Thursday, August 12, 2010

Commanders of the Faithful, Part 1

The term "Islamist" is widely used to refer to a Muslim who promotes Islam not just as a religion, but as a political ideology as well. As such, it is used to distinguish Muslims with a political agenda (one of domination) from more "moderate" Muslims, who practice their religion peacefully without seeking to force others to submit.

However, the Islamists point out that Muslims must return to their roots and unite politically. One goal is the establishment of a global caliphate, an undemocratic government enforcing the absolute rule of Islamic law on the world, with the caliphate in caretaker status for Allah.

This latter view is consistent with Islam ever since the days of Mohammed. Only in the past century has a caliphate ceased to exist, as many Muslims have become secularized. Only when militant Islam began to face a technologically superior West, with a Christian church cradled in the protective arms of the very science which it had persecuted, did the Islamic world begin to realize that it was biting off more than it could chew.

Like a giant snake that has sunk its teeth into large prey, only to find the prey too large to swallow and itself unable to release this prey, Islam now finds itself in a do-or-die struggle to take over the world.

Thus, "Islamists" are true Muslims, and "moderate" Muslims are as the true believers call them: takfir, apostates under penalty of death.

Some of my readers will disagree with this; feel free to leave your thoughts and links in the comments, and I may make a post featuring your material and ideas.

As such, the term "Islamist" and other, related, terms appear in works I am about to quote; whether you agree with my view of this or not, please keep in mind what I have just written about this terminology.

We first consider Why the Ground Zero Mosque is Counterproductive to the Islamist Cause, by Raymond Ibrahim (another version can be found at Pajamas Media), August 4, 2010:

While vexing to many, the mega mosque set to be built two blocks from Ground Zero has produced one interesting but unintended consequence: like the 9/11 strikes a decade before it, the "9/11 mosque" is also creating a stir, is making people think and talk — about Islam.

Consider: Before the Islamist strikes of 9/11, mainstream America was incognizant of the threat posed by radical Islam. Islamic apologetics and anti-U.S. polemics were unquestioned orthodoxy, not only in their natural habitat — academia — but more generally.

After 9/11, however, the veil was partially lifted: a flood of books dealing with Islam, political Islam, jihad, sharia, "dhimmitude," and any number of related topics appeared; politically incorrect books on Islam became bestsellers. The media began at least to acknowledge the existence of radical Islam; biased and politicized academics were exposed and refuted.

The article, with many links that I did not reproduce, goes on to explain all the ways in which the effort to establish the 9/11 Mosque is counterproductive to the "Islamist" cause. Please read Why the Ground Zero Mosque is Counterproductive to the Islamist Cause in its entirety and check out the great links.

Europe is farther down the Islamization road than America, so the reactions of the Europeans are, in some situations, understandably a little more developed: while Americans are debating opening a mosque, in some places in Europe, mosques are being closed and prohibited.

We now consider the first part of "Minarets are our Bayonets": The Swiss Vote to Ban Them, by Soeren Kern, December 3, 2009:

Swiss voters on November 29 overwhelmingly approved a referendum to ban the construction of minarets, the tower-like structures on mosques that are often used to call Muslims to prayer. The surprise outcome of the referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters, represents a turning point in the debate about Islam, not only in Switzerland, but across Europe more generally.

The initiative was sponsored by the conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP), which argues that a minaret is a symbol of Islamic intolerance. The SVP, which also happens to be the biggest political party in Switzerland, says the minaret is really an emblem of war. It describes the minaret as a "symbol of a religious-political claim to power and dominance which threatens – in the name of alleged freedom of religion – the constitutional rights of others."

The SVP backs its claim by citing a famous remark by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who once implied that the construction of mosques and minarets is part of a strategy for the Islamization of Europe. The pro-Islamist Erdogan said: "The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army."

It is vitally important to let this concept sink in.

Mosques are not places of prayer; they are centers for political activity, as Islam is not complete unless and until Islamic law is established, and that means political activity to replace local laws with sharia.

Since "War is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means" (Clausewitz), it follows that mosques are, as Erdogan stated, literally barracks for the armies of the faithful. For example, in Pakistan, it is schools associated with mosques that produce the unending supply of jihadists that fill the ranks of terrorist organizations around the world.

The current controversy dates back to 2005, when the Turkish cultural association in Wangen bei Olten, a small town of some 4,500 people in northern Switzerland, applied for a permit to erect a 6-meter (20 feet) high minaret on the roof of its Islamic community center. The project to build the minaret, which was opposed by the majority of local residents, was roundly rejected by the town's building and planning commission. But the Turkish cultural association appealed the decision, claiming that the local building authorities were motivated by religious bias. The case eventually made its way to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled that the project could proceed apace. The minaret was finally erected in July 2009.

Up until recently, Muslims living in Switzerland had mostly been keeping a low profile, preferring to practice their religion discretely in nondescript mosques. But over the past several years the number of mosques has mushroomed; there now are some 200 mosques and up to 1,000 prayer rooms dotted across the country. And although only four of those have minarets (plans to build a half-dozen more minarets will now be scrapped), observers say the minarets symbolize the growing self-confidence of Switzerland's Muslim community.

Indeed, the Muslim population in Switzerland has more than quintupled since 1980, and now numbers about 400,000, or roughly 5 percent of the population. Most Muslims living in Switzerland are of Turkish or Balkan origin, with a smaller minority from the Arab world. Many of them are second and third generation immigrants who are now firmly establishing themselves in Switzerland.

The new Muslim demographic reality is raising tensions across large parts of Swiss society, especially as conservative Muslims become more assertive in their demands for greater recognition of their faith.

This is a very typical pattern here in the West. Muslims immigrate in small numbers - many legitimately seeking to get away from excessive intrusion into their private lives by Islamic governments - and go somewhat unnoticed in the larger picture. But, more immigrants join the community, and it grows; additionally, it is targeted by those who seek for Islam to take over the world, and hardline, militant preachers arrive to radicalize the community.

As the community both grows and becomes more militant and radicalized, its demands increase, based on Western principles of tolerance and religious freedom. Soon, no-go areas crop up: places subject to de facto Islamic law, and where local police will not go in, except in force (hence the name: "no-go area" for local authorities).

Finally, we review an excerpt from A Mosque is Closed in Germany, by Thomas Joscelyn, August 12, 2010:

On Monday, German authorities announced that they closed down the Taiba mosque in Hamburg. The mosque achieved infamy as home to several of the 9/11 plotters under its previous name -- Al Quds.

The name change was, undoubtedly, part of an attempt to rebrand the mosque after some of its members hijacked and crashed American airliners. It was a superficial change, though. The mosque continued to serve as a meeting ground for Islamist extremists and terrorists. Thus, the Germans, who along with other Western intelligence agencies had been monitoring the mosque for years, decided it needed to be shuttered.

None of this is surprising, especially when you consider who was in charge of the mosque: Imam Mamoun Darkazanli.

Darkazanli was one of the first suspected al Qaeda figures to have his accounts frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department and the United Nations following the September 11 attacks. He had established a lengthy dossier by then. Despite being a known extremist with a plethora of terrorist ties, however, Darkazanli has avoided a lengthy prison sentence.

How? German laws have consistently gotten in the way of bringing Darkazanli to justice.

According to Congress's "Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001," a report prepared by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Darkazanli first popped up on the CIA's radar in 1993. The U.S. Intelligence Community investigated the imam after "a person arrested in Africa carrying false passports and counterfeit money was found with Darkazanli's telephone number." The Joint Inquiry found: "A CIA report notes that, despite careful scrutiny of Darkazanli and his business dealings, authorities were not able to make a case against him."

Here we see all the elements of the story in play: 1) a mosque, which we Westerners gladly tolerate, not wishing to deny someone's civil rights and freedom of religion; 2) a firebrand jihadist preacher, spewing venomous anti-Western hatred, which we gladly tolerate, not wishing to deny someone's civil rights and freedom of speech; and 3) political activity paving the way for "military" (terrorist) activity, which targets innocent civilians because they are not adherents of the Religion of Peace.

The devil always overplays his hand, and with Islamic efforts to conquer the world, we see it with increasing clarity; as Islam gets stronger, it becomes more obvious that Islam, as we know it, will have to be destroyed if our society and culture are to survive.

And vice-versa.

No comments:

Post a Comment