Mission Statement
Global Islamic jihad is a threat to the very existence of western civilization.
There is a chance western civilization may lose this war against Global Islamic jihad if our leaders refuse to properly identify the enemy and takes steps towards defending ourselves from that enemy.
The enemy is Islam, not just extremists and “hijackers” of a great and “peaceful religion” as President Bush has told us. Islam is incompatible with the very idea of liberal democracy. Islam teaches intolerance and violence towards those of other religions, or those who chose no religion at all. It teaches violence towards those who leave Islam, to homosexuals, and to women, and all who refuse to accept the teachings of Mohammed. Islam prevents free exercise of the rights to speech and dissent.
Islam is not just a religion, if it can even be called a “religion”, it is also a political system of governance, as much as, and as inimical to liberty as, communism or Nazism. The rules for governance are found in the Koran. The body of rules is called Sharia law.
It is a central duty of every muslim to wage holy war (jihad) against non-believers until Islam dominates the world. The best evidence to prove the case against the danger of global jihad to the west is the 1,350 year documented history of Islamic jihadist violence and conquest.
Jihad need not manifest itself in only violent conquest. It exists in is other forms. There is also demographic conquest, as exemplified by the Islamification of Europe that is now dangerously ignored as we observe the accelerated building of mosques and madrassas throughout western nations with petrodollars. While the jihad marches onward, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan rage against a misidentified enemy with a goal near impossible to achieve.
At the time of this writing, military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan support regimes created as part of a bigger plan to install liberal democracies in muslim majority nations. This is part of the so called “Bush Doctrine”. Our military showed great strength and resolve in cleansing the corrupt regimes of Taliban and Saddaam Hussien. Since the corrupt regimes were removed new governments were installed with U.S. and coalition force assistance. As part of that process, both newly declared democratic nations were given opportunity to create a constitution free of the constraints on individual rights found in traditional Islamic nations under Sharia law. But in both cases, constitutions were adopted giving recognizing to Sharia law as the supreme law of the land.
Liberal democracy cannot survive in a country whose laws deny the essential freedoms to maintain liberty and freedom for all citizens. A country cannot hold itself to be a liberal democracy and punish legitimate dissent at the same time; it cannot sanction inequality rights according to ones gender or religion.
The U.S. led coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan are valiantly fighting an enemy their commander-in-chief does not correctly identify. He prevents soldiers and citizens from understanding the jihadist threat by describing Islam as a “Religion of Peace” and claiming it was “hijacked” by extremists. He states that we need to continue to fight “terrorist” in Iraq and Afghanistan and create stability so that the new governments can continue the experiment in liberal democracy to become beacons of “light unto other muslim nations”.
This is a novel theory and a noble experiment. But one that is more likely to fail. A muslim’s duty is to worship but one god, and that is Allah. Allah’s word, as relayed to his messenger Mohammed in the 7th century is the only law a devout muslim may follow. Allah’s word cannot be changed over time and adopt itself to modernity. When man made laws, such as those found in the bill of rights and the Constition, conflict with Allah’s law, in Islam, Allah’s law prevails every time.
In Iraq, the dispute between the Shia and Sunni sects are as old as the religion itself. The Iraqis appear more interested in settling that dispute rather than making the sacrifices needed to establish a firm and lasting, independent democratic government. It is a dispute that cannot be so simply resolved as Condeleeza Rice has declared by telling Iraqi’s “you’ll just have to overcome it”.
The democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are doomed to fail. The problem is Islam. Not just an isolated and identifiable group of “hijackers” and extremists of a peaceful religion. When the coalition forces leave, and they will eventually, there will be a violent struggle for control of Iraq. Iran backed Shite have been planning for the day Americans leave for several years. Sunni, the minority, will not accede to Shiite rule without a fight, and the Sunni gulf shiekdoms have deep pockets. A proxy war between the two sects and their backers is possible. But perhaps that is a good thing for Infidels. That is harsh, but probably true.
If we leave, it will signal defeat, we are told; it will embolden the enemy and make America look weak. Leaving, before victory, will mean we’ll have to fight them over here instead of fighting them over there.
They are here. They don’t all carry rifles and blow themselves up in pizza parlors (yet). But, they are in mosques, universities, politics, law enforcement. Some work “underground” in sleeper cells. Some are here legal, some are not. Some pose no threat at all. Some belong to organizations such as CAIR and MAS and ISNA.
The most dangerous example of demographic conquest is in Europe. The Netherlands had 15,000 muslims in 1970. There are over 1 million today. There are “no go” sections of Sweden and France (google “banileus and muslims” and “Malmo Sweden muslim”) where police and ambulance drivers refuse to go because the muslim communities find perverse amusement in attacking them. A jihadist cell in Madrid blows up a train station and changes the outcome of a presidential election scheduled in the following days.
And in the U.S. we hear little about the demographic conquest of Europe. A Swedish minister declared recently that all Swedes should start being extra considerate to muslims now since they will become the majority some day soon. It is expected that Amsterdam and Rotterdam will become muslim majority cities within 5-10 years. As of the date of this writing not a single presidential candidate has mentioned the Islamification of Europe and its implications for the security of our nation. It is as if it is all a bad dream and if we keep sleeping, we will wake up some day and the problems in Europe will disappear.
Conservative blogger Lawrence Auster provides a suitable name for the solution towards the global jihadist threat. He calls that solution Separationism.
According to Auster, the elements of SEPARATIONISM are:
Islam is a mortal threat to western civilization
Islam cannot be destroyed
Islam cannot be democratized
Muslims cannot assimilate into non-muslim cultures
The only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
Other than occassional posts on Auster’s blog, there is little discussion of this school of thought on the internet. You will find most of the writers/bloggers who discuss various aspects of separationism on the internet at the blogroll on the main page.
My primary intent will be to facilitate more discussion ideas on how to address the global jihadist threat. Separationism is one such idea. It is important to remember that the term jihad does not necessary mean the spread of Islam by only violent means, other instruments of jihad are used and those must be addressed as well. The discussion will cover a wide range of topics .
Your thoughtful, and respectful , opinions and comments are welcomed.
August 23, 2007