Monday, July 05, 2010

The Three-Pronged Islamic Pitchfork

PitchforkTo the extent that Western nations are willing to consider the danger of Islam, their entire preoccupation is with violent jihad. And, when they can bring themselves to discuss it, political leaders and journalists prefer to avoid the words “Islam” or “jihad”, and instead speak of “terrorism”. The T-word itself, however, has fallen out of favor in recent years and been replaced with “violent extremism” or even “man-caused disasters” — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s classic circumlocution for the Danger That Shall Not Be Named.

Jihad, however, is just a small part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for the conquest of the West. Jihad is a necessary and indispensable component of the subjugation of the infidel, but it is the final action of Islam against the infidels, the last spasm of violence before “they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

There are three major components to the Islamic strategy for overcoming the infidel democracies: the Ummah, Dawah, and Jihad. Each is necessary for Islamic success, but Jihad is the final stroke, and consumes far less time, resources, and manpower than the other two.

1. The Ummah

The Ummah is the collective of all Islamic believers, Sunni and Shi’ite, wherever they reside.

Countries which have large enough Muslim populations have banded together to form the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to the OIC homepage:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring [sic] to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. [emphasis added]

In other words, the OIC claims to be the official representative of the entire Ummah.

Up until 1924, when Turkey became a secular state, the Ummah took political form in the Caliphate. The Ottoman sultan was also the Caliph, and thus the ostensible leader of all the world’s Muslims. The abolition of the Caliphate was a grievous blow to devout Muslims, a blasphemous violation of Islamic scripture. Fundamentalist anger at the end of the Caliphate led directly to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 by the Egyptian radical Hassan al-Banna.

It’s obvious that the OIC conceives of itself as the Caliphate reborn. Not surprisingly, the new would-be Caliph is a Turk, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. In this excerpt from a speech (pdf) given by Professor Ihsanoglu at the 35th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC on June 20, 2008, the Secretary General speaks for the entire Ummah:

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ummah, as represented by the OIC, obviously wants to act as the Ottomans did during their centuries-long occupation of European territory. It intends to impose the tenets of Islamic law on all those infidels that lie within its reach.

But how can the Muslims of Europe and North America — who are still only a tiny percentage of the population of their host nations — impose their will on the non-believers around them?

That’s where Dawah comes in.

2. Dawah

The term dawah (or da’wa) is variously defined as “proselytizing” or “outreach”, and describes the process by which infidels are induced to convert to Islam by persuasion or indoctrination.
- - - - - - - - -
Its literal meaning is “call”, and the word has a special sense: it refers to the obligatory invitation for the infidel to convert to Islam. A Muslim military leader is required to issue the call prior to ordering a jihad against an enemy. Before the Turks overthrew Constantinople in 1453, they called on the Byzantine emperor to bring himself and his subjects into the Islamic fold. He refused, and as a result the city was attacked, defeated, sacked, and the survivors forcibly enslaved.

In 1683 the process was repeated by Kara Mustafa Pasha at the gates of Vienna: he issued the call; the call was refused, and the Turks laid siege to the city. Only the timely intervention of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland prevented Vienna from being laid waste by the Ottomans, as Constantinople had been 230 years previously.

We have seen the same process unfold in our own time: George W. Bush was called by both Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to accept Islam. Any Muslim who understands Islamic law would recognize this action as a prelude to violent jihad against America.

However, a jihad cannot be declared until Dawah has run its course and been judged successful. If overwhelming military strength cannot be brought to bear — as happened at the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna — then Dawah must proceed over a longer period. The enemy must be softened up for months, years, or even decades by various forms of propaganda and intimidation, until he is like a ripe fruit ready to drop into the hands of the Ummah.

In 1979 the Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik wrote a theory and methodology of Islamic warfare entitled The Quranic Concept of War. The book’s forward was written by General M. Zia ul-Haq, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Pakistani army, and later became the President of Pakistan. Malik’s book can thus be understood as an official state primer on how to conduct war against non-Muslims. On page 58 he says:

So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the Enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. [emphasis added]

To win the “war of will” requires a successful period of Dawah before the jihad begins. All necessary means may be used towards this end — argument, persuasion, deceit, subversion, bribery, intimidation, etc. — until the enemy is judged weak enough to be attacked.

In War and Peace in the Law of Islam Majid Khadduri writes:

It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. (pp. 63-64)

It is against Islamic law to start a jihad that cannot be won, for the simple reason that doing so might cause the infidel to enter the Muslim lands in response, and this would be a crime against Allah himself, because it makes his Ummah vulnerable.

But even when full jihad is not underway, a “continuous process of warfare” is always being waged, psychologically and politically. And as soon as the moment is ripe, the conflict metamorphoses into full jihad, and the violent attacks begin.

This means that when bin Laden’s agents brought down the Twin Towers, the strategists of Al Qaeda believed that America was weak and vulnerable. They assessed that we were so psychologically demoralized that we would be unable to mount an effective counterattack after the 9-11 strikes.

As it turned out, this assessment was a tactical error on the part of Al Qaeda, because the United States military responded by attacking two countries in the heart of the Ummah. The anger of “moderate” Muslims at bin Laden was a response to his making this mistake. What he did was not wrong in their eyes: he had simply attacked the infidel too soon, before the Dawah process had completed its weakening of the enemy.

In the wake of 9-11, the Muslim Brotherhood in America had to make tactical adjustments, but its core strategy remained unchanged. In fact, the terror attacks in New York and Washington D.C. gave its agents an unprecedented opportunity: overnight the United States government and military became sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. In their anxiety not to “profile” anybody, officials went out of their way to consult with the “Muslim community” in hopes of gaining its assistance and co-operation in the War Against That Which Cannot Be Named.

Dawah agents of various Muslim Brotherhood front groups sprang into action when their country called them. Theirs was a job for which they had been well trained — Muslim Brotherhood Dawah manuals instruct their outreach people to be “the friendliest person in the room”. When CAIR or ISNA or MSA sends a contact person into the Pentagon or the FBI, he is so likeable and convincing that no one can doubt his sincerity or intentions without feeling like a mean-spirited curmudgeon.

This is how the lexicon and doctrinal template in the war against Islamic terrorism were subverted. Kind, open-handed, earnest men and women from Islamic community groups explained Islam to the guardians of our national security, and they were taken at their word. Through their efforts insidious memes were inserted into official policy and became unquestionable truths:

  • Islamic doctrine is inherently peaceful.
  • Terrorists are renegades who have perverted Muslim doctrines and have nothing in common with “true Islam”.
  • Only a tiny minority of deranged extremists support or carry out terrorist violence.
  • Discussing jihad and Islamic law is not only insulting to our Muslim allies, it is counterproductive.
  • This is because the word “jihad” really means “an inner struggle to live righteously” rather than “holy war”.
  • Examining sharia and Islamic scripture is pointless unless one is fluent in classical Arabic.
  • Besides, questioning the religious doctrines of Muslims offends them, and violates their First Amendment rights.

There are many other rules of this nature. All of us know them by heart now, because they have become the steady subliminal drumbeat behind all public discussions of terrorism. Breaking these rules can be a career-ender, so military leaders, public officials, media people, and academics have to be very, very careful whenever they formulate a “narrative discourse” about Islam.

The agents of Islam have convinced Westerners that the jihad warriors represent a strain of Islam that is distinct and separate from the mainstream. Our entire strategy in fighting “terror” is based on the idea of cleaving the extremists from the mainstream. But what happens if those supposedly extremist doctrines lie at the center of Islam?

The entire body of our strategic thinking concerning Islam has been subverted. We have allowed the enemy to control the lexicon and the rules of engagement in his information war against us.

All of this was accomplished without a single act of terrorist violence. This subversion occurs in a completely different theater of the war, and the enemy is winning it hands down. He has been so successful that we scarcely even realize that there is a war on.

This is what Islamic Dawah has done to the national security of the United States of America. All of our tanks and JDAMs and Predator drones are of no use to us. We are completely outgunned.

3. Jihad

In Reliance of the Traveller, which is the most authoritative source in the Shafiite school of Islamic jurisprudence, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri says (o9.0):

Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

[…]

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1)“Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2)“Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3)“Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

Reliance of the Travellerand such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Hmm. Not much of an “inner struggle” in all this. It’s very clear that when the Shafiite school mentions “jihad”, it expects the believer to sharpen his sword and venture forth to slay the infidel.

And who is required perform jihad?

Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (o9.1)

And:

Jihad is a communal obligation… When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. (o9.4)

Al-Misri also cites Koran 4:95 concerning exemption from the obligation of jihad:

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” and Allah Most High having said:

“Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good” (Koran 4:95).

Those who fulfill the obligation of zakat are acting in accord with the above requirement — one-eighth of their payment is diverted to support jihad, so it is if they had performed jihad themselves.

In our own time it’s easy to find examples of jihad in action. In places like Nigeria, Sudan, India, and Lebanon — places where the number of Muslims has increased to the point where a successful jihad becomes feasible — churches are burned, Christians are slaughtered, non-Muslims are driven out, and sharia is officially imposed.

In Western countries, however, a full-bore jihad is not yet possible. For the time being, the military and police powers of the modern Western state are still sufficient to forestall the mujahideen. Only isolated and very temporary jihadi actions can be launched against Western targets.

Whenever Muslims are not powerful enough to overcome the infidel, Islamic law requires them to wait patiently, marshaling their forces and protecting the Ummah while they engage in Dawah. Then, as soon as they are strong enough to be certain of prevailing, they are obliged to attack the enemy with full force.

If firebrands like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki would only restrain themselves — if they would remember that launching a jihad when the Ummah is less than fully prepared is a violation of Islamic law — Dawah could do its work quietly, unnoticed by those whom it subverts. The agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the help of their eager allies on the postmodern Left, can hollow out infidel institutions until the governments of the West are helpless and enfeebled.

When it arrives, the final, cleansing jihad may be brief and unspectacular. A series of carefully targeted simultaneous assassinations, the conversion of some prominent and pragmatic Western leaders — and then life will continue as usual, because by then most of the population will have become completely accustomed to the new rules.

Women will cover their hair and stay at home. Pork and alcohol will disappear from the markets and restaurants. The call to prayer will resound from the minarets of brand new government-funded mosques. Banks will no longer charge or pay interest. Churches will take down their crosses and cease ringing their bells. Synagogues will disappear entirely.

And no one will ever say a single disrespectful word about Allah or his prophet.

We all know the outlines of what is coming, because much of it is already in place in certain parts of major Western cities. Many well-meaning hollowed-out Westerners are already bending over backwards to follow the dictates of sharia.

Another possible candidate for the final jihad is the Islamic nuclear bomb. A quick fireball in several major targeted cities, followed by a sudden movement by an alliance of the hard Left and Islam to assume control of key public institutions, and then a sharia state is declared in the ashes of what used to be Western Civilization.

After that comes a quick and brutal purge of all “un-Islamic” elements in the new regime — think Khomeini in Tehran, 1979 — and then the survivors begin their new lives in a Yemen writ large.

Whatever form the endgame takes, you can be sure that we will all have been fully prepped by Dawah by the time the denouement arrives.

There are three prongs to the pitchfork of Islamic conquest. First is the Ummah — the community of believers who from the moment of their birth are nurtured and protected by the glories of Islamic law. A secure and cohesive Ummah is necessary before any form of expansion can occur.

From the redoubts of the Ummah the call goes out to infidels just outside the wall. Dawah does its quiet work, persuading, cajoling, threatening, misrepresenting, bribing, suborning, and double-dealing until the infidels are demoralized, atomized, and completely ready for the big change that is coming their way.

The final prong is Jihad, which brings to bear the precise amount of force necessary to effect the conversion to an Islamic state governed by Islamic law.

Up until now the agents of the Ummah have experienced such complete success with their Dawah that they are absolutely confident they will win. They are certain that Allah has granted them the victory, and that the rotten fruit of the Western states will drop easily into their hands when the time comes.

And why shouldn’t they believe that? What reason have the craven and desperate dhimmis that masquerade as our political leaders given them to think otherwise?

The Jihad prong may be the shortest, but it is the sharpest. We’ll know it when we feel it.

16 comments:

Zenster said...

Jihad is a necessary and indispensable component of the subjugation of the infidel, but it is the final action of Islam against the infidels…

Comprehending this apparently simple notion is vital to any proper appreciation of Islam's supremacist doctrine.

The assault upon dar al-harb is a continuous operation and not the constellation of periodic skirmishes that it appears to be according to Liberal Western media.

In the same way that there is no such thing as a Moderate Muslim™, there is also no reprieve or respite from Islam's predation upon non-Muslims.

This means that when bin Laden’s agents brought down the Twin Towers, the strategists of Al Qaeda believed that America was weak and vulnerable. They assessed that we were so psychologically demoralized that we would be unable to mount an effective counterattack after the 9-11 strikes.

As it turned out, this assessment was a tactical error on the part of Al Qaeda, because the United States military responded by attacking two countries in the heart of the Ummah. The anger of “moderate” Muslims at bin Laden was a response to his making this mistake. What he did was not wrong in their eyes: he had simply attacked the infidel too soon, before the Dawah process had completed its weakening of the enemy.
[emphasis added]

This is a concept I covered in my GoV essay, "Echoes of Bali:

Almost entirely absent in this outpouring [of wide spread outrage over the Bali Bombers’ executions] is any grief or regret over the almost two hundred non-Muslim lives lost on October the twelfth in 2002. Any of the limited anger and condemnation being directed at these heinous cretins is solely because their horrific mass murder took Muslim lives. The overall lack of embarrassment in there being such an outcry over fewer than twenty Muslim deaths as compared to almost 200 non-Muslims goes largely unnoticed. −

In an identical fashion, the Muslim world’s displeasure with bin Laden is solely due to the premature aspect of his attacks and not the monstrous nature of the 9-11 atrocity itself. A theme that I repeatedly address is how Islam suffers from chronic overreach. It is the nature of the Islamic beast to strike at the earliest opportunity. The rank incompetence of Muslim militaries is a matter of record. This congenital ineptitude literally obliges Islamic terrorists to take advantage of even the least sort of opportune moment lest Islam’s usual sloth and stupidity see it slip from its tenuous grasp.

Zenster said...

Through their efforts insidious memes were inserted into official policy and became unquestionable truths:

Islamic doctrine is inherently peaceful.


Running this and the subsequent aphorisms through a filter that corrects Muslim taqiyya-based diplospeak yields the following:

Islamic doctrine is never peaceful.

Terrorists are renegades who have perverted Muslim doctrines and have nothing in common with “true Islam”.

Terrorists have correctly interpreted Muslim doctrines and have everything in common with “true Islam”.

Only a tiny minority of deranged extremists support or carry out terrorist violence.

Only a tiny minority of blasphemous Muslims protest terrorist violence.

Discussing jihad and Islamic law is not only insulting to our Muslim allies, it is counterproductive.

Associating jihad and Islamic law not only confronts our Muslim enemies, it is a crucial strategy.

This is because the word “jihad” really means “an inner struggle to live righteously” rather than “holy war”.

This is because the word “jihad” really means ”conversion of the unbeliever by force of arms" and not “an inner struggle to live righteously”.

Examining sharia and Islamic scripture is pointless unless one is fluent in classical Arabic.

Examining sharia and Islamic scripture is of vital importance whether or not one is fluent in classical Arabic.

Besides, questioning the religious doctrines of Muslims offends them, and violates their First Amendment rights.

Besides, not questioning the religious doctrines of Muslims offends any rational person’s sanity, and any legal code against hate speech violates our First Amendment rights.

Zenster said...

The agents of Islam have convinced Westerners that the jihad warriors represent a strain of Islam that is distinct and separate from the mainstream.

Need I trot out the Muslim diplospeak filter yet again?

Our entire strategy in fighting “terror” is based on the idea of cleaving the extremists from the mainstream. But what happens if those supposedly extremist doctrines lie at the center of Islam?

This is a core element of Islamic deception and only a proper naming of the enemy can possibly correct this strategic blunder.

If firebrands like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki would only restrain themselves — if they would remember that launching a jihad when the Ummah is less than fully prepared is a violation of Islamic law — Dawah could do its work quietly, unnoticed by those whom it subverts.

However horrific the 9-11 atrocity was, we should almost all be thankful that Islam’s hand was well and truly tipped so far in advance of Muslims acquiring even more nuclear weapons than they already possess.

A series of carefully targeted simultaneous assassinations, the conversion of some prominent and pragmatic Western leaders — and then life will continue as usual, because by then most of the population will have become completely accustomed to the new rules.

Correctly re-filtered, this can be taken to suggest that “carefully targeted simultaneous assassinations” within Islam’s upper echelons might prove quite efficacious.

Another possible candidate for the final jihad is the Islamic nuclear bomb. A quick fireball in several major targeted cities, followed by a sudden movement by an alliance of the hard Left and Islam to assume control of key public institutions, and then a sharia state is declared in the ashes of what used to be Western Civilization.

Again, correctly re-filtered:

Another possible candidate for eliminating jihad is the Western nuclear arsenal. A quick fireball in several major targeted Islamic cities, followed by a sudden movement by an alliance of the pro-Western and anti-Islamic Asian nations to assume control of key Muslim institutions, and then a permanent military dictatorship is declared in the ashes of what used to be Islamic Civilization.

I suggest that any readers give careful consideration as to which of these two narratives entails the lesser loss of life. Keep in mind the interminable slaughter that Islam has caused throughout its entire historic existence and the inarguable promise of that selfsame slaughter continuing unabated should Muslims gain ascendancy on a global scale. And then ask yourself once again; which of the two foregoing narratives promise our world a better future?

imnokuffar said...

I just read an article that is very gloomy about the chances of Western civilisation and Christianity surviving the Muslim invasion. Here is my reply.

A very interesting and concise argument, if somewhat based on the concept of predestination. You give the Muslims far more credit than they deserve. You completely ignore the rising tide of Nationalist sentiment and knowledge of the true nature of Islam in the West. Not all of the West has fallen under the spell of Islam nor have they fallen for the lies and Dawah/Taquia. Its a given that the Muslims will at some time in the near future commit more atrocities in Western capitals, they will not be able to stop themselves despite everything specified in their various terror manuals and the voices in their midst that counsel caution and cunning. When this happens and the usual excuses are rolled out by the MSM, the Left and the Muslims I do not believe they will have any credibility left with increasing numbers of ordinary people who will turn to the Nationalist community both for support and guidance. Western Europeans also have a great appetite for vengeance when they feel (even mistakenly in the case of the Jews) that they have been misled. You also miss out on the fact that western european nations have standing and well equipped armies who have been fighting against the Muslims and are well aware of the capabilities and tactics. There is also a rising tide of resentment against the increasing concentration of Muslims in specific areas within the capital cities of Europe and thier arrogance and sense of entitlement. This concentration can be viewed as a strength in one way and a weakness in another. Basically they will be easier to target when the time comes. When the Islamists say that they want all the Jews to emigrate to Israel so they can kill them all at the same time, they forget that they are equally vulnerable. Finally the article seems to be defeatist. Does the writer actually think that the Nationalists will stand idly by and let this scenaria unfold without doing anything about it.Just recently there was a coming together in Europe of various Nationalist parties who no doubt will be discussing the subjects portrayed by the author. I predict that there will spring up in the not too distant future counter-jihad groups who will repay every atrocity with violence against the Ummah. This will be a sad indictment on Western governments as these people will be driven by anger and despair at the non-actions of the political elites, the lies of the MSM, the Dawah of the Muslims and the complicity of the the Liberal/Marxist axis in promoting the downfall of Western Civilisation. This fight has just begun, the author should note this fact.

imnokuffar said...

A very interesting and concise argument, if somewhat based on the concept of predestination. You give the Muslims far more credit than they deserve. You completely ignore the rising tide of Nationalist sentiment and knowledge of the true nature of Islam in the West. Not all of the West has fallen under the spell of Islam nor have they fallen for the lies and Dawah/Taquia. Its a given that the Muslims will at some time in the near future commit more atrocities in Western capitals, they will not be able to stop themselves despite everything specified in their various terror manuals and the voices in their midst that counsel caution and cunning. When this happens and the usual excuses are rolled out by the MSM, the Left and the Muslims I do not believe they will have any credibility left with increasing numbers of ordinary people who will turn to the Nationalist community both for support and guidance. Western Europeans also have a great appetite for vengeance when they feel (even mistakenly in the case of the Jews) that they have been misled. You also miss out on the fact that western european nations have standing and well equipped armies who have been fighting against the Muslims and are well aware of the capabilities and tactics. There is also a rising tide of resentment against the increasing concentration of Muslims in specific areas within the capital cities of Europe and thier arrogance and sense of entitlement. This concentration can be viewed as a strength in one way and a weakness in another. Basically they will be easier to target when the time comes. When the Islamists say that they want all the Jews to emigrate to Israel so they can kill them all at the same time, they forget that they are equally vulnerable. Finally the article seems to be defeatist. Does the writer actually think that the Nationalists will stand idly by and let this scenaria unfold without doing anything about it.Just recently there was a coming together in Europe of various Nationalist parties who no doubt will be discussing the subjects portrayed by the author. I predict that there will spring up in the not too distant future counter-jihad groups who will repay every atrocity with violence against the Ummah. This will be a sad indictment on Western governments as these people will be driven by anger and despair at the non-actions of the political elites, the lies of the MSM, the Dawah of the Muslims and the complicity of the the Liberal/Marxist axis in promoting the downfall of Western Civilisation. This fight has just begun, the author should note this fact.

imnokuffar said...

A very interesting and concise argument, if somewhat based on the concept of predestination. You give the Muslims far more credit than they deserve. You completely ignore the rising tide of Nationalist sentiment and knowledge of the true nature of Islam in the West. Not all of the West has fallen under the spell of Islam nor have they fallen for the lies and Dawah/Taquia. Its a given that the Muslims will at some time in the near future commit more atrocities in Western capitals, they will not be able to stop themselves despite everything specified in their various terror manuals and the voices in their midst that counsel caution and cunning. When this happens and the usual excuses are rolled out by the MSM, the Left and the Muslims I do not believe they will have any credibility left with increasing numbers of ordinary people who will turn to the Nationalist community both for support and guidance. Western Europeans also have a great appetite for vengeance when they feel (even mistakenly in the case of the Jews) that they have been misled. You also miss out on the fact that western european nations have standing and well equipped armies who have been fighting against the Muslims and are well aware of the capabilities and tactics. There is also a rising tide of resentment against the increasing concentration of Muslims in specific areas within the capital cities of Europe and thier arrogance and sense of entitlement. This concentration can be viewed as a strength in one way and a weakness in another. Basically they will be easier to target when the time comes. When the Islamists say that they want all the Jews to emigrate to Israel so they can kill them all at the same time, they forget that they are equally vulnerable. Finally the article seems to be defeatist. Does the writer actually think that the Nationalists will stand idly by and let this scenaria unfold without doing anything about it.Just recently there was a coming together in Europe of various Nationalist parties who no doubt will be discussing the subjects portrayed by the author. I predict that there will spring up in the not too distant future counter-jihad groups who will repay every atrocity with violence against the Ummah. This will be a sad indictment on Western governments as these people will be driven by anger and despair at the non-actions of the political elites, the lies of the MSM, the Dawah of the Muslims and the complicity of the the Liberal/Marxist axis in promoting the downfall of Western Civilisation. This fight has just begun, the author should note this fact.

imnokuffar said...

I just read an article that is very gloomy about the chances of Western civilisation and Christianity surviving the Muslim invasion. Here is my reply.

A very interesting and concise argument, if somewhat based on the concept of predestination. You give the Muslims far more credit than they deserve. You completely ignore the rising tide of Nationalist sentiment and knowledge of the true nature of Islam in the West. Not all of the West has fallen under the spell of Islam nor have they fallen for the lies and Dawah/Taquia. Its a given that the Muslims will at some time in the near future commit more atrocities in Western capitals, they will not be able to stop themselves despite everything specified in their various terror manuals and the voices in their midst that counsel caution and cunning. When this happens and the usual excuses are rolled out by the MSM, the Left and the Muslims I do not believe they will have any credibility left with increasing numbers of ordinary people who will turn to the Nationalist community both for support and guidance. Western Europeans also have a great appetite for vengeance when they feel (even mistakenly in the case of the Jews) that they have been misled. You also miss out on the fact that western european nations have standing and well equipped armies who have been fighting against the Muslims and are well aware of the capabilities and tactics. There is also a rising tide of resentment against the increasing concentration of Muslims in specific areas within the capital cities of Europe and thier arrogance and sense of entitlement. This concentration can be viewed as a strength in one way and a weakness in another. Basically they will be easier to target when the time comes. When the Islamists say that they want all the Jews to emigrate to Israel so they can kill them all at the same time, they forget that they are equally vulnerable. Finally the article seems to be defeatist. Does the writer actually think that the Nationalists will stand idly by and let this scenaria unfold without doing anything about it.Just recently there was a coming together in Europe of various Nationalist parties who no doubt will be discussing the subjects portrayed by the author. I predict that there will spring up in the not too distant future counter-jihad groups who will repay every atrocity with violence against the Ummah. This will be a sad indictment on Western governments as these people will be driven by anger and despair at the non-actions of the political elites, the lies of the MSM, the Dawah of the Muslims and the complicity of the the Liberal/Marxist axis in promoting the downfall of Western Civilisation. This fight has just begun, the author should note this fact.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster, you are making one significant error.

...the word “jihad” really means ”conversion of the unbeliever by force of arms"...

No, it doesn't. It means "holy war fought to impose sharia on the unbeliever".

This is an important distinction, crucial to our understanding of this war. Our enemies do not insist on our conversion to Islam, but simply our total obedience to sharia law.

Conversion to Islam will bring us a lot of benefits, and it may even save our lives.

But it's not a required result of jihad. The only goal of jihad is an official sharia state.

This is why "there is no compulsion in religion". If we feel ourselves defeated, humbly submit, and pay the jizya, we are in full compliance with sharia.

We may then go home to our hovels, close the door, and pray to our idolatrous polytheist crosses if we want to.

Kairos said...

Baron Bodissey: An islamic preacher told me that "jihad" means both: Physical fighting and the "fight" with tounge. Even the fighting against your own demons is jihad. The matter is: "Jihad" is a closed system every muslim is a part of. Even non-muslims take part of "jihad" if they actions help islam to spread.

Dawa(h) is nowadays the "jihad with the tounge" - a muslim tries to convert an infidel (like this preacher does it with me). If the infidel will not accept the superiority of islam, the muslim can state he had tried everything to "rescue" the poor soul. So an infidel who declines islam after "dawa" is the same as a muslim who declines islam (apostate, death penalty).

So both words have complex meanings but very simple (and real!) conclusions.

Zenster said...

imnokuffar: Its a given that the Muslims will at some time in the near future commit more atrocities in Western capitals, they will not be able to stop themselves despite everything specified in their various terror manuals and the voices in their midst that counsel caution and cunning.

This is something that I have maintained for some years now and could not agree with more. To wit:

-----------------

What no one can possibly comprehend or predict is the absolutely psychotic insanity of Islam. While Robert Browning's aphorism remains true that "Man's reach should exceed his grasp", Islam and the terrorists specifically take this well beyond its logical limits.

If there is a single hallmark of Islamist terrorism it is that of over-reaching itself. Just as the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so do the terrorists always rush the gate, jump the gun or however you wish to put it. Look to Nasrallah's recent dust-up with the Israelis for solid proof of this.

It is this one defining characteristic that will bring the Global War on Terror to a head much sooner than a generation from now. Somehow, some way, the terrorists will finally find a way, be it with atomic bombs, biochemical weapons or inflicting some other massive and catastrophic loss of innocent life, that will overcome the West's reticence to inflict wholesale destruction upon the Muslim world.

This is the Muslim holocaust that I continue to predict. The nature of whatever atrocity that will precede this is as irresistible to the terrorists as it is repellant to us in the West. It is much like the fable of the scorpion who rides upon the frog's back only to sting him to death mid-river and thereby drown himself. It is the scorpion's nature as surely as hurriedly and ill-thought-out crimes against humanity are part of terrorism.

Islam's fixation upon death precludes rational elements of thought that we take for granted here in the West. Due to this, the correct emphasis upon long-term planning and a proper degree of goal orientation are simply lacking or intentionally discarded in how terrorism plots it course. Palestinian destruction of the Israeli greenhouses are a sterling example of this. All claims of becoming a new "Singapore" of the Mediterranean aside, these short-sighted thugs simply could not resist the urge to smash all things Jewish and thereby lost an entire agricultural industry that was handed to them on a silver platter.

Islam, as a whole, is batting aside the golden opportunity we in the West are offering it to survive, silver platter and all. As Wretchard in his superb essay, "The Three Conjectures", put it; This is Islam's "golden hour". They can cast aside this last opportunity for reconciling itself to coexist with the West only to die one and all, or they can reach some sort of rapprochement that preserves them. It is impossible to believe that, once again, they will not miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, even one wherein their lives, one and all, hang in the balance. Islam's collective martyrdom is as assured as the sun's rising in the east.

-----------------

Baron Bodissey: you are making one significant error.

…the word “jihad” really means ”conversion of the unbeliever by force of arms"…

No, it doesn't. It means "holy war fought to impose sharia on the unbeliever".


Point well made and immediately agreed with. Dhimmitude is supposedly an alternative outcome of jihad but any sane mind knows that such status literally assures eventual absorption into Islam.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: Conversion to Islam will bring us a lot of benefits, and it may even save our lives.

Here I disagree totally. Let's crunch some numbers, shall we?

The following is a set of cocktail napkin calculations to show what a global caliphate would bring:

1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 MILLION people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.

2.) Extermination of all homosexuals
I'm going to use what is called a "wildly exaggerated figure" for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other deviants who would all be put to death. Thusly, some 10% of the world's population or 600 MILLION people would fall into this category.

The remaining factors that follow are much more difficult to quantify.

3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here at Gates of Vienna would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America. World wide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We'll place it at a meager 100 MILLION.

4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because under Islamic law women would only be able to be seen by female doctors—an exceedingly small fraction of this world's medical practitioners. I’ll use the figure for global female cancer deaths as an example of how reduced early intervention will escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure will be more than 3 MILLION per year.

5.) Execution of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 MILLION.

6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
I’m going to use the world’s population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure would approach over 1 BILLION.

We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first few years of Islam establishing its global caliphate. Millions more would die each year due to Islam’s heavy-handed shari’a law and its demands for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants, be they political, religious or otherwise.

Do the math. The global caliphate would rise upon dead bodies numbering greater than this world’s entire Muslim population. My Iranian friend Ray agrees with me that the number who would perish would be closer to HALF this world’s population but that is far more speculative than the conservative numbers I’ve posted above.

So, the question remains:

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN FOLLOWERS?

I’ve stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate, then I would just as soon see all of them perish rather than the larger numbers who would ultimately die by Islam’s brutal hand. The numbers — approximate as they might be — do not lie.

Baron Bodissey said...

Zenster, I meant relative benefits.

A lot of people converted so they could avoid the jizya, live in decent accommodations, ride horses if they wanted, and were protected from arbitrary killings. If their Christian beliefs were not that important to them, then they went ahead and converted. Their families were much better off afterwards, and they could join the Sultan's civil service, etc.

Zenster said...

Baron Bodissey: ... I meant relative benefits.

I understand but also think that very few people even remotely comprehend the implications of being absorbed into a shari'a-based society. Even less do they probably understand that successive generations of their children would most likely become full fledged Muslims with all the negative implications entailed in that.

What's more, dhimmitude under Islam's current crop of jihadist fanatics would most likely be a miserably short and brutish existence which might even make previous incarnations of this second-class status look desirable.

Furthermore, I doubt that most of the foregoing represents any sort of material dispute with respect to our own mutual impressions of Islam.

Wowsher said...

Dawah would seem to be a stage of softening up which morphs into a hollowing out, jihad being the blow which demolishes the outer shell. Our only hope is as per Zenster's prediction: That jihad will come sooner rather than later.

Kairos said...

Baron B:

I am translating this essay for the German site "Counterjihad" and it came to my mind that you actually misquoted Al- Misris "Reliance of the Wanderer."

The full quote is:

Jihad is a communal obligation. When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others (O: the evidence for which is the Prophet’s saying (Allah bless him and give him peace).

“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,”

and Allah Most High having said:

Those of the believers who are unhurt but sit behind are not equal to those who fight in Allah’s path with their property and lives. Allah has preferred those who fight with their property and lives a whole degree above those who sit behind. And to each Allah has promised great good" (Koran 4:95). (taken from http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/RealIslam.htm)

In your Essay it seems like this word of the prophet is Koran 4:95, but it is not. Your quote ends with "Allah most high."

It is just a detail but I thoght it is best to tell you.

Greetings from Germany

Kairos

Baron Bodissey said...

Kairos --

You're quite right. Somehow, when I was gathering my materials together, I chopped out a block of the text. I've restored the missing section to the quote.

Thanks for pointing it out. Good catch!