The Continued Misunderstanding of the Salafi Jihad Threat

The jihadists could care less about borders-to them they were imposed by the West. Besides, the Islamic world has no borders according to their thinking. I think a lot of Jihadist jackasses join up with hardly a clue about Islam. They're in it for the glory of world conquest and maybe a trip to paradise in the process. They use "religion" as a convenient excuse for their heinous deeds. Just because some fool memorizes the Koran doesn't mean he has to buy what it says or even understand what it means (although they sure seem to latch onto that stuff about killing easily enough-a simple message for simple minds). That just makes him a mindless killer. No wonder they seem like a bunch of murderous robots with no notion of decency at all. Killing is all they understand and they'll travel anywhere to achieve it in the cause of global domination. Allah is probably no more than a rationalization of their acts to many of these crazies.

One comparison that comes immediately to mind is with old-fashioned communist revolutionaries who viewed their proper area of operations as the entire western world, and gladly worked to overthrow governments wherever they happened to find themselves. ( ...walks away humming the Internationale)

salaf=ancestor
aslaaf=ancestors

salafi=ancestral (old school)

The salafi school is a bunch of holier-than-thou mohammer-worshipping neanderthals that believes that older is better and:

more primitive is better
more ignorant is better
more totalitarian is better
more mindless is better.

In other words old is good. new is bad.

Fine with me. Bomb them all into the stone age and that should work out well for all concerned.

Why not just say it to the fools in the media and to Foggy Bottom:

"It's islam, stupid"

It it those petrodollars sloshing around the beltway that is funding this obfuscation ? Why is it that an otherwise admirable John Bolton, can still talk of "occupied territories" ?

Blair talks of "restarting the peace process"

Who are these parties trying to appease ?

Stupid is as stupid does.

At this point in time, most democratic nations will not just bomb the hell out of another country without outright military provocation, nor will they suddenly deport any group of people.

Those actions might come to pass in the future but something really terrible would have to happen first (even more terrible than the terrorist attacks that have already been done or thwarted).

As things stand right now in most democratic countries, the populace needs to demand a change in either the laws of the land or the enforcement of certain laws. "The people" have to speak up and convince their representatives in government to do something. This requires organization and action.

Members of Parliament are supposed to represent their riding. But how many members of their ridings do they actually hear from? The activists, of course. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

I'm going to volunteer somewhere but I haven't yet decided where.

A friend of mine goes to the library every day and reads the newspapers. Then he writes letters to the editors and columnists. Many of his letters get published. (He often writes to a pro-terrorist columnist at the Toronto Star; of course, those letters never see the light of day!) But my articulate, intelligent friend is being an activist in the best way he can. He inspires me.

I think the west needs to understand, that despite muslim claims to the contrary, there is a central muslim authority that enforces orthodoxy, and that therefore the jihadist doctrine IS officially endorsed (in addition to being enshrined in the Koran of course). The central muslim austority is a loose informal confederation of various imams, but all of which are lock step on issues such as jihad and the goal of forcibly converting the whole world. These imams have the power to issue death sentences for unorthodox views, which the muslim mob then carries out. While this central authority isn't a formal office with a single person, such as the papacy, it is in fact much more powerful. The papacy never had the power to issue or carry out the death sentence for heresy or apostasy (other then in the area of the papal states, where the pope was the civil and religious authority at some points in history ) because it was believed the life-giving church cannot licitly put anyone to death. Therefore, during the middle ages, apostates and heretics were handed over to the civil authorities for punishment. And this was one of the things that made the Protestant Reformation possible, because once Luther got backing for his ideas from the civil authorities, the princes, there was nothing the pope could do to him other then excommunicate him. The pope could not issue a fatwa-like death sentence for execution by the nearest fundamental catholic that could get to Luther, because this would be considered murder even in medieval Christendom. And the pope never had actual power to define doctrine for all Christians, only western catholic christians from about the 9th/10th centuries when the western catholic church first moved to an absolutist papacy. The protestants rejected the papacy's power to do so, and the eastern Orthodox christians never accepted that the Roman papacy ever had such a power, but of course muslims were successful at wiping out most of eastern christendom.

And I think it is important to note, in view of muslim claims that catholics don't have zealous murderers like the muslims because they have the papacy, that today's papacy is fairly weak with only a limited ability (or will) to suppress dissident views. For example, in the theology departments of many catholic universities, there are fairly powerful and influential dissident groups that advocate married clergy, women priests, or that believe that homosexuality is moral. But there are no dissident groups that advocate murder of non-catholics. And such groups are also absent from Protestant churches, which do not have the papacy at all. By contrast, dissident groups advocating women imams, that homosexuality is moral, or that jihad is illicit, are either completely nonexistent or totally noninfluential at the muslim religious schools that train believers and imams, but groups that advocate murder of nonbelievers are very influential at these institutions. But if the presence of the most extremist jihadis groups were just the unfortunate result of the fact that muslims don't have a central authority to enforce orthodoxy as muslims claim, other dissident groups such as those advocating the acceptability of homosexuality should also be present(come on, we know some muslims must be gay and that some of those would argue that that one could be gay and a good muslim if they felt safe and free to do so). But in fact, the loose confederation of imams would have the muslim mob kill anyone who would argue that one could be a good muslim and gay, which is why no one does (but then the imams would have the mob murder anyone simply for admitting to being gay).

On the other hand, why would the imams want to repudiate a view on jihad which is in the Koran and from which they get their power, as they need people to believe the Koranic verses on violence, that way they can get them to commit violence when they want to futher their personal and islamic agendas, for example by inciting the mob to kill Christians in response to Pope Benedict's remarks or the Danish cartoons? But the muslims find it useful to disassociate themselves from the murderers among them at times to avoid retribution or other consequences for these killing, but they also find the murderers killing and the intimidation of non-muslims that results from those killlings useful, and that is why they will never truly act against the murderers among them, until the retribution and consequences for the murderers' killings is directed at them also, for example, by holding them responsible for not taking real action to prevent those killings, and demanding that they root out jihadist beliefs and the murderers among them.

Virtually all muslims share the belief (a fundamental part of the Koran) that it is desirable to forcibly convert the rest of the world, how big a segment endorses murder of school children such as in Beslan (and this is a bigger segment then the west would like to admit) is of lesser significance then the fact that the west is facing a violent movement with widespread support among muslims to force Islam on the rest of the world, and re-orient it's foreign policy. The Koran is just like the communist manifesto in that it proscribes instituting it's ideology by violence- if you beleive in the communist manifesto, you believe in using violence to install communism. The western intelligences services accurately discerned that there is no such thing as moderate communists, and even moderate socialists are potential security risks, and the western states adopted a hardcore policy of confronting and isolating communist and socialist states - which policy eventually worked and defeated communism with minimum of bloodshed. No one tried to prop-up "moderate" or "pro-western" communists to a significant degree, or reform "communism", because all violent ideologies are fundamentally flawed. Same policy needs to be put in place with regards to Islam - any ideology that has a death sentence for apostates is not a religion but a mafia. This policy is harder in the short run, so the west prefers to continue to delude itself that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't believe in the goal of AlQaeda - Muslim world-domination and choses to largely appease a la Chamberlain rather then realizing the full extent of the threat.

American in Germany:
"And it isn't because we have not "done enough" to make these "individuals" feel welcome either.

These foreigners have been made to feel just as welcome, and probably much more welcome, than I, as an American in Europe. So, please!"

Haha, I have to completely agree with that! I live in the Ranstand, near Rotterdam, where they plan to build the "Muslim Only" hospital. Talk about rolling out the red carpet! It's much harder for me to do certain things (i.e. work) as an American, non-citizen of the E.U. than a muslim Turk fresh from Istanbul. Anyway, there was also a Dutch member of the government a couple weeks ago who said something along the lines of "sharia law wouldn't be so bad for the Dutch"! At least he was rebuked by most of his peers. It's a shame this country drove out Ayaan Hirsi Ali, one of the few politicians here who didn't have her head in the sand. Oh well, we welcome her to Washington.

Walid Phares said

This assertion and other little informed debates taking place in the U.S. these days are committing an analytical sin: Projecting onto the Jihadists an alien thinking, most likely because of the pressures of American politics.

Some of it may be intentional, based on "American politics", if getting personal access to petrodollars counts as "politics". But I think the majority of it is based on a false assumption: that the world shares the West's values; that freedom and democracy and pluralism and tolerance are universally desired. Our analysis of the jihad is from the viewpoint of our own cultural prism; we unconsciously project our values onto the jihadists. They, like everyone else in the world, must be just like us.

Hence the "if we just give them a homeland (or don't display any cartoons, or don't say anything negative about violence in religion, etc.), then they will stop attacking us" canard. It sounds so logical to us, and yet it is so utterly, completely, false.

We need to accept that we are dealing with 7th Century caravan raiders, slave traders, warlords, and wife beaters, who have been told by their Allah that the entire planet is theirs for the taking; Allah unreservedly sanctions the use of violence (he'll even get specific as to which limbs should be severed) in this task of conquering the planet. It's not that Allah allows them to take the planet, Allah demands that they conquer the planet. But this is just my opinion. Read Robert's books, and even better, read the original sources (Qur'an, surah, hadith) to form your own opinion on who we are dealing with. Keep asking yourself, does this sound like me? Do these sound like my values?

As long as people are not willing to confront and realize the religious motivations behind the Muslims' actions (i.e., jihad in Allah's cause), it will continue to be relegated to second or third place. The justification non-Muslims will come up with in such cases will always be political strangulation, economic depravation, etc. It will never be the religion.

But to Muslims, Islam is not confined to one's compartment. It defines every aspect of a Muslim. As in how to do each salat perfectly, how many rukus, how to perform wudu, how to dress (esp. women), etc. So much is meticulously defined.

Hence, to analyze a Muslim's action, one needs to understand the religious motivation. It is either a devout Muslim or a non-devout one. Some of them may have some "innovation", but that is considered heretical by orthodox Islam.

From the article: "When they preach, a lot of people are furious. A lot of Muslims are outraged at what's going on."

I am getting a little, no, very put off by these people who keep thinking that we, us, me, and you have done something to start the jihad. People who are half-hearted in their own religion have a problem understanding devout religious practitioners. Can you understand why a devout Christian would refuse a life saving medical procedure?

Devout Muslims are commanded by Allah through the Perfect Man to spread Islam by going door to door with the Quran in one hand and a gun in the other. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they will kill you if you do not let them in.

Until our leaders understand the Jihad is for spreading Islam, and the cause comes from within the Quran and the Hadiths, we will someday have three choices, Islam, Dhimmitude, or Death. Their only grievance is that we are not Muslim.

By the way, I thought that a new Islamic sect had sprung up when I heard the word Salafi, my reading indicates that is spruced up, warmed over Wahabbism.

The "Palestinians" and their willing collaborators and propagandists are particularly eager to make Infidels in the West, without whose economic and diplomatic support -- based on reasons both silly and sinister -- the whole fiction of the "Palestinian people" and their pseudo-polity would dissolve into disarray, to convince us that they are local in their goals, that they have not the slightest interest in harming any Infidels except the Jews of Israel.

It's all nonsense. The same texts, the same promptings, that cause Muslims to plot to kill Hindus in Kashmir or Mumbai or Delhi, or to kill Buddhist villagers in southern Thailand, or Christians in Nigeria or southern Sudan or southern Philippines, or to kill Hindus, Buddhists, and Christians in Bangladesh or Indonesia, are to found in the same Qur'an and the same Hadith that inspire the members of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and even the Gazan succursale of Al-Qaeda.

Same texts, same goals. Defeat the Infidels. Suppress them. Take possession of whatever lands they now possess. Tear down everything that stands in the way of Islam becoming dominant, of anything that prevents Muslims from ruling, and eventually, in some form, of imposing the Shari'a.

Yes, the Infidel state of Israel is an intolerable affront. Yes, the Hindus controlling Kashmir is an intolerable affront. But so is the Hindus controlling India itself, or the Infidels in France lording it over the Muslims there, and the same in England, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Everywhere that Muslims once possessed a territory, they must get it back. Everywhere that Muslims now live, they must come to dominate. Everywhere that Muslims do not now live in, but that are firmly in the Infidel camp, and inhabited almost entirely by Infidels, must nonetheless eventually come under the sway of Islam. All of Islam, all of its tenets, all of the attitudes and atmospherics that naturally arise among those born into Islam, or raised in societies suffused with Islam (even within an Infidel land), tells Muslims what is the only right, the only just, outcome - the Victory of Islam.

Ludicrous to believe for one minute that some different doctrine motivates the Muslims living in Thailand and Pakistan from those living in Gaza and the West Bank, from those living in Indonesia, and Iran, and Sudan, and Nigeria, and England, and France.

Same Qur'an. Same Hadith. Same Muhammad as the Perfect Man, the Exemplar for All Muslims, for All Time. A text that talks not of lands but of the world, and all the lands it. A text that offers, at the very heart of its belief-system, a division of the world between Believer and Infidel.

What more does one need, by way of explanation for Muslim attitudes, and Muslim behavior, everywhere, and over 1350 years of history?

Regarding Godfrey's post; I have always wondered, if a homosexual Muslim homicide bomber blows himself up, does he get 72 virgin young boys at his triumphant entry into what he thinks will be heaven?

During my very short stint in a state prison, lo these many years ago, I witnessed the Imam of the Muslim "church" in the prison engage in a homosexual act shortly after holding the Muslim service. The Muslim group in that prison were all Blacks and always had several mean guards posted at the closed doors. Our Christian services were, of course, always open and no guards posted.

As my Wife and I have done many years of prison ministry, we have noticed the significant increase in the Muslim population of the USA's prisons.

"Pearly boys" also await those who enter the Muslim Heaven. If the 72 houris are according to Christoph Luxenberg in the Syriac Ur-text (possibly of Edessa, or present-day Urfa, in Turkey), "clear raisins," then what does Luxenberg make of the phrase "pearl-like boys"? Strange estrangela, indeed!

When one portrays their "heaven" as the fulfillment of sexual gratification, it leads to some odd areas. For example, what about those who practice bestiality, are there 72 sheep waiting for them? And those who practice necrophilia, are there 72 dead bodies waiting for them? And then we're on to plushophilia (google it), are there 72 people wearing furry costumes waiting for them? And coprophagia, are there 72 piles of poop waiting for them? This is their idea of "heaven"?

Flying around learning the answers to all the mysteries of the universe? Helping their descendents or others needing help back on Earth? No, they're all sitting around humping each other.

It is offensive that Bush, Blair, Rice et al keep claiming that we are the same, that we share the same values, that we all want the same thing. I for one want something different.

then what does Luxenberg make of the phrase "pearl-like boys"?

It's barley, doncha know. Good in soups and stews.

Paradise is beef stew and fruit cup.