he says, will be long. He defines victory as democracy for the nations behind the attacks. A week later, he reminds us that those who practice the religion of the attackers “must feel comfortable” in America. Two months later, he invites leaders of the religion to the White House, for a prayer meeting.1
The President recognized a problem, deplored it, but did not relate it to the meaning, and permanent menace, of the religion of the attackers.
To use terms such as “Terrorist”, “Extremist”, “Islamist”, “Islamofascist” and “Islamic radical” is pure folly. These terms carry no information; they don’t identify the enemy this war is against nor their ideals and goals. These terms also mislead by implying that there is some theological or ideological split within Islam over Islam’s basic principles and regulations. THERE IS NO SPLIT. Islam is and always has been a blueprint which seeks to assimilate all cultures and religions into the Arab/Islamic fold:
"These descriptions are very ugly; it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it”: Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey, August, 2007.
“The choices for non-Muslims delineated by Islamic law and Muhammad are conversion, subjugation, or death”: Qur’an 9:29 (Primary) and the hadith recorded at Sahih Muslim 4294 (secondary).
It’s a rather sad state of affairs that we still, years after U.S. embassy attacks in Kuwait (1983); Beirut (1983 & 1984); Kenya, Nairobi, and Tanzania (1998); Pakistan (2002); Saudi Arabia (2004); Syria (2006); Greece (2007); Yemen (2008); are trying to decide what to call the community and the stratagem that have targeted us:
The dispassionate term for this unity is “Mujahideen”; the armed wing of Islam; the Muslim guerrillas; Allah’s troops. Whether Arab (Sunni) or Persian (Shi’a) the fact is that Mujahideen, (also known as Fidaai; martyrdom warriors,) are in strict accordance with Islam’s Qur’an and the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad as defined in the hadiths. In other words, these people, young and old, male and female, are Sharia supremacists.
The dispassionate term for the tactics they use is “Jihad”; the religious commandment imposed upon Muslims. Jihad describes fully developed and clearly defined theories of war that are substantially more sophisticated than many seem to want to understand. This militaristic, religious-political-juridical ideology values war as a demonstration of loyalty to a deity; demands obedience to its spokesmen; and imposes death penalty edicts over millions of people.
Muslims, both Mujahideen (violent) and non-Mujahideen (non-violent), are after the same goal; their only difference is tactical. The non-Mujahideen Muslims believe that infiltration and subversion are more effective than direct, armed attacks in conquering the Infidel (non-Muslims). Ultimately it matters little that they are “not violent”, for they are pursuing through non-violent means the same desire that bin Laden and others are pursuing through violence. On the one hand look at today’s Islamic situation in Europe and then consider the statements of Algerian leader Houari Boumédienne made at the United Nations in 1974:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends: Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
When Muslims migrate to an Infidel land, they do not enter a foreign land: They are actually occupying a land which Allah has reserved for them. Any Muslim will say that the entire earth belongs to Allah; therefore, every Muslim has the inalienable right to move to an Infidel land that Allah has held in trust for them, and then appropriate it, for the sake of Allah:
Qur'an 28:58: “Allah grabs the land of the unbelievers.”
Sahih Bukhari 4.53.392: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle.”
Then, on the coercive side, consider what Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan said as regards the December 2007 murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto:
“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat Mujahideen.” (Reflecting Qur'an 9:123: “The believers must make war on Infidels around them and let the Infidels find firmness in them.”)
ISLAM, the global totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion, is the enemy. It is ISLAM that propels the styled insurgent groups operating in Uzbekistan, Iraq, Somalia, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Chechnya, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Africa, and Asia.
1.2 The willful blindness of today’s “free societies”
Today, “free societies” have put themselves in the peculiar position of penalizing non-Muslims who make legitimate associations that reveal the unpleasant realities of Islam, as if these comments somehow are acts encouraging “hatred and contempt”. You see, these associations do not reflect our government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" as regards the “war on terror”. The fact that Mujahideen routinely commit violent acts and justify them with reference to Islamic teachings is a fact we are not supposed to, indeed, not allowed to notice.
a) Is it not interesting that no Islamic religious authority has “pronounced takfir”, the practice of declaring unbeliever an individual or a group previously considered Muslim, on Mujahideen such as Osama bin Laden (9/11), Abu Bakar Bashir (2002 Bali) and others who have made it clear that they are fighting for Islam, thereby “declaring them apostates” for their terrorism? This is not from fear of retaliation by those people, but recognition of the fact that they are not violating Islamic principles: Indeed, leading Islamic Clerics repeatedly establish the legitimacy of their actions.
b) On December 18, 2007 the U.N. passed by a 108-51 margin, with 25 abstentions, the “Defamation of Religions” resolution. Although the resolution refers to defamation of “religions”, Islam is the only religion named in the text. It expresses alarm about “discrimination” and laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts “relating to security and illegal immigration.” Translated into straight language it means that, as far as the UN is concerned, “free societies” are required to stand by as mute witnesses to their own conquest and Islamization.
c) On January 4, 2008, the Pentagon “fired” Major Stephen Coughlin, its most knowledgeable specialist on Islamic Law. Major Coughlin demonstrated meticulously that “Jihad fi Sabil Allah—Jihad in the cause of Allah,” is the animating principle of Mujahideen and how this understanding should form the basis for rational, effective threat development assessment, and war planning. That Major Coughlin’s analyses would even be considered “controversial”, and lead eventually to his contract not being renewed, is symptomatic of today’s intellectual and moral rot plaguing efforts to combat Islam’s monstrous behavior (re: Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “The will to power”).
This curious behavior began shortly after 9/11 with “Islam is a religion of peace”, which soothed ideological sentiments of many, but has failed the “free societies” strategically. This short-sighted and Fantasy Based Analysis has short-stopped the objective, systemic evaluation of Islam. “Islam is a religion of peace” is fine for public policy statements, but is not and cannot be the point of departure for competent analysis: It is, in fact, a major flaw under any research methodology. In other words, you have stated the conclusion before you have done the analysis. This behavior has brought us to an “Orwellian” junction where presenting a straightforward evaluation of Islamic supremacist ideology becomes the new blasphemy: How perversely backwards this is. We cannot pretend that the Islamic texts do not say what they say, or that Mujahideen have no case to make on Islamic grounds; rather, we must confront Islam for what it really is.
1.3 Sharia Law
Sharia Law is readily obtainable in English. In applying Sharia law, or Islamic law, or Doctrinal Islam, or Muslim jurisprudence: NO Muslim can reject ANY part of Qur’an or the hadiths and remain Muslim (the alternative is becoming an apostate). Sharia is the EXCLUSIVE SOURCE of law for both Muslims and non-Muslims (the Infidel), and embraces ALL human activities – both personal and communal.
Sharia is understood as a series of duties and obligations; is not severable from Islamic theology; and as such it does not tolerate parties of differing opinion in its application. It exercises absolute and centralized control over ALL aspects of life. Islam does not consider itself to be the third Abrahamic faith, contrary to fond imaginings. It considers itself to be the only Abrahamic faith, the true faith of all the patriarchs and prophets, including Joseph and Abraham, and of which Judaism and Christianity are but falsifications and perversions. (Qur’an: 12:40; 48:28; 61:9; 16.52; 5:3; 9:33.) In other words, Islam is “the last religion”.
As in all religious traditions there is a spectrum of belief, knowledge, fervor and emphasis. One certainly cannot disagree with the thought that all who today call themselves Muslims may not be “good” Muslims according to Allah, Qur’an and Mohammed. Also, one certainly cannot say that today there exists a “unitary plan and project” driving ALL Muslims to world conquest even though this is Islam’s primary objective. But consider young Muslim women who start wearing appropriate hide-all clothing: Their clothes are both a sign of their values, and of their family’s values. Those clothes say:
“We are not merely Muslims, but are true-blue believers and as true-blue believers, you may hold us to knowledge of, and submission to, the dictates of Qur’an and the hadiths.”
Now, how can you take seriously individuals who claim to be “good” Muslims and while looking at the floor, imply that they really are ignorant of what they are claiming to be? This would be most presumptuous on our part. Muslim ignorance of their ideology does not create the reality. If a person claims to be a Muslim they are also laying claim to the social order that ideology professes whether from the Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanafi, Hanbali, (Sunni) or Ja’fari, (Shi’a) schools of jurisprudence. Islam is not a race, ethnicity, or skin color. Adherence to Islam is not accidental or involuntary. You have to CHOOSE to believe in Islam and you MUST APPLY that ideology, exclusively, to be Muslim. After all, where exactly is there a sect or school of Islam that teaches that Muslims and non-Muslims should coexist peacefully as equals before the law on an indefinite basis? Answer: There is none.
Part 2 – A military campaign:
Let’s be clear. When Arab Muslims appeared on the world scene in 630 A.D. and when the armies of Mohammed began their conquest of the World, a military campaign ensued, not a missionary enterprise. Through the use of both force and imposed subjugation (see the book DHIMMI, by Bat Ye'Or) against Infidels, Muslims have been able to, for generations, forcibly convert or assimilate non-Muslims into their body of Islamic religious doctrine, Sharia.
Islam’s animosity toward America is certainly nothing new. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (then serving as American ambassadors to France and Britain, respectively,) met in London with the Tripolitan Ambassador to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. These future American presidents were attempting to negotiate a peace treaty which would spare the United States the ravages of Mujahideen emanating from the Barbary States belonging to the Ottoman Caliphate (modern Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya).
During their discussions they questioned Ambassador Adja as to the source of this unprovoked animus (concealed by the euphemism “piracy”) directed at the nascent United States republic. Jefferson and Adams, in their subsequent report to the Continental Congress, recorded the Tripolitan Ambassador’s justification:
“… that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise”.
History shows that the negotiations failed and the First Barbary War (1801-1805) caused Mujahideen to recede:
“The Senate ratified the Tripoli treaty in April 1806 by a vote of 21 to 8 and Jefferson declared ‘victory,’ but the ‘peace’ proved rather political…” (See the book Victory in Tripoli, by Joshua London.)
However, by May, 1815, President Madison had to commission two naval squadrons and dispatch them to the Barbary States to again confront Mujahideen:
“By June/July 1815, the U.S. naval forces had dealt Mujahideen a quick series of crushing defeats” (ref: The Second Barbary War, also known as the Algerian War).
Again, my point is that today’s “free societies” seem to be unwilling to decipher clearly the history and character of Islam. Do we not have an affirmative, personal duty to know ALL the knowable facts associated with the enemy?
2.1 It’s not that we haven’t been forewarned
In 1967, John Ralph Willis (see the book The Journal of African History) observed:
“The jihad…is essentially an instrument of revival, employed for the purpose of extending the frontiers of Islam and leading the faithful back to roots. And it is not insignificant that the faithful, being in essence conservative, have been as susceptible to the summons of revivalists as they have been insensitive to the activity of reformists”.
In the (1995) book: “Interpretation of the Meanings of the Noble Qur’an in the English Language, Appendix III -- The Call to Jihad” written by Saudi Arabia’s Chief Justice, one can read:
“The Verses of Qur’an and the hadiths (the Prophet's legal ways, orders) exhort Muslims greatly to take part in Jihad and have made quite clear its rewards, and praised greatly those who perform Jihad (the holy fighting in Allah's Cause) and explained to them various kinds of honors which they will receive from their Lord (Allah). This is because they - Mujahideen are Allah's troops. Allah will establish His religion (Islam), through them (Mujahideen). He will repel the might of His enemies, and through them He will protect Islam and guard the religion safely. And it is they (Mujahideen) who fight against the enemies of Allah in order that the worship should be all for Allah (Alone and not for any other deity) and that the Word of Allah (none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and His religion Islam) should be superior.”
In 2006 Jeff Stein, national security editor for Congressional Quarterly wrote:
“It’s hard to say what’s worse: Ignorance of jihad, for which there’s no excuse at this advanced stage of war, or indifference to it, for which there’s never an excuse. Both attitudes deeply imbue U.S. war policy.”
Today, thousands of individuals, indoctrinated as youths, are eager to engage in suicidal jihad, and many more are willing to die through acquiescence and submission, should the Islamic state so demand. The enemy soldier is highly motivated, thoroughly brainwashed, and willing to die for their God and their cause. The enemy’s children and soldiers memorize words such as these:
“Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war; but if they repent, and practice our way, then accept them. . .”
“You shall fight back against those who do not believe in God, or in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what God and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth...”
Part 3 – A Constitutional Issue:
If it is not yet clear to you, Islam is in diametrical opposition to the U.S. Constitution and Americas’ way of life: Separating jurisprudence from religion is an in-your-face denial of Mohammed teachings. This is the basic reason Islam is warring against the U.S. as the “Great Satan”. In other words, from day one, we “Infidels” have been thumbing our collective noses at Allah and Qur’an: Muslims discern everything American stands for as “an insult to Islam”. Indeed: Any sampling of the constitutions of Muslim Nations will reveal that Muslim Nations FORMALLY RECOGNIZE the absolute and centralized role of Sharia duties and obligations.
Our dilemma, as in the past, is not whether we have the “capacity” to defend “our” constitutional lifestyle; it is whether we have the “self-confidence”, and the “will” to do so today. These Islamic tribes-with-a-flag are assaulting us via several differing aspects:
a. Direct Islam
Ask yourself the following:
In which Nation is Islam:
1. Most solidly linked with political power.
2. Dedicated to the violent spread of Sharia Law.
3. Infused with hatred of America.
4. Is founded on these ideas.
5. And their practice is a matter of principle.
Dr. John Lewis writes:
There is a clear answer, which is known, admittedly or not, by almost everyone today. The political centerpiece of Islamic Totalitarianism today—the state in which Islam is most militantly welded to political power and contempt for America and the West—the world leader in the violent spread of Islam—is Iran.
The Iranian Islamic State was born in an act of war against America—the seizure of the American embassy in 1979—and has chanted “Death to America” ever since.... It is Iran that addresses the U.N. as a world leader; it is Iran that is openly committed to acquiring the weapons needed to take control of the Middle East; it is Iran that poses as the defender of Islam against the West; and it is Iran that has gained the most power since the U.S. removed its strongest regional opponent in Iraq.2
b. Subversive Islam
But, let’s not ignore another Islamic aspect demonstrated by Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian Constitution is perhaps the most systematic in its tying Saudi governance to Islamic law. In keeping with its Hanbali jurisprudence, the Saudi Constitution states that Qur’an and the hadiths are to serve as the basis of all law for the Saudi state and, moreover, that Saudi government itself derives all of its governing authority from Qur’an and the hadiths. In looking for guidance when seeking out concepts of justice, equality and consultation, the Saudi Constitution limits such inquiries only to what is found in Sharia.
The Saudi Constitution “strives for the achievement of the Arab and Islamic nation” and looks to the safeguarding of “Islamic and Arab heritage.” However, Saudi Mujahideen (Sunni) have risen above the petty squabbles with Persian Shi’ite (Iran) and joined together against the “Great Satan” America (both the 1993 and 2001 World Trade Center attacks were undeniably Saudi Mujahideen operations).
The Saudi charity the International Islamic Relief Organization, in 2003, claimed to have dug 1,615 wells throughout the Middle East — but, it also established 4,400 mosques and distributed millions of Sharia books and pamphlets. The result has been the display, on television, of “good” young Muslim children trained to see Jews as pigs and apes, screaming “Allah Akbar” and dedicating themselves to jihad. Such “charitable organizations” are cleverly spreading the ideals and tactics of Sharia via infiltration and subversion.
c. Freelance Islam
Another formidable Islamic aspect is demonstrated by Egypt. The Egyptian Constitution is straight-forward in stating that Islam is the official religion of the state and that Sharia is the principal source of all law. Egypt’s Constitution also gives specific recognition to the “Arab Nation” and goes so far as to proclaim that the government is to work to realize the “comprehensive unity” of that Arab Nation. Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (founded by Hassan al-Banna in 1928) was once thought of as nothing more than a fringe group. However, in recent years (with Saudi backing) the Muslim Brotherhood’s “takfir” ideology has undergone a surprising evolution with member groups involved in both criminal activities and financial institutions. The Muslim Brotherhood groups are dedicated to the motto:
"Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."
An article in the Middle East Quarterly (Winter 2005) talks about their advance on Europe:
Since the early 1960s, Muslim Brotherhood members and sympathizers have slowly but steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and financial regulatory organizations such as the AAIOFI. Their ultimate goal is not simply “to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be”, but rather to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and the United States.
Dr. Ahmad Al-Rab'i, former Kuwaiti minister of education defines their tactics:
“The beginnings of all of the religious terrorism that we are witnessing today were in the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology of takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy]. Sayyid Qutb's book ‘Milestones’ was the inspiration and the guide for all of the takfir movements that came afterwards. The founders of these violent groups were raised on the Muslim Brotherhood, and those who worked with bin Laden and Al-Qa'ida went out under the mantle of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Takfiri can be viewed as semi-aligned "free agents" who collaborate with other jihad groups on an ad hoc basis, working toward the same overreaching goal. Their doctrine postulates that not only the “secular leaders and their entourage” are apostates, but so also is “the society as a whole” because it was not fighting the “secular” government and had thus accepted rule by non-Muslims: It has been interpreted to allow the worst imaginable deviancies.
Takfiri, world-wide, are able to legitimize criminal activities, justifying these activities, by appropriating the goods and property of “Infidels and Apostates”. Criminal activities like thievery, kidnapping and drug trafficking are thus encouraged if one-fifth of the proceeds (Khums: Qur’an 8:41) are used to fund jihad (the path of Allah). Take for example:
“Mosul, 29 Feb. (AKI) - Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean bishop of the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was kidnapped on Friday after he finished celebrating the rite of the Via Crucis at a local church. Eyewitnesses said that a group of armed men stopped the bishop as he was traveling in his car and took him by force. The extravagant demand for $2.5 million appears to indicate that their motives are political and religious, rather than only financial.” (Re: Adnkronos International, 2008.)
Takfir are also involved in theft from both private homes and mosques; they are heavily engaged in drugs; armed robbery; in the theft, trafficking and forging of documents; and in all aspects of logistical support for Mujahideen (purchasing/smuggling weapons and sheltering/moving operatives from conflict to conflict). The al-Qaeda/Takfir alliance is another example of keeping with the current drive to put doctrinal differences aside and federating and uniting all of Islam to fight the West.
d. National Islam
The term “National Islam” should be understood as an attempt to use Western nation-state language to describe the Islamic concept of Ummah: A concept that has no a real equivalent in the West. Discussions of Ummah, in Islamic terms, end up opaque and are prone to be characterized in cultural mythology or utopian terms.
The book “What Islam Is All About”, by the widely regarded children’s educationalist Yahiya Emerick, gives a Junior High School level reality check of the Ummah:
“The law of the land is the Sharia of Allah. The leader, or Khalifa, of the Islamic nation implements Sharia in society. In the Islamic political system, the leader of the political community, the Khalifa, is the head of the whole Ummah”.
Or, if you prefer:
“Oh ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination.” (Qur’an 4:59)
All Muslim nations, the Ummah, remain CONSTITUTIONALLY COMMITTED to BOTH the Islamic requirement to recognize Sharia as the pre-eminent basis of all law, and the authority of the Khalifa.
To comprehend today’s Ummah, one need look no further than currently existing Ummah-level organizations like the Arab League, the Supreme Islamic Counsel, The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Muslim World League – all of which have demonstrated an ability to speak with authority. These organizations speak dogmatically of “extreme responses,” and “grave consequences,” and of events being “an insult to Islam,” knowing full well that they are speaking to, AND ORCHESTRATING, an understood standard. Being attentive to their words, we have to acknowledge that they know exactly what they are doing in light of the Islamic system that defines their Islamic way of life. In other words, Ummah actions are not culturally neutral.
On February 18, 2008, in Dakar (West Africa), at the opening of the OIC Senior Officials Meeting, the Secretary General of the OIC, Prof. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, said the following:
“…a very important event took place yesterday. Kosovo has finally declared its independence after a long and determined struggle by its people. As we rejoice this happy result, we declare our solidarity with and support to our brothers and sisters there. The Islamic Ummah wishes them success in their new battle awaiting them which is the building of a strong and prosperous state capable of satisfying its people. There is no doubt that the independence of Kosovo will be
an asset to the Muslim world by further enhancing the joint Islamic action.”
“The Islamic Ummah wishes them success”, “building of a strong and prosperous state,” and “enhancing the joint Islamic action”, clearly speak to an understood standard.
Consider just one example of Ummah influence today: Sharia is quite clear that any communication of information about Islam that would cause ANYONE, Muslim or Infidel, to “question” Islam violates strict rules of “slander” (Qur’an: 5:33). Ummah-level organizations (beholden to such a standard) have earnestly insisted that “Islam has nothing to do with it” - even in the face of evidence that would argue otherwise (hundreds of Mujahideen violently reacting to silly cartoons for example). Because a slander concerning Islam can easily amplify to an “insult” to Islam, those consequences can be severe, again, even if the “insult” was factually accurate (re: the 2004 BRUTAL MURDER and VIOLENT MUSLIM INDICTMENT of Theo Van Gogh after his film “Submission”, which portrayed the violence against women in Islamic sects, was shown on Dutch TV). You see, to outlaw "insults to Islam" amounts to an attempt to place Mujahideen actions above scrutiny, for any study of their motives and goals, insofar as they are rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, will be ruled offensive and hence forbidden.
Orchestrating events to discredit ANY disclosure of legitimate associations that lie beneath the surface of Islam is, indeed, a point of paramount importance as regards Islam’s infallibility.
Muslims, by coming together, world-wide, for common actions (and refraining from noticing questionable associations,) are at the same time both acknowledging, and submitting to, Ummah: In other words their common actions are announcing publicly and officially their devotion to Islam.
“Islamabad, Pakistan, March 7, 2008: Hundreds of activists of Jamaat-i-Islami and Imamia Students Organisation on Friday held protest demonstrations against the re-production of sacrilegious caricatures in a Danish newspaper and release of an ‘anti-Islam’ film in Holland. The protesters were chanting slogans like ‘Down with Danish and Dutch governments’ and ‘Down with USA and Israel’. The [Pakistani] protesters also torched the flags of Denmark and Israel.” (Re: DAWN, Pakistan's English language newspaper.)
e. Fanciful Islam
As regards western society’s whimsical aspect of Islam, our President publicly declared that victory will be achieved, not by defending our constitution and America’s way of life, but by levying “democracy for the nations behind the attacks”. Unfortunately, this annunciates an ambiguous acumen of how Islamic sects really function. Victory, thus defined, requires that the system-of-rule for Islamic governments (such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Jordan, Afghanistan, etc.,) FORMALLY defy, directly and categorically, their own constitutions and abandon the absolute and centralized role of Sharia duties and obligations.
The implausibility of this “solution” is that a democratic way of
life is totally incompatible with Mohammad’s teachings. Furthermore,
has it not been clearly demonstrated that even though Palestine’s
Islamic sect has “democratically elected” Sharia, (i.e., Hamas);
“democracy” has had no affect whatsoever on stopping “terrorism” on
western society (i.e., Israel). The Hamas Charter states as follows:
“Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it”: Not Hamas;
Part 4 – Conclusion:
For almost 1,400 years a pagan Arab tribe lead by Muhammad ibn Abdullah has successfully continued to forcibly convert or subjugate generations of human beings into a primitive cult of politics, religion, and justice that is literally based simply on what Muhammad ibn Abdullah willed it to be: After all, he changed it at will and determined whether or not its application in a particular case was suitable. Those that refuse: Die.
When we understand and acknowledge the expression and product of this collection of primitive legends which are nevertheless rather infantile, we understand and acknowledge that it is utterly useless to appeal to reason and morality in dealing with it. Muslims are convinced that reason and morality are on their side and are descended to the level of depravity where they do not view Infidels as human beings whose murder is an inherently immoral act. The fruits of Muhammad ibnu Abdullah’s adage that “only Muslims' blood is equal” (Qur’an 32.18, 45.21) is Islam’s curse that cannot be eradicated, short of an astonishing radical reform from within - a reform far exceeding in boldness and scope those of Luther and Calvin. That seems no more likely today than at any time in the past thirteen centuries. Face it, fueled by the surge in petrol-dollars, the age-old struggle between Western Civilization and Islam has again gathered force. We have had a long period of submitting to Islam (dhimmitude) and our fellow Americans have come to believe that this happy condition is the natural state of life -- it is not and it must stop before Islam’s final ultimatum.
Americas’ liberty has clearly been earned, very often in war. History demonstrates that negotiation with Islam has succeeded only when our side exhibited overwhelming advantage and after we have clearly shown ourselves to be not squeamish about using it. Today, justifying its use to the electorate (used to thinking of politics as a process of reasonable negotiation and compromise,) has to involve clearly proclaiming Islam’s moral myopia.
Today’s electorate’s lack of conviction to fully understand the possibility of an Islamist-provoked catastrophe putting an end to America’s comfortable political and social order may well lead to the destruction of all of us. Islam’s jihad for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over. Make no mistake, if we lose this war, our lives will undoubtedly be impoverished and endangered.
Finally, it is not the objective of this compendium to get you to acknowledge every one of the positions asserted but rather to convince you to submit these assertions to your own intense analysis in furtherance of generating your own acumen of the bitter foe we face. If you ignore the ideological language being used to justify the suppression of our liberties, if you ignore the historical, juridical, and theological structure of jihad and its subjugation of religious minorities, then you understand nothing about current events. This compendium will not succeed, however, if you, the reader, out-source your acumen to “experts” willing to volunteer “their” information UNDER THE SOLE CONDITION THAT IT BE ACCEPTED BOTH UNCRITICALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY. This is not only true because such an approach fails to meet any intellectual pursuit, but also because it fails for the same reason that it will lead to our defeat.
1. Lewis JD (2006-07) “No Substitute for Victory” : The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, In The Objective Standard, 1( 4)
The author can be contacted at: email@example.com
|If you like this essay:||Stumble it||digg it|