Around two years ago, I wrote on LGF and JW/DW, about the personal aspect of Jihad. Can’t find the link now but I had it on HD.

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

Jihad is not just about acquiring Infidel territory but also imposing the Sharia on all Infidel systems. There is another component of Jihad that has been overlooked. This is the private and personal aspect of the Jihad.

What is generally not realised is that this war, is being waged by Muslim civilians on 'Infidel' civilians. It is not the governments of Egypt or Pakistan, or its armies that are waging the Jihad. It is civilians against civilians. This is a war that each Muslim is waging on the non-Muslim, whenever the opportunity arises. It is known as the Jihad. As Islam is also a religion, there has to be a private part to the Jihad. And this I do not mean the self-improving part, but what motivates the Muslim to do Jihad. That is, why each Muslim is waging a personal Jihad on each and every Infidel. It is private and personal. We have yet to understand this and why this is so.

So why is this? Each and every Muslim is taught that he must wage Jihad, i.e., extend Islam by any means. This can mean converting a non-Muslim, or to donate money to the Jihad. Unless he does so, he puts his soul in grave danger, as it may be in eternal torment in the fires of hell. This is the personal reason, and not just about bringing about sharia in Kaffir lands, but to seek his/her own salvation.

Thus any Muslim you initially meet, will try to assess if you can be converted. If he thinks you will, he will devote enormous effort to bring it about. Now you may think this is altruistic, but it isn’t. The reasons are purely selfish, and that is to secure his place in paradise and avoid the fires of hell. The Jihad is a matter of faith, and he will do anything (including killing non-Muslims, which BTW gives bonus points in paradise), to avoid his Islamic hell. In his world and to his understanding, he is not doing anything wrong; in fact he is doing right.

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

Spengler has recently elaborated on this, and points out that for the devout Muslim, Jihad is the equivalent of the Sacrament or Holy Communion.

With this kind of personal motivation, there is no way we can ever come to an accommodation with Islam or change the institution of Jihad to a more benign one. We might as well ask Christians to abandon the Holy Communion - it has a better chance of success. There is thus no option but a separation of Islam from the civilised world.

Posted by: DP111 at October 14, 2006 7:55 AM

An article by Professor Moshe Sharon stated:

"All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the western world. They know better than all the speakers in the mosques, all those who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish. These western politicians know that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read a word of Arabic."

While those western politicians don't need to read Arabic to learn about Islam, their self-righteous ignorance has been as much a hinderance to recognizing the problem as Bostom's contemporaries.

P.S. Jihaddeniers; I like it.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2006 7:58 AM

DP111,

You cited:

"Thus any Muslim you initially meet, will try to assess if you can be converted."

I disagree, a bit.

There are Muslims who do not operate in that mode.

I'm not defending her (as I think she's a MINO), but Irshad Manji comes to mind.

I'm not sure how Muhammad Ali, Kareen Abdul Jabar, and Yousef Islam view the issue.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2006 8:08 AM

I don't think that we should give up on trying to get modern-minded Muslims or Muslims of good will to recognize the immorality of jihad. But we certainly can't assume that we will succeed with any great number of them or that they will take care of this problem for us. We have to do what we can to get some of them on our side while relying upon ourselves to defend ourselves against the Islamist threat.

Posted by: lakeside at October 14, 2006 9:13 AM

l know there are some Europeans and North Americans blaming Jews for all the muslims violence, well when was the last time Jewish people imposed anything on the others? now Europeans are the first to see imposition of sharia and lack of freedoms by muslims. we need to continue to fight for freedoms, and neve allow any concessions of muslims on their grounds of freedom of religion. islam is a cult and does not deserve any respect.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 14, 2006 9:24 AM

Individual Jihad in India
1. Throwing stones on hindu procession
2. Simply overbreeding to create a local darul islam
3. Attacking electricity meter readers, traffic cops to show hatred of kafir laws
4. Flouting kafir laws by blaring Azan and violating noise ordinances
5. Raping hindu women
6. Randomly stabbing hindus in muslim areas
7. Illegal cow slaughter
8. Desecrating hindu temples
9. Building a mosque next to a temple and using the mosque as a base to attack hindu temple goers
10. Flying pakistani flag or shouting pro-pakistan slogans

Posted by: Shyamsunder at October 14, 2006 10:22 AM

OT

Folks,

Some posters at Islam-Watch are looking for volunteers to help us work on a project called "Handbook for Infidel Debaters." We have compiled a list of approximately 90 misleading claims (myths, half-truths, etc.) commonly made by Islamic apologists and spread widely in the mainstream media. We will be writing rebuttals to those claims. The goal is to provide a tool with which to educate the public and, at the same time provide for the debater or conversationalist some handy rebuttals to be used to counter such misleading claims.

For those who are interested in this project, more details can be found in this Introduction

The List of apologist claims ("no compulsion in Islam" etc) can be found in this
Index

Thank you.

Posted by: Archimedes at October 14, 2006 10:47 AM

I am ordering the book, it looks quite interesting.

Studying articles on JihadWatcc, the attempt to understand Islam, to understand Jihad, raises many questions beyond Islam, particularly about the nature of belief systems. Belief-systems (Islam, Nazism, Marxism, Christianity, political beliefs, etc.) appear to tend to dogmatism by nature. People don't generally argue about obvious facts (gravity, the height of a mountain, some self-evident geographical feature, that 1 + 1= 2, etc.) but people will oppress others and even kill for beliefs-beliefs that are not facts. Belief-systems appear to be necessary (political or other "religious beliefs) in order to make sense of the mystery of life because reason is not able to grasp the meaning of the whole.

Islam is a belief-system allegedly dictated to Mohammad (via Gabriel) and is supposedly the exact words of God. The Koran is not like the "holy books" of other religions in that regard. The "holy books" of other religions are considered "inspiration" and subject to well established traditions of interpretation. They are not God's exact words. The Jihadists can point to the Koran and say: what don't you understand about a direct order from God to make the unbeliever submit to our belief-system, to kill him if he refuses to convert to our belief-system? What don't you understand about true Islam?

Though beliefs are not facts, they have consequences that are real. The meaning of a belief is it's consequences. Islam appears constructed to make self-serving appear holy, to enable the believer to exploit, to oppress, to enslave (particularly Negro Africans), to deceive, to kill with a good conscience. It's consequences must be violence to unbelievers as mandated by God in the Koran. Islam will either triumph or it will suffer a counter-violence so catastrophic, so devastating, that facts will make the belief-system unbelievable-even to someone like Bin Laden.

I foresee a catastrophic end to Islam, of this world-wide conflict between this belief-system and unbelievers. I do not think the belief system (based in the Koran) is able to be interpreted in order to "reform Islam". Perhaps Jesus was right when he warned that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. This warning of Jesus will be recalled when Jihad and this belief-system ends.

Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2006 11:03 AM

One of the things I greatly appreciate about JihadWatch, articles by Robert or Hugh, the many thoughtful comments of guys named storagemanager, etc. is how they often provoke thought beyond the issue of Jihad. They have caused me to think hard about the nature of beliefs, the nature of belief-systems, what they are, their consequences, and their meaning which is found in their consequences.

The separation of fact from belief is crucial in the scientific process, in logical reasoning. But beliefs appear to be more important than facts in the assertion of reasons to live. Jesus was right that "man does not live by bread alone". Every reason for doing anything must have a why-ultimately a belief is the last reason for living.

Or so it appears to me.

Posted by at October 14, 2006 11:26 AM

Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2006 11:28 AM

Islam is ultimately unreformable because Mohammad set up a belief-system that is so rigid (alleged dictation from God) that he not only screwed his wives, including his 9 year old "wife", he has ultimately screwed the Muslims of the Mideast, and Muslims everywhere. (There will always be an element of believers who will point to the Koran and say: what don't you understand about a direct order from God re jihad? They will believe violence against the unbeliever is mandated until the belief-system becomes absolutely repugnant through the catastrophic counter-violence that it will provoke.) Mohamed will someday be seen as having screwed Muslim believers big time.

Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2006 12:11 PM

DP111,

You cited:

"Thus any Muslim you initially meet, will try to assess if you can be converted."

I disagree, a bit.

There are Muslims who do not operate in that mode.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2006 08:08 AM

You be right there some have to be left to pay the dimmi tax and work the lands it is all in their book

Never forget that. Looks like people are reading the books out there and history does matter never forget that???

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN

PS
Just caught up and heard the itunes

Mr Spencer you may want to ck the sound, sounded like a cipmunk or something may be on this end but liked it!!

Wonder why the French decieded to stand up better to stand than knell.

Posted by: Catherine at October 14, 2006 1:28 PM

The question we must ask ourselves is can we or them the moderate Muslims separate Mohammad from Islam and Islam from Mohammad.I believe you can not. It's like separating Jesus from Christianity and Christianity from Jesus.It doesn't matter if they are Sunni,Shia or Sufi they all follow Mohammad.We just have to fight them till we can't fight them.

Posted by: RED at October 14, 2006 2:16 PM

DP111 is right - the 'point system' is the single most important motivating factor for individual Moslems. Whatever they do or don't do can be weighed up on a simple cost/benefit ratio.

ie. Partying it up with a cocaine binge in a strip joint = minus 50 points

Slaughtering three thousand innocent people the following morning = plus 10,000 points

You can't beat dem odds...

Posted by: Domestos at October 14, 2006 2:21 PM

"They will believe violence against the unbeliever is mandated until the belief system becomes absolutely repugnant through the catastrophic counter-violence it will provoke."

Posted by Frank

You are absolutely right, and like the South Koreans who were itching to open a can of whoop-ass on the North Koreans back about a half a century or so ago, there are a lot of us who having now awakened from our slumber, do not want to sit idly by while the Muslims whine their curriculum into our school systems, whine their representatives into our government, and try to intimidate us into submission. Screw that.

I'm telling my friends about what's going on and it's interesting to watch some of their faces. I never knew there were so many ways to express disbelief, discomfort and confusion with one's facial expressions. Some of them get it though, especially the ones who've been abused by Muslims in one form or another. You don't have to have your head chopped off or your house blown up to get that icky feeling from someone who has a superiority complex, with nothing to back it up. I mean, we have respect for knowledge and achievement in this country (the USA) but I can't imagine bowing down to someone whose main claim to fame is that they hate. And these people seem to woos out when cornered or stood up to, unless they have a large group to back them up. I've never been impressed by cowards and can't imagine submitting my life to a group of them.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 14, 2006 2:34 PM

I'm not sure how Muhammad Ali, Kareen Abdul Jabar, and Yousef Islam view the issue.

Posted by: aynrandgirl at October 14, 2006 2:40 PM

Unfortunately I haven't read Andrew Bostom's book, but I must say that the PDF document behind the link is really worth reading.

It explaines in a credible way, why islamic culture has been so successful in subjugating other cultures throughout history, even though the religious philosophy supporting the civilization is weak at best.

Posted by: Saatanan Islam at October 14, 2006 2:48 PM

"I never knew there were so many ways to express disbelief, discomfort and confusion with one's facial expressions."

Isabellathecrusader-

I like your comment.

I think part of the problem is that the vast majority of non-Muslims usually view religion as a personal matter. We are conditioned to view religion as personal and largely separate from politics and the state. Most people have been willing to be 'tolerant" to the Islamic belief-system because they thought it was just another religious persuasion. But Sharia law and the mandate to Jihad, the direct words of God in the Koran that order the believer to kill the unbeliever, to institute Sharia law, are belief-systems that are essentially political and social in nature.

Islam is a political belief-system where the "Kingdom of Heaven" is on earth, too. It's not to be found within the person- as in Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, etc.

People generally regress when they receive a shock. They go into denial or revert to some childlike response to bad news. People actually physically step back, or put their hands over their eyes when facing unpleasant reality. (People go to some earler place in life-usually childhood, thow tantrums, deny facts, cry, demand, etc.) The people you speak with are like that. Be patient. Eventually, most people face reality as grown-up men and women and step forward to deal it as soon as they adjust to the unpleasant facts. Much of the non-Muslim world is at that stage now and are almost ready to face the unpleasant facts.

(The trials that Robert and others are going through on this matter will pass as folks adjust to the facts. It's not a pleasant thing to be the bearer of unpleasant facts to folks-especially Muslims.)

Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2006 3:16 PM

aynrandgirl,

DP111 stated:

"Thus any Muslim you initially meet, will try to assess if you can be converted."

I don't know that to be true, and therefore politely disagree.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2006 3:17 PM

Isabellathecrusader-

BTW, I have no background psychology. I think I took one course in my first year in college. But I am a people watcher, like some people are bird watchers or JihadWatchers and draw some conclusions about the general nature of humans, including myself, from what I see.

Posted by: Frank at October 14, 2006 3:32 PM

About jihad as an institution, the esteemed French sociologist, Jacques Ellul, insisted that jihad was a permanent institution, a fixed feature of Islam. See his introduction to Bat Ye'or's book, The Dhimmi.

Posted by: Eliyahu at October 14, 2006 7:48 PM

It's the way this violence can acquire an almost orgiastic character (e.g. Algeria in the '90's, Baghdad at the moment)that shows the true nature of Islam. It attempts to harness, to its own ends, the sadistic, psychopathic, densensitised tendencies which lurk, perhaps in everyone's psyche and certainly (very close to the surface) in some people's. In particular, anyone who ever had to raise an army knows that callousness is particularly easy to foster in young men, between the ages of 18 and 25. It is also an impressionable age, particularly prone to fanaticism. Mohammed can be seen to utilise and encourage these (masculinity gone berserk?) characteristics frequently, if you read an account of his career. I know of no other religion that does this - thank goodness (although Nazism did, of course).

Posted by: wallyUK at October 14, 2006 10:44 PM

Off-Topic FYI: There is an ESPN special tomorrow morning (Sunday morning at 9:30am EST) on Pat Tillman called "Outside the Lines" which deals with his journey from the NFL to Afghanistan and tragic death. The preview showed fellow Rangers being interviewed who were there at the scene on the day he was killed. Maybe this will settle the issue of how he died once and for all. I hope so, but I also hope that it will be mainly a tribute to one Man's bravery, dedication, and service to his country, to all of us. Pat Tillman, American Hero, RIP.

Posted by: alexon at October 14, 2006 11:27 PM

Expecting the doctrine of jihad to be expunged by the Islamaniacs is a pipe dream. Jihad is their tool for expansion in the world-giving up that tool would mean the end of expansion. Even more ominous would be the fact that the Islamaniacs would then have no external enemies (those awful infidels) so then they would have to look inward. Would they like what they see then? Probably not. Without us, the infidels, Islamania loses the glue to hold it together because sooner or later they will turn upon themselves in disputing every little point of their cult (just like the Sunni vs Shia feud). Once such internal conflict gets out of control the whole cult will render itself extinct. Therefore, jihad is essential for both expansion and for creating the external enemies necessary to keep some sort of Islamic unity alive.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 15, 2006 12:32 AM

DP11,
exactly, yes, we are not fighting an enemy in the sense that we know what uniform they are wearing. There is none. This is an enemy like no other. It is certainly kill or be killed. We must remember the words of Churchill: "The appeasor is the one who keeps feeding the crocodile hoping he will be eaten last." It's beyond guerilla warfare. Folks like our leaders, and ugh Condi Rice are selling us down the river... I shudder at the thought.
Mother Ecclesiastica:
The individual attacks on civilians you talk about I read about last year where many took place in India and Thailand, etc. To see these attacks now happening in our western countries, on our own very soil is enough to make people wake up.

Posted by: pigtails not veils at October 15, 2006 4:01 AM

Some observations:

If I have read Harris' article correctly, the implication is that if governments can be destabilized, jihadists might be able to work their will, taking over in the chaos. While this has worked in the past, there are several impediments at present:

1. There has to be a concentration of militant Muslims in a geographic region to accomplish this, namely by seeking to impose Sharia law by dint of overwhelming numbers (in areas where they can vote their way into power). I'm thinking of places like Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and certain parts of Europe. This would only occur where opposition is weak.

2. I view jihad less as a theological imperative than as an expansionist tactic, whose "features and benefits" are perceptively described. In this view, one's identity as a Muslim would supersede any national identity, and cultural variations would be subsumed by the cultural totality of Islam. From the scissors-and-paste, patchwork cult started in the seventh century, jihad has been the main instrument of Islamic proliferation, as is carefully pointed out.

Although I can't pretend to speak for other countries, my instincts tell me that if and when another 9/11 event were to occur in the United States, rather than destabilize the political order, it would fan the flames of hatred toward people of Middle Eastern descent and also the political left, similar to the demonization of the Japanese during the 1940s. In this scenario, there would be a lot of pressure to deport or otherwise repress these people, rather than let them increase in alarming numbers such that they might continue to subvert the existing order.

One point the piece doesn't delve into--and which I think important--is that by its very nature, Islam does not admit opposing internal theological views (other than the various sects that have split off). Therefore, real intellectual and doctrinal reformation is not possible, instead, simply vanquishing the opposing "heresies."

Isn't it interesting that Shia and Sunni are slaughtering each other, rather than offering the jihad options of conversion or dhimmitude that is described? This cocksure certainty that Sharia is God's final ruling on human interaction and social order is what drives the animus against modernity and all its implications, as well as the resistance to doctrinal change of any sort.

In this interpretation, the religious aspect of Islam takes back seat to a simple power grab, which is what I think it is. If it wasn't for the immense oil wealth located in the Middle East that directly or indirectly funds these miscreants, I don't think the fanatics would stand a chance.

My own judgment is that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization. If it continues to assert itself in years to come, it should be stamped out mercilessly. A jihad against Islam, perhaps?

Nietsche used to call priests "catastrophic spiders" because of the dogma and (in his view) intellectual sleaze that they promulgated. I wonder what he would have thought about mullahs, imams, emirs and other diverse clerics?

Posted by: prman at October 20, 2006 4:42 PM