Pages

Showing posts with label Islamization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamization. Show all posts

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Making the Muslim Brotherhood Look Respectable (updated)

Update Feb. 15, 2011

UPI: "Muslim Brotherhood steps into politics"

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt announced Tuesday that it began the processes necessary to become a formal political party. The Muslim Brotherhood was banned under the regime of Hosni Mubarak from competing openly as a political party. Its candidates won 20 percent of the seats in the Egyptian Parliament by running as independent candidates in 2005. Mubarak's ruling National Democracy Party last year, however, wiped the group off the political map in elections widely criticized by the international community.

Leaders of the group said that once it formed a legitimate committee, it would apply to become a formal political party in Egypt.  Ruling military authorities in Egypt dismantled much of the previous structure of the Mubarak regime, pledging to move forward with plans to hold national elections within six months. (...)"Although it fully understands that change does not happen overnight, the Muslim Brotherhood believes change will lead to a new beginning rooted in justice and progress," the group said (...) >>>




It was only a matter of time before the degenerated generation would collapse in the face of 'the inevitable'.
The way great societies commit suicide, is by banning the most flagrant inequities from their realm, and isolating themselves against the greatest misfortunes. All that security creates the false perception that evil does not exist. Amoralism ensues.

Relativist mental rot is setting in, leading to the suicidal conclusion of multiculturalism, that "all cultures are equally valid". It is only reasonable that all must share in the fruits of their forebears' endeavours - even those who at times seemed to have been the enemy.

The generation whose highest form of ethics was "make peace, not war" is asking the rhetorical question, can't we all just get along? Make compromises and negotiate until accommodation is reached? Evil loses its horns and the human face of the former enemy emerges; their fair grievances heard. The enemy of yesterday has become the peace partner of today, or so it seems.

Today that time has come. The leading Leftist newspaper in the United States is giving a member of the Muslim Brotherhood a platform for their ideas and proposals. And wadda you know? All they want is their fair share and 'democracy', 'reform' and 'progress':
(...) In more than eight decades of activism, the Muslim Brotherhood has consistently promoted an agenda of gradual reform. Our principles, clearly stated since the inception of the movement in 1928, affirm an unequivocal position against violence. For the past 30 years we have posed, peacefully, the greatest challenge to the ruling National Democratic Party of Hosni Mubarak, while advocating for the disenfranchised classes in resistance to an oppressive regime. (...) >>>
The Brothers are playing the postmodern West like a fiddle. They're buying their taqqiyah lock, stock and barrel. But behind the fog, the smoke and mirrors here's what they really, really want:
(...) There seems to be one little problem: the concept of democracy. (...) The unchallenged spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the 84 year old Egyptian sheikh who coordinates his international movement from Qatar. Al-Qaradawi is the worldwide political and religious ideologist of all organizations of Muslim Brethren. (...)
The thoughts of the Muslim Brotherhood were written down by Al-Qaradawi in 1990 in a study which appeared in English under the title "Priorities of The Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase". This work can be considered to be the political agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. In the past few decades this agenda has been executed in Egypt flawlessly. The Islamic Awakening is a long term process.
Al-Qaradawi aims at the revival of true Islam on all levels in society and at the establishment of an Islamic state. This program asks for proper and long lasting preparation by a vanguard of well-trained Muslims. By education, political activism, social programs, intellectual and scientific activities and foremost jihad (liberation of Muslim Territories) they are working systematically on the realization of a society which is completely governed by Islam. In this effort Al-Qaradawi promotes broad use of modern techniques of communication. In his view, all problems of society are caused by deviating from the path of Islam. At the same time he states that, instead of returning to the past, he wants to restore sharia in modern society. (...)
For power is what it’s all about in the political theater. For the Muslim Brotherhood it is ultimately about total political power, not about sharing responsibility and authority with other political movements. Islamic Awakening is comprehensive and only rests when society and the rule of law have been Islamized fully. Multiparty democracy is at most a transitional phase, which has to be endured out of tactical considerations. (...) At this point we encounter an essential element in Al-Qaradawi’s discourse.... >>>
One could almost be excused for accepting the Brotherhood's insidious propaganda. By all means, read Ben Avraham's great posting in its integrity! It's an eye-opener!

The shibboleths of the Left - 'democracy', 'reform', 'diversity' and 'progress' - trigger an instant sense of homecoming in the postmodern Left, who're just about ready for a merger with Islamic Socialism.

The world is watching the drama unfold.

Update

- The Blaze: "WARNED BY EX MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MEMBER THEY WANT SHARIA LAW THE NEXT DAY MITCHELL SAYS BROTHERHOOD NOT EXTREMISTS"

Update

Obama's 'smart' diplomacy is terrifying! This is the O-Team's intelligence community! The same Clapper who was uninformed about what was the great news on that day -

- Roger's Rules: "Ouch! More Smart Diplomacy", by Roger Kimball
Related

- The Blaze: “Muslim Brotherhood’s Goals Uncovered: Global Islamic Conquest and Caliphate”
- Palestinian Media Watch: "Translation of important Muslim Brotherhood book: Jihad is the way"
- Washington Post: "What Israel fears in Egypt", by Sallai Meridor

Related dossiers

- "The Jihad Project"
- "The Middle East Project"
- "Stop Islamization" (SIOE, SIOA)
- "Eurabia"
- "The Unholy Alliance"
- "The Flotilla Tactic"

Sunday, November 21, 2010

When Truth Is Irrelevant: freedom of speech in Austria (update 2)

In Defense of Free Speech: "Live blogging from Elisabeth’s court proceedings"

(...) This is the end of reporting for today. Please join us on January 18th 2011 for more news from the frontiers of defending the free societies of the West. >>>

Nov. 23, 2010
~

- Cartoon by Niels Thomson - Hat tip Sappho) -
Updating on the trial of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff on November 23.

As the six year old daughter of an Austrian diplomat she went through traumatic experiences in Iran during the Islamic Revolution (that was overtly supported by the Left), and on 9/11 (which is overtly apologized by the Left) when she happened to be in Lybia.

Jerry Gordon, senior editor of the New English Review had an interview with Elisabeth a few days ago.

A blog, dedicated to the trial of Elisabeth is updated here.

In Defense of Free Speech: "An Interview with Austrian Free Speech Advocate Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff", by Jerry Gordon

ElisabethSabaditsch-Wolff, a Viennese housewife is going before a Kafkaesque tribunalon November the 23rd for doing something which is legal under our US Constitution: criticizing a religion. That is one of the express purposes of the First Amendment which protects the freedom of speech in America. (...) >>>


October 24, 2010

The Wilders court case is currently in a state of legal limbo as a tribunal last Friday found a new trial necessary: one of the Judges who ordered the case to be pursued (against the advice of the Prosecution!) was found to have been trying to influence an expert-witness at a dinner party. As we have seen during the address of the Prosecutor, the truth is simply irrelevant. The free world is under siege!

In the last few years the Organization of Islamic Conferences (OIC) has been vigorously pursuing international efforts in the UN and Europe's many 'Eurabian' talking shops. It is an philosophical montrum, but the OIC has been doing its utmost to make 'Islamophobia' a legal entity. We know it otherwise under the term 'hate crimes', or in the Netherlands - sit down for this one - a 'crime of expression'.

Austria is currently going through its second court case. As with Wilders', Leftist activists are also here heavily involved in curbing the freedom of speech on behalf of their Islamic brethren.

- Caption: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (left) with ACT's Brigitte Gabriel  (right) - 

Europe News has the details:

A criminal complaint is being filed against Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff for “hate speech” under Austrian law, essentially the same thing that Susanne Winter was convicted of early this year.
Elisabeth gave a presentation about Islam at an FPÖ-organized seminar, and said some of the usual things that anti-jihad advocates say when they talk about Islam. A left-wing magazine, which had planted someone in the audience, caused charges to be brought against her at the same time as they publicized it in their magazine.
Elisabeth held the controversial Islam Seminar at the FPÖ-political academy. Charges of defamation of a religious group have been filed against the daughter of a diplomat. This is her only interview in which she explains her views. (...) 
Read the entire interview with Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff >>>

Hat Tip: Patriot's Corner in "Elisabeth's Voice: Help Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in her fight against jihad" has more details.

Update
From Facebook

Espial Informatics November 1 at 11:05pm Reply • Report
Geert Wilders is well-known to most people, but Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is not so prominent. Like Mr. Wilders, she faces trial for reporting factual information about Islam. Her “crime” was to conduct public seminars in which she described Islamic doctrine, quoted from the Koran, and explained to her listeners what she considers the dangers of Islam.

Like Mr. Wilders, Elisabeth has been charged with “hate speech” for her words. Unlike Mr. Wilders, however, Elisabeth is a private citizen, a wife, and the mother of a small child. She lacks the major resources necessary to defend herself against the well-funded organs of the state which seek to persecute her.

Elisabeth was first notified of the possible case against her last December. For almost a year she has been waiting for a formal charge and a court date, and now the other shoe has finally dropped: she will go to court on November 23, 2010.

Here is a video of Elizabeth at the Amsterdam Rally for Free Speech on the 30th October 2010 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jM-JnquP0U

The Counter-Jihad Alliance has created a Facebook Page to support Elizabeth. Please help us to raise awareness of her case by liking the page and suggesting it to your friends. On the page you will find links to relevant articles, videos and photos, you can also help by sharing these and adding any of your own.

Link to Page - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-Elisabeth-Sabaditsch-Wolff/126382430752983

Thank you for taking the time to read this message!

Related

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The Wilders Trial (IV): Fish Always Stinks From the Head

The Wilders trial has resumed and its aims and purposes have become apparent. There's precedent of course as well as the happy circumstance that Jordan and other Islamic countries are keeping mum for the duration of the trial. But the most important reasons are political and ideological.


The trial has haunted the election campaign, the election itself and finally also coalition talks between the conservative Liberal party VVD, the torn Christian Democrat party CDA and Wilders' own Freedom Party. At least four attempts to avert the historical right of center coalition have failed so far. The trial is the last ditch resort to render Wilders politically untouchable.

The President of the Court of Amsterdam, Jan Moors reminded me of  Sméagol (or Gollem) of The Lord of the Rings, a hobbit who became so obsessed with the ring that enslaved him, that it corrupted him physically as well as mentally.

During yesterday's first regular session it didn't take long before Judge Moors made his first mistake. Defending council Moszkowicz had invoked the defendant's right to silence. Moors asked Wilders if this was the result of what some opponents have called his "tendency to posit tenets, but avoiding the debate". "It would seem you are doing that here AS WELL". The operative words being here 'as well'. Apparently the Judge shares that conviction.

The accusation is often levelled by opponents in the mainstream media, but also by Wilders' political Nemesis in Parliament, 'social liberal' party leader Alexander Pechtold. Moszkowicz started proceedings to have the Judges dismissed for being biased'. The Left haven't a clue how ideologically motivated their positions really are. To them, they are a model of neutrality.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that the tribunal that will hear the allegation is presided over by a Judge who has seen to it that Pim Fortuyn's assassin will be back into society as early as May 6, 2014.

Getting Wilders prosecuted was no mean feat. Evil tongues are whispering that the first plaintiffs, weren't even personally involved. As with the Danish Motoons it took a while before a few trustworthy complaints could be lodged. Only then did the extreme Left's (organogram) hate campaign take off. Read all about it on Pajamas in "Who Is Behind the Persecution of Geert Wilders?" written by Carel Brendel.

Prosecutors Paul Velleman and Birgit van Roessel are both working for the National Anti-Discrimination Center, an organization that is investigating and prosecuting so-called 'expression crimes'. It's an abomination in a free, Western society. It just shows how far we've descended into tyranny already!

Velleman also signed off on the arrest of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot. The Gestapo would have been proud! He has a very mixed record. Complaints filed (amongst others) Abraham Moszkowicz (now Wilders attorney) against the first EU bank President's 'black widow', Gretta Duisenberg for antisemitism, were dismissed by Velleman. The same happened to charges against the Al Tawheed Mosque, which the intelligence service AIVD is suspecting of complicity in terrorism. Theo van Gogh assassin, Mohammed Bouyeri frequented the Al Tawheed.

Velleman and Van Roessel assisted Fokko Oldenhuis, a Professor at Groningen University to lodge more indictments against Wilders. In an interview last year Oldenhuis said he thinks Wilders' statements are against the Dutch Judeo-Christian tradition. Never mind that toleration of the intolerable is a mortal sin.

BREAKING NEWS - De Telegraaf newspaper disclosed this morning that Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin - who even this weekend was stoking opposition within his own Christian Democrat party against the coalition - was involved  at an early stage in the decision making process whether Wilders was to be prosecuted. In March 2008 the Prosecution Service consulted Leiden University Professor Rick Lawson, a talking head for the MSM.

Lawson concluded that this was 'justified'. The advice was received at the Service with cheers, according to internal emails. "What an excellent piece of work!", they concluded. Who's still having doubts about the political direction of the people involved at the Dept. of Justice can now rest assured: this is no bulwark for the freedom of expression!

Bram Moszkowicz reacted angrily:
"It has been discerned from these emails that the indictment of my client has been discussed at the highest ministerial level. Moreover, this has been a political decision".
The service doesn't think is strange at all. The Minister is politically responsible, so of course he was involved. Obviously these people are bending over backwards to prove there's still an independant judiciary in the Netherlands [/sarc]. They are the same people who maintain Wilders is a clear and present danger to the rule of law!

It's a good job coalition talks are at the final stages. It's time for spring cleaning at the Justice Department. Let's hope they bring lots of desinfectant.

Update

We made a mistake .. well, we'll continue nevertheless!

DutchNews: "Special hearing rejects Wilders' claims of court bias, trial to continue"

A special Amsterdam court tribunal ruled on Tuesday that the trial of MP Geert Wilders on charges of inciting hatred can go ahead on Wednesday, despite claims that the sitting judges have shown bias. On Monday, Wilders’ lawyer Bram Moszkowicz challenged the legitimacy of the court after the presiding judge appeared to criticise Wilders’ decision not to answer any questions. Wilders evoked his right to silence at the start of the trial, saying he would not answer any questions and that his lawyer would answer on his behalf. (...) Judges at the special hearing said Moors' comments, although clumsily formulated, should be seen in this light and did not imply prejudice against Wilders. (...) >>>

Earlier on the Wilders trial:

- "The Wilders Trial (III): Postmodern Ideologues at Court"
- "The Wilders Trial (II): the Subversion of the Law"
- "The Wilders Trial (I): the Expert Witness"

Related

- The International Free Press Society: "The Wilders trial: Torquemada would be proud", by James Cohen
- FrontPageMagazine: "Dutch Courage, Liberal Cowardice", by Jacob Laksin

Here's a comment worth quoting from the last article:
(...) the Left would rather see our entire civilization subsumed to the totalitarian "other"...than to acknowledge for one moment that a mere idea, multiculturalism, may have been a mistake.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

No Closure For the Victims of 911

Thank the 'religion of peace' and their Leftist accessories for that.

Proponents of the Ground Zero mega Mosque project are defending it on the basis of the freedoms of expression and religion. But neither liberty guarantees the erection of prayer houses at will.

These grounds are simply false. The freedom of religion is in the good hands of New York's 999 other Mosques. No one is denying them their liberty in that respect.

The question rather is, if your objective is the building of bridges, as imam Rauf alleges, is lifting your middle finger to 3,000 mourning families and 67 percent of Americans, the way to go? Of course not.

- Caption: proximity of the Cordoba project to human remains recovered - Hat tip: Ground Zero Mosque News -

Perhaps it should be clarified what kind of 'bridges' imam Rauf has in mind? Maybe our interpretation of bridging the gap between the Muslim and the Western world is a wrong assumption. If on the other hand he has an Islamic beachhead in the heart of the Dar-al-Harb in mind, this would explain his intransigence.

This event exposes the true objectives of the Cordoba Project, a name - now ditched - not chosen by accident. It has everything to do with power over infidels. No mistake, this building around the corner of Ground Zero is a trophy.

On the other hand pastor Terry Jones has had his website closed down and the full weight of the Obama administration coming down on him like a ton of bricks. Never mind his liberties.

As in many other places in the world, time and again the freedom of expression has been subordinated to public safety and national security considerations endangered by threats of Muslim rioting and terrorism. It has long become a pattern. Muslim intolerance is going to cost us our freedom as we become the constant subject of blackmail.

In a recent CNN interview with Soledad O'Brian imam Rauf - on grounds best known to himself - argued that moving the project to another location would be construed by Muslims as an attack on Islam. As usual national security was used as a crowbar. It was a thinly veiled threat.

Again: at issue is not if imam Rauf may build his Cordoba Project, but this specific location near hallowed ground. Why not move it to another location where it doesn't upset the victims of the 911 attack? The Muslim community would gain respect tremendously by such a gesture. But no.

Apparently only Muslims are allowed to take offence; it's just their feelings that must be spared. Hurting them would be Islamophobia. The sensitivities of the families of 911 and 67 percent of Americans are immaterial.

Making matters worse, some of the proponents are very well aware they are trampling on the feelings of the victims: a vigil was held on Friday instead of Saturday "out of respect for victims and families of the 911 attacks". Yes, but we're still going to shove a 13 story Islamic Center down your throat!

The issue - and that is before the stand off with pastor Terry Jones - is indicative of the bad faith of the Muslim elite in the West and the moral bankruptcy of the Left that is aiding and abetting their advances.



The stand off with pastor Terry Jones is quiet revealing. Jones was claiming yesterday an accomodation was reached with the Muslim clerics: his bonfires against the Mosque's relocation.

A spokesman for the Cordoba project is rejecting Jones' claim. He would, of course.

Jones meanwhile is shocked, shocked: "We are just really shocked," Jones said. "He clearly, clearly lied to us."

What's so shocking about Muslims exercising their birthright to lie to infidels (taqqiyah)?

They already launched the false equation of "their radicals" versus "our radicals" - as if a book burning pastor is on moral par with murderous terrorists?! But of course they do not look upon "their" terrorists as radicals. That epithet is reserved for those who go against the letter of Islam. There are no radicals on his side. Sharia law is taking care of that!

If there's one thing worse than a Swiss army knife wielding jihadist, it's a double tongued, duplicitous Muslim version of Grima Wormtongue. We've seen the type before in the person of Tariq Ramadan. There are many more who are using a toxic brew of traditional Muslim deception and Western postmodern sophistry against us.

For all his lack of sophistication and enlightenment, Jones is the only one standing up to the threats and the blackmail. At least what he's got in return were bargaining chips and Rauf et al. showing their true intentions.

As for the argument that "Muslims died on 911 too", I'm sure so did at least one Japanese. I can't recall the Japanese calling for a Shinto temple, either near Ground Zero or overlooking Pearl Harbor.

The double standard that transpires the entire event is a typical example of the postmodern dialectic. This is precisely how the mechanism of the redistribution of rights is worked. Ignore it at your peril.

The "Project" - the cultural take-over of the Western world - is right on course.

Update

- PJM: "Truths About Political Left Revealed by GZM Debate", by Dennis Mitzner
- NRO: "The Two Faces of Feisal Rauf - What’s wrong with What’s Right With Islam", by Ibn Warraq

Part I - Part II

Related

- Website of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA) (Europe: SIOE)
- Website of Ground Zero Mosque News
- Website of American Islamic Forum for Democracy

Updates

- Looking at the Left: "Stop the Mosque at Ground Zero Rally – Part I" - Part II
- PVV: "Geert Wilders' speech at the occasion of SIOA 911 rally"
- Politeia: "History of Islam and how they build victory mosques", by Pamela Kafir Liner
- Wall Street Journal: "Questions for Imam Rauf From an American Muslim", by Zuhdi Jasser
- The Daily Caller: "8 questions with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy", by Caroline May
- Human Events: "Bonfire of the Insanities", by Ann Coulter
- Politeia: "Why Islam is an Ideology", by Dr Sam Holliday

Related dossiers

- "The Dialectics"
- "The Jihad Project"

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Why Islam is an Ideology

Several Western countries are struggling with the notion that Islam is a totalitarian  ideology masquerading as a religion. Most are in a firm state of denial.

The last few weeks we saw the Christian-Democratic Party (CDA) in the Netherlands tearing itself literally to pieces over Geert Wilders' claim that answers the question in the affirmative. A great number of Islam scholars agree with him.

The party was engaged in government coalition talks with Geert Wilders' Freedom Party. Wilders broke off negotitions last Friday, fearing endless dissent in the Christian-Democrat camp, that views Islam as a slightly more militant version of Christianity.

The claim touches fundamental, Constitutional rights on the freedoms of expression, religion, and education, causing some even to express fears if the rule of law would remain in responsible hands. On the one hand such fears are caused by a corruption and a misunderstanding of these rights; but it is also not well grasped what precisely constitutes a religion.

The following essay answers the question from an American perspective.

While there is an argument to be made, as Dr Holliday does, that religion is something separate from political ideology, on the broad philosophical scale of things all religions belong to the family tree of ideas, viz. ideologies.

Earlier articles and essays from the pen of Sam Halliday posted on Politeia, are available on the Articles file of the Armiger Cromwell Center, a non-profit organization aiming to contribute to more effective and efficient policies in international relations.


First published on 5 September 2010 under the title "Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology"

by Dr. Sam Holliday

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants freedom of religion. But what did the Founders mean by religion? Surely they did not mean for any behavior to be justified by the claim of religious freedom. Freedom of belief, yes; freedom of worship, yes; but not freedom of behavior.

Religion to the Founders meant a belief system compatible with morality. In the United States any belief system that contradicts morality—as understood by the Founders--should be considered a legal/political ideology, rather than a religion. Shari’a contradicts such morality and thus Americans should not consider Islam a religion protected by the First Amendment of our Constitution.

- Caption: "Battle of Lepanto or Naupaktos" which ultimately inspired the Greek War of Independence against Ottoman oppression - 

Religion and American Morality
The American nation is unique. Most nations are based on shared history, ethnicity, language, culture, or religion. Not so the United States with a diversity of people with nothing in common but principles and ideals upon which to have a better life for themselves and their descendents. Even those who did not come of their own free will now have the same opportunity if they are willing to seize it. It is an error to refer to all of those living in this country as Americans. Americans are those individuals willing to accept the risks and rewards offered by freedom, and willing to seek their dreams through hard work.

America is indeed “out of many one” symbolized as a melting pot. If “We the people” is to mean anything it is the American nation of self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of centralized Secular Authority. With such diversity, what provides a common identity to form an American nation? It can only be the principles and ideals upon with the United States was founded. Without this shared identity there is no American nation—and no Americans. There could be many people living in the territory governed by the United States of America, but no American nation. This fact should not be obscured by demands for rights, equality and governmental largess.

There are many definitions of morality, religion, ethics, belief, and faith; what they define is fundamental to a way of life. Together they define Sacred Authority, and they shape the inner compass of individuals; they determine what individuals consider right, good and virtuous. The American nation depends on all Americans sharing a Sacred Authority, i.e. specific principles and ideals. It is suggested that these be those of the Founders of this country.
In order to gain acceptance of a Sacred Authority for America these definitions are suggested:
Morality contains: (1) beliefs about the nature of man, (2) beliefs about ideals, and about what is right, good and virtuous, (3) rules of what ought to be done, and what ought not be done, and (4) motives which are right, good and virtuous.
Religion, according to the U.S. Constitution, is any belief system that supports the morality expressed by the principles and ideals of the Founders.
Religion, according to philosophy, includes (1) belief in supernatural powers, (2) appropriate sacred attitudes and emotions which create a sense of reverence, and (3) ceremonies, rituals, and duties.

The Threat of the Third Jihad and Shari’a
The goal of the Third Jihad is the destruction of Western Culture. We must not let the Islamists use our most cherished convictions to achieve their goal. Conspiracy is just as much a threat to America as the planting of an atomic bomb in a city. Much of Shari’a condones what our Founders would consider criminal activities. In accordance with taqiyya Islamists willingly lie to deceive non-believers. To teach or practice such behavior, in the name of any belief system, is not compatible with American morality.

The problem is that Islam contains aspects that are religious, by any definition, and some aspects that do not reflect American morality. In fact, the Founders did not want the state to specify a belief system that required submission. For them belief, worship and behavior were determined by the free will of individuals—not by submission to a doctrine prescribed by an elite. This is what freedom of religion is all about. Shari’a is just what they wanted to prevent.

Some want to reject all of Islam because it contains Shari’a. This would be wrong. Some want to accept all of Islam, including Shari’a, because Islam is a “religion”. This would be wrong. What needs to be done is to welcome those parts of Islam that are compatible with American morality, but to reject other parts of Islam. This is very difficult because all parts of Islam are intermingled.


We must be able to identify those Muslims who want to protect their children from a drug-laden, sexually permissive, and tradition rejecting society, who want a better life for themselves and their children, who reject violence, embrace pluralism, and work to stop terrorism, and who want to exist peacefully with nonbelievers. Also we must be able to identify those Muslims who accept the teachings that promote hatred, discriminatory edicts, Shari’a and conflict between the Islamic nation (umma) and all nonbelievers. Therefore, we need to use our judgment to accept what is moral in accordance with the principles and ideals of our Founders, and to reject any alien legal/political ideology.
In the case of the Ground Zero mosque this will require some way to determine if the outer jihad (a moral struggle which is evil and unconstitutional since it requires the submission or killing of all nonbelievers) will be advocated by that mosque, or if teaching in the mosque will be limited to the inner jihad (the struggle against the baser instincts of an individual, which is constitutional). Limiting teaching to the inner jihad would require the rejection of much of the Qur’an.
The necessary action will be very difficult to do, since it cannot be done solely through politics and peacetime law enforcement activities, i.e. the rule of law (Secular Authority). It requires intelligence gathering and actions beyond those specified in our Constitution. It will require actions appropriate for Irregular Warfare during an ideological struggle. It will require recognition that Feisal Abdul Rauf is typical of the intellectual Islamists of the lead element of the Third Jihad’s penetration into Western Culture. Such Islamists pose as moderates, oppose terrorism, claim that the United States supports terror against Muslims around the world, and use only non-violent means. Such Islamists manipulate our tolerance to advance Shari’a toward the goal of a world wide Caliphate.
Shari’a is about power—neither faith nor making an individual a better person. It is not compatible with American morality. It is totalitarian and inherently unconstitutional and the direct opposite of the American ideal of "religious freedom."
We need to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Hamas, and other Islamists groups support the Third Jihad. For them Shari’a is a  "tradition of Islam" which dictates what everyone must do regarding their whole life, including marriage, divorce, commercial relations, and personal behavior.

They want to bring Shari’a to the United States. Any Muslims in the United States living according to all of the tradition of Islam violates our Constitution regarding freedom, civil rights, government and way of life.
An appeal for understanding of Islam is a Trojan Horse. The noble idea of mutual respect between the Cross and the Crescent based on overlapping, and shared beliefs are fool’s goal. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” only works among those with shared values and principles. To practice it with those who are evil and seek your end will insure that you are a victim. We are currently engaged in an ideological struggle not unlike those in our past against Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.
What Must be Done?
We need to establish policies, strategies, techniques, and processes that are appropriate for the ideological struggle of Irregular Warfare, i.e. asymmetric conflict between those in authority and those who want to weaken and destroy them. We need to reestablish the means used in the past to obtain compliance with shared morality, i.e. Sacred Authority. We must again be judgmental and discriminate against that which is considered wrong, bad, or sinful. In our current legalistic and politically correct society this will be difficult to achieve.

We must recognize the extent the Third Jihad has advanced in this ideological struggle--and what it is doing to subvert the West. The Saudis alone have invested at least $2 billion a year over the past 30 years to spread the most radical form of Islam. The response of Europe and America in this ideological struggle has been negligible. In fact much of what has been communicated by our movies and media has worked against us.

We must actively defend Western Culture

  • The first step is to recognize that Islam with Shari’a is not a religion of peace, as our Founders understood religion; it is an alien legal/political ideology designed to control the behavior of everyone and to eliminate anyone who does not submit to the way of Muhammad, as described in the Qur’an.


  • The second step is to recognize that those Muslims who believe in the outer jihad, as taught and practiced by Muhammad, can never be assimilated into America or Europe—the outcome of any such attempt would be the destruction of Western Culture. Such Muslims must be expelled.


  • The third step is to revitalize belief in the principles and ideals upon which America was created.



Copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center, Atlanta, GA 30319.

Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

An online printable version of "
Shari’a Makes Islam an Ideology" is available here.

Filed on Articles in "
The Armiger Cromwell Center"

Related

Politeia: "The Power of Ideas" 

Monday, August 30, 2010

The White Roses: "Three Things About Islam"

The White Roses created "Three Things About Islam" to inform non-Muslims about Islam.

The White Roses is headquartered in Sweden.

Its name is based on the student resistance group "Die weiße Rose" in Nazi Germany. That group became known for an anonymous leaflet campaign, from June 1942 until February 1943, which called for active opposition to Adolf Hitler's regime.



Since this is an ideological struggle, just like that faced by the "Die weiße Rose," the non-violent actions are just as great a threat as acts of violence.

This video is short and to the point and all those points are dead on!

Related

- "The Unholy Alliance"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
- "The Balkan Caliphate"
- "Stop Islamization of Europe"
- "Eurabia"
- "Islamization=Apartheid"
- "Apostating Islam"
- "Muslims versus Sharia"

Sunday, August 1, 2010

Is the Palace Coup Against Geert Wilders Failing?

Continued from part 2: "The Palace Coup Against Geert Wilders, Round 2"

Background
Slowly but surely it's becoming apparent how the Dutch establishment, commonly referred to as 'the regents', led by Her Majesty Queen Beatrix and her chief advisors, are neutralizing the election results in which the Right wing liberal party (VVD) and Islam critic, Geert Wilders (PVV) emerged as winners.

But tactical errors have been made, primarily by the Left's major protagonist, Labor leader and multicultural aficionado, Job Cohen, the former Mayor of Amsterdam. After having explored and rejected the initial plan to form a grand coalition with three Leftist parties, Cohen insisted talks to go ahead to explore the possibilities of a Rightist cabinet.

He did so for the sole reason, that as long as the possibility was unexplored, it remained a serious option that could be exploited in negotiations. Cohen should have taken his profits long before then. All else - including heading a Leftist coalition as Prime Minister - proved many bridges too far. So the leaders of the Christian Democrats (CDA) and the Center-Right Liberal party (VVD) started unofficial talks last week with Geert Wilders, the Eurosceptic Islam critic.

- Caption: Leftist whiners by Coontje - 

As was to be expected, the parties found common ground in an anti-Keynesian approach to the economy, fiscal and social responsibility and free enterprise with less rules and regulations. They informed the Queen's emissary, Ruud Lubbers this weekend that formal negotiations will be starting as of Monday with the view of forging a minority government, supported in Parliament by Wilders' PVV Party.

The Left almost immediately exploded in a combination of whining, theatrical drama and ferocious attack, framed around matters of statecraft and the immorality and unconstitutionality of Islam criticism. Epithets like a 'Rightist coup', and a 'minority dictatorship' aren't shunned. A Parliamentary debate is on the role for Wednesday in the presence of Lubbers, and some are calling for parallel talks between Leftist parties

So, here we have bigotted Leftists who've never had any qualms about ripping into hereditary royalty and who - for decades - have been ridiculing Christianity without merci! The same hypocrites are now holloring about the 'sacrilege of a Holy Book' (meaning the Koran) and the Queen's orders being dissed in favor of the primacy of Parliamentary politics. So far the whining.

The second line of attack is far more insidious. It is framed around Wilders attack on Islam that is - they allege - infringing on the constitutional rule of law. It touches the non-discrimination article, as well as the freedom of conscience and expression. In the postmodern approach, Islam is a religion or an ideology like any other and should be respected as such (except Christinity of course, which is uniquely evil). Inconvenient realities and historical and scriptorial evidence to the contrary, is typically ignored and evaded.

In truth, any ideology - and that includes religion - should never be elevated above critique like Islam is trying to accomplish. It's cover for the lack of individual responsibility in the Umma, who's core activity is the institutional discrimination of kaffirs, or infidels, unbelievers, the Dar-El-Harb or the eparchy of war (only in submission to Islam is peace).

But the Left has been showing its totalitarian roots lately by positioning all opposition morally beyond the pale! This, dear readers, is the stuff of tyranny and mob rule.

Let's have a look at this invective today in the Leftist media bulwark De Volkskrant. "Black Friday", by the self-styled historian Jan Dirk Snel is anything, if not theatrical. The title is in reference to the news announced yesterday of the formal negotiations between the three Rightist parties. Get this drama:
"Friday July 30 2010 is already known as Black Friday. It is beyond doubt the blackest day in Dutch history since May 4, 1945 [sic] (although we don't know yet what's ahead). It is the day in which some Dutch political parties have infringed upon a basic principle.
The main gist is this: Wilders should be dealt with like the Communists were. Not only is Wilders crossing a constitutional line, but so are the two party leaders who've accepted his 'abject ideas' implicitly by entering into talks with Wilders. Apparently Leftists do understand the notion that negotiating with an immoral party renders one complicit. I wish they'd remember that next time when they advocate talking to the Islamofascists of Iran and their proxies in Syria, Turkey, Venezuela and Palestine, to name but a few.

Point is, Wilders isn't an immoral party but one which defends Western values against the onslaughts of an intolerant, supremacist ideology. In this repect the historian's subconscious mistake that Friday was the worst day since the country was liberated from Nazi occupation is telling, because indeed, the same people would have defended Nazism as well as "an ideology like any other"; Chamberlain thought so too when he negotiated the Munich Agreement with Corporal Hitler.

Enough said on the basic intellectual dishonesty of the Leftist argument and the obnoxious moralistic tone by which they are already whipping up hatred in their base. Some are planning action as we speak and are calling for the three party leaders to be tried for ... what? I'm not sure, but give them a day or so and they'll have reinstored the crime of sedition.

Those who support the Right are not buying it any more. It's rhetoric, drama, narrative, Sorelian myth-making, Marxist dialectic, and all the other sophistry we've been hearing from the anti Western, counter Enlightenment totalitarians since the days of Kant and Hegel. Looks like we're done at last.

The next few weeks will be crucial for fundamental change in the Netherlands, a country that has been ruled by Leftist regents for donkey years. About one thing we can be sure: opposition will be no less fierce and toxic than the stuff we've come to know as Bush Derangement Syndrome. No method or tactic will be left untried. The end justifies the means: the enemy deserves it!

Related

- Wall Street Journal: "Center-Right Parties Enter Talks For Minority Dutch Govt"
- Canadian Press: "Talks on forming new centrist ruling Dutch coalition collapse amid policy disagreements"

Friday, July 16, 2010

Wilders Goes International With the Freedom Alliance

Geert Wilders, although he emerged as the single largest winner of the June 8 general elections, has been sidelined by the Dutch establishment, who fear damage to the country's prestige abroad and in the eyes of the transnational progressivist community, of which it is a vocal member and an ardent advocate.

The Liberal VVD party, which ended up with most seats in Parliament, is currently engaged in sequestered in coalition talks with Labour and two other minor Leftist parties: one now openly antisemite, the other - the greens - rooted in the Communist Party and the Pacifist Party. Read all about it in "How the Dutch Establishment Defused Geert Wilders".

Ayn Rand would have spun in her grave of such a lack of ideological hygiene. The shunning of Wilders is evidently a coup of the 'regents' in what it sees as the national interest. The voters be damned. What do they know? When push comes to shove the people are looked down on as voting cattle who've no idea what's good for them. The progressivist 'regent' mentality is alive and kicking in the Netherlands.

Of course they've only made matters worse. The VVD will be the party of treason for decades to come, and all who're slighly Right of center will rally behind the Freedom Party and Geert Wilders. I know I will.

Update: Today, July 18 Wilders gained 11 seats in the polls which translates into 35 seats in Parliament. VVD loses 8.

The latter, prominently figuring with Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Al Qaeda's new, glossy, 'hopey-changey' death list (new buzz word: "inspire"), is taking his message of Western values and democratic principles abroad. The International Freedom Alliance (IFA) is primarily targetting countries with a strong Muslim minority, but with a political deficit where the defense of individual rights and liberty are concerned.

Frequent visitors of this page will be aware of the central thesis of this blog, that relativist ideology has mentally crippled people in the West to defend their values against assertive Mohammedanism. The latter have no qualms whatsoever about absolutism. Considering all cultures and religions equally valid, as is the case in multiculturalism, is fine and dandy as long as everyone agrees with the premise. But it leaves one defenseless against supremacists.

The problem in the Netherlands has emerged because the VVD party has now aligned itself with the collectivists of red, green and 'purple' hue. There seems to be a world-wide tendency towards collectivism, including covert Socialism and Islamism. Bad news for liberty.

In a press briefing yesterday Wilders (see video) announced he will be joined by a number of global freedom fighters, known as the counter jihad movement. The idea was launched as people abroad complained they sorely lack a movement like the Freedom Party to stand up for freedom.

"It's not going to be a Freedom Party International", Wilders emphasized. It will be an umbrella institute for likeminded people all over the world, who offer each other help and support. The IFA may offer financial, organizational and ideological support to individuals and organizations world-wide, to energize societies and to pressure politicians.

The presentation of the website is planned before the end of the year, just after his trial for 'group insult' is due to end. Information will be made available in Dutch, English, French, German and perhaps even in Arabic.



Geert Wilders IFA International Freedom Alliance Interview Subtitled/Translated
- Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

- International Freedom Alliance on Facebook

Related

- Mail Online: "Anti-Islamic crusader launches recruitment drive in UK"

Saturday, July 10, 2010

How the Dutch Establishment Defused Geert Wilders

Slowly but surely it's becoming clear how the Dutch elite, commonly referred to as 'the regents', led by Her Majesty and her chief advisor, the all powerful Vice President of the Council of State, 'Vice Roy' Herman Tjeenk Willink (in truth an ordinary socialist, career politician), have neutralized the election results in which the right wing liberal party (VVD) and Islam critic, Geert Wilders emerged as winners.

A majority right wing coalition with the Christian Democrates (CDA) was initially indicated, probably with the support of two minor Christian parties. But the CDA were the major losers in this election and assumed the role of modest bystander.

The CDA sports a vocal left wing, as well as a host of transnational progressivist elderly statesmen, of which Ruud Lubbers is a prime specimen. All vehemently oppose the Wilders agenda. The party declined to participate in talks. Seen in current light, this was probably part of the strategy.

- Caption: 'Vice Roy' Herman Tjeenk Willink -

Labour leader, Job Cohen had been spreading memes even before the elections that the Wilders agenda is "touching the edges of the rule of law". Which is a chutzpah, considering it's the postmodern 'regents' in the Justice Dept., the judiciary and in the multicultural, red/green cabal that is appointing them, that are a clear and present danger to the rule of law. Present story is a typical example of their anti-democratic, authoritarian mindset.

But facts and reality are irrelevant to these people. They are obsessed with their own subjective reality, the narrative they've constructed in which Wilders is a fascist and an enemy of the rule of law. This also helps explain, that while Public Prosecutors declined to procecute Wilders for "group offence" (insulting Muslims), a special anti-discrimination Court found reason to go after him nonetheless.

The socialist 'Vice Roy' is playing a central role in the controlled detonation of the Wilders explosive device. The key to this drama was recently discovered by a republican blogger (Hat Tip: Naar De Knoppen). An article entitled "The Constitutional Coup of State" on weblog ProRepublica states:
The answer lies in the last sentence of para C1 of Tjeenk Willink's advice to Mrs Van Amsberg (Her Majesty's common name). On the basis of this advice the head of state ordered Messrs Rosenthal (the Liberal party negotiator) and Wallage (the Labour negotiator) to form a government with the parties referred to as Paars+*.
The secret is summed up in one short sentence: 'The countersignature on Parliamentary initatives are to be refused if the principles of the democratic rule of law, the international position of the Netherlands, or basic financial policies are at stake.
The Government can decline signing a Bill into law, even if it has the support of the majority in Parliament.(...) >>>
*Paars+ consists of a political immorality, enough to make Ayn Rand spin in her grave. It consists of the right wing Liberal VVD, Labour, and 2 more junior, red/green left wing parties. It's a horror cabinet in which the leftist bloc can easily neutralize the rightist austerity agenda.

The author of the article is obviously a fierce critic of 'Mrs Van Amsberg' and the cabal surrounding Her Majesty. He or she is asserting that "just about every subject" is covered by the three conditions summed up in the advice. I beg to differ. This is clearly a device solely meant to neutralize Wildersian initiatives.

The "principles of the democratic rule of law" is referring to international treaties and human rights covenants. Wilders wants to deport criminal immigrants and possible also citizens of foreign descend. He has also proposed an immigration moratorium for Muslim countries.

"The Internatonal position of the Netherlands" is in reference to recent threats by Jordan to prosecute Wilders and demands for explanations from other Muslim entities (my suspicion is the powerful OIC is also playing a role in the current prosecution of Geert Wilders). Dutch exporters in the private sector have also been quick to ditch liberty for sausages and dairy produce.

The final condition, where "basic financial policies are at stake" is even more sinister. Is there a Keynesian cabal as well at work, meant to undermine the right wing austerity program? Just what is going on here?

This isn't over. Not by a long chalk!

Related

- Hudson New York: "Dutch Establishment Rejects Election Results", by Thomas Landen


Related (Dutch)

- "Hoe Lang Hebben We Nog?"
- "De Wisseltruc van Job Cohen"
- "Regenten Demonteren Rechtse Bom"
- "Grassroots Verzet Tegen Paars+"
- "De Oorverdovende Dissonantie in het CDA"
- "Links Ontspoort Bijna Helemaal"
- "Nederland Stemt: Zweven Tussen Vrijheid en Statisme"
- "Inderdaad. Een Gevaar Voor de Rechtsstaat"



Thursday, June 17, 2010

Coping with Islamists

By Dr. Sam Holliday

The Obama administration has stated that our enemy is al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates. They reject any suggestion that Islam motivates our enemies. John Brennan has said "Nor do we describe our enemy as jihadists and Islamists." They do not recognize the two faces of Islam. This view does not recognize that we are in a struggle with a worldwide movement, known as the Great Jihad, motivated by the teaching of Muhammad. It is time for the Obama administration to face the reality of the Islamists Threat.

Today there are Muslims who, in accordance with the Qur’an, continue the Great Jihad. They call themselves jihadists, or holy warriors. Those who value Western Culture should refer to them as hirabahists, or unholy warriors. Islamists is an accurate name for them, since that indicates Islamic motivation, yet it does not suggest all Muslims. Islamists call the current worldwide struggle the Third Jihad, and have five goals:

1. To weaken US influence in the Middle East and South Asia and to increase the “fifth column” in Europe and the United States.

2. To use the United Nations to paralyze effective action by the United States.

3. To control the oil in the Middle East, and then use that control to weaken the economic power of the United States.

4. To eliminate Israel.

5. To continue the struggle until a Great Caliphate is created.

How many Muslims are Islamists? It is impossible to know. Clearly the leaders of the Third Jihad are Islamists. Most of the terrorists lack the necessary historical perspective or theological knowledge to be Islamists. They are motivated by feelings of envy, frustration, greed, prejudice, and hatred resulting from manipulation by the leaders. What about most Muslims? Most Muslims believe in jihad, i.e. struggle.

However, they believe in different kinds of struggles. For some Muslims it is a personal (inner) struggle. Islamists struggle for the five goals of the Third Jihad. Some Muslims belief the Qur’an prevents them from condemning Islamists, or helping to neutralize them. The critical question is: How many Muslims will struggle for modernity and integration into Western Culture?

The current threat to Western Culture is from transnational Islamists with political goals. This is a battle of wills. We have not yet neutralized them or weakened their will, and they have not weakened our will. However, this conflict will not end as long as there are Islamists who believe the Qur’an requires a Great Jihad.

Muslims are not our enemies. Our enemies are all the Islamists that want to kill us and drive us out of “Islamic lands”, and those that provide them funds, sanctuary, and moral support; this includes al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and many other groups and individuals. Islamists support an ideology that opposes modernity and Western Culture; but not all Muslims support this ideology. At this time the threat doesn't call for a Holy War; there is not justification for an overall strategy similar to those used in World War II or the Cold War. We are not yet in a Clash of Civilizations and it would be a mistake at this time to think that we are. We should attempt to handle the conflict as Irregular Warfare, until the threat from the Islamists becomes greater—or is neutralized.

Our Overall Strategy

Our overall strategy must include information dissemination (communication) that is as effective as that of our enemy. However, this should not be confused with the spreading of our own values, attitudes, and ideology about economic and political systems. The goal of our strategy should be stability (homeostatic equilibrium), not political or economic development. The immediate goals must be local security and local authority. In time, we can hope, all Muslims might learn to value the free exchange of ideas, tolerance, free market economics, and representative government and give up those aspects of Islam that are incompatible with Western Culture. In other words, conversion to what we consider best should not be the strategic goal. Our strategic goal should be stability and stopping those who want to destroy us.

Our strategy must include getting Muslims to become a counter-balance to the Islamists. But the two faces of Islam cannot fool us. On the one hand, Muslims can be outwardly moderate, understand, tolerate and peaceful when living among nonbelievers, but inwardly believe in the Great Jihad. Only those who will work against Islamists and the Great Jihad can be trusted.

To date Muslims have failed to:
  • Point out that it is un-Islamic for the Islamists to claim they are conducting a Jihad (holy war), and that the so-called jihadists have perverted authentic Islam.
  • Clarify the “jihad martyrdom” factor so that it is not used as a recruiting tool.
  • Distinguish between offensive, defensive, and personal jihad.
  • Clarify the meaning of “infidel”, so that it is not used for political purposes and the killing of innocents.
  • Point out that many Islamist leaders are not clerics and have no authority to issue fatwas (religious edicts).
  • Point out that the Islamists deliberately ignore or misread many passages of the Qur’an and the Islamic Jurisprudence (the Figh).
Any successful strategy against Islamists requires realism, frankness and a high degree of unity. It requires honesty from governmental officials about the threat, and honesty from a loyal opposition in domestic politics. The skeptics, ideological Luddites (those with naive political beliefs that destroy that which supports and protects them), and partisans cannot be allowed to sabotage our strategy against the Islamists. Domestic political disputes must not provide an opportunity for the Islamists to divide and conquer. The useful idiots must be exposed. We must face this threat as one nation. In Irregular Warfare motivation, dedication, unity, effort and sacrifice are just as critical to success as they are in Conventional War.

Our leaders have to be candid about the threat, and what must be done; they should not speak in generalities or in words designed not to offend Muslims. They must believe in American exceptionalism. They must be honest, accurate and frank. They must project strength and confidence. Our leaders must admit that they don't know all and can't tell all that they know. They must explain:

  • That this is a protracted conflict being played out on a global field with Islamists who have their tentacles virtually everywhere.
  • That the "organization" of the Third Jihad has many autonomous parts and they often hide behind respected religious, culture, and welfare institutions.
  • That the legal rights and protections of individuals, determined to be appropriate for peace, are a mill stone around the neck of open, free, representative societies during Irregular Warfare; they need be appropriately revised in those situations when the actions of Islamists destroy the conditions of peace.

Unless there are such revisions, the Islamists will exploit the weaknesses of their target countries to their advantages.

The Challenge

The ideology of the Islamists is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since true believers consider Qur’an law and its Sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. This view must be recognized as a subversive ideology; it should not be legitimized as a religion. It is true that Christianity, Shinto, and other religions do not have stellar records.

However, dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised, residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. The teaching of hatred for non-believers is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country, and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status, can Islamists accept diversity. We value God given rights of individuals—Islamists values submission to Islamic leaders.

It is true that Islamists want to expel Western influences from all territory formerly under Muslim control. They want their politico-economic and philosophical views to be dominant. Whereas most insurgents in the past were motivated by a utopian view of a better world with economic equality and social fraternity, Islamists seek spiritual purity in the eyes of Allah. Islamists see nonbelievers as too weak, too easily tempted, too confused to govern themselves; therefore, scholar-jurists who know the way of Allah must control them. They seek to protect people from worldly temptations; therefore they attempt to remove anything that will prevent people from submitting to Allah.

The ideology of the Islamists is hostile to pluralistic, representative, secular government, since Islamic true believers consider Qur’an law and its Sharia derivatives the only basis for governance. This view must be recognized as a subversive political ideology; it should not be legitimized as a religion. It is true that in the past the leaders of Christianity, Shinto, and other religions have twisted religious doctrine into political ideologies.

However, today this is true only of Islam. Dhimmi status (subordinate, disfranchised, residents subject to discriminatory taxation and limits on freedom) is unique to Islam. Only when Islam controls a country, and all non-Muslims have accepted dhimmi status, can Islamists accept diversity. Today the teaching of hatred for non-believers is unique to Islam. Western Culture values the God given rights of individuals—Islamists values submission to Islamic leaders.

“Moderate and reasonable Muslims” who support the Third Jihad—such as CAIR, the Holy Land Foundation, ISNA, Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination League--are a greater threat than terrorists. Such “moderates” are Islamists since they do not reject those parts of the Qur’an that call for a Great Jihad.

They hid their true intent and consider it in keeping with the Qur’an to deceive non-believers. They use our legal system to silence and punish free speech critical of Islamists or their sources of financing. They are the lead elements of the “fifth column” seeking to weaken Western Culture and prepare the way for Islamic domination of the world.

It is Islamists—not all Muslims—who want the Third Jihad to be a worldwide movement that will cause all non-believes to submit.

More effective ways to neutralize the tactics, techniques and strategies of the Third Jihad must be used in the future if it is to be defeated. We must defeat, deter, or neutralize our enemy. In Irregular Warfare there is never the final victory of Conventional War—success is defined by stability. First, we must recognize that killing Islamist leaders will not end the Third Jihad.

The leaders represent an important segment of our enemy, but not its totality. Second, we do not want to make Islam or an entire Islamic culture our enemy. Third, we must recognize that the demise of Israel will not mean an end of the Third Jihad, even though Israel will always be used to rally support for the Third Jihad. Fourth, we must recognize that withdrawal from the Middle East will only embolden the Islamists and make the final Clash of Civilizations more likely.

Strategy to Defeat the Third Jihad

The best strategy for defending Western Culture includes:

1. Assure that the Middle East and South Asia are stabilized and that worldwide no state is willing to support Islamists attempting to overthrow those in authority.

2. Work toward energy independence through:
  • Developing the massive U.S. oil resources so that our economy is not dependent on sources that our enemies can disrupt. This would include the conversation of coal and natural gas into oil.
  • Reducing dependence on fossil fuels, and using less energy overall, while maintaining our standard of living.
  • Developing new sources of energy—primarily proven nuclear energy systems, such as those non-SL1 systems abandoned by the Army in the 1960s.
3. Adopt a policy of containment until the faults within the Third Jihad cause its ideological certitude to collapse, allowing other Muslims to neutralize the Islamists. Pursue such policies, both overt and covert, to hasten this collapse.

4. Face the fact that communication superiority is a prerequisite for success in Irregular Warfare--just as air superiority is a prerequisite for victory in Conventional War. To date we have been ineffective in the strategic communication campaign to strengthen the will of our own people, to weaken the will of our enemies, and to gain the support of people around the world. In the current battle of wills strategic communication is the center of gravity. This conflict is not to be won through economic, diplomatic, and military means.

5. Develop a message as effective as Muhammad's in winning hearts and minds. Then develop a sociopolitical structure to communicate that message which is more effective than that of the global revivalist movement known as the Third Jihad.  Recognize that the true believers of the Third Jihad are willing to suffer, sacrifice, deceive, kill, conquer, and die for their cause. Recognize that we need true believers in our cause, i.e. the principles and ideals of Western Culture.

6. Encourage respected leaders and scholars of the Islamic world to condemn in religious terms those using violence in the name of Islam. Also condemn as “useful idiots” those in the West who give aid, comfort and support to Islamists.

7. Take actions to strengthen pride in Western Culture. The weakening of the will in Europe and America, and ability to protect Western Culture as it developed in the modern era (from 1500 to the 1960s), has many causes. Partly it is the result of actions by those disillusioned by World War I and World War II, and partly it is the result of the cycle of rise and decline common to all groups. The ability to counter the Third Jihad depends on strengthening the will and unity of all of those who value Western Culture.

8. Designate any Muslim an Islamist, even if he or she claims to be a moderate, if that person will not condemn the Islamists and renounce that portion of the Qur’an that calls for the Great Jihad.

Life and liberty requires knowledge of your enemies and the ability to destroy or neutralize those enemies.

Dr Sam Holliday is Director of the Armiger Cromwell Center

All publications copyright © 2010 Armiger Cromwell Center. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

All posts by Sam Holliday on Politeia

Related dossiers


- The Unholy Alliance"
- "The Jihad Project"
- "In Defense of Liberty"
- "Legal Jihad"
- "The Balkan Caliphate"
- "Stop Islamization of Europe/America"
- "Eurabia"
- "Islamization=Apartheid"
- "Apostating Islam"

 
RatePoint Business Reviews