The War Against Jihadism

Oh, and note as well, and far more important, that Xantia, who had so much to say in defense of Islam, is suddenly silent. What might explain that?

Bravo to Newsweek for finally noticing what the rest of us have known for years!

THERE IS ONE THING THEIR ENEMIES CAN DO THAT JIHADISM MOSTLY DETEST AND ABOHR, IT IS THE ABILITY OF THE WEST TO EXPEL FROM ITS SOIL ANY NUMBER OF SUPORTERS, SYMPATHIZERS OR COLLABORATORS. LET PASS A LAW GIVING THE JUDIACIRY THE OPTION OF SENDING JIHADISTS TO ONE YEAR JAIL EXPELLING THEM AFTERWARDS WITH THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF ALL THE PERKS THAT THE WESTERN SOCIETY HAS GIVEN ITS CITIZENS, SOCIAL SECURITY, HEALTH INSURANCE, ACCESS TO THE BANKING SYSTEM, AID FOR HOUSING AND FOOD STAMPS, ETC. LET THE JUDGE STRIP EVERY MUSLIM SYMPATHIZER OF JIHADISM BE THROWN TO ANY OF THEIR 57 "PARADISES" ON EARTH, TO THEIR CHOICE, OR THE JUDGES' ONE. Manuel Vider

The discussion here my Muslims is very telling, and not in a good way. First, consider Xantia's suggestion that reforming one's religion (Islam) is blasphemy. This is true for Islam, which hasn't changed in over 1000 years. So, we should inquire what Islam really is about.

When we begin to do so, we find huge doses of "taqiyaa" (roughly translated as "Islamic lying"). The Islam that cannot be reformed is based on three sources: the Koran, the Hadith (sayings of Mo, as filtered most authoritatively by Bukhari and Abu Muslim), and the life of the "Prophet" (the Sira). Let's see some lying in action.

Xantia says, "As stated in the Quran, Islam is not to be imposed by hate. that is it is not forced on people." This is a rough translation of an early (Meccan) sura (2:256) "there is no compulsion in religion." Where is the lie? Well, the Muslim doctrine of "abrogation" means that later suras supersede earlier ones. And, alas, this sura has indeed been abrogated by later suras from Medina (8:39 and 9:5) which absolutely say that Islam is to be propagated by the sword--by compulsion.

Then Xantia lies about "jihad." Some say there is a "greater" and a "lesser" jihad. Supposedly the lesser jihad is via arms. (I don't know where Xantia gets a "second level" jihad from.) Alas, what Xantia does not say is that the idea that the "greater" jihad is a spiritual struggle comes from a "weak hadith," not from the authoritative collections by Bukhari and Muslim. But the lie is even more astonishing when one considers that the life of the ???Prophet??? is chock full of jihad via war (and assasination). Now, since Mo is the ideal man, his life is the ideal life, one that should be copied by every Muslim. It follows that jihad should primarily be by force, with the caveat that if force will not work (as in the early days in Mecca), other means should be adopted.

This brings us to Weigel???s big error: he fails to understand that jihad takes many forms, though always it is dedicated to propogating Islam and destroying other religions. There are too few Muslims in the US for pure violence to succeed. Therefore, lying about Islam and pretending that it is a religion of peace is appropriate. However, as the number of Muslims increase, other means of jihad become appropriate.

x

x

Impressive, Newsweek. This is not something I expected to see under your banner. Weigel is correct that the willful ignorance that the liberals encourage by refusing to name our enemy, is both counter-productive and dangerous.

I am greatly pleased to see Newsweek step out from under this cloud of self-imposed, politically-correct blindness. Kudos and congratulations. Welcome back.

Finally an article on what I believe is America's greatest issue: how to embrace the diversity of the world while protecting our American ideals. This is what the upcoming election is all about. Which party understands this? Which candidate is strong enough to resist the PC? Who is passionate, articulate, smart and enough of an historian to posit this "war against terrorism" in its true form?

http://sgtwiklund.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/why-i-think-that-we-are-politically-retarded/

From someone who has been there, and seen what is on the ground

http://sgtwiklund.wordpress.com

from someone who has been there.

Brilliant Essay. Needs to be read by all Democratic candidates for President. I will never forget John Kerry commenting - two days before the Madrid bombings in 2004- that the GOP exaggerated the threat of terrorism which he believed was primarily a "law enforcement" problem.

A brilliant essay and another reason to vote for the GOP candidate. The left just doesn't get it. They believe the West is responsible for Islamic extremism. I will never forget John Kerry's 2004 comment that the GOP has exaggerated the threat of terrorism which he saw as primarily a "law enforcement issue". Kerry's comments came a few days before the terrorist attacks in Madrid.

Actually it is just natural law and God's law. Whatever framework you want to put around your concept of a God, can we not all agree that God probably did not create us just to watch us kill each other in some sort of "Survivor" type game?

If you can't agree to that, then you lack the basic intelligence required to hold a civilized discussion on this topic (and probably many others).

The problem is, the enemy isn't "Jihadists", it is all Muslims who adhere devoutly to the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. If you truly study Islam and Quran, you understand that violent treatment of non-Muslims is a fundamental tennant of the religion, it isn't a misinterpretation. To say that only "Jihadists" are the problem is to say that Sein-Fenn was the only thing wrong with the IRA. Anyone who holds Islamic beliefs is a potential terrorist whether they are today or not.

The solution is to put pressure on Islamic leaders to look critically at their religion and reconcile those tennants causing problems with the modern world (consisting of Christians, Jews, and billions of non-Muslims). That is the long-term solution. But we still haven't named the enemy and Weigel isn't all the way there.

Religion in almost any form, and especially in the fundamentalist versions are sowing the seeds of our ultimate destruction. As the technological curve continues to empower these extremists, smaller and smaller groups of individuals will be able to inflict damage on a greater and greater scale. As we have learned from 9/11, Aum Shinrikyo, and Jonestown, their are many among us who will follow the words of lunatics and zealots, gleefully taking innocents to their graves in orgies of absurd superstitions.

If we can not agree to recognize the risks that come from indoctrinating children in the absurd, then we are all as good as dead, because today's zealots are raising a new generation of automatons who will use emerging technologies to kill on a scale usually reserved only for their absurd holy books.

I watched a HistoryChannel show on the beginning of the First Crusade (11th Century AD), and noticed a striking similarity between the Crusaders and the mentality that these jihadists espouse. Mainstream Christendom outgrew the 'believe-like-us-or-be-killed' mentality long ago; not so for the Islamic faith. It's a shame that Britain and France screwed up the Middle East so bad during the Colonial Era. Things there would be so much different if it wasn't for those European powers. Jihadists are basically demented identity-seekers, living in the past.

Weigel has it almost right. The defining war isn't against jihadism, it is against ignorance and it concomitant fears. Ignorance includes the collections of irrational beliefs we refer to as religion. As long as sentient beings continue to yield rationality in the face of threats of religious violence there will be no peace. The threats are fundamental to all Abrahamic religions and range from killing to ostracism. As long as people fail to confront the problems of their religious assertions by saying "Oh, but those are the practises of the deviant interpreters of my religion. Not mine." and then to take no action to contain or expel the deviant, they are fully culpable for the violence of their faith. The war is against ignorance.

Weigel has it almost right. The defining war isn't against jihadism, it is against ignorance and it concomitant fears. Ignorance includes the collections of irrational beliefs we refer to as religion. As long as sentient beings continue to yield rationality in the face of threats of religious violence there will be no peace. The threats are fundamental to all Abrahamic religions and range from killing to ostracism. As long as people fail to confront the problems of their religious assertions by saying "Oh, but those are the practises of the deviant interpreters of my religion. Not mine." and then to take no action to contain or expel the deviant, they are fully culpable for the violence of their faith. The war is against ignorance.