Posts Tagged ‘jihad’

KNOW THINE ENEMY

November 30, 2015

Continuing along the lines of my last rant, it has become clearer to me that fighting a shadow enemy is not just foolish, but incompatible with long-term survival. To fight it, you must first ferret it out.

It’s a fact that the vast majority of Muslims have been nonviolent. As previously discussed, it is not possible to know what is in the hearts and minds of these noncombatants, how many are sympathetic to the Islamists’ cause, and how many are outraged. There is no question that parts of the Koran and the Hadith, the writings of Muhammad, encourage jihad and the slaying of nonbelievers, even women and children, in the service of Islam. There is also no question that the writings encourage the practice of Islam both spiritually and as a way of life, and prescribe sharia law as the means of fulfilling this. The question as to whether a moderate practitioner of the religion who rejects violent jihad, and even sharia law, is a “true” Muslim, I will leave for the Muslim community to sort out with the Islamists. That being said, much of the confusion paralyzing the West is born precisely from this issue: Is lambasting as extremist the Muslim religion as a whole fair because a fraction of them are vicious, murdering scum?

We have a long-standing history of religious tolerance in this country—in fact, its roots trace back to the Pilgrims’ flight from religious persecution. We’re so sensitive about the issue of “separation of Church and State” that we even forget that the phrase isn’t even in the Constitution, which simply prohibits the government from adopting an official state religion. So prohibiting worship under the name of Islam is abhorrent to our culture, and our natures.

Therefore, to establish a framework for combating our enemies, it is important first to make a distinction between a moderate Muslim, assuming such a thing exists in the absence of acceptance of sharia law, and an Islamist, who embraces sharia and the establishment of a caliphate, with its attendant atrocities. The Islamist uses the same term, Allah, to describe the God he worships, but the confusion this engenders evaporates once we recognize Islamism is nothing more than a Satanic cult couched in the terminology of religion. Their Allah is Satan, their practices are Satanic, and those that “worship” in its name deserve no protection under the guise of freedom of religion.

So, in practical terms, how do we separate the Muslims from the Islamists? As we’ve established, we will not proscribe the practice of a particular religion. We can, however, prohibit the teaching and practice of sharia. We do not allow sharia law to operate in this country. Teaching it might be argued by some to be protected free speech. I disagree. We do not permit hate speech or seditious speech (nor allow one to call out “fire!” in a crowded theater, to cite the hackneyed example). I contend we cannot permit the dissemination of sharia by word or action in our land. Further, I would contend that Muslims be required to sign a contract that they neither support nor condone the teaching or practice of sharia, at the cost of imprisonment or deportation. (I recognize many will be aghast that I’m singling out a group for such a requirement, but I contend that we are in a state of war that requires extraordinary measures.) Clearly, if legal sanctions were in place, many would lie to avoid them. But perhaps some of the most devout Islamists would refuse, and, at worst, the change in tactics would provide us with the tools to seek out and deal with the enemy in a way our current approach cannot.

Things must change in the service of freedom and survival, and they must happen now, or they certainly will later, when our enemies are stronger. We are currently on the same well-worn path with the Islamists we trod with the Nazis in an earlier generation, and there is only one major difference between the two: The Nazis tried to hide their atrocities from the world, while the Islamists celebrate them. Satanism, it appears, is more extreme than Fascism.

Those that choose to interpret my words as bigotry, open your eyes. Read some of the offending parts Koran and the Hadith, pay attention to what is happening in the world … and pray, regardless of your religion, or lack of it.

Because God will always win over Satan unless we turn our backs on Him.

Advertisements

SO SORRY…

March 5, 2012

About a week ago, U.S. forces burned a cache of desecrated Korans. As anyone with even a passing knowledge of world affairs knows, this would and did result in a deadly backlash, so qualifying this as a bonehead move understates the issue.

That being said, it’s unfortunate but predictable that the apologies that followed took the form they did. They traveled up the chain of command to the president himself. It did not stop the violence, and whether it even mitigated it is a debatable point. Why? Because we have chosen to willfully ignore some salient facts about the Muslim community.

First, it’s necessary to define terms. I choose to call violent jihadists Islamists rather than Muslims, because it affords clarity. By billing themselves as religious Muslims, these fanatics know they hamstring their Western enemies by cloaking themselves in the armor of religion. While Americans have become more secular and have little concern about tossing barbs in the direction of peaceful Christians (who may hunker down with their guns and bibles but rarely use the former in defense of the latter), a respect for freedom of worship still forms a cornerstone of our society. Islamists can cite a belief in Allah as the motivating force for their egregious behavior. For them, the Koran burning afforded them the opportunity to fan the flames of anti-Western sentiment and motivate their true believers into action. I suspect the leaders regarded our stupidity with glee rather than outrage. Our apology to the Muslim community was abject, and nonconfrontational. A more appropriate response from our generals and president might have been to apologize, explain the circumstances that led to the burning, promise to take appropriate action to assure no recurrence, and add in no uncertain terms that any violence on the part of radical fundamentalists would be unacceptable and dealt with in kind. However, because we expect their violent behavior even though we find it unacceptable,  and abhor senseless killing, it triggers the natural human reaction to appease. It might even be analogized to the Stockholm syndrome, where the kidnap victim begins to identify with the captor. Since the administration and much of society does not distinguish the Islamist from the Muslim, at least in the religious sense, we are, in essence, held captive.

Defining jihadists as Islamists allows us to see them clearly for what they are: a satanic cult. Allah in the context of Islamism is Satan, and all moral confusion evaporates. Islamists are Nazis using the cover of religion, and the confusion it breeds, to recruit fanatics and confound their enemies. With this distinction in place, those Muslims that don’t subscribe to Sharia law and this dark transformation of the Muslim religion can be addressed independently.

This approach has the added benefit of allowing us to more starkly define the state of the Muslim society. I stated above that we often fail to distinguish the Islamist from the Muslim in terms of their theology, and I lay this at the feet of the Muslims themselves. In my opinion, the backlash from that community has been relatively muted. There have been isolated voices of protest, but a concerted international effort on the part of Muslims has not materialized. In arguing this point with a Muslim colleague here in the U.S., the response I received was one of surprise that someone with my background could be so ill-informed and bigoted. This gentleman, who I believe to be free of anti-Semitism or anti-Christian sentiment, fears that the entire Muslim community will be whitewashed with the same negative brush and marginalized (at best) by bigotry. He was unreceptive to the argument that the outrage that would pour forth from the Christian or Jewish communities if similar acts of terrorism were committed in their names was sadly lacking from the international Muslim community. I’m proud that the incidence of violence against Muslim-Americans has been low, but I share his concerns that Muslim citizens of good character will face the specter of conscious or subconscious prejudice by association on the part of non-Muslims.

It’s exactly this association that is at the core of the problem. What remains unclear to me, and likely to many Americans, is to what extent the absence of a strident Muslim voice of protest is born of fear of reprisal or silent approbation of the jihadists’ efforts. Perhaps this uncertainty is what brands me as a bigot in my Muslim colleague’s eyes. He insists that those with radical beliefs comprise only a small percentage of the Muslim community. While I believe this to be true in this nation, I don’t know what the status is in the international community.

The bottom line is that we cannot win “the war on terror” without the active support of Muslims themselves against the Islamists. There are those that argue that the Koran sanctions the jihadists’ program of violence, and cite passages to prove their point. Although I’m not a religious scholar, in a tome as complex as the Koran with often opposing and contradictory entries, using this argument to assume we know the mind of the individual is fraught with hazard. Rather, we must judge the actions of the people.  Within the ranks of the Muslim community fear must be overcome and battle lines publicly drawn to marginalize and ultimately excise the threat, and prevent the Muslim religion from being hijacked in the service of their evil cause. Dark Islam cannot flourish in a soil poisoned to their beliefs.

Does this make me a bigot? I’ll leave you to decide. In the meantime, I’d like to say I’m sorry, but….