If Muslims are taught traditional Islam, they are inculcated with certain beliefs, and these beliefs include the following:
1) All Muslims must participate, directly or indirectly (depending on the circumstances) in the "struggle" or Jihad to push back the boundaries of Dar al-Islam, to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam -- everywhere. The world belongs to Allah, and to his people. That world is the whole world, and not merely "that part of the world where Muslims in 2008 dominate but nowhere else" or "that part of the world where Muslims dominate in 2008, and all other areas that they once dominated -- including the lands now known as Spain, Israel, Sicily, Greece, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Rumania, much of Hungary, much of southern and central Russia, almost all of India." No, it means the whole world.
2) Muslims are taught that between Muslims, and non-Muslims, Believers and Infidels, there must exist a permanent state of war, though not always of open warfare (when that would not be to the Muslim advantage).
3) Muslims are taught that the traditional means of conducting warfare on behalf of the Faith of Islam -- combat or qitaal -- has as one of its modern avatars what the Infidels have no trouble calling "terrorism," but which many Muslims think is simply another form of qitaal, one justified by the present military superiority of Infidels. Thus, for example, while a very few Muslim spokesmen have, in a very tepid way, ostentatiously claimed that "terrorism" is anti-Muslim, inspection of these remarks shows that the definition of "innocents" used in these pro-forma, public-relations efforts is narrow enough to exclude, for example, every single Israeli man, woman, and child, and a great many of those whom we normally call civilians among other Infidel populations as well.
4) Muslims are taught to owe their loyalty -- their sole loyalty -- to Islam, and to fellow members of the Umma, the Community of Believers. It is impossible for a Believer to owe loyalty -- true loyalty -- to an Infidel nation-state, with legal and political principles and institutions that flatly contradict the Shari'a. To the extent that a Muslim is a bad or lapsed Muslim, he may not take his duties as a Muslim seriously. He may start to think of himself, even, as merely a "cultural" Muslim -- which may be a way of saying "I'm-a-Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, which in turn, may simply be someone's way of getting at the fact that he is, in truth, an apostate, but for various reasons -- fear, or filial piety being the two most common -- he can't come out and say it. Unfortunately, those "cultural" Muslims sometimes -- unwittingly -- prolong the confusion of unwary Infidels, by making the latter think that these non-Muslim Muslims can be taken to be the real thing. Attitudes, conclusions, and even policies of Infidel governments have been based on the wrong, because unrepresentative, representatives of the dangerous Total Belief-System of Islam.
5) The "regional jihads" -- say that in Kashmir, or against India, or Israel, or the governments of Thailand and the Philippines -- are not separate from, much less different from, the "global jihad." Rather, they should be seen as merely the local manifestations of the duty, the impulse, of Jihad. In the end, everyone beavering away to win this or that region for Islam, or to beat down non-Muslims who may not be as submissive as they should be in a well-run Muslim state, or who may need to be driven out in greater numbers from a Muslim land for the benefit, presumably, of the local Muslims, is part of one enormous Jihad, the universal or worldwide one.
The Turkestan Front Muslims who have been setting off bombs in China, the Muslims within India setting off bombs there, the members of Laskar-e-Jihad or for that matter Pakistan's I.S.I., who helped drive out the Kashmiri Pandits (nearly 400,000 of them) into India, or Lashkar Jihad whipping up sentiment against Infidels in Indonesia, or Ansar al-Islam, or Jund al-Islam, or Hizballah, or Hamas, or a hundred or a thousand groups, including those that recruit deep within the countries of Western Europe, from those Muslims who are born and raised in, but are not of, Western Europe -- all of these should be seen as not assuagable local groups, but groups hell-bent on this or that local target. And the sum of all those local or lesser jihads is the Great and Universal Jihad against Unbelievers, and for Islam, and Believers, everywhere.
Bravo, Hugh!
There is no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim. Muslims either engage in jihad (violent or stealth) or turn a blind eye towards it. After all, denial is more than a river in Egypt. "Muslims in name only" want the duality of being able to claim protection from other Muslims while pretending to their Western audiences that they would never become terrorists.
You have to stand up for what you believe in. Only cowards and fools do otherwise.
“Islam is not a monolith” and “we can’t tar one billion people with the same brush..”
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/09/06/islam-is-not-a-monolith-and-we-cant-tar-one-billion-people-with-the-same-brush/
Thank you for another on point essay, Hugh. As you and Robert have pointed out many times here in the past, there is much more that can, and should, be done defensively to limit the damage that Islam does to our own societies, and you have also emphasized that we need to go on offense as well. Where are our "Radio free Islam" efforts? Where are our attempts to undermine, within Islamic countries, the doctrines of Islam, whether by educational efforts, or, where necessary, fomenting and supporting revolution by those people who do not hold with the Islamic ideology? Even though Islam is not confined to a particular territory or country, many of the same offensive efforts that were so successful during WWII to defeat the Nazis and, in Japan, Shintoism, and afterwards, during the cold war, to defeat the Soviet Union, can be used today. What we seem to be missing is the leadership that will recognize the issue and begin to turn the tide. Where is our Churchill?
I sometimes think that Robert and Hugh must get tired of repeating these basic facts, but I am always grateful when they do so. For me, and for any chance or casual readers who may stray in here, the fundamental account is always useful. It should be kept to the fore like this, and be always available.
What I don't get, is the people who are not convinced by it, whether they are particularly informed about the subject or not.
I can read. Can't they read?
I sometimes think that Robert and Hugh must get tired of repeating these basic facts, but I am always grateful when they do so. For me, and for any chance or casual readers who may stray in here, the fundamental account is always useful. It should be kept to the fore like this, and be always available.
What I don't get, is the people who are not convinced by it, whether they are particularly informed about the subject or not.
I can read. Can't they read?
Yes, Novalis, I would like to second those remarks.
I feel a need to express my thanks to all those who work hard to provide this wonderful resource. Sadly I cannot offer financial help at present, so all the more reason to at least offer heartfelt appreciation to Robert, Hugh, Marisol, Raymond, Greg, and anyone I may have missed out.
As Robert said recently, many of those who like to slander him or his work are quick to run away rather than engage in an honest debate. When debates do happen they make for a gripping contest; contests which Robert never loses.
Enough material is probably here in the archives of this site already to win any debate about the undeniable inherent dangers of Islam to the west, no matter who argues against.
The decline of Islam in the western world must be pretty certain now to happen - sooner or later.
All that needs to happen now is for the painstakingly gathered information here and at other sites and in books and in the talk of returning service people, to be broadly spread and assimilated until it sinks in and becomes common knowledge. Then the climate will change completely, and I hope, the process of islamification will shift into reverse.
Despite the desperation of the oic and others, this growing awareness is now unstoppable.
So have a drink and try this comedy sketch for an interlude:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4-WOVcZNWw
The Nazi's were just doing their job when they killed us. The Jihadist are just doing their job when they kill us.
Sheik yer mami wrote:
It may be interesting to differentiate the various Islamic sects: Shiites of Iran fund terror operations in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia fund terror operations in Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippeans, Indonesia, Chechnya, and Bosnia; and Osama Bin Laden, a Sunni, funds terror operations everywhere. So while there are certainly differences among them, does it really matter that I lump them together? Does anyone really care precisely which sub-sect of a barbarian political system blows up a busload of women and children?
..........................................
Absolutely, I agree. Well put. I am not a know-nothing--these distinctions are important, but they are really not part of the overarching issue. John McCain was hammered when he made a Sunni/Shi'ite gaffe, but the mistake didn't change his major point.
When Barack Obama appeared on the O'Reilly show a few days ago, he did--with very little conviction--allow that there really was a "war on terror", but when O'Reilly then went on to ask him about the looming possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, Obama stopped him, and emphatically stated that Iran was "not part of this" (the "war on terror", one would assume) because they were Shi'ite, *not* Sunni.
It is as though some people have learned one thing, and one thing only, about Islam--the Sunni/Shi'ite split, and then decided that they were now terribly sophisticated, and didn't need no more book learnin'.
The split is important, but not as important as the shared Jihad ideology. Also--the split is not impermiable--with Shi'ite Iran jockeying for greater influence, and funding Hizb'allah in largely Sunni Syria and Lebanon, and funding Hamas in almost the entirely Sunni Palestinian territories.
It is like Israel making a huge issue out of the differences between Hamas and Fatah--the differences are there, and they are deep and ugly--note Hamas' savage expulsion of Fatah from Gaza just a little over a year ago--but they both want to destroy Israel, and will, on occasion, even act in concert to bring that about.
Jihad is the main issue. The rest is just details.
I sometimes think that Robert and Hugh must get tired of repeating these basic facts..."
-- from a posting above
I will speak only for myself -- boy, you're not kidding. And not only repeating the facts, but deliberately using, over and over again, the same turns of phrase, even the same syntax, in order to drum, drum, drum whatever I am writing in, in, in. Besides, if you finally arrive at a lapidary formulation, it would be perverse to deliberately avoid repeating it. In any other context I would go out of my way to avoid repetition; here, I deliberately inflict it, on others and on myself.
But what else can one do?
Hugh
Thank you.
The first established triumph of our counterjihad will be: No more concessions to Islam from the free world.
We're collecting concessions here:
http://concess.blogspot.com/
We're going to have a single link we can all use to share with our friends or link to on blogs that will have an enormous collection of concessions the West has made to Islam.
The blog was just started yesterday. We invite you to participate. When you come across a concession a non-Muslim has made to Muslim demands, please forward it to us and we'll post it:
citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.com
Chipping away, one concession at a time, is one way they fight in jihad. People who don't read Jihad Watch need to become much more aware of this.