Tuesday, February 01, 2011

The Double-Bladed Battle Axe

Holy Land Foundation document — introduction

In the comments on one of yesterday’s posts, Egghead wrote an excellent series of analyses about the current dangerous stage that has been reached in the West’s response (or lack of response) to the worldwide advance of the Great Jihad.

There was, however, a single small error in one of Egghead’s comments:

...the Koran orders Muslims to violently conquer ALL non-human Muslims and reclaim the whole world for Islam.

This is not precisely true, and in our current circumstances the threat of violent jihad is like the waving of a brightly-colored cloth to distract the audience’s eyes while the magician performs his deft sleight-of-hand.

Islam orders that the whole world be compelled to submit to Allah, but it does not compel violence to achieve that end. Violence may (and must) be used if necessary, but the preferred methods are persuasion and deception, which erode and weaken an enemy at the lowest possible cost to Muslims, until the final — possibly violent — step is taken to implement full sharia and establish an Islamic state.

All of the above is laid out clearly and explicitly in Islamic law — consult Reliance of the Traveller for details.

The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood are shrewd fellows. They know that if Muslims force a violent confrontation, they can never possibly defeat the infidel West. Hence their strategy of persuasion and deception. Their plan is long-term, and is available for our scrutiny in the Project documents captured in Switzerland, and also in its explanatory memorandum, which is on the public record from the Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008.

The Ikhwan means to infiltrate all of the West’s major institutions and subvert infidel society “by their hands” — that is, they plan to trick us into destroying ourselves. This process is obviously well underway, and has been very successful so far. Think about Fort Hood and the various other terror attacks, and the absolute refusal of our law enforcement authorities and political leaders to name the ideology responsible for what happened. The Obama Administration’s decision to embrace the Ikhwan in Egypt is another bitter fruit of the MB strategy.

The Muslim Brotherhood really does want to avoid terrorist attacks, because it sees such outbreaks of jihad violence as counterproductive — for now. The time for jihad will come, but Islam must first gain the upper hand.

If the Ikhwan is successful, the terror attacks on Westerners will abate. People will return to their TVs and forget about Islam. When they happen to think about it, they will regard it as just another religion, like Judaism or Mormonism.

Meanwhile, more and more Muslims enter the country. More and more mosques are built. More and more Islamic “community outreach” is initiated. More and more people who are dissatisfied with the dominant hedonistic culture, and who have been inoculated against Christianity by its ascendant “lite” versions, will convert to Islam. Women — young women who crave “respect”, feel the need for a strong unabashedly masculine hand in their lives, and are not comfortable with the sexual free-for-all — are especially attracted to Islam. Large numbers of them in Europe are converting and marrying Muslims to escape the mean streets of the formerly white working-class neighborhoods in which they were born.

To focus on terrorist attacks is to miss the point. Dawah and stealth form the double-bladed battle axe which is used as the primary weapon against the infidel.

Jihad is simply the stiletto that delivers the coup de grace.

60 comments:

Armance said...

We can't blame Islam for the same reason you can't blame a rabid dog for biting. We know it is dangerous, we know that sooner or later it will bite and transmit the deadly disease.
This is not a war between Islam and the West because in a fair, open war the West would win in less than 24 hours. The West has the technology and military might to transform Mecca into ruins in 30 minutes.

The rabid dog is free because someone INVITED it here. It boggles the mind that no earlier than 130 years ago our ancestors still fought successfully against Islam, and now the former pashas, their harems and janissaries are invited to live in the major European cities. Besides, they live on our money and have the privileged status of a persecuted minority. Such a tectonic movement took place in a century.

A rabid dog can be calmed down forever with a simple injection. But who is forcing us to live in the same room with a rabid dog and has forbidden all the injections in the neighborhood? That's the question which have to be answered before we start the real and meaningful war.

Mark said...

Folks, the BNP is now pro-Muslim! Further proof the BNP is British state infiltrated (MI5/MI6/EDL/BBC)

Nick Griffin (BNP Leader) - We must work with muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbsGYCHBPAo

MORFINY BOOKS WORLD REVIEW said...

Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew Slams ‘Mixed Marriage’ Islamist Exclusivity as ‘Threat to Singapore.’

just out on Ross’s Right Angle

Http://rossrightangle.info/

Herman said...

If the Mohammedians and the Communitarians are so willing and able to lie to use, wish to infiltrate use and change history then what is stopping use from doing the same?

a higher morality i am afraid.

No, we can't copy there behaviour: I can't force myself to lie to others with a straight face in order to get them to destroy themselves.

I can't, i am a human being.

Herman said...

I searched and found this on a religious website:

"A well-known Sufi was asked, 'What is invisibility?'
He said: "I shall answer that when an opportunity for a demonstration of it occurs.'
Some time later that man and the one who had asked him the question were stopped by a band of soldiers.
The soldiers said: 'We have orders to take all dervishes into custody, for the king of this country says that they will not obey his commands, and say things which are not welcome to the tranquility of thought of the populace.'
The Sufi said: 'And so you should, for you must do your duty.'
'But are you not Sufis?' asked the solders.
'Test us,' said the Sufi.
The officer took out a Sufi book. 'What is this?' he said.
The Sufi looked at the title page. 'Something which I will burn in front of you, since you have not already done so,' he said.
He set light to the book, and the soldiers rode away, satisfied.
The Sufi's companion asked: 'What was the purpose of that action?'
'To make us invisible,' said the Sufi, 'for to the man of the world, 'visibility' means that you are looking like something or someone he expects you to resemble. If you look different your true nature becomes invisible to him.'"

So the question is this: Why can we as anti-shariaists tell the difference, where those two soldiers can not; why can we feel there is something fishy going on and the majority of the population too, but not a few middle-class tools and ideologists?

The awnser is that we are not in a war between Islam and the West, but between an individual state of mind and a collective one, that is a difference you can't hide.

Sagunto said...

@Armance,

You said it.

Islam is parasitical to the bone. So logically we shouldn't play host to it.

As so many involved in the Counter-Jihad initiative, I am convinced that Islam, because of its core teachings - rendered unchangeable by the whole traditional corpus of Islamic doctrine itself - will always be an existential threat to the West, if given half a chance.

And that last provision brings me to our second biggest or perhaps the biggest foe: the uprooted progressivist enablers of Islam (or their leftist, PC MC tools) within our own societies. Imagine no "oil for Muslim immigration" policies; imagine no oil revenues for Islamic nations at all; imagine no foreign aid to sharia-states. What power does Islam in and of itself provide to create and sustain a wealthy and prospering society? None whatsoever. Its only power is corrosive and in the long run destructive, as history teaches. So even as bloodsuckers, they're a failure, for the parasitical strategy of the Muslim culture is ultimately a dead end. Without a host to bleed dry, all of the "faithfull" will follow the dusty trail of Islam back into the desert of oblivion where they rightly belong, as dust in the sand. And the world will be all the better for it.

That's why we have a twin battle on our hands, and when I speak of foes, I mean capital foes, like in FOE, the combined Forces Of Enslavement. That's why I agree we mustn't forget to target the crescentesque enablers at the core of their machine, which is i.m.o.: CBP, Central Banking Progressivism, because that is where, historically, the financial process started of setting us up for destruction.

Those megalomaniacs are perfectly okay with whatever political or moral creed people subscribe to - and preferably waste their time on - as long as it isn't free market philosophy, based on Natural Law. States with grand ambitions to rule the lives of men, are just toys in their hands, vehicles for mass servitude through governments that will be forced into submission. Any state that refuses will be threatened with war, as was America when it first fought for her freedom and independence.

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

rjog said...

"Women — young women who crave “respect”, feel the need for a strong unabashedly masculine hand in their lives, and are not comfortable with the sexual free-for-all — are especially attracted to Islam. Large numbers of them in Europe are converting and marrying Muslims to escape the mean streets of the formerly white working-class neighborhoods in which they were born."

are you implying that womens rights and their struggle in being viewed as equal to a man is
to blame for the growth of islam?

jjk999 said...

I cannot agree that the MB does not currently make extensive use of violence or terrorist groups.

1. The groups that split off from the MB right before becoming violent only split off in order to provide the MB deniability.
2. The MB makes use of the violence and extreme rheotric of terrorist groups to deceptively present its representitives and goals as a moderate alternative.
3. They make use of the news grabbing violence and rhetoric of violent groups by making their advances quietly and under the radar. While we are distracted by one maniac battering down the front door, another is using lockpicks to sneak in the back.
4. "Moderates", claiming to be unrelated to the violent groups, nevertheless ask for concessions immediately after attacks, what security proffesionals refer to as "slipstreaming".
5. They have exactly the same goals.

When taking those things into account you cannot but conclude that The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quida et all are in fact one and the same.

It's exactly like a stoning. Wherever the victim turns there is someone else throwing a rock.

Islamic agression on all levels is like that, wheather it be a stoning, a gang rape or the UN Human Rights Council, It's always multiple sources cooperating like a predatory pack.

F6e28Hf said...

That's what this guys is saying:

"They are convinced they can change society from the inside. For them attacks would thwart this strategy because it would create a rejection phenomena against them"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUTJHuOUNUE

Baron Bodissey said...

rjog --

are you implying that womens rights and their struggle in being viewed as equal to a man is
to blame for the growth of islam?


Not at all. If I had meant that, I would have said it, and not "implied" it.

My statement was descriptive, not normative, and is borne out by statistics and anecdotal accounts.

Young women in working-class neighborhoods now find themselves running a daily gauntlet of predatory Muslim young men who view their dress and their behavior as "lewd". To Muslims, these girls are "prostitutes", and thus legitimate targets for rape and exploitation.

Young girls respond by dying their hair a darker color, leaving off the makeup, and putting a scarf over their heads -- just to stave off the rapists.

Many of them have grown up without fathers, and the young white men in their age group do not seem as assertive or "manly" as the Muslim youths, whom they see behaving in a violent and intimidating manner with virtual impunity. Some young women find such characteristics attractive.

When you combine these factors with a disinclination to engage in aggressive and promiscuous sexual behavior -- which is becoming more and more the norm in the white urban underclass -- Islam begins to seem attractive. Many girls convert and marry, and the scarf becomes permanent.

I don't have time to search for articles on the topic, but they're out there. I suggest you look them up.

Richard said...

The Moslems know they can't win in an armed confrontation, but they do think that if they acquire enough nuclear weapons and delivery systems we will cave. They have seen the way the left has made us causality adverse to the extent that that what are remarkably low causalities are now considered unacceptably high causalities. For this reason they think that if they use one or two nuclear weapons we will surrender rather then take more causalities. This is their big weakness, they believe the propaganda of the left.

Sagunto said...

Richard,

What causes you to write so casual?

;-)

Sag.

Hesperado said...

I could not disagree more strenously with Baron Bodissey's argument. Due to so many intricately interlocking flaws in his argument, I fear that the articulation of my disagreement may well entail a meticulously laborious feat, and so I probably will put it off as long as I can.

(I see that jjk999 took a stab at it, but more needs to be unpacked and carefully dis- and re-assembled, in order to clarify the complex problem.)

Richard said...

Detrioting disk in the lumbar region, massive pain and pain pills.

Richard said...

I meant deteriorating sorry.

Sagunto said...

Richard,

"Detrioting disk in the lumbar region, massive pain and pain pills. [..] I meant deteriorating sorry."

Never mind if spelling occasionally suffers as a collateral casualty of pain. I like your style.

;-)

On topic..
While I already found the contribution of jjk999 very well argued and to the point, I await the analysis of Hesperado with anticipation.

From Amsterdam, good night and kind regs,
Sag.

Richard said...

Sagunto thank you.

Baron Bodissey said...

Freyja's Cats --

That's it -- you have hijacked your last comment thread at GoV.

Everybody here knows your topic, and is totally familiar with your opinions. Those who are interested in what you have to say may visit the Takuan Seiyo post and read the ten or so lengthy comments by you there to get the gist of it.

I'm not having any more of it. Enough is enough. I am going to delete any further comments that revolve around your principal preoccupation, except in the unlikely event that we do a post which would make them on-topic.

jjk999 said...

Thank you Hesperado and Sagunto for your supportive reaction to my comment. I made a similar and longer comment on JW about a similar issue then spent the afternoon doing some rudimentary research and wrote a short piece on my own blog.

The blog might appear at first glance to be a simple minded echo chamber but one of it's goals is to put anti jihad issues and POV presented in more conservative or intellectually advanced sites and books into a lighter, less complex form specifically for a less conservative or knowledgable audience. Thats right, I am acutally attempting to preach to the unconverted. Anti Dawa.

For some reason people who thoughtlessly accept and repeat the lies they'e been told about groups like the EDL being extreme right wing bigots don't seem to read long dense essays or history books.

It is also defined by what it doesn't discuss: no "rape jihad" alarmism (the rape is true but the jihad part ain't) and no death panel or birth certificate nonsense. I try to maintain a Nietzschian "beyond libral and conservative" pov.

Anyhoozle, here is the blog post:
http://truthiocity.blogspot.com/

I've only been doing it since the september mosque protest so any helpfull comments are appreciated.

I don't know the rules about this sort of thing so the baron can feel free to remove this post if it's not kosher.

Baron Bodissey said...

jjk999 --

Absolutely! Please link your stuff here (assuming it's on-topic). Dymphna and I encourage it.

Link-whoring at other people's blogs is how we got our start.

Baron Bodissey said...

P.S. I suggest you follow the instructions at the top of this comment window, and learn to make hot links. Believe me, it will increase the number of people who actually pay a visit.

jjk999 said...

Thank you Baron. The link to my blog is:

Truthiocity

The "Anti Facist League" in the header is a new group named so as to give the criminally missnamed UAF a well deserved poke in the eye and take back the concept for us who actually are anti facist. There's more to it but it's OT.

1389 said...

One of my recent blog posts covers the actual worldwide agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood:

Egypt: Populist Revolt or Muslim Brotherhood?

Anonymous said...

Hi Baron,

Thanks for your gracious comment. I respect you very much for providing a civil forum where people can intelligently discuss difficult ideas. I waited to respond in order to hear what others thought of your assessment.

To me, Islam equals violence whether that violence is overt or covert, visible or invisible, or, as I like to say, noisy violence or quiet violence. The largely quiet violence of Sharia Law is ever present in the lives of ALL people who experience its evil. Thus, the involuntary application of Sharia Law upon non-Muslims IS, in itself, a violent conquering of non-Muslims. Every non-Muslim Western woman forced to veil in order to avoid predatory Muslim gang rape and honor beatings has been violently conquered.

However, I do believe that the foundational documents of Islam - including the Koran, sura, and hadith - are explicit that violent jihad waged against non-Muslims is a perfectly acceptable - and even preferred - war tactic that secures the Muslim jihadis a guaranteed place in heaven whereas other peaceful Muslim actions do not.

Indeed, the following reference to violent jihad is an articulated goal from the long term Muslim Brotherhood Project:

•Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”

Anonymous said...

Who am I to argue with the results on the ground which show that the most DEVOUT Muslims are willing to sacrifice their own lives to wage violent jihad in the service of Allah?

I believe that initial violence is used to soften Western targets - giving Western leaders and peoples pause to attempt to moderate Islam in any way. This is WHY every Islamic border with a non-Muslim neighbor state is essentially a violent war zone replete with bombings, beheadings, kidnappings, beatings, harassment, and rapes of non-Muslims. Muslims announce their intentions to take over the whole world via violence.

The Muslim "reliance" on violence to gain and maintain power over non-Muslims is well-documented. Look at the way that Muslims treat the non-Muslims within Islamic borders. Non-Muslims experience personal violence perpetrated by Muslims as a matter of daily life.

Lastly, even in a fully Islamic world, Muslims will use their holy books to completely justify Muslim on Muslim violence. In Qur'an:9:5, Mohammed orders, "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

As the Iran-Iraq War illustrated, Muslims are willing and able to consider each other to be Muslim disbelievers - leaving the door open for infinite Muslim on Muslim violence where Shia and Sunni kill each other - in addition to other smaller sects - in an eternal quest to consolidate sectarian power under one ruling caliph (which Obama clearly hopes to be).

Baron Bodissey said...

Egghead --

I would never assert that Islam is not inherently violent, both in scripture and in practice. The converse is absolutely true.

My point is only that sharia requires Muslims to attempt dawah (“The Call”, or invitation to Islam) first. Only after the invitation is refused is violence lawful.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Osama Bin Laden have already invited the leaders of the United States to Islam, so violence against us is now lawful in that sense.

However, it is unlawful to launch a jihad against an infidel enemy before the Muslims are strong enough to be assured of victory. This restriction in Islamic law is explicit. That’s why the Muslim Brotherhood declared Osama Bin Laden takfiri: he launched his jihad against the United States before the Muslims were ready.

If the Muslim Brotherhood is successful, the terror attacks will ease off. They prefer to rely on persuasion, infiltration, and veiled intimidation for the time being. A massive attack on a Western city is actually contrary to their interests. They want no jihad in the West (Israel is another matter) until they are strong enough to defeat us.

We must be prepared to resist an Islamic invasion that is all but terror-free. It’s much easier to concentrate on the violent incursions of Islam, but this is truly not as serious a problem as “stealth” jihad —immigration (hijra), dawah, infiltration, and deception. In the end, those are what will do us in, and not the truck bombs and the exploding planes.

Hesperado said...

The flaws, as I see them, in Baron Bodissey's argument are so intricately complex, I will just tease them out one by one rather than try to construct a corresponding structure of argument. What makes them so complex is that they are interspersed with, and partake of, accuracies. So the one has to be carefully picked apart from the other.

Re: "the current dangerous stage that has been reached in the West’s response (or lack of response) to the worldwide advance of the Great Jihad"

Baron praised Egghead's analysis, then went on to note that there is "a single small error in one of Egghead’s comments"

to wit, that:

...the Koran orders Muslims to violently conquer ALL non-human Muslims and reclaim the whole world for Islam.

Baron writes:

"This is not precisely true, and in our current circumstances the threat of violent jihad is like the waving of a brightly-colored cloth to distract the audience’s eyes while the magician performs his deft sleight-of-hand."

First of all, it is true precisely enough that the Koran commands the violent subjugation of all non-Muslims:

8:39 -- And fight them until Fitna is no more, and religion is all for Allah.

(Note: The verb translated as "fight them" -- Waqatiloohum -- comes from the root QTL which primarily means "kill".)

Cf. also Suras 9, 8 and 2 which (among others) copiously supplement the verse I quoted, and abrogate the more apparently peaceful Suras one may find elsewhere in the Koran.

The rest of Baron's paragraph (and other remarks throughout his article) imply that violence is one subsidiary activity in Islam, more or less subordinated to the primary activity of non-violent subversion.

One complicated wrinkle is Baron's implied common-sensical assumption that violence is counter-productive to non-violence. This seems intuitively correct. If a group wanted to gain influence and was pretending to be "non-violent", you'd think they would try to avoid violence. However, I maintain that what is going on with Muslims and their enablement by Western PC PC is a massively counter-intuitive phenomenon: rather than increasingly alerting PC MC to the dangers of Islam (which centrally involves their violent culture), each new Muslim attack and Muslim plot (as well as each new Muslim riot and other acts of social violence) actually has the effect of decreasing the PC MC wariness about Islam, while at the same time increasing their solicitous defense of Muslims. This is not because of a "flag-waving" distraction function of the violence. It is much more complicated than that. It has in great part to do with Lawrence Auster's First Law of Majority-Minority Relations (the worse a non-white minority behaves, the more solicitous the white majority becomes, not less as reason would dictate).

In this case, we are dealing with the "minority" of Muslims perceived (with good reason) by PC MC to be ethnic and non-Western.

Secondly, Muslims, unlike all other minorities, are engaging in violence, and more or less veiled threats of violence on an astronomical scale, all over the globe. So aside from the PC MC instinct to be deferential to Muslims perceived as an Ethnic People (or a wonderfully diverse Rainbow of Ethnic Peoples from all over the non-Western world) lest we wicked white Westerners become guilty of our innate propensity to be "bigoted" or "racist", there is added a semi-conscious fear of Muslim violence -- known, semi-consciously, to be all too real a potential anywhere in the world at the drop of a fez or kaffiyeh the instant a Muslim is "offended".

[continued next]

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

You are incorrect. Everything I have said here is backed up by Islamic law.

A passage from ‘Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) is relevant to this discussion. In Book O, “Justice”, o9.16, Keller has this to say concerning truces:

Truces are permissible, not obligatory … for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad, whether globally or in a given locality,

That is, there has to be a reason to stop jihad, because you are required to do it if you can. There must be an acceptable reason for Muslims not to wage holy war.

Reliance of the Traveller continues:

There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah most high says, “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost.” (Qur’an 47:35).

He finishes by saying:

Interests that justify making a truce are such things as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or material, or the hope of an enemy becoming Muslim.

This is why Qaradawi and others called out Bin Laden and Al Qaeda -- under sharia, Muslims could not justify waging active jihad against Western targets.

I realize that there is a crucial disagreement here between Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood per se. But the above passages just go to show why some of the most respected Sunni authorities believe that fighting jihad within the West is at present unlawful -- that is, because the faithful are not strong enough to prevail.

When we have been softened up enough, jihad against us will be lawful -- and, in fact, mandatory.

Hesperado said...

[continued]

I.e., Muslim violence is actually helping stealth jihad.

This is a strange paradox, but one sees it happening all over the West since 911. The more that Muslims explode, the more that we the West bow down to Muslims and give them ever greater and greater access to do their Dawa and other forms of stealth jihad. Again, this is counter-intuitive, but it has been happening all over the West. And it's due in great part to the inherent incoherence of the PC MC mentality, based on Reverse Racism and all its interlocking parts.

Baron writes:

"Islam orders that the whole world be compelled to submit to Allah, but it does not compel violence to achieve that end."

The word "compel" is misleading. The fact is the Koran enjoins violence as the main manner of conquering the world.

Secondly, when we look at the way Muslims have actually behaved for most of their historical career, it has been through violence.

The difference is not between Violence and Stealth -- it is between Military Invasion (the way Muslims pursued Jihad against the West for its first 1,000 years from the 7th through the 17th century) and any other means when Military Invasion is temporarily unfeasible given Muslim weakness.

And those other means have been not exclusively non-violent stealth jihad, but a subtle synergy of both stealth and paramilitary violence.

This strategy of synergy is not new: it is simply a new adaptation of the old Islamic tactic of the razzia. In former times, when Muslims were stronger, they used it weaken the tegument of the West -- the various borders: Italy, France, even England (a couple of razzias even against Iceland!), and of course penetrating further and further into the southeastern flank of Europe, finally culminating in the spectacular failure -- after the spectacular victory against Byzantium in 1453 -- of Vienna in 1683, the titular namesake of this blog.

I.e., Muslims have been pursuing their supremacist expansionist jihad violently for most of their historical career, and they only moderated that when they became too weak vis-a-vis the spectacularly superior West beginning in the 17th century (and the disparity increased exponentially with every century after that) -- and we're supposed to turn that on its head and suppose, as Baron does, that Muslims are only avoiding major obvious frontal violence (i.e., military invasions) against the West not because they can't, but because it's their real plan all along?

No, the far likelier scenario is that Muslims in recent history, given their drastic inferiority on all fronts, are only pursuing obvious non-violence (i.e., the avoidance of actual military invasions) because they know they can't. Meanwhile, they are pursuing lower-level violence -- razzias, terror attacks, as a necessary part of their plan to wear us down with psychological terror, in concert with other forms of propaganda and social subversion. And, to boot, they get an unforeseen boon: our PC MC, which reacts to such razzias irrationally, by according them more -- not less -- deference and respect and invitations to come into our societies and set up more and more shop.

By now, it would be reasonable to suppose that Muslims have gotten wind of the West's irrationality (viz., PC MC incoherence), and are exploiting it. And exploiting it means they can continue to actually countenance, and enable, violent attacks on us -- as a way to enable their propaganda that they are non-violent!

It's working. Just look at Ft. Hood. Et al.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

You evidently missed my previous comment. Scroll up and look at it.

MB leaders would prefer that jihad violence in the USA be postponed until the Muslims here are strong enough to prevail.

MB leaders have deemed Al Qaeda unlawful (in Arabic, mind you) for launching jihad against America without having the ability to win it.

This is well-documented. I don't have time to try to find the references, but since you read Arabic, you should be able to find the originals.

You are in error. It's unfortunate, but true.

Hesperado said...

Baron, the Islamic tactic of truce precisely supports my argument: Islamic truce is a temporary pretense while they are weak. The baseline pursuit of violence is still normative, only put on hold while they are weak. You are trying to argue that the temporary tactic is actually dominant and supersedes violent conquest.

Further, there is no way to overcome a non-Muslim society other than through violence -- unless that non-Muslim society is colossally stupid or so backward it can be pushed over. I refuse to believe the West is that stupid or that backward. The evidence to the contrary is staggering, and only strangely disaffected Westerners indulge in the contrary.

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

Then we are in complete agreement. I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me.

Obviously, the truce is indeed temporary. As spelled out in the Koran and Reliance, truce is required if Muslims are too weak to win. If they are strong enough, then jihad is required. This is well-attested in Islamic law.

Al Qaeda and related groups broke off from the Muslim Brotherhood over this very issue — they read the relevant ayats differently. The leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood have accordingly pronounced them takfiris. From the point of view of the MB, jihad in the United States is premature. They want to wait for dawah, infiltration, subversion, and hijra to make us weak enough and the Muslims strong enough. Then, and only then, will it be time for jihad. Jihad is an obligation, and as soon as the Muslims in the USA are strong enough, they must fight it.

The above is, and has been, my point. If you disagree with it in its general form, then you are mistaken. Wiser heads than mine have demonstrated it to be true, some of them the finest scholars of Islamic law that we have on our side.

Anonymous said...

Hi Hesperado: Thanks for the cogent explanation and follow-up.

Hi Baron: Based on your own comments, what's my error? :)

Note my exact wording (which was chosen based on the distinct impression that Takuan Seiyo's next essay will suggest the establishment of a break-away non-Muslim nation state run by non-Muslim Americans - which is where I thought that I already lived in the USA (pre-Obama):

"The problem with running from Muslims is that, like any other predator, Muslims will give chase - particularly because the Koran orders Muslims to violently conquer ALL non-human Muslims and reclaim the whole world for Islam. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that Westerners will resist Islamization without significant bloodshed on both sides is naive."

With the full admission that the Reliance of the Traveller is a tremendously important jihad (and anti-jihad) resource, I want to point out that the Center for the Study of Political Islam states:

"All of Islam’s political doctrine is found in three sacred texts, the Trilogy:

• The Koran - the words of the Islamic god Allah, as reported by Mohammed
• The Sira - the life of Mohammed
• The Hadith - the traditions of Mohammed, governing every aspect of daily life, great and small"

My main point is that you can run, and you can hide, but you cannot escape violence because eventually violent Muslims will come after YOU - as explicitly commanded by Mohammed in the intrinsically violent Koran. To wit, Islam always reverts to violence.

I consider Islam to be the "date rape" of religions. Even if the guy seems nice at first, the guy still violently rapes you in the end - because control and power and violence are what it's all about for the guy to be satisfied.

I suppose that we might try outer space to evade violent Muslims - because my impression is that Mohammed only ordered Muslims to re-conquer the Earth for Allah! Then again, Obama has instructed NASA to work with Muslims - for some reason or another!

Sagunto said...

Egghead,

"I consider Islam to be the "date rape" of religions."

Very well put, I add that to my list of quotes.

Hesperado, Baron, Egghead -

I think that the Baron is absolutely right where he discusses the tactics of certain MB factions. I also think that both Egghead and Hesperado have provided an all encompassing overview of the general strategy of Islam, of how different factions work in tandem without necessarily agreeing on tactics, how the interplay with PC MC works counter-intuitively, and what's more, they've put all of it in both its current and historical context. Just in a few posts. This has been a very valuable thread to me.

I think that Hesperado has made a strong (and for me, compelling) case for considering the stealth and violent jihad as parts of one and the same system. I don't mean to take anything away from that cogent analysis, by pointing out even wider implications.

I'd like to submit that the total system of Islam, viewed from the perspective of how it actually works, or plays out in the West (and elsewhere), consists of all Muslims who practise Islam. Islam is a one package deal, no matter what the stated intentions are of this or that faction, let alone the "silent maj..eh, group" of Muslims who are sometimes described as "peaceful" by certain PC MC analysts, perhaps in gratitude of them not blowing up people and stuff all the time.

So what I propose here is looking at Islam, not from the perspective of stated intentions of various sub-groups, which would guarantee an endless list of exegetical exercises (very interesting and important in its own right) demanding us to take up the role of semi-experts on Islamic Law and so on, but consider the whole of it as a system, effecting systemic corrosion and decay, and judge it by how it works towards destroying freedom all over the world in societies playing host to this parasitical foe.

Viewed from the perspective that I propose, it doesn't even matter what so-called "moderate" Muslims' intentions or characteristics are (e.g., whether they are all "evil" or just "quietist" people, or whatever). Being Muslim is being part of the system of Islam as a whole, and just guarding their women not to defect from the tribe while breeding out Westerners with even "the best of intentions" [/sarc], is enough already to make them our existential foes.

Thanks to all for an extremely interesting discussion and, as always, kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Sagunto! I am honored.

To me, Islamic violence is an issue of timing. The violence is always present in real time or via threat because the Islam intends to create eternal slaves to Allah. Even a "heavenly" slave owner like Allah must always use either violence or the threat of violence to control present slaves and create future slaves....

This is WHY Muslims gravitate towards forced marriage, child marriage, cousin marriage, and polygamous marriage. All of these Muslim practices enslave women in the service of the Islamic goal to outbreed and thus enable Muslims to overtake the waning populations of everyone else on Earth.

Sagunto said...

Egghead -

The honour is all mine, thank you.

Now allow me expand just a little on the point I was trying to make, because I'd like to explain why, as an extension of the debate, it is indeed important for us to discuss Muslim violence, but also the perceived peacefulness of so-called "moderate" Muslims (and I'm not talking of stealth jihadis here, nor of the lies entrenched in PC MC propaganda).

The "exegetical exercises" I referred to, are a good and necessary first step to confront the world, and Muslims themselves, with the truth (let's not forget that many Muslims don't have a first grasp of the actual content of the Koran and so on, though they generally accept the dictum of "Muslims good, unbelievers bad"). With it comes all of the explaining, the quoting of Suras, the debates with PC MC journalists and Muslim advocacy groups that people like Robert Spencer are engaged in, and so on and so forth. Also with it come some politicians walking a fine line reaching out to more and more people still sitting on the fence, who have some notion of "fishiness" about Islam. With that come all the discussions about "best practise" and tactics within the CJ initiative. So be it. This is all part of an educational programme in kind, created and perpetuated at grass roots level, trying to bypass the MSM via the internet (and other relatively free media) and thus inform evermore wider spheres of the general public with the truth about Islam.

I think that this programme is still in the process of filling in some very important parts, like for instance a truly in-depth psychological and (if you will) anthropological analysis of the illustrious and highly ephemeral phenomenon of the "Moderate Muslim". I would very much like a fine expert such as Nicolai Sennels to ditch his flawed and outdated Club of Rome world-view, and foster a project on the largely forgotten group of one half of all Muslims, the Muslim women. I submit that a genuine interest in "moderate" Muslims should by all means make them a prime target as a group to be thoroughly researched. So far, Muslim women have mainly vanished into the background of ongoing discussions, dominated by violent or stealth male jihadists, only to gain incidental prominence as "victims" (and victims only) of Islam, e.g. in the odd Amnesty report (when even they can no longer deny the many stones flying around in Muslim majority lands), or as "promises" for integration in PC MC government reports (see this photograph for instance). I think researching this group and, on a more general level, providing well researched arguments as to why "moderate" Muslims are a threat to our freedom just as well, is extremely important. I already have thought of a title for the publication: "The Quest for the Moderate Muslim" (suggestions for an explanatory subtitle are welcome, like: "reseach into the Holy Grail of progressive politics", or "coming to grips with the most sanctified illusion of politically correctness". Obvious room for improvement here).

But this is only a first step, and I think some of us must already look ahead and proceed to acknowledge that the whole of Islam is really a one package deal. That supports the next project of viewing Islam primarily as a machine or system with a certain modus operandi, creating predictable results for freedom everywhere it is allowed to operate. This perspective will, in my view, put an end to perpetual debates and discussions over the stated or inferred intentions of violent sync non-violent jihadis, activist "vs" non-activist Muslims and worst of all, the MM chimera of "moderate" Muslims, et hoc genus omne.

What are your thoughts on the matter?

Kind regs from Amsterdam
Sag.

Baron Bodissey said...

Egghead --

No error is involved, really. This is a matter of emphasis, of what we choose to focus on.

You said, “…the Koran orders Muslims to violently conquer ALL non-human Muslims and reclaim the whole world for Islam.” This is quite true.

However, under current circumstances in the United States, the Koran also commands Muslims to wait before attempting violent conquest.

This is important, because if the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood has its way, the truck bombs and Sudden Jihad Syndrome attacks will stop. This will remove all the rationale for anti-terrorist actions by the authorities, and the stealth jihad may then continue unimpeded.

Muslim violence tends to draw our attention away from the fact that the vast majority of the Muslim conquest proceeds quietly, peacefully, and without violence. Islam gained control of Europe’s political process (at the margin) with virtually no violence — by the time 7/7 occurred, British Muslims had already put themselves in a position to swing elections in their favor, especially in areas controlled by Labour. It required not a single terrorist act for them to accomplish this feat.

I think that focusing on violence may cause some people to miss the point, which is that the non-violent expansion of Islam in our societies is much more dangerous than the acts of violence.

This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t discuss the violence. Nor does it mean that the Koran doesn’t command violence.

But the Koran also commands Muslims to wait until they have enough strength before they make the attack. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood is attempting to do right now — not to forego violence, but to postpone it.

Fortunately for all of us, Islamic ideology tends to induce crazed psychopathic violence in its adherents, so that they commit acts of grotesque violence anyway, despite the Koranic injunctions against premature jihad.

Without this tendency, we would probably never have woken up to what is happening.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

We are in agreement only in one respect (that stealth is a tactic pursued by necessity when Muslims are too weak to pursue major violence), but you seem to come to a variety of different conclusions than I do.

One such conclusion you expressed thusly:

"...if the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood has its way, the truck bombs and Sudden Jihad Syndrome attacks will stop."

As I already argued, this appears logical and intuitive, but the reality is illogical and counter-intuitive. The Muslim Brotherhood thus would be rather stupid if they did think the way you hypothesize, since, as I have pointed out and as anyone can plainly see, the perpetration of attacks by Muslims all over the world including in the West, and the exposed and then foiled planning of same, have not only done nothing to wake up the West to the danger of Muslims in order to take measures against them, they have in fact had the paradoxically perverse effect of increasing Western solicitousness of Muslims, thus further enabling Muslims to implant themselves more deeply into Western societies at all levels.

You are thinking hypothetically based on logic; the reality is illogical.

And even if the Muslim Brotherhood were thinking as you hypothesize, it obviously hasn't stopped Muslims from perpetrating, as well as planning, multitudes of attacks, in addition to various other forms of violence, all over the world and within the West.

I realize that Muslims are dim; but they can't be that dim, so as to be blind to the fact that they can literally get away with murder and still continue to be invited into the West with open arms.

Stealth Jihad = the Good Cops; Violent Jihad = the Bad Cops. The whole point of the Good Cop/Bad Cop strategy is that it only works when the gullible victim thinks they are not working together. Baron and many others in the anti-Islam movement (Spencer, et al.) are actually reinforcing that crux of the strategy, even if they do approach it from an angle opposite to the way PC MC does.

I realize the probable motivation of speculators like Baron and Spencer: they are frustrated because the West is not paying sufficient attention to stealth jihad. However, the corrective to that lack of attention is not to go overboard with claims that

a) stealth jihad is more dangerous than violent jihad

and

b) stealth jihad is not in collusion with violent jihad because violent jihad would actually hinder stealth jihad.

This theorizing leads to twisting the reality into knots, whereby we tend to construct

1) an Islam that is primarily not violent yet is still a threat

and, closely related to #1

2) a West that can be actually threatened by a strategy that is pernicious in ethics but non-violent in actions.

#2 assumes that most Westerners would either allow, out of colossal stupidity, or actually enable, out of evil, the takeover of their own West by a system that is monstrously pernicious and contrary to all the West's own virtues and values.

Hesperado said...

Baron,

Do you have a source for your claim that the Muslim Brotherhood have pronounced al Qaeda takfir?

Baron Bodissey said...

Hesperado --

I’ll take your last question first:

Do you have a source for your claim that the Muslim Brotherhood have pronounced al Qaeda takfir?

I have read it. I think it was Qaradawi. I don’t have time to try to find the source. It’s OK with me if you don’t credit what I say.

There was also that case very recently in Belgium (I think it was). One Salafist condemned the other in a phone call for advocating jihad when it was obviously too early. This is a frequent argument among Islamic zealots — those who advocate patience and preparation vs. the hotheads who want action NOW.

* * *

Before I tackle the substance of you arguments, I must point out two major fallacies which you have employed here (and in the past). These are really meta-errors, that is, errors in the structure of your argumentation:

(1) To assume that only one set of conclusions is possible, based on the evidence at hand: “…you seem to come to a variety of different conclusions than I do.”

Yes, I do. This does not mean that I am wrong, nor does it mean that you are wrong.

“You are thinking hypothetically based on logic; the reality is illogical.”

The first part of that sentence is not true. I understand as well as you do that the reality is illogical. This does not mean it cannot be evaluated, nor that working conclusions cannot be drawn.

What it does mean is that is possible to come to two or more sets of conclusions based on the same observable data. If reality is illogical, then multiple conclusions, even based on the same set of observations, are possible. We all simply have to live with the resulting ambiguity.

Under these circumstances, to believe that one has arrived at the only possible correct conclusions, and not to keep an open mind about the possibility of other equally correct conclusions, is a grave error indeed.

The data are so intricate and varied that conclusions inherently depend on the subjective perceptions of the analyst, his predispositions, training, background, etc.

Which brings us to:

(2) Mind-reading: “I realize the probable motivation of speculators like Baron and Spencer: they are frustrated because the West is not paying sufficient attention to stealth jihad.”

Believing that you understand the motivations of others is a grievous error. You do not understand my motivations at all, as evidenced by previous comments, when you were completely wrong about what motivated me.

In this case, my motivation, as usual, is to look at the data at hand and try to construct a “best-fit” analysis based on it, remembering that the information available to me is only partial, and sometimes contradictory, and that my own capacity to judge is limited by ordinary human flaws.

Anything else is sheer speculation on your part, and you are generally wrong about such matters.

Now to some specific points:

[to be continued]

Baron Bodissey said...

[continued]

Now to some specific points:

…the perpetration of attacks by Muslims all over the world including in the West, and the exposed and then foiled planning of same, have not only done nothing to wake up the West to the danger of Muslims in order to take measures against them…

This is plainly not true. Many thousands of people are now awake to the danger who were still asleep on September 10, 2001. I am one of them.

You have only to look at the incidence in public discourse of words and phrases such as sharia, Eurabia, Muslim Brotherhood, etc. to know that awareness of what is going on has greatly increased. We are obviously still a small minority, but our numbers are in the millions. This is a result of repeated Muslim terror attacks. This number would be much smaller if there had been no such attacks. And I submit that the Muslim Brotherhood is well aware of this fact.

…they have in fact had the paradoxically perverse effect of increasing Western solicitousness of Muslims…

This is quite true, but it is true of only part of the population. This predisposition is much more prevalent among political leaders, media people, academics, civic leaders, and so on — plus those who depend upon one of these groups for their livelihood. I know from experience that there is a huge contingent of people, both here and in Europe, that entertains exactly the opposite attitude towards Muslims. Most of these people are intelligent enough to keep quiet about their opinions in public, however — they understand the consequences.

And even if the Muslim Brotherhood were thinking as you hypothesize, it obviously hasn't stopped Muslims from perpetrating, as well as planning, multitudes of attacks, in addition to various other forms of violence, all over the world and within the West.

This is true, but so what? The more intelligent Muslim leaders who plan for the long term — the authors of the “Explanatory Memorandum”, for example — wish that their fellow zealots who become violent would not do that, because it is too soon.

Islam, however, is inherently violent, and it tends to create thousands (if not millions) of rabid hotheads who always want to start the jihad right now. It is to these fine fellows that we owe our increased awareness of the nature of the problem.

Stealth Jihad = the Good Cops; Violent Jihad = the Bad Cops.

I do not accept your premise here: “Good cop/bad cop” plays no part in my reasoning. Both groups are just as bad. One draws our attention with openly violent behavior, while the other skulks along unseen behind the arras.

a) stealth jihad is more dangerous than violent jihad

Yes, I agree with (a). The stealth version is more dangerous, at least under current circumstances.

b) stealth jihad is not in collusion with violent jihad because violent jihad would actually hinder stealth jihad.

This is not my assertion. I believe that stealth jihad occasionally finds violent jihad useful, and is happy to support it. This is especially true of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine, a.k.a. Hamas. The closer you get to majority Muslim areas, the more promotion of violent jihad by all factions concerned. Israel, now 20% Muslim, is ripe for violence, as are India and Nigeria. France and the Netherlands are also on the radar. But the savvier MB people would prefer to hold off for a while longer in the USA.

I think they prefer the veiled threat: “Don’t get Muslims mad — notice what they do in Israel (or India, or Nigeria) when they’re aroused!”

[to be continued]

Baron Bodissey said...

[continued]

This theorizing leads to twisting the reality into knots, whereby we tend to construct

1) an Islam that is primarily not violent yet is still a threat


I didn’t do that. That is your construct, not mine.

The rest of what you said is based on that construct, so your conclusions are faulty, since your premises are faulty.

I don’t have any more time for this now. Go ahead and tell me I’m wrong again; I’m used to it.

But your reasoning faculties are no better than mine. It’s just that different sets of conclusions are possible based on the same set of data.

I acknowledge that your conclusions may be correct, and mine may be wrong. Who knows?

EscapeVelocity said...

"Do you have a source for your claim that the Muslim Brotherhood have pronounced al Qaeda takfir?"


Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on America; Will America Notice?

Barry Rubin

Hesperado said...

Baron,

The verification of the pronunciation of takfir is important because it is a formal official legal event among Muslims.

You couched your implied claim -- that the Muslim Brotherhood (if ot other Muslims) are pursuing stealth in contradistinction to violence -- in terms implying official Islamic doctrine, and bolstered that with the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood had pronounced takfir on al Qaeda.

Pronouncing takfir according to Islam has to be done according to official Islamic methods, involving Islamic law and clerics.

Your addendum to the effect that -- "[o]ne Salafist condemned the other in a phone call for advocating jihad when it was obviously too early" -- does not sound like the official Islamic method which takfir is pronounced: it just sounds like one Muslim guy venting his opinion on the phone to another Muslim guy.

The whole point of takfir is that it is an official legal event in Islam; it is not valid when it is just the opinions of Muslims.

That's why it's important to verify whether it has occurred in this regard.

My understanding is that Osama and Zawahiri have not been pronounced takfir by any Islamic body qualified to do so -- and that that fact shows their respect for them (for takfir is effectively calling a fellow Muslim an apostate, not only the supreme humiliation, but also a death sentence).

And, beyond everything I have just stated above, it doesn't matter if we found that the Muslim Brotherhood officially declared that they are against al Qaeda and against violence. We can't believe them no matter what they say to us.

Zenster said...

jjk999: I cannot agree that the MB does not currently make extensive use of violence or terrorist groups.

1. The groups that split off from the MB right before becoming violent only split off in order to provide the MB deniability.
2. The MB makes use of the violence and extreme rhetoric of terrorist groups to deceptively present its representatives and goals as a moderate alternative.
3. They make use of the news grabbing violence and rhetoric of violent groups by making their advances quietly and under the radar. While we are distracted by one maniac battering down the front door, another is using lockpicks to sneak in the back.
4. "Moderates", claiming to be unrelated to the violent groups, nevertheless ask for concessions immediately after attacks, what security professionals refer to as "slipstreaming".
5. They have exactly the same goals.


With all this clarification, it is worth a journey back to re-examine jjk999’s breakdown, which remains quite cogent.

It is a significant error to accept anything the Muslim Brotherhood says or does on face value. The advantages of kitman and taqiyya are too strong for them to be left unexploited. Let’s face it, if it served their ends, the MB would declare their own grandmothers as takfir.

Moreover, throughout the vast majority of Islam’s history, its goals have been reached through the almost exclusive use of a single tool: VIOLENCE. Despite repeated challenges, not one person has been able to identify any culture on earth that has voluntarily adopted Islam without some degree of inherent violence being involved.

Baron Bodissey: The more intelligent Muslim leaders who plan for the long term — the authors of the “Explanatory Memorandum”, for example — wish that their fellow zealots who become violent would not do that, because it is too soon.

Islam, however, is inherently violent, and it tends to create thousands (if not millions) of rabid hotheads who always want to start the jihad right now. It is to these fine fellows that we owe our increased awareness of the nature of the problem.

Curiously enough, in Dan Brown’s book, “Demons & Angels”, there is a passage that deals with terrorism: (page 173)

”Terrorism,” the professor had lectured, “has a singular goal. What is it?”
“Killing innocent people?” a student ventured.
“Incorrect. Death is only a
byproduct of terrorism.”
“A show of strength?”
“No. A weaker persuasion does not exist.”
“To cause terror?”

“Concisely put. The goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within … causing unrest in the masses. Terrorism is
not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.” [emphasis added]

It might be wise to consider that what we are witnessing is a tenuous balance being reached between a relatively new entity, the Muslim Brotherhood with its stealth jihad, and the comparatively historical or traditional Muslim jihadist who more often resorts to common terrorism.

Traditionally, Islam was obliged to rely upon simple force of numbers in its military conquests. To be sure, deceit played a role as did the ploy of hudna (a temporary cessation of hostilities) but various diplomatic feints did not so often carry the day.

It was only in our more modern times of elected representation that the MB’s strategy obtained pertinence. In the monarchic and feudal eras, popular opinion carried little to no weight. This is not so today.

Given this, it is only now that Dan Brown’s admonition assumes its true dimensions:

Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.

Terrorism is the most direct and conspicuous − not to mention, cost effective − means of removing that faith and it has done a splendid job of it around the world.

Zenster said...

[continued]

For that reason, it is truly difficult to believe that the MB has assumed this scholarly approach to global strategy and vehemently eschews terrorist violence. Make no mistake that they are still more than happy to appear as though they discourage violence, but the historical record continues to support violent terrorism as Islam’s key lever.

After all, true Islamic scholasticism perished with closure on the door of ijtihad (independent Qur’anic analysis). What now passes for scholarly decrees is nothing short of laughable. It is also a direct reflection of how little “wiggle room” or space for useful permutation there is in Islamic law and culture in general.

In light of the foregoing, it is difficult not to dismiss dawa as an outdated formal custom that is upheld out of more of a sense of etiquette than genuine consideration. It’s as if impatient Muslims can say − after a single formulaic attempt − “Well, we’ve exhausted any polite means of doing this … now, no more Mister Nice Guy.”

One key issue that all parties in this discussion have observed − or most likely recognize − is that Islam remains intensely illogical.

It is this one overarching trait that makes it so difficult to imagine that the MB is doing anything more than paying lip service with their protests against terrorism. As jjk999’s list − that compares the MB and free lance terrorists − notes in point five, “They have exactly the same goals.

Once the MB’s position is salted to taste with a clear acknowledgement of taqiyya, much of their otherwise careful logic falls to the ground. What’s more, the visceral joy that so many Muslims, especially supremacist ones (e.g., the MB), get from imposing physical violence and slaughter upon the kuffar makes it even more difficult to imagine that the MB is so happy to dispense with it, even temporarily.

To be sure that some of the MB is archly plotting to this complex degree of deferred gratification. That said, all through history a principal hallmark of civilization has been the practice of deferred gratification and Islam is anything but civilized by any definition. This is what makes it so difficult to attribute such well-thought-out planning and strategy to these vicious barbarians.

It could just as easily be projection upon the part of us Westerners to think that the MB is being so articulate. Too many other longstanding traits of male Muslim behavior militate against them adopting such restrained conduct. Not that they are utterly incapable of it but that too few of them manage to constrain themselves with any conspicuous regularity. If anything, the exact opposite is true.

Hesperado: And, beyond everything I have just stated above, it doesn't matter if we found that the Muslim Brotherhood officially declared that they are against al Qaeda and against violence. We can't believe them no matter what they say to us.

As Old Bill would say, "Therein lies the rub." The Law of Parsimony almost dictates that we must assume that Muslims lie about everything. Adopting this single approach clarifies so much more than it diffuses.

Hesperado said...

My main point, which few here are grasping is that stealth jihad and violent jihad are not at odds with each other, but actually help each other.

Baron citing those who have woke up in the West (as apparent proof that violent jihad would in fact be logically counter-productive for the pursuit of stealth jihad) does not vitiate the overwhelming massive fact that throughout the West those who make policy have been becoming more solicitous of Muslims in general -- and thus unwittingly giving them more access to the West - not less. The few who have been waking up are not yet anywhere close to having the influence to being able to change that policy; and indeed continue to be marginalized, when they are not being downright vilified (if not sometimes even criminally prosecuted). So my point stands: violent jihad has been paradoxically, perversely, but nevertheless effectively, helping stealth jihad, and continues to do so.

So, unless the Muslim Brotherhood leadership (and the leadership of the 1,001 other Islamic jihadist organizations around the world) are remarkably stupid, they would have no need to dial down -- let alone stifle altogether as Baron implies (however "temporarily") -- violent jihad.

Anonymous said...

Sagunto, It's an impossibly busy day for me, but I will try to answer your question tomorrow night USA time. Thanks!

jjk999 said...

Dan Brown quote provided by Zenster:

“Concisely put. The goal of terrorism is to create terror and fear. Fear undermines faith in the establishment. It weakens the enemy from within … causing unrest in the masses. Terrorism is not an expression of rage. Terrorism is a political weapon. Remove a government’s façade of infallibility, and you remove its people’s faith.” [emphasis added]

That goes to the heart of something I have been thinking about today regarding the MB activism groups who were at work as far back 9/12 against the potential victimization of muslims as a result of anger over terrorism. I thought at the time they were just nieve but well meaning young people who wanted to be activists and used this as a good excuse. I have since learned otherwise.

I would like libral minded people to better understand that the terrorist groups and the islamic interest activist groups are actually created by the exact same umbrella group and are in fact working together.

On one hand we have violent terrorists who kill and threaten. On the other we have a bunch of leftist attracting youthfull appearing groups telling us that we are genocidal bigots if we react at all to what the terrorists do. They say that anti terror innitiatives and concearn over the radicalization of young muslims by forign interests will lead to a holocaust against all muslims (I actually saw adverts attracting left leaning people to the pro mosque rally this past 9/11 actually said that an anti muslim holocaust was imminant if Pamala Gellar's group was not confronted).

The quote above illustrates to me that both the terrorists and the groups that claim to be interested in civil rights are both working together in a campagn of subversion.

Subversion isn't dirty hippies destroying america by smoking pot and refusing to get partriotic haircuts. Unionizing in order to get a fair wage is likewise not subversion.

Subversion is a military strategy discussed by Sun Tzu and used by the Romans. One country sends in propogandists to another to verbally attack everything the enemey country believes in. They target the population and/or the leadership. The campagn of propoganda and influence carries on untill their unity breaks apart and they are not a threat to your countries interests (anyone remember Wormtoung?). Sun Tzu describes it as an invasion without battles.

The Soviet Union did exactly this to the west during the cold war. Soviet leaders have often mentioned to each other that there would never be open war with America because America was dying a death "from a thousand cuts" and they didn't just mean 3rd world entagnlements.

They meant that they were filling america with, you guessed it, subversives. These subversives made a miryad of bogus rights groups and infiltrators who tried to take over or influence legitimante rights groups like that of MLK Jr.

They aren't the same as legit social change groups that worked for improvements in the quality of life. The purpose of the specifically subversive groups was to split the population apart by constant demonstrations rather then to actually achieve any positive change. That is Sun Tzu's definition of Subversion in action.

The Muslim Brotherhood has studied soviet subversion tactics and has been implementing them in western countries. So:

1. Terrorist groups split off from the MB and engage in violence in order to make the populace lose faith in its government. Subversion.

2. The MB has created a myrad of bogus activist groups in america who openly attack the host countries belief system and policies both forign and domestic Subversion.

So: not only do the terrorists and the activist groups have the same goal of political supremacy, they are both facets of a united strategy of political subversion.

SO: The MSA and other groups that appear to be civil rights groups are actually working in conjunction with the terrorists for the purpose of religious supremacy.

jjk999 said...

(Continued)

One of the cheif purposes of subversion is to split the population of the target country apart. These groups specifically tarteted librals in order to split them apart from conservative on an issue that they would otherwise naturally come together on.

That is vitally important for libral people who are attracted to these groups for good reasons to understand. The unfortunate part is that librals are just as loathe as conservatives to admit to themselves that they've been successfully manipulated.

It is vitally important to work to split off the librals and leftists from the closet jihadists just as the closet jihadists have worked to split the librals and leftists from those whome they would naturally have been united with on these issues.

If you type in "I am Kurt Wilders" on youtube you will see that it's not impossible.

WHEW! Why did something that was 2 sentances in my head take so long to write out?

(this teensy responce window makes it hard to rewrite.)

jjk999 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

jjk999 --

Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. Your comment violated the last of these rules. We keep a PG-13 blog, and exclude foul language, explicit descriptions, and epithets. This is why I deleted your comment.

Use of asterisks is an appropriate alternative.

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

jjk999 said...

(continued-ish) On the subject of subversion and The Muslim Brotherhood.

A proffesional in the security establishment has let it drop "casually" in conversation recently that Mr Rauf has some things in common with widely suspected Muslim Brotherhood operatives. The head of the MB in egypt said in an interview to a muslim interviewer that the MB does make use of people who are not on paper as being members.

The 51 in Park51 does NOT corruspond to it's street address, which goes up to 49. So Why is 51 in the title? Religious groups often attatch significance to the numbers of chapters or passages of their books and use these numbers to imply meanings to each other. Could the number 51 be significant in the Koran?

You bet your suicide vest it is.

Chapter 51 of the Koran is The Winnowing Wind.

THE. WINNOWING. WIND.

Here are variously translated passages from chapter 51.

Verse 41 "We sent the fatal wind against them." (Pickthal)

I think that bears repeating.

WE SENT THE FATAL WIND AGAINST THEM

verse 42
It spared naught that it reached, but made it (all) as dust (Pickthal)

MADE IT ALL AS DUST

Verse 46
"We destroyed the people of Nooh; they were indeed a sinning nation" (Muhammad Aquib Qadri)

ie WE DESTROYED A SINNING NATION

verse 49 (Yusuf Ali trans):
And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction.

But this one is significant in terms of Imam Rauf, The Muslim Brotherhood and subversion:

Verse 45
So they were neither able to stand up, nor were they able to take revenge. (Mohammed Aqib Qadri)

or

So they were not able to rise up, nor could they defend themselves (Shakir)

Are we to beleive that the man who knows the koran by heart and who wrote "A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11" Chose the name Park51 because his group would hopefully buy the building next to theirs in the future? [epithets redacted]

Freedom of worship is one thing but naming your clubhouse after a passage in your clubs manual that's about blowing up an enemy country and then preventing them from reacting is something else all together. The purpose of that Mosque is to inspire violent conquest from without and foment subversion from within.

It's not the "all faiths live together piecefully" Mosque.

It's the "We'll kill whoever we like and there's nothing you can do about it" Mosque.

jjk999 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Baron Bodissey said...

jjk999 --

I don't have time to redact your comments anymore. Clean up your act. From now on I'm just deleting them.

jjk999 said...

I am very sorry and embarrassed
for the inapropriate language. I'm glad that the moderator pays attention to the comments and will attempt to maintain a more mature use of language in future.

Zenster said...

jjk999, your very first comment made it fairly clear that you have material of worth to contribute.

Thank you for re-quoting the Dan Brown passage, as it is something that I found to be rather instructive despite coming from an author who's popularity doesn't necessarily recommend himself to me.

Fortunately, you seem rather in earnest so, please permit me to make a few suggestions.

First of all, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
Nothing can replace sincere input.

Next, consider running your work through a spell-check before posting. It won't catch all grammatical or syntactic errors but it will clean up common mistakes so that your contributions will take on a more professional air.

Finally, as you have already noticed, please comply with the Baron's guidelines for participation here at Gates of Vienna. They are in place for some very solid reasons and, when followed in good faith, allow a truly splendid degree of latitude with respect to individual expression.

On a personal note, welcome to Gates of Vienna. I hope that you will find it every bit as enlightening as I have. The counter-jihad eagerly awaits, and needs, the participation of new minds like yours.

Here's hoping for the best.

Zenster

PS: Email the Baron with a polite request and he might reply with a copy of your deleted comment so that you can edit it for re-submission.

jjk999 said...

I have no wish to hijack this thread or put forward the assertion, as yet unproven by life, that the world revolves around me but I must thank Zenster for his kind and encouraging comments.

The pg-13 policy is an excellent one. We do not want a site we respect to look bad or it's quality of disourse to deteriorate and we want to be taken seriously ourselves. I don't know about the rest of you but I was at 9/11 and wish to have a postive effect in the best way that I can. That way seems to be with the pen rather then the sword so it behooves me to develop the use of that weapon in an effective a way as possible.

Now back to the trenches! Do you dogs want to live forever?

I contend that the axe metaphor is more apt then the Baron may have intended. Like an axe they and similar groups have used their infiltrators and subversives to SPLIT potential adversaries away from each other. Muslim from non Muslims, citizen from government, conservative from liberal, Republican from Republican etc. Wherever there is a potentially threatening group they use various tactics to create wedges and split it's members and potential mambers apart like a kufar from his head.

That's exactly why someone chose the name u a f - to cast the e d l as facists and split moderat or libral people away from them. And why they fielded those young socialists carrying signs decrying racism at the 9/11 anti mosque rally.

There are people trying to counter this but that may not enough. I think it is important to work aggressively to split left wingers and liberals away from those subversive groups. One way is to stress, indeed proclaim loudly what The Baron said above about the connection between the subversives and the terrorists. The thing to do is to get the message out beyond talking to fox or being a speaker at a college. The people who's sympathies need to be split off from the subversive groups don't watch fox and don't think much of people who do. Taking liberals and left leaning people from the clutches of the Islamic interests might go some small way towards blunting one side of that axe. But how to launch a stealth anti jihad? A propoganda and influence campagn that will be under the radar of those that need to be weakened?

Anonymous said...

Hi Sagunto, This is the first time that I have had a chance to get back on the computer, and I am still short on time and unsure that you will check back here. :)

In answer to you question above about treating Islam as a comprehensive system: A long time ago, maybe a year or more, I wrote (what I thought) was a wonderfully detailed email to Robert Spencer explaining just that concept. Spencer never replied - although he did reply to a few other emails that I sent him at that time, and I believe that he is nominally aware of who I am and what I stand for. Spencer has been well-advised (by me anyway) of the logical ways that Islam and ALL practicing Muslims work in tandem to subdue non-Muslim infidels at various stages of conquest.

If I were to speculate - and Baron says that commenters often read his motivations inaccurately, so I realize that any speculation is dangerous - my thought is that Spencer might be afraid to go "all in" against Islam and ALL practicing Muslims because 1) that would garner him even more and more serious death threats than he already faces, and 2) that would alienate "regular" folk who are uninitiated to the harsh ugly reality of Islam and ALL practicing Muslims as unvarnished by PC MC propaganda. I would wager that Spencer feels that it is better to start interested people off slowly and let them educate themselves to the ultimate conclusion that Islam and ALL practicing Muslims are incompatible with Western civilization - radical but true.

At some future point, on another related thread, I can elaborate more.

Also, I always think of the Roman soldiers who inter-married with conquered cultures to create ROMAN stability in those cultures. Our best bet in militarily entering Muslim countries MIGHT have been to encourage intermarriage between our male soldiers and Muslim women. Certainly, the Muslim women would have been better off, BUT one problem might have been that all of their "women" are really girls who are married off too young to institute such a policy.

In any case, this seems to be a Muslim wartime (or Muslim majority) strategy whereby Muslims REFUSE to recognize non-Muslim marriages and capture or kidnap non-Muslim women to enslave or forcibly "marry" to Muslim men - after a forcible Muslim religious conversion, of course.

Sagunto said...

Good(whatever time) Egghead -

You can rest assured that I will check back whenever there's promise of a follow-up comment by you. A great help in all that is the Blogger service to keep me posted of all future comments in a certain thread.

What can I say other than that I fully agree with the points you raise. I even like your little excercise in constructive speculation and submit that it nicely complements my point about the two phases in educating the public about Islam.
Step one: provide people with the truth about Islam and Mohammed. Step two: show the already educated how the total system of Islam works without there being a need for some kind of plan or "manifesto" apart from the doctrinal trias (KHS) and Islamic jurisprudence. Of course there are plans and (semi)-hidden agendas, like those of the Muslim Brotherhood, but that's not the point.

My main assertion is that because Muslim culture works like a second nature, the reflexes of the Muslim populus always work to foster combined forces that operate to subvert, corrode and destroy freedom as if there were a grand Islamic conspiracy. Even if one would assert that there isn't any Islamic plan for world domination at work right now, the question would nevertheless be "but suppose if there were such a grand Islamic scheme, how would the result be any different from what we see happening today?".

So there's my whole point. I would even go further and say that if the wholesale Islamic attempt at "saving the world for Sharia Allah" weren't minutely planned in some desert tent by a bunch of über-jihadis, it would probably work even better. I'd say that people looking for ambitious schemes designed for destroying freedom would do better to search among the progressivist nomenclatura enabling Islam in the West.

The key to my strategic point is that Counter-Jihad Phase II must see us Westerners weaning ourselves from looking for intent. That will prove to be very hard, because that's how we and our societies function. We as Westerners are very "intentional" and always looking for the real intentions behind actions of people. Along with it come notions about honesty, decency, trust and personal responsibility, to name but a few.
This "intentional" approach applied to understanding the "hearts and minds" of practising Muslims is doomed to fail. Some cultures and the peoples it produces do differ, and for Muslims it's only natural not to see or explain the world and people around them in Western terms, for culture isn't just "context" for the development of group characteristics. It operates as an structuring force, soliciting from people behaviours, passed on between generations, that come to them as a "second nature". They are cultural reflexes, not given any second thought as simply "the way we do things around here". To put it in the shortest of terms: culture is a highly structured, structuring structure. ;-)

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

Hesperado said...

Egghead,

Your last comment about your email to Spencer brought up some old memories. I've been around the block on that issue, and I'm very familiar with the hypothesis that, in short, "Spencer limits his condemnation of Islam for tactical reasons, not because he really believes in that limitation."

This hypothesis doesn't seem to rest on solid ground for various reasons -- among them being the repeated and adamant defenses of such a moderated (or, less generously, wishy-washy) position on the problem of Islam which Spencer has written, mostly in response to various readers a couple of years ago (back when he was far more active in JW comments threads than he is now); less often in tersely cryptic editorial remarks parenthetically attached to his main essays and reports on JW (such as his statement that "I am not 'anti-Islam' ", as I mentioned here at GOV on another thread).

At the time, I analyzed this in great detail, in part in the following essays on my now retired blog dedicated to critically analyzing various aspects of Jihad Watch:

Warning Labels on Islam

Robert Spencer: Pussycat or Lion?

Spencer's Paradox

Transcripts of Jihad Watch readers

Contradiction Watch

Contradiction Watch 2

Contradiction Watch 3

Contradiction Watch 4

And many more at Jihad Watch Watch