By Vic Rosenthal, Abu Yosef
After the recent terrorist outrages in Paris and Beirut, there are many voices calling for Something To Be Done.
It’s not as easy as it sounds. But before talking about Daesh (IS, ISIS, ISIL, etc.) and how to deal with it, there is another issue that we need to get clear about, and that is the identity of our enemy.
President George W. Bush got it spectacularly wrong on September 20, 2001, when he said,
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.
And added,
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
Bush was not alone, and there are still many, including the current president of the US, who are wedded to the idea that there is somewhere a religion of peace that is ‘hijacked’ by ‘extremists’.
President Bush didn’t know a lot about Islam, but he knew that he didn’t want to antagonize American ‘allies’ like Saudi Arabia (President Obama, who does know quite a lot, has other reasons which I am not discussing today).
What’s relevant is that the ‘hijack’ theory implies that the enemy is either ‘extremism’ – which is ridiculous, since it is an attitude and not an enemy – or some group or groups of extremists. So Bush declared war on “terror” and Obama chose al-Qaeda as the enemy. He has now added Daesh, but – in deference to the theory – will not use the phrase “Islamic terrorism.” In his remarks on the Paris attacks, he said that “we stand together with [the French people] in the fight against terrorism and extremism” and that “this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.” [my italics]
As usual, Obama did not use the words ‘Islam’ or ‘Muslim’, despite the fact that the terrorists at the Bataclan theater were reported to have shouted “allahu akbar.” And the implication that we share universal values with Muslims is very misleading.
Daesh has released a statement taking credit for the attacks. They quote Islamic sources, and write,
In a blessed attack for which Allah facilitated the causes for success, a faithful group of the soldiers of the Caliphate, may Allah dignify it and make it victorious, launched out, targeting the capital of prostitution and obscenity, the carrier of the banner of the Cross in Europe, Paris …
[They also targeted] the Bataclan Conference Center, where hundreds of apostates had gathered in a profligate prostitution party …
Let France and those who walk in its path know that they will remain on the top of the list of targets of the Islamic State, and that the smell of death will never leave their noses as long as they lead the convoy of the Crusader campaign, and dare to curse our Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, and are proud of fighting Islam in France and striking the Muslims in the land of the Caliphate with their planes, which did not help them at all in the streets of Paris and its rotten alleys. This attack is the first of the storm and a warning to those who wish to learn.
There’s more, but the statement makes their reasons for the attack clear: in part it gets revenge for France’s participation in a coalition that has fought Daesh in Iraq and Syria, but it is also an expression of their outrage at what they consider the moral turpitude of France and the West, particularly their sexual freedom. And importantly, it alludes to the historical struggle between Islam and Christianity, which Daesh sees itself as having taken up after centuries of humiliation by the “Crusaders.”
In other words, they did it for Islam.
Bin Laden’s 2002 “Letter to America” also makes similar points, although he threw in everything but the kitchen sink (Palestine of course, and even criticism of the US for not signing the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases).
There is nothing ‘extremist’ in an Islamic sense about these concerns. Their moral principles (yes, it’s strange to write this about the people who rape their female captives and sell them) are mainstream Islam and supported by their texts, as is the imperative to promulgate Islam by Jihad. Violence and terrorism against unbelievers has Quranic sanction. What is extreme is the ferocity with which Daesh and other radical Islamists put these basic Islamic views into practice.
This is why it is difficult to get ‘moderate’ Muslims to disavow the radical groups completely. Even if they don’t approve of murder, they see the objectives of the extremists as laudable – Islamic morality and Islamic rule, an end to Crusader domination and the restoration of the correct world order with Muslims on top.
And this is why a military-only solution doesn’t exist. If you damage al-Qaeda, Daesh appears. If you kill members of Daesh there are always new ones waiting in the wings.
Don’t get me wrong – it is absolutely necessary to crush these organizations: they must be disarmed and the logistical systems that keep them alive (in the case of Daesh, their oil revenues) must be interdicted. Leaders, strategic planners and technicians have to be killed. But that isn’t enough to win the war that they are spearheading against the West.
I said spearheading because the West is not fighting either ‘terrorism’ or Daesh or any other group that uses terrorism as a tactic. The truth is that we are fighting Islam, and these are its soldiers today. And they are not its only soldiers. Although a deadly enemy of Daesh, the Iranian regime also seeks to carry the banner of Islam against the West.
This concept – that we must fight Islam itself – is very uncomfortable for an enlightened Westerner, who is used to thinking of religious war as an artifact of the past, a stupid and pointless endeavor. We feel so superior to the 17th century Europeans who wrecked an entire continent with the 30 Years War! Today we have adopted the view that religion isn’t worth fighting over, that only arguments over geopolitics and economics can supply a legitimate casus belli.
Well, unfortunately our Muslim enemy doesn’t see it that way. They don’t think that religious differences end with your choice of day of the week to worship, or what you call the building you do it in. And they don’t think that the appropriate reaction to these differences is ‘live and let live’. Not at all.
As a result, we need to take these differences seriously as well. And we have to understand that Islam has declared religious war on us, with the intent to make us all Muslims, to destroy our churches and synagogues, and to replace our secular constitutions with shari’a, our parliaments with religious councils. Or, if we refuse, to make us die.
We can’t explain to them that they should read Locke and Rousseau, or treat the words of the Qur’an as metaphor. War isn’t a game that one side can refuse to play. If they win, we lose, whether we knew we were playing or not.
Therefore, the way to win is not just to wipe out the shock troops of Daesh (although we need to do that too).
We need to take down Islam, ban it in the West, close its schools and mosques, humiliate its believers, even destroy its symbols, as they would like to do to us. We need to fight them physically and psychologically as well. We need to teach the lesson that as a matter of fact Muslims are not superior to non-Muslims, and that’s why they are losing this war.
If we don’t do this, there will be no end to the war — at least not until they get nuclear weapons, which they would not hesitate use.
If it’s hard for you to accept this, then don’t think of Islam as a religion like Reform Judaism or Episcopalianism. Think of it as an ideology, like communism or Nazism, because it is that as well.
Right now, some of you are saying “we mustn’t descend to their level.” But this is one way they are using our own values against us, one way they are using asymmetric warfare.
Whether we like it or not, we are on their level, and engaged in a struggle to keep a world in which the values that we learned from Locke and Rousseau inform our social and political systems – not shari’a.
This war has been going on since at least the 1990s. The enemy isn’t hiding his plans or his objectives. Time to wake up and fight for the life of our civilization.
Posted in Islam, Terrorism | Leave a comment
|
@ yeshol:
I admire your optimism and your hope that “non-Murderous Islam” will, somehow, dominate all of the Islamic sects. I don’t see myself ever returning to that point of view.
In my frequent interactions with Muslims here in Israel, I do my best to avoid entering into political and religious discussion… it’s all ‘strictly business’. Still, occasionally one of them will mention these subjects. Most of the time, when they bring up the subject, they tell me they don’t want to live under the PLO (PA). They want to be citizens of Israel. A few of them are citizens of Israel… because either they or their father and grandfather cooperated with the IDF and the Secuity Services.
This supports your primary claim that there are ‘non-Muderous Muslims’. Yet, I think these individuals are part of the ‘statistically insignificant’ group… they don’t represent the majority and their fellow Muslims look upon them as traitors.
CHRISTIANITY
If by ‘dropping coercion’ you mean they’ve stopped killing Jews and non-Christians… this is correct (so far as I know). But, in Israel, they are very aggressive with their missionary activity… preying especially upon those living in areas that are economically distressed. I’m sure there are exceptions… as is usually the case.
WB
No doubt that Gulen and all the others [from the Middle East?] believe that their faith is THE Universal Faith, and ALL humanity will accept it. So do Christians believe that ASLL ust accept Christianity or be doomed to eternal perdition. The difference is: do they believe in coercing others to accept their belief. Christianity has dropped coercion. SOME forms of Islam seem to have dropped this idea. I like to call them “non-Murderous Islam”.
@ yeshol:
yeshol Said:
Thank you, Yeshol, for the reference. For me, it’s old news. I’m aware of the superficial differences in groups calling themselves Islamic, but often not considered Islamic by the dominant groups. Although some of these groups aren’t as openly hostile as others, and often aren’t accepted by the dominant groups, they still base their ideas on Koran… and therein lies the problem.
It’s a reasonable generalization, based on Islam’s history and the unambiguous statements (injunctions) in the Koran, to say that Islam intends to replace all other systems. It’s true they will allow some systems to remain in a reduced, subjugated form; but those systems and the individuals adhering to them will never have equality with Muslims.
Many researchers and historians have produced reliable analysis showing how Islam really operates. For example, Bat Ye’or’s ‘Dhimmitude’http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Dr. Bill Warner has done extensive research and analysis, demonstrating how Islam, over a period of more than 1,400 years, has annihilated civilizations that are far superior to Islam (regarding knowledge, liberty, the rule of law and the concomitant equality before the law).
http://www.politicalislam.com/the-annihilation-of-civilizations/
The Gulen movement is a Trojan horse. It, and other similar ‘peaceful Islam’ movements, still base their ideology and strategy on the Koran, which demands that Islam be made dominant. Not equal, but dominant.
Like many others here in Israel, I’ve had scores of interactions with Muslims. They can be the most polite people you’ll ever meet. But if the discussion ever turns to the future, they invariably show their true face… that they intend to return to the position of dominance of the past, with us (Jews) back in the position of barely tolerated, openly despised dhimmis.
There was a time, more than 30 years ago, when I believed in what I now understand is the myth of peaceful, tolerant Islam. The hard, cold facts have dispelled this fantasy. Now, I consider this a dangerous point of view.
As uncomfortable and disconcerting as it may be, the historical facts support the claim that Jihad (violent and non-violent) is definitely synonymous with Islam. The two are related in the same way that ‘wetness’ is related to ‘water’.
https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y
Once I understood the poison embedded in the Koran, and how that poison has emerged throughout Islam’s history, I could no longer ignore the implications. I and many others do not want to see a world dominated by Islam… in any of its forms.
I hope the future brings a world dominated by the morals, ethics, and system expressed in the U.S. Constitution. In Israel, I believe the future will bring the restoration of the Malchut, with its three-part system that inspired the men who wrote and implemented the U.S. Constitution.
Right now, Americans and Israelis are beguiled by an ideology that shares your compassion for and admiration of Islam. It’s not working out very well… and it never will because it’s based on flawed premises. But perhaps we deserve to be subjugated to 7th Centuy c.e. tyranny. Hashem makes it clear that if we don’t follow His instructions, we will be punished.
WB –
Thank you for responding to my comment. I learned I have to fill in some background. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_schools_and_branches
We can see that within Sunni Islam there are many sects, within Shia Islam there are many sects, the Sufis have many sects, and there are sects outside these major divisions. NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE A HISTORY OF MURDER. NOT ALL OF THEM are currently engaged in murder. YES, many of the younger generation are beginning to be influenced by Jihadists, and many of the elders are worried about this – that their children leave the Islam of their parents and join Jihadi Islam.
The Islam of Gulen, for instance, has adapted to the West: not that it has accepted all the ideas of the West – nor have I – but it has no murderous intents. Islam is NOT a synonym of Jihad.
@ Max:
The line of thinking you’re following is typical of the post-modern-feminist relativism and dissembling that’s made it impossible to have meaningful discussions.
You call me a racist because I insist that Islam must be eliminated, not changed. What ‘race’ is Islam?
You don’t seem to have had much direct experience with Islam. Or, perhaps, you’ve embraced it in a fundamental way.
A few parts of the Koran do say some nice things. However, all those nice things were nullified by later, very harsh and not nice statements. That’s not my personal opinion… it’s the basic fact about Islamic hermeneutics (Shaia).
As a Jew, I will never be given equal standing in an Islamic court. But, in a Din Torah, every person has equal standing, and all that matters is the evidence. In Israel, Muslims can (and have) taken Jews to a Torah court and have won. This is just one of many important differences between the Torah tradition and the Koran tradition.
WB Said:
Of course your can. People decide what they want to be, not a book – a book has no consciousness, will or force. People, groups and leaders decide to use the book whatever way they want to according to their culture, attitude, goals etc.
..
Your argument is absurd and it is racist or prejudiced – you are trying to say if you can prove the book is evil then all the people are evil – people have free will – they are whatever they decide to be.
Just like Christians – they choose whatever parts of the bible they prefer and choose how to interpret it – and just like Christianity there is more than one Islam.
..
You cannot tell a group or individuals that has willfully decided to be peaceful that they are evil and warlike just because a book they use says so in some parts – that is absurd and they know it and it makes you transparent as a racist.
..
I want Muslims to change or to be contained from aggressing against other cultures. , I do not ask them to not exist if it is possible. They can worship grasshoppers for all I care – like all the other religions just keep it to where it does no harm to others.
..
All religions are arbitrary inherited culture and they are all indoctrinated by authority. It’s a hard pill to swallow for the religious who want to believe they have the “correct” religion.
@ Max:
Only saying you can’t separate the culture from the book… except in the way that sophistry might separate ‘wetness’ from ‘water’… or that one might postulate a sphere without circumference or center (see Borges’ essay titled ‘Pascal’s Sphere’
http://www.filosofiaesoterica.com/ler.php?id=1355
Islam’s early phase was quite peaceful, as has been demonstrated by many historians… especially Dr. Bill Warner. But it only started being successful when it became intolerant and murderous. That’s in their book, codified in their law, and has been their tradition for more than 1,400 years. It’s the primary focus of all the dominant Islamic groups today. The number of Muslims who reject the Koran’s mandate to dominate and subjugate the world is statistically insignificant.
WB Said:
Really?!!
So you think every single Muslim first read the Korean, interpreted it by chance the same way as their local group and then each one by themselves decided to become a Muslim and happen to do and believe what their local group does?
..
Based on a book – yes – sometime in the distant past and with different interpretations of that book by different local groups on the planet. The power of Islam is that it is an inherited social organization as well as a religion, that inherited social organization is other-repressive – you MUST be a Muslim – you MUST do what the rest of the group is doing etc etc or you will receive social punishments and ostracization. It is an inherited social culture which is fascist and misogynist even when it is not Jihadist.
Once the culture is formed the people will follow and do the same things from all the accidents of history even if the book were a single blank page.
yeshol Said:
Your closing comments about the necessity of conquering the Muslim oil producing states is correct. But the above quote about Islam not being identical with Jihad doesn’t jibe with the facts.
What purpose is served by postulating a ‘peaceful Islam’ when the primary text focuses on the requirement to subjugate the entire world to Islam?
What is the obsession with defending Islam, and imagining that it will ever be anything other than it is… as defined by the Koran, Suna, and Sharia? It seems to me a kind of Rosseau-inspired ‘noble savage’ mythos. Most troubling is the fact that it’s postulated by so many otherwise intelligent and educated people.
Islam and its allies must be totally defeated, by any means necessary. What will it take to make this fact clear?
Apparently facts don’t really matter… indicating that the Islamic cognitive warfare (to use Richard Landes’ term) has so thoroughly penetrated the thinking of the general population and the highly educated class (including the ‘terrorism professionals).
Those of us who keep pointing to Islam’s history and to the strategy embraced by every major Islamic group are increasingly marginalized.
There is truly a madness spreading in the world; not just the Islamic push to dominate and subjugate, but a purposeful ignorance and lack of will to defend genuine liberty. We must resist this. We must find ways to change the general perspective.
We have a duty to future generations… or ‘Never Again’ is just a hollow slogan.
Right and wrong. Europe cannot rid itself of Islam, because Europe does not produce enough children to sustain itself economically.
So what can be done?
It is not true that Islam is identical with Jihad. It IS true that Arab Islam is identical with Jihad. But looking around the world one sees other forms of Islam which are deadly afraid of Arab Jihad.
So the strategy for Europe must be like the strategy “divide and rule”. Europe must declare JIHAD as the ENEMY. ANYONE calling for Jihad, supporting JIHAD in ANY WAY is the ENEMY SOLDIER. He cannot be a citizen, he does not have any rights, he is an OUTLAW, the law will not protect him, his property is free to take. If the law enforcement services lay their hands on him, he goes to solitary confinement until the new generation of peaceful Muslims is firmly in control, that means for 40 years at least.
The basic problem with this solution is: OIL. Oil producing states support Jihad: Arabia, Qatar, Iran, the Emirates, etc.. These states must be removed. In other words – either conquered, or changed, probably conquered and then changed. both. After this, perhaps no more conquering will be necessary.
Max Said:
This makes no sense to me. Their book is the basis for their culture. The things we see Muslims doing are strictly according to their book, their history, and their Koran-based culture.
The entire ideology and system of Islam, in all its forms, must be rendered impotent.
Israel has failed to stop the spread of Islamic hatred by not only allowing it to continue, but by subsidizing and encouraging it.
Until Islam is defeated (psychologically and physically) it will continue breeding and nurturing intolerant and murderous individuals and groups.
Five million Muslims in France and according to the news and their spokespeople all in denial.
They refuse to take responsibility for who they are and what they are.
..
Islam is not what is in a book – it is what people do through inherited culture. Theree are many versions of the cultural practice of Islam a lot are violent and it is religious violence from belief in religion. Also almost ALL practices of Islam are other-repressive – intolerant of and repressive to others as well as their own.
Where are the Muslims who choose democracy over totalitarianism going to fight for Israel?
..
Muslims need to look at themselves.
Five million! – what did you expect you brain-challenged froggies?
The percentage of Muslims going to fight for Jihad compared to the percentage of Muslims going to fight against them is astronomically skewed – Muslims need to take responsibility for creating an environment within which Jihadists can flourish,
I’d guess that Five million was all against Israel – that means five million Jihadists who are lying to themselves that they are not Jihadist.
..
Muslims need to look at the Jihadis and realize they are a lot like them inside.
This essay is pretty good. Yet I see the immediate response is one that basically suggests nobody will pay attention to it.
Why should we care about ‘Political Correctness’ and other related ideas? We give those stupid ideas power. That’s part of the effects of long-term psychological warfare.
The PC (not just Leftist) crowd follows up its psywar with legal action. I don’t see much of that coming from the so-called ‘Right’… a group I think is far too content with strong-sounding rhetoric. Far too afraid of the over-rated Security Services that seem to have been infiltrated and turned against the genuinely patriotic population.
We need a revolution in how we think, speak, and act. If we really want to not continue being dhimmis, we need to back the effort to rescind the ban on Kach and Kahane Chai.
Some in this forum have been carrying on in spite of the opposition. How can this become a more potent and effective movement?
The first episode of the current season of Showtime’s ‘Homeland’ has an important exchange between the Quinn character and a high official. The subtitles for this part are copied below. It sums up the problem, and gives the only realistic solution. Later, the story meanders back to the mythology of ‘most Muslims are peaceful’. That’s only true when they fear a strong response… and right now, they aren’t at all afraid.
Most of us who’ve lived in Israel for years know that we will never have genuine peace with any form of Islam. The question that constantly bothers me is why there’s not a concerted effort to force the International bodies to recognize the 1922 Partition agreement. Ted Belman has written about this in the past, as have Shmuel Katz, Eli Hertz, Howard Grief, Paul Eidelberg, Rabbis Meir and Binyamin Kahane, and many other genuine experts in history and law.
Perhaps someone could explain why the putative ‘Religious Right’ virtually ignores the one legal argument that proves our claims. It does matter to me, personally, that Hashem clearly specifies the small area of land on this vast planet where we’re commanded to dominate and institute the government and society described in Torah. But that Torah-based argument is irrelevant in the world of law.
Here’s the ‘Homeland’ dialogue I think is important and whose main points should be repeated, and repeated, and repeated until we have a government dominated by individuals who will take action…
209
00:11:51,823 –> 00:11:53,826
CROCKER: I’m asking,
is our strategy working?
210
00:11:53,827 –> 00:11:55,828
QUINN: What strategy?
211
00:11:57,997 –> 00:11:59,663
Tell me what the strategy is.
212
00:11:59,664 –> 00:12:01,300
I’ll tell you if it’s working.
SILENCE IN THE ROOM
213
00:12:10,009 –> 00:12:12,610
See, that right there
is the problem.
214
00:12:12,611 –> 00:12:15,780
Because they,
they have a strategy.
215
00:12:15,781 –> 00:12:17,683
They’re gathering
right now in Raqqa
216
00:12:17,684 –> 00:12:20,585
by the tens of thousands.
217
00:12:20,586 –> 00:12:22,987
Hidden in
the civilian population.
218
00:12:22,988 –> 00:12:24,722
Cleaning their weapons.
219
00:12:24,723 –> 00:12:26,325
And they know exactly
why they’re there.
220
00:12:26,326 –> 00:12:27,358
CROCKER: Why is that?
221
00:12:27,359 –> 00:12:28,859
QUINN: They call it the end times.
222
00:12:28,860 –> 00:12:31,628
What do you think
the beheadings are about?
223
00:12:31,629 –> 00:12:33,397
The crucifixions in Deir Hafer?
224
00:12:33,398 –> 00:12:34,731
The revival of slavery?
225
00:12:34,732 –> 00:12:36,569
You think they make
this shit up?
226
00:12:36,570 –> 00:12:38,736
It’s all in the book.
227
00:12:38,737 –> 00:12:40,271
Their fucking book.
228
00:12:40,272 –> 00:12:41,705
The only book they ever read.
229
00:12:41,706 –> 00:12:42,575
They read it all the time.
230
00:12:42,576 –> 00:12:43,875
They never stop.
231
00:12:43,876 –> 00:12:46,477
They’re there
for one reason
232
00:12:46,478 –> 00:12:47,713
and one reason only.
233
00:12:47,714 –> 00:12:49,681
To die for the caliphate
234
00:12:49,682 –> 00:12:52,051
and usher in a world
without infidels.
235
00:12:53,719 –> 00:12:55,853
That’s their strategy.
236
00:12:55,854 –> 00:12:58,488
And it’s been that way
since the seventh century.
237
00:12:58,489 –> 00:13:01,493
So, do you really think that
a few special forces teams
238
00:13:01,494 –> 00:13:03,828
are gonna put a dent in that?
239
00:13:03,829 –> 00:13:06,831
CROCKER:
Well, what would you do?
240
00:13:06,832 –> 00:13:08,534
QUINN: You offering me a promotion?
241
00:13:09,802 –> 00:13:12,638
CROCKER: I’m offering you a hypothetical.
242
00:13:16,342 –> 00:13:19,844
QUINN: 200,000 American troops
on the ground indefinitely
243
00:13:19,845 –> 00:13:22,946
to provide security and support
for an equal number of doctors
244
00:13:22,947 –> 00:13:25,015
and elementary school teachers.
245
00:13:25,016 –> 00:13:26,883
CROCKER: Well, that’s
not going to happen.
246
00:13:26,884 –> 00:13:28,654
QUINN: Then I’d better get back there.
247
00:13:28,655 –> 00:13:30,355
CROCKER: What else?
248
00:13:30,356 –> 00:13:32,857
What else would
make a difference?
249
00:13:32,858 –> 00:13:36,461
QUINN: Hit reset.
250
00:13:36,462 –> 00:13:37,762
CROCKER: Meaning what?
251
00:13:37,763 –> 00:13:40,065
QUINN: Meaning pound Raqqa
into a parking lot.
252
00:13:56,015 –> 00:13:58,316
DAR ADAL: Let’s take 20.
This cannot possibly go over too well in “Political Correctness” “Affirmative Action” “Freedom of Speech except for Pamela Geller” “Obamaland” America.