What if the Muslims win the 3rd World War (their Global Jihad)?

Before we get down to this subject let us make it clear that we are opposed to all forms of fanaticism - religious or otherwise. While all fanaticism is negative; fanaticism that is based on religion is the most virulent and among the fanatics of various religions, the Muslims are the most violent and cruel.

The impelling reason to focus on Muslims is that they are psychologically the most organized worldwide into one community 'Ummah'. Again it is they who are day-by-day becoming a threat to world peace. Hence we look at the scenario in the event of the remote possibility of an Islamic victory over the rest of the world in an unfortunate but probable Third World War.

In this scenario people all across the world would be given a choice of submitting to Islam or be treated as second class citizens (by wearing a badge to identify themselves as non-Muslims as is being done today in that "ideal" Islamic society of Taliban ruled Afghanistan). In addition they would have to pay the penal tax (Jaziya) to the Muslim rulers. The honour of their womenfolk would always be in danger of being violated by the Mujahideen and Ghazis (Islamic warriors). The lives of non-Muslims would always be in peril and at the mercy of the whims of the Muslim rulers, who would have a perpetual and perennial hatred of the non-Muslims.

In addition to this day-to-day real-life scenario, in the regular cases of the waves of more acute fanaticism that would sweep the world ruled only by Muslims; the non-Muslims would be given the choice of embracing Islam or be killed by the more zealous among the fanatical Muslim rulers of the globe. This possibility is based on the experiences today in different parts of the globe under Muslim rule and also from other parts of the globe that came under the intermittent sway of the Islamic armies in the 14 centuries since the year 632 C.E., like Spain, Portugal, Greece, Serbia and Kosovo, Croatia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, et al.

On the contrary if, during the Islamic rule all across the globe, we gave up our religions (or lack of religion) and embraced Islam, the scenario would be like this:

1) Our role-models would be cruel war-mongers who would keep having bloody fights with each other even after the entire world population is converted to Islam.

This is based on the observed fact today that a majority of the Muslims (who take to the streets) across many countries, lionize and idolize extremists and war-mongers like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, Samir Kuntar, Zarqawi, et al, but not progressive and constructive reformers like Ataturk or the former King Amanullah of Afghanistan.

2)We would be living in theocratic dictatorship all across the world. There would be no democracy, no elections and no public accountability for any act. The only arbiter would be the Quranic prescriptions for all times in the future.

This is so since today most of the Muslim majority countries cannot sustain democracies. Except Turkey, and Egypt, no Muslim majority country has a sustained democratic tradition. But most Muslim populations look up upon Islamic dictatorships or monarchies.

The list of such theocratic dictatorships would include Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan (despotic monarchies), Syria, Iraq, Chad, (dictatorships) Iran (nominal democracy under strain from clerics), Kuwait (nominal democracy under emirate), UAE, North Yemen (and occupied South Yemen which had a sort of democratic set up earlier), Libya, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria (Military rule of secularized military), Malaysia (civilian dictatorship of Mahathir Mohammed), Indonesia (fledgling democracy), Pakistan, Bangladesh (spells of democratic rule and military dictatorships), Central African Republic (kingdom of former "Emperor"; Bokassa), Uganda (a Christian majority country that had a taste of Islamic dictatorship under Idi Amin), Afghanistan (theocratic dictatorship of the Taliban), etc.

3) There would be ill-treatment of women, Women would not be allowed to have an education, pursue any career. Men would be forced to wear turbans and grow beards.

This possibility is based on the observation today that a majority of the Muslim countries do not give equal rights to women like education, free-movement, driving, apparel, and even participation in mass-prayers in the mosques alongside their menfolk, (no doubt the scripture will be quoted to explain this, but this is the reality). The hijab, Chador or burqua (veil and full length gown) for women is still a common feature in Islamic societies.

In the ideal Islamic society of Talibanized Afghnaistan adult men are forced to grow a beard and wear the prescribed Islamic dress, they cannot sport normal (Western) hairstyles and even students above the age of three are forced to wear turbans.

---

4) We would have to send our kids to get the highly jaundiced and narrow scrap of education in religious schools that would teach only the Quran.

This is based on the observation today that a majority of the devout Muslims in the Islamic world prefer talim (religious education) in Madrasas (Muslim theological schools) as against professional education.

5) There would be no respect for human rights and no freedom of thought and expression. Anyone speaking out against Islam or the Quran or the Prophet would be punished with death. Flogging and stoning to death, cutting off of the limbs would be the prescribed punishments for common crimes like stealing.

This is based on the observation today that some leading and vocal Muslim organisations and some governments in power, practice the politics of fatwah (Muslim religious decree) of death towards those who express themselves against Islam. A Muslim who publicly declares that he is no longer a Muslim is considered a Murtad and he is punishable by death (although there are various interpretations of the Koran on this)

6) There would be no public media like the TV, Cable or Internet. Since these would be looked upon as the Satan's tools in corrupting humankind with information and entertainment.

This is based on the observation today when many Muslim sects frown upon mass communication media like the Television. In some instances, TV sets are dumped as an act of piety.

7) The Dictatorial Rulers all over the world would be Muslim Clergymen

This is based on the observation that most Muslims oppose the separation of the State and Clergy. Temporal power is vested in the clergy in most countries in Dar-Ool-Islam or the Islamic world.

8) All aspects of life would be regimented with what is stated in the Quran. There would be no evolution of new laws and in fact no new thoughts

This is based on the observation today where a majority of the Muslim countries prefer some variant of the Sharia i.e. Muslim laws based on the Quran, as against modern civil laws. The Sharia laws include stoning to death, cutting of limbs, castration, etc.

9) Even if you were a Muslim and belonged to a minority sect like the Shias or Ahmediyas, you would be considered to be an infidel or heretic and be subject to harassment.

This is based on the observation today where a majority of the Sunnis (a majority sect among the Muslims) look upon the Shias as heretics. So also are the other smaller Islamic sects.

10)There would be no scope at all for having any opinion, idea, innovation outside the Quran-al-sharif or anything that is considered non-islamic. This would in fact freeze all progress.

This is based on the observation today where most Muslims look upon anything non-islamic as Kufr and Jahiliyat (infidel, ignorance) and also the entire non-islamic world as Dar-ul-Harb (literally 'Hostile zone') or the Infidel world. And anything that even a Muslim chooses to do, which is frowned upon by the clergy, is considered as Haram (illegitimate).

11) There would be a complete ban on dance, music and entertainment.

This is based on the observation today where most devout Muslims spend all their spare time in reading the verses of the Quran and in Namaaz (mass invocation of Allah). Their minds are closed to anything outside the Quran. They live an insular life and shun socializing with non-Muslims. The Taliban rule in Afghanistan epitomizes what an "ideal" Islamic society the World over would look like.

12) Aggressive, quarrelsome attitudes would be a common feature of human behavior and social relations would be perpetually violent whether at the family level, local area level, province level, national level or global level. The crime rate would be high. The all Muslim world society would be perpetually at war with itself.

This is based on the observation today where most of the criminals (in non-Muslim countries) are Muslims. Muslims are also dominant in global terrorism. Even at the national level they (Iraq, Libya, etc) specialize in the making of chemical weapons of mass destruction. Soon the nuclear capability that is today limited to Pakistan will proliferate to the Arab and rest of the Muslim world and we shall soon see a mushrooming of small rogue states armed with nuclear capable missiles that would bedevil the rest of the non-Islamic world.

Even as organisations Islamic gangs would terrorize the world. Examples of such gangs are the Al Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood , Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Harkat-ul-Mujahedeen, Hizb-ul-Mujahedeen, Jaish-e-Mohammedi, Abu Sayyaf, etc

Thus a victory for the Muslims over the rest would spell doomsday for humankind, it would mean the end of all technological progress. In fact, for the thinking species of Human beings, an Islamic victory would mean the end of meaningful human existence. A scenario, where we would still have our capability to think, to innovate and to progress; but we would not be allowed to use any of our human faculties. This would be even worse than the scenario had the Nazis won the 2nd World War.

This is the logical scenario in case of a victory for the Islamic Jehad over all non-Islamic people across the globe. In this scenario, the ultimate saviour of humanity would have to come forth from within Islam itself. A saviour who would repudiate Islam and re-establish a civilized human way of life.

But till then it would be a frightful existence under the twilight of Islam, with no hope for the future. It is for these reasons among others, why the rest of the world (including some modernized Muslims) look askance at the growing clout of the Muslim clergy over the Ummah i.e. the general Muslim populace. And the resultant growing disturbances that Muslims cause in areas where they live alongside non-Muslims - like Chechnya, Macedonia, Egypt (Coptic Christians), Southern Sudan, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Southern Philippines (Mindanao), Indonesia (Malaku), Kashmir (India), Israel, etc.

In fact even many modernized (non-Islamized) Muslims are scared to death to speak their mind about Islamic orthodoxy, even after having lived in the West for more than one generation.

But some time or the other one has to address these issues in the context of freedom of thought and action for a future liberal democratic society the world over; and in the larger context of saving human civilization from the mortal danger it faces today from the growing strength of Islamic Terrorism of JIHAD.

The cardinal fact is that across the fourteen centuries of Islam's existence, it has been its death threat that converted people to Islam and it was the same death threat that kept them Muslim. The same death threats are used today to intimate Ayan Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie and many others like them to keep them from speaking the truth about Islam.

He who was born by the sword shall die by the sword

Modifying the age-old adage "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." We can say that "Islam which was born by the sword shall die by the sword" As it was a death threat that made people into Muslims and kept them as Muslims, the only way these scum can be shaken out of their adherence to the savagery called Islam is a death threat. Not individual death threats as the Muslims hurl today at Hirsi and Salman, but a death threat of extermination through a nuclear holocaust of the entire Muslim population across the globe!

Only when the beastlike Muslims see the determination of a world to do them in, upto their last man and woman, can the Ummah of Islam be smashed.

When the Muslims see that there is no option other than death, if they persist in remaining Muslim, will the fort of Islam be breached and once the first trickle of Muslims who renounce Islam starts, the trickle will turn into a flood and an avalanche that will wipe out Islam.

Yes there will certainly be many Muslims who will try to kill those who renounce Islam, but when these murderers are themselves hunted down with equal ferocity, will the lay Muslims believe that it is safe for them to give up Islam. Then and only then, shall we see Muslims coming over in droves to give up Islam. But this can happen only we seriously hurl and start executing a death threat of mass killing of all Muslims across the globe. There are no soft options here.

Do we have it in us to do that?

The answer decides whether civilization wins or Islam wins!

_____________________________

* For those uninitiated, PBUH expands to Perpetual Battle Upon Hagarism (Islam) - founded by the mass-murderer and pedophile pretender prophet Mohammed-ibn-Abdallah (Yimach Shmo - May his name and memory be obliterated).

_____________________________

______________________________________

Select Bibliography The Mummy, Funeral Rites & Customs in Ancient Egypt, by Ernest A. Wallis Budge, reprint of 1893 edition by Senate Studio Editions 1995

The Twilight of Ancient Egypt, First Millennium B.C.E., by Karol Mysliwiec, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press2000

Egypt in The Age of Cleopatra, by Michel Chauveau, translated by David Lorton, Cornell University Press, 2000

Women in Ancient Egypt, by Gay Robins, Harvard University Press, 1996

Women and Society in Greek and Roman Egypt: A Source Book by Jane Rowlandson, Cambridge University Press, 1998

The Chronicle of John Coptic Bishop of Nikiu (circa 690 A.D.), translated by Robert Henry Charles, reprint from 1916 edition, APA-Philo Press Amsterdam, Holland

The Vanished Library, A Wonder of The Ancient World, by Luciano Canfora, University of California Press

The Story of The Church of Egypt, Volumes I and II, by Edith L. Butcher, reprint of 1897 edition by AMS Press Inc, New York, N.Y 1975

Coptic Egypt, by Murad Kamil, Le Scribe Egyptien, 1968

Traditional Egyptian Christianity, A History of the Coptic Church, by Theodore. Hall Patrick, Fisher Park Press, 1999

Muslim Extremism in Egypt, The Prophet and the Pharaoh, by Gilles Kepel, University of California Press 1993

Ancient Egyptian Culture, published by Chartwell Books, Edison, N.J. 1998.

Samson Blinded: A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict, by Obadiah Shoher

Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st Centuries (Hardcover) by Paul Fregosi

The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World by Srdja Trifkovic

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer

Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam) by David Cook

Why I Am Not a Muslim by Ibn Warraq

Onward Muslim Soldiers by Robert Spencer

Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis by Bat Ye'Or

Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Yeor

What the Koran Really Says: Language, Text, and Commentary by Ibn Warraq

Islam and Terrorism: What the Quran Really Teaches About Christianity, Violence and the Goals of the Islamic Jihad by Mark A. Gabriel, Mark A. Gabriel

A Concise History of the Crusades by Thomas F. Madden

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

The Great Divide: The failure of Islam and the Triumph of the West by Marvin Olasky

The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims by Robert Spencer

Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith by Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones

The Koran (Penguin Classics) by N. J. Dawood

Don't Keep me Silent! One Woman's Escape from the Chains of Islam by Mina Nevisa

Christianity And Islam: The Final Clash by Robert Livingston

Holiest Wars : Islamic Mahdis, Their Jihads, and Osama bin Laden by Timothy R. Furnish

The Last Trumpet: A Comparative Study in Christian-Islamic Eschatology by Samuel, Ph.D. Shahid

Unleashing the beast: How a fanatical islamic dictator will form a ten-nation coalition and terrorize the world for forty-two months by Perry Stone

Contemporary Muslim Apocalyptic Literature (Religion and Politics) by David Cook

Islam and the Jews: The Unfinished Battle by Mark A., Ph.D. Gabriel

The Challenge of Islam to Christians by David Pawson

The Prophetic Fall of the Islamic Regime by Glenn Miller, Roger Loomis

Prophet of Doom : Islam's Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad's Own Words by Craig Winn

The False Prophet by Ellis H. Skolfield

The Approach of Armageddon: An Islamic Perspective by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani

The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God by George Weigel

Infiltration : How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington by Paul Sperry

Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz

Unveiling Islam : An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun Mehmet Caner

Perfect Soldiers : The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It by Terry McDermott

Islam Revealed A Christian Arab's View Of Islam by Anis Shorrosh

Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out by Ibn Warraq

The Origins of the Koran: Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book by Ibn Warraq

________________________________

Unfortunately for humankind, the end of the death-seeking fiery cult of Islam can only come about through a fiery death-giving weapon. Ironically such nuclear mushroom clouds would be the blazing hell-fire that the Quran talks about and acknowledges will bring about an end to Islam such that there will be no one across the globe to say "Lah ilah il Allah, Mohammed ur Rasoolallah" (There is no god but allah and Mohammed is his prophet).

The Crux of Islam’s Civilizational War

Islam, by the commands of Allah and the Prophet, is engaged in a perpetual battle with Western civilization, which can end only with Islam's total defeat or complete victory.

---

["Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from its readiness to fit in with our instinctual wishful impulses." -- Sigmund Freud]

A religious war started a long, long time ago, between two civilizations, namely the civilization based on Biblical views and the one based on Koranic views. And this must be clear to all. So, let’s take a look deep into it.

Trusting GOD is the most reasonable thing which comes to a human mind. How is your organized religion different from Catholics, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?

A lie is a lie! And, religion is based on these four pillars:

1. Lies
2. Superstition
3. Dogma
4. Rituals

Look around and observe the followers of Islam to understand what they are doing now and what they did in the past?

Islam’s message is simple and clear.

Hate and kill... Hate and kill… Hate and kill…

‘Hate and Kill’ kuffar as well as each other; also subjugate and degrade women by putting them in harems and by marrying underage girls. If someone disagrees, then kill him/her. Look at Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, etc. (indeed, in almost all Islamic countries); the same message: Hate and Kill.

There is no fundamental Islam

"Fundamentalism" is a word that came from the heart of the Christian religion. It means faith that goes by the word of the Bible. Fundamental Christianity, or going by the Bible, does not mean going around and killing people?

There is no fundamental Islam! There is only Islam period.

The question is how the Koran is interpreted?

All of a sudden we see that the greatest interpreters of Islam are politicians in the West. They pretend to know better than speakers and imams in the mosques, who deliver terrible sermons against anything that is either Christian or Jewish (kafirs). Western politicians tell us that there is good Islam and bad Islam. They know even how to differentiate between the two, except that none of them know how to read an Arabic word.

The Language of Islam

You see so much is covered by a politically correct language that the truth, in fact, has been lost forever. For example, when we speak about Islam in the West, we try to use our own language and terminologies. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarianism, and all such kinds of terms. Doing this, which we do from our own dictionary, is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use the language of one culture or civilization for another. For Islam, you've got to use the language of Islam.

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that drive the religion of Islam. Every Muslim has to acknowledge the fact that, there is only one God. But, it's not enough to say that there is only one God! A Muslim has to acknowledge the fact that, there is one God and Muhammad is his prophet. These are the fundamentals of Islam; without them, one cannot be a Muslim. But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave, first and foremost, a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations at large with rules of behavior. If you are a Muslim, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam as set down in the Koran and are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible

Let me explain the difference here. The Bible is the creation of the spirit of a nation over a very, very long period, if we talk from the point of view of the scholar (and let me remain scholarly here); but, there is only one thing that is important in the Bible: it leads to salvation.

It leads to salvation in two ways.

In Judaism, it leads to national salvation, not just a nation that wants to have a state, but a nation that also wants to serve their God. That's the idea behind the Hebrew text of the Bible. While the New Testament, which took from the Hebrew Bible, moves its adherents toward a personal salvation with God. So, we have these two kinds of salvation, which, from time to time, meet each other in respects. But the ‘keyword’ here is salvation

Secondly, there is another point in the Bible, which is highly important. This is the idea that man was created in the image of God. Therefore, you don't just walk around and obliterate the image of God in question, followers of the Bible have historically slaughtered in the name of God. Yet, honoring the image of God and the hope of salvation are the two basic fundamentals in these religions.

The Essence of Islam

Now let's move to the essence of Islam. In contrast to the essence of Biblical faiths discussed in the previous section, Islam was born with the idea that it should rule the world. I can quote here in Arabic, but there is no point in quoting Arabic, so let me quote a verse in English. "Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all other religions" (see Quran 2:191-94, 8:39).

The idea is not to turn the whole world population to Muslims right away, but to subdue it under the rule of Islam, initially! Muhammad founded Islam (632 CE), within eight years (by 640 CE), the core of the Islamic empire was created. The rules that were taken from the Koran and from the Pagan Arab traditions, but credited to the Prophet of Islam, were translated into a real legal Islamic System. The Jews and Christians could live under Islam provided they paid poll-tax (Jaziyah) and accepted Islamic superiority with willing humiliation (Q 9:29), i.e. they had to suffer humiliation in their everyday life.

Prophet Mohammed Held That All the Biblical Prophets Were Muslims

Muhammad did accept the existence of all the Biblical prophets before him. However, he also said that all these prophets were Muslims. Abraham was a Muslim. In fact, Adam himself was the first Muslim. Isaac and Jacob and David and Solomon and Moses and Jesus were all Muslims as well, and all of them preached messages similar to the Koran. Therefore, world history is Islamic history because all the heroes of history were Muslims. Can we believe that?

Furthermore, Muslims accept the fact that each of these prophets brought with him some kind of a revelation: Moses brought the Taurat (Torah), and Jesus brought the Ingeel (the Evangelion or Gospel).

Bible vs. Koran

Why then is the Bible not similar to the Koran, one may ask? Indeed, the Jews and Christians of Muhammad’s days did the same question, and Muhammad’s answer was: they had forged their holy books! Had these not been changed and forged, these books would have been identical to the Koran.

Nevertheless, the holy laws are very clear: the Jews and the Christians have no rights, whatsoever, to independent existence!!! They can live only under complete subjugation to Islam.

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if the Jews and Christians don't want to live under the same rules of Islam? Then, Muslims must fight them and this fighting is called Jihad! Jihad means ‘holy war against the Kafirs (unbelievers), who do not want to accept (submit) the Islamic superior rule! They may be Jews; they may be Christians. While Jihad against Polytheists (also atheists etc.) demands their complete annihilation! For now, given that not too many Polytheists left, especially not in the Middle East, their Jihad is mainly directed against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the by the Talibans. In it, Osama bin Laden calls for the ‘Islamic Jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia and Islam with their filthy feet! There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be’. In this pamphlet, there is not a single word about Israel, but the Kafirs that are desecrating the home of Islam’s prophet.

The Two Houses

The Koran sees the world as divided into two houses: the ‘Dar al-Islam’ or the ‘House of Peace’ that has come under Islamic rule, and the ‘Dar al-Harb’ or ‘House of War’ (i.e. non-Islamic world) that is yet to come under the rule. of Islam through any means needed There is a division of the world which is very clear here. Every single person, who studied Islam, knows this cardinal principle of Islam.

Note the term, “House of War” meaning that Muslims must be in perpetual war with the non-Muslim world until been conquered and subjugated to Islam. A civilization war must continue until the entire world comes under Islamic rule. This is the normative view in Islam. Why? Because, Allah says it's so in the Koran.

God has sent Mohammed with the true religion in order that, the Islamic truth will overcome all other Kafir religions.

Islamic Law

Within the Islamic vision of this world, there are rules that must strictly govern the lives of Muslims. There are four major schools of Islamic law, although differences among them, in essence, are very little.

Countries of the Islamic world have favored one or a mix of these schools of Islamic law. The strictest school is called Hanbali, implemented mainly in Saudi Arabia.

If the Koran speaks about war, then it's war

There are various perspectives in Islam with different interpretations over the centuries. There were good people that were very enlightened in Islam, who tried to understand things differently. They even brought traditions from the mouth of the prophet that women and children should not be killed in war. These more liberal streams do exist, but there is one thing that is very important for us to remember. The Wahabi School of Law is very severe, and this school is behind most of the terrorist powers today. Even if we talk about the existence of other schools of Islamic law, when we're talking about fighting against the Jews and Christians, a world led by America, the Wahabi School is the main instigator of that war today.

Islam and Territory

The Islamic civilization created one very important, fundamental rule about territory. Any territory that comes under Islamic rule cannot be de-Islamized. Even if, at one time or another, the Kafirs take back, or the enemy takes over, a conquered Islamic territory, it is still considered Islamic, and a relentless war must be waged with utmost urgency to bring it under Islam. This is why whenever you hear about the Arab/Israeli conflict, you constantly hear about occupied Islamic territory! There are other aspects to the conflict, but territory is highly important.

Islam sees the Christian civilization not only as a religious opponent, but also as a dam stopping Islam from achieving its final goal for which it was created.

Islam was born to create an army of God, the army of Allah. Every single Muslim is a soldier in this army. Every single Muslim that dies in wars, fought for spreading Islam is a Shaheed (martyr), no matter how he dies in battle, because [and this is very important] this is an ‘eternal war’ between the two civilizations. It's not a war that stops. This war is there, because it was created by Allah. Islam must be the ruler. This is a war that will not end.

Islam and Peace

Peace in Islam can exist only within the Islamic world; peace can only be between Muslims.

With the non-Muslim world or the non-Muslim opponents, there can be only one solution: a ceasefire until Moslems can gain more power. It is an eternal war until the end of days! Peace can only come if the Islamic side wins. The two civilizations can only have periods of ceasefire. And this idea of ceasefire is based on a very important historical precedent, which, incidentally, late Yasser Arafat referred to when he spoke in Johannesburg after he signed the Oslo agreement with Israel.

A few weeks after signing the Oslo Agreement, Arafat, faced with criticism from Muslims for signing a peace agreement with the Jewish state, told a congregation in a mosque in Johannesburg that "Do you think I signed something with the Jews, which is contrary to the rules of Islam? That's not so. I'm doing exactly what the prophet Mohammed did."

Here’s Arafat was pointing a prophetic precedent, a Sunnah, namely the "story of Hudaybiya”. When Muhammad arrived in Mecca with some 1500 fighters in 628 to capture the city, he faced a stronger and determined Meccan opponent, and to avoid a suicidal confrontation, he signed 10-year peace agreement, the so-called Treaty of Hudaibiyya, with the Meccans. But then he quickly strengthened his army to 10,000 soldiers within two years, he threw away the treaty, marched toward Mecca and captured it. This treacherous act of the prophet, in Islamic jurisdiction, later became a legal precedent, which states that Muslims are only allowed to make peace with infidels for a maximum of 10 years. And secondly, at the first instance that you are able, you must throw away the treaty and renew the jihad.

Peace agreement or ceasefire in Islam is only a temporary tactical choice in a situation of weakness or difficulty; it can’t be permanent.

Signing the Oslo Peace Accord was an essential lesson for Israel. And Israelis has taken over 50 years to understand that they cannot ever have [permanent] peace with Muslims. It will take another 50 years or more for the Western world to understand that they have found themselves in a state of war with the Islamic civilization that is virile and strong.

This should be understood: When we talk about war and peace, we are not talking in Belgium, French, English, or German terms. We are talking about war and peace in Islamic terms!

Wherever You Have Islam, You Will Have War

The reason that we have wars in Yugoslavia and other places, where the Muslims live in minority, is because of the nature of Islam that pits Muslim, as explained already, in a perpetual state of war with infidels for establishing Islamic dominance/rule. And we saw, they succeeded in establishing Islamic rule in Kosovo; more such successes for them are on the way. Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization.

Why are the poor people in the Philippines being killed for? What's happening between Pakistan and India?

Islamic Infiltrations

Furthermore, there is another fact that must be remembered. The Islamic world has not only the attitude of an ‘open war’, but there's also another: war by infiltration, which is currently occurring in the West! While the Western world not paying enough attention, Islam is fast building its power there. What happened in America and to the Twin Towers is not something that came from the outside! And, if America and the West at large don't wake up soon enough, they will, one day, find themselves in difficult, a potentially losing war with its fastest-growing Muslim infiltrators.

The End of Days

Biblical doctrines see the ‘end of days’ as having 'peace between nations, not just one nation, but between all nations. People will not have any more need for weapons and nature will be changed -a beautiful end of days and the kingdom of God on earth’ (Isaiah) and all sources of evil obliterated. But, Islam sees the ‘end of days’ as having world that is totally Islamic, completely Muslim and under the rule of Islam—complete and final victory of Islam! The Jews, Christians, Polytheists, and Unbelievers will be utterly destroyed.

I’m quoting from Islamic sources about how the Last Days will come:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him… [Bukhari Book 041, Number 6984].

Is There a Possibility of End to This War Dance?

The question which the Jews in Israel are asking is what will happen to their country? Is there a possibility to end this war dance?

As far as Islamic doctrine is concerned, the answer is, "no”; and as far as reality is concerned, ‘not in the foreseeable eyes of the Islamic future!"

We can only reach a situation, where we may have relative quiet for a few years. But Muslims, the establishment of Israel is a reversal of Islam’s history. First, Islamic territory was taken away by Jews. You should know by now that this can never be accepted by Muslim. So, everyone, who thinks Tel Aviv is safe, is making a grave mistake! The territory, which was once dominated by Islamic rule, has now become a non-Muslim state (Apes & Pigs Land). Non-Muslims can’t have independent rule of their own in Islam. But Jews have taken away Islamic land, and then, have created an independent state. It is anathema in Islam!

The worse is Jewish Israel is ruling over a sizable population of Muslims. It is unthinkable (for a Muslim!!!) that non-Moslems should ever rule over Muslims.

I believe that the Western civilization should hold together and support each other. Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. As Israel finds itself on the frontlines of this war, it needs help from its sister civilization. It needs the help of America and Europe.

Islamic Jihad - The Just War!

It's not every day that religion appears as a front page story in today's newspapers all over the world, particularly on a regular basis! But over the past 20 years one religion has really made the front pages perhaps more than any other . . . it is the religion of Islam.
Islam claims more than one billion followers worldwide. It is not only the fastest growing religion in the world, but its influence touches virtually every area of life -not only the spiritual, but the political and economic as well. What is more, its influence is being felt closer and closer to home. There are now up to 5 million Muslims in the U.S., and over 1,100 mosques or Islamic centers.
What does Islam teach? How are the teachings of Islam similar to those of Christianity the pre-dominant religion in the U.S? How are they different? What should our attitude be towards Islam, and towards those who follow this powerful religion? These are some of the questions we want to address in this essay.

In February 1998, long before the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, Osama bin Laden and four other leaders of radical Islamist groups in various countries issued a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, calling for jihad against “the crusader–Zionist alliance” in the following language:
“In compliance with Allah’s order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al–Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of the holy lands of Islam. . . . This is in accordance with the words of the true Almighty Allah, and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together and fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God.”
While more examples of Osama bin Laden’s thinking emerged after the September 11 attacks, this fatwa stands as a fundamental statement of his rationale for a campaign of violence against America and the West: an appeal to the Islamic tradition of defensive jihad by which every Muslim is obligated, as an individual’s duty, to take up arms against such invaders. It lays out the justifications, not only for the attacks of September 11 but also for other terrorist attacks linked to bin Laden’s al–Qaeda group, notably, the bombings of the two American embassies in East Africa and of the U.S.S. Cole. It also provides a warrant for future attacks by “every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it” —in short, for a continuing war by terrorist and other means by Muslims against “Americans and their allies,” an ongoing clash of civilizations. How should this call be understood in relation to the Islamic traditions? And how does it compare to the just war tradition of Western culture?
The classical Islamic conceptions of jihad in the sense of warfare comes not from the Qur’an directly, where the term jihad is used to refer to the believer’s inner struggle for righteousness, but from the jurists of the early Abbasid period (the late eighth and early ninth centuries c.e), who developed it in the context of a general effort to clarify the nature of the Islamic community, the proper leadership of that community, and the community’s relations with the non–Islamic world. Central to this conception was a legal division of the world into two realms: the dar al–Islam or abode of Islam, and the remainder of the world, defined as the dar al–harb or abode of war.
The dar al–Islam, as the jurists understood it, had existed since its creation by the Prophet Muhammad himself, who had been its first head –the holy messenger of Allah. It is a community at once religious and political, and thus its ruler, like the Prophet, was understood to be supreme in both spheres. There could be at any time only one right ruler, understood to be the successor of the Prophet and inheritor of his authority. Because of its character —its essential unity, its rule by a successor of the Prophet, its governance according to divinely given law —the dar al–Islam is fundamentally different from the rest of the world, which is torn by perpetual conflicts and is a constant threat to the peace of the dar al–Islam. A general, lasting, universal peace is impossible until the dar al–harb is no more, when the whole world has become the dar al–Islam, a place within which submission (Islam) to Allah is the law of the land. Until then war between the two realms is the normal state. Yet at the same time extended periods of peace are possible by means of treaties between the dar al–Islam and non–Islamic societies.
This conception formed the background for the jurists’ conception of the idea of jihad as warfare. As they described it, this warfare could take two forms: that of the dar al–Islam as a body under the authority of its legitimate ruler, the caliph for the Sunni tradition, the imam for the Shiite —a conception that encompassed offensive wars against the general threat and organized collective defense against any attack and an emergency form of defensive jihad against a direct attack on the dar al–Islam by a force from some part of the dar al–harb. In the former case the duty to take part in jihad was conceived as a collective one, with some Muslims fighting and others playing other roles, including simply going about their normal lives; in the latter case, though, to fight was an individual duty, incumbent on all Muslims who were able to do so in the immediate area of the aggressions.
These were significantly different forms of warfare. The collective jihad was a thoroughly rule –governed activity, from the requirement of the caliph/imam’s authority to that of a declaration of hostilities and a call for peace to a form of combatant –noncombatant distinction to extensive discussion of the disposition of spoils by the ruling authority. The jurists clearly understood this as the norm for the warfare of the dar al–Islam. This form of jihad drew upon the religious unity of the Islamic community even as it depended on the social and institutional relationships that comprised the Islamic state; the proper exercise of jihad on this model strengthened the dar al–Islam and the role of its ruler both religiously and politically.
The jihad of emergency defense was another matter entirely. It assumed an acute emergency in which normal religiously and socially prescribed relationships and structures were erased. The model the jurists had in mind was simple: a direct attack across the border of the dar al–Islam by a force from the dar al–harb in some particular place remote from the dar al–Islam’s center of authority and power. Against this attack Muslims in the area were to rise up in arms, on their own authority, as a kind of levée en masse. The individual duty to take up arms crossed and eliminated all the usual divisions: not only healthy men of fighting age but women, children, the aged, and the infirm were to fight to the limit of their ability to do so. Correspondingly, the rules of engagement of collective jihad did not apply: the enemy was the invading army, so noncombatants were not present and thus played no part in the conflict. While the jurists admitted this form of jihad in time of dire emergency caused by overt aggression, there was an inherent tension between it and the collective jihad of the dar al–Islam under the authority of the caliph/imam. In practical terms, local leaders on the frontiers might (and did) use the excuse of the jihad of emergency to challenge the legitimacy of the central authority. However, this form of jihad was originally meant to be an exceptional response to an exceptional circumstance, not the norm for Muslim warfare.
It is generally agreed within Islam that jihad of the first sort is impossible today, as there is no central caliph or imam. This gives new importance to what was originally considered to be an exceptional case: the idea of jihad as an individual duty in the face of external aggressions. In the Islamic mainstream this conception has developed along the lines compatible with the international laws to allow Muslim heads of state to organize and execute defense collectively, though on the juristic model they do so on the basis of the individual responsibility of all their people to respond to aggressions. The historical model for such action is the medieval hero Salahuddin Ayubi, who though only a regional commander (not the caliph) organized and led a successful defense against the armies of the second Crusade. In theory, this mainstream conception of defense respects the patterns of relationships within the society as well as the limits to be observed in fighting, the most important of which are understood to come from the Prophet Muhammad himself.however, the last hundred years or so have seen the development of another line of interpretations of the Islamic Jihad. First appearing in North Africa as an ideology for resistance against colonialism, by 1960 it was being used as a justification for terrorist attacks against Israel, and in the 1970s and 1980s it was adapted to justify armed struggles by terror and assassinations in such states as Iran, Egypt, and Algeria against the rulers who were nominally Muslim but were judged to be tools of the Western Imperialism. It is out of this tradition that Osama bin Laden’s fatwa has emerged.
This radical form of jihad makes several critical assumptions not found in the traditional conceptions or in the mainstream Islamic theories. First, the dar al–Islam is conceived as any territory whose population is mainly Muslim and which was once a part of the historical dar al–Islam. By this reasoning any non–Islamic state(s) existing within the territory of the historical dar al–Islam, as well as all non–Islamic presence within that space, must be resisted and subdued or be eliminated. Further, the “aggressors” are deemed to be all those who support such states or non–Islamic presence, so that the usual lines of distinctions between combatants and noncombatants are to be erased, with the result that all individuals are considered acceptable targets. Furthermore, because of its origins in an “emergency,” there are no limits on the means in this struggle. Finally, all Muslims are faced with the duty to take part in this struggle -Jihad, so that it ultimately becomes one involving individuals rather than politically organized communities; anyone who accepts this duty —men of fighting age, women, children, or even the aged or infirm becomes a combatant in the war.
This extreme interpretation of the idea of defensive jihad(s) implicitly rejects much of the actual history of the Muslim societies and of the Muslim faiths. It leaves scant room for toleration of “people of the book,” as prescribed in the Qur’an, because it treats the simple presence of Christians and Jews in dominantly Muslim societies as an act of aggression. It also leaves no room for differences of interpretations as to what Islam requires; its reading of Islamic law is narrow and unyielding on the doctrines and behaviors alike. Social developments identified with modernity are rejected as un–Islamic, even if large numbers of Muslims have accepted them without losing their faith.
Osama Bin Laden’s fatwa reflects all these assumptions. The United States is deemed as an aggressor against all Islam because of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq & Afghanistan, despite the fact that they are there by agreement, and despite the fact that their purpose is to protect Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Afghan people from the Islamic Extremists, not to dominate it. Likewise, the “protracted blockade” against Iraq is viewed as an assault on the Iraqi people, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein’s diversion of resources for his own purposes is the real cause of their sufferings. The same could be said of bin Laden’s hostility to the U.S. support for “the Jews’ petty state” and “its occupation of Jerusalem and the murder of Muslims.” In other words, the United States has become the embodiment of the dar al–harb, engaged in aggression against Islam, despite the fact that millions of Muslims live and enjoy freedom of religion within its borders. But bin Laden’s fatwa takes the radical line of jihad to new extremes when it calls for any and all Muslims to kill any and all Americans —“civilians and military” alike —“in any country in which it is possible to do it.” No longer a defensive war, this is jihad on the one offensive.
Bin Laden and his associates in the fatwa of course lack the religiously mandated authority to wage such wars, as they do not bear the mantle of succession to the Prophet of Islam. That is why they try to describe the war against America as a defensive one. By painting the entire nation of America as guilty of “aggressions,” the fatwa can set aside the limits imposed on warfare by normative Islamic traditions, which includes no direct, intended killings of noncombatants and no use of fire, which is prohibited among Muslims because it is the weapon Allah will use in the last days. Bin Laden’s jihad not only pits Islam against America, the West as a whole, and ultimately the rest of the non–Islamic world; it also seeks to overthrow the contemporary Muslim states and mainstream views of Islamic traditions among the great majority of contemporary Moderate Muslims.
To be sure, the early Abbasid jurists also thought the relation of the Islamic and non–Islamic worlds to be one of inherent conflict, and their notion of the collective warfare aimed at ensuring the eventual submission of the entire world to Allah reflected this. Yet they never defined this eschatological goal as one that could be achieved only by war or even primarily by wars. And in the absence of any universal Muslim ruler bearing the mantle of authority of the Prophet, Muslim traditions and Muslim life have found ways of pursuing this goal by other, nonmilitary means. The radical ideology of jihad changes this, making the use of violent means, indiscriminately and without principled limits, a binding obligation for all Muslims.
While the idea of a just war is deeply rooted in Western cultures, it is perhaps more strongly institutionalized today in international laws, in American military doctrines and practices, and even in political cultures than at any time since the age of Vitoria. Though the just war tradition has important Christian roots, it differs from the Islamic juristic traditions in that it can be employed without explicitly religious premises. Similarly, in Western political thoughts and theology more generally, the nature of the political community, the role of the government, and the use of armed forces are conceived in secular rather than religious terms. All these features differentiate a just war tradition from the juristic traditions of the Islamic Jihad by the dar al–Islam on the authority of the caliph/imam.
Yet there are also significant points of contact, which reveal important common interests. I have already suggested this by noting that mainstream Islamic thoughts and political practices have developed in a way compatible with the international laws and orderly, peaceful interactions with the non–Muslim nations. More specifically, both traditions link the right to use the armed forces to the exercise of legitimate governing authorities for the protection and common good of the governed communities. That common good, moreover, is defined normatively in terms of high ideals of values and behaviors, not in the terms of repressions and intolerance. Both traditions recognize that even the use of force justified in this way is not without limits when it comes to the questions of who may be targeted and the means that may be used against the aggressors. These are all matters on which there can and should be a pursuit of common causes. The radical doctrines of jihad advanced as the justifications for contemporary terrorism is a challenge to both of these traditions, and the people of good will from both communities have reasons to reject it.
So the present killing by the lone crusader in the guise of the ‘hate doctor’ Major Nidal Malik Hassan’s actions are the cause of this Islamic Jihad. We need to understand this conclusively that every Muslim –whether moderate or religious, are indeed sleep walkers and can wake up on any given day!

Jihad: The Islamic Just War Doctrine!

The Islamic concept of Just War (aka Jihad), and why there is always a pssibility that a Muslim warm up to it and commit massacre as did Major Nidal Malik Hasan at Fort Hood, Texas.
It's not every day that religion appears as a front page story in today's newspapers the world over, particularly on a regular basis! But over the past 20 years, one religion has really made to the front pages, perhaps, more often than any other news… it is terrorist activities—the religion of Islam portrays. In this essay, I dig into WHY THIS HAPPENS.
Islam claims more than one billion followers worldwide. It is the fastest growing religion in the world; and it influence touches virtually every area of life of the Muslim faithful: not only the spiritual, but also the political and economic. What is more, its influence is being felt closer and closer to home here in the United States. There are now up to 5 million Muslims in the U.S., and over 1,100 mosques or Islamic centers (estimated figures).
What does Islam really teach? How are these teachings of Islam similar to those of Christianity, the dominant religion in the U.S.? How are these beliefs different? What should our attitudes be toward Islam and towards those, who follow this powerful religion? Well, these are some of the questions/issues that I want to address in this essay.
In February 1998, long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks on American soil, Osama bin Laden and four other leaders of radical Islamist groups in various countries issued a fatwa or an Islamic religious ruling, calling for jihad against “the Crusader-Zionist alliance” in the following language:
“In compliance with Allah’s orders, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilians and military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque [Jerusalem] and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grips, and in order for their armies to move out of the holy lands of Islam… This is in accordance with the words of the true Almighty Allah, and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together and fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail Islamic justice and faith in Allah.”
Bombing of USS Cole in Yemeni port of Aden by al-Qaedaon October 12, 2000 that killed 17 US saidlors.
While more examples of Osama’s thinking emerged after the 9/11 attacks, this fatwa stands as a fundamental statement of his rationale for a campaign of violence against America and the West: an appeal to the Islamic tradition of defensive jihad by which every Muslim is obligated; as an individual’s duty, to take up arms against such invaders of Islamic lands. It lays out their justifications, not only for these attacks of 9/11, but also for other terrorist attacks linked to his al-Qaeda group, notably, the bombings of the two American Embassies in East Africa (Kenya and Tanzania) in August 1998 and of the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000. It also serves as a warrant for future such attacks by “every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it”—i.e. for a continuing war by terrorist and other means by Muslims against “Americans and their allies”, an ongoing clash of civilizations.
How should this call to perpetual Jihad be understood in relation to such Islamic traditions? And, how does it compare to the just war tradition of Western culture?
The classical Islamic conceptions of Islamic Jihad, in the sense of warfare, comes not from the holy Qur’an directly, where the term jihad is used in reference to the believer’s inner struggles for righteousness, but from the jurists of the early Abbasid periods (the late eighth and early ninth centuries C.E.), who developed it in the contexts of a general effort to clarify the nature of the Islamic communities at large—proper leadership of that Muslim community and their relations with the non-Islamic world. Central to these concepts is a legal division of the world into two realms: the dar al-Islam or the abode of Islam, and the remainder of the world, defined as the dar al-harb or abode of war.
On Aug 7, 1998, an al-Qaeda suicide-bomberstruck the U.S. Embassy in Kenya, killing 213people (12 Americans), and woundingmore than 4,500.
Four minutes after the Kenya attack, anothersuicide car-bomber attacked the U.S. Embassyin Tanzania, killing 11 and injuring 85.
The dar al-Islam, as the jurists understood it, had existed since its creation by the Prophet Muhammad himself, the holy messenger of Allah, who had been its first head. It was a community, both religious and political, and thus its ruler, namely the Prophet, was understood to be supreme in both spheres. There could be only one right ruler at a time, understood to be the successor of the Prophet and inheritor of his authority. Because of its characters—namely its essential unity, its rule by a successor of the Prophet, its governance according to divine Islamic laws—the dar al-Islam is fundamentally different from the rest of the world (dar al-harb). Dar al-harb is seen as perpetual threat, real or imagined, to dar al-Islam; therefore, the Muslim world must remain engaged is a perpetual conflicts with the infidel world. As a result, a general, lasting and universal peace is impossible until the dar al-harb is no more, when the whole world has become the dar al-Islam, a place within which submission (Islam) to Allah is the law of the land. Until then, war between the two realms is the normal state in Islamic belief systems. Yet, at the same time, Muslims are permitted to create extended periods of peace by means of false or tactical treaties between the dar al-Islam and the non-Islamic societies—a tactic the Prophet repeatedly used against his infidels neighbors and opponents.
This conception formed the background for the Islamic jurists, conception of the idea of jihad as warfare. As they described it, this warfare could take two forms: that of the dar al-Islam as a body under the authority of its legitimate ruler, the caliph for the Sunni traditions, and the imam for the Shiites—a conception that encompassed offensive wars imagined threats from a perceived enemy (dar al-harb), as well as defensive jihad, namely an organized collective defense against direct attacks on the dar al-Islam by a force from some part of the dar al-harb.
In the former case, the duty to take part in Islamic Jihads was conceived as a collective effort, with some Muslims fighting, while others playing other roles, including simply going about their normal lives of ignorance; in the latter case, though, to fight was an individual duty, incumbent on all Muslims who were able to do so in the immediate area of the aggressions.
These were significantly different forms of warfare. The collective jihads was a thoroughly rule-governed activities, from the requirements of the caliph’s/imam’s authority to that of a declaration of hostilities and a call for peace to a form of combatant -noncombatant distinction to extensive discussion of the disposition of spoils by the ruling authority. The jurists clearly understood this as the norm for the warfare of the dar al-Islam. This form of jihad drew upon the religious unity of the Islamic communities even as it depended on the social and institutional relationships that comprised the Islamic states. The proper exercise of Islamic Jihad on this model strengthened dar al-Islam and the role of its rulers, both religiously and politically.
The jihad of emergency defense was another matter entirely. It assumed an acute emergency, in which normal religiously and socially prescribed relationships and structures were totally erased. This model of the jurists, who had it in mind, was simple: a direct attack upon dar al-Islam by a force from the dar al-harb in some particular places remote from the dar al-Islam’s center of authority and power. Against this attack, the Muslims in the area were to rise up in arms, on their own authorities, as a kind of levée en masse. The individual duty of Muslims is to take up arms crossed all the usual divisions: not only healthy men of fighting age but also women, children, the aged and the infirm were to fight to the limit of their abilities. Correspondingly, the rules of engagements of collective Islamic Jihads—wherein noncombatants weren’t present, therefore, playing no part in the conflict—did not apply. While Islamic jurists admitted this form of jihad in times of dire emergency caused by overt aggression of the enemy, there was an inherent tension between it and the collective jihad of the dar al-Islam under the authority of the caliph/imam. In practical terms, local leaders on the frontiers might (and did) use the excuse of the Islamic Jihad of emergency to challenge the legitimacy of the central authorities in Islam. However, this form of jihad(s) was originally meant to be an exceptional response to an exceptional circumstance, not the norms for Muslim warfare.
Islamic Jihadis on the march.
It is generally agreed within Islam that the collective Jihad is impossible today, as there is no central caliph or imam now. This, itself, gives new importance to what was originally considered to be an exceptional case: the idea of defensive Islamic Jihad as an individual duty in the face of external aggressions. In the Islamic mainstream, this conception has developed along the lines compatible with the international laws to allow Muslim heads of state to organize and execute defense collectively; though on the juristic model they do so on the basis of the individual’s responsibilities of all their people to respond to such aggressions. The historical model for such actions, is the medieval hero Salahuddin Ayubi (Saladin), who, though only a regional commander (not the caliph), organized and led a successful defense against the armies of the second Crusades. In theory, this mainstream conception of defense respects the patterns of relationships within the society as well as the limits to be observed in fighting, the most important of which are understood to come from Prophet Muhammad himself.
However, over the last hundred years or so, we have seen the developments of another line of interpretations of the Islamic Jihads. Firstly, appearing in Northern Africa as an ideology for resistance against colonialism; by the 1960s, it was being used as the Islamic justifications for religious terrorist attacks against Israel, and in the 1970s and 1980s it was adapted to justify Islamic armed struggles by terror and assassinations in such states as Iran, Egypt, and Algeria, against the rulers who were nominally Muslims and were judged to be tools of Western imperialism. It is out of these traditions that Osama bin Laden’s fatwa has emerged.
These true (radical) forms of the Islamic Jihads, make several critical assumptions not found in the Islamic traditional conceptions or in the mainstream Islamic theories. Firstly, the dar al-Islam is conceived as ‘any territory whose population is mainly Muslim and which was once a part of the historical dar al-Islam.’ By this reasoning any non-Islamic state(s) existing within the territories of the historical dar al-Islam, as well as all non-Islamic presence within that space, must be resisted and subdued or eliminated completely. Furthermore, the “aggressors” are deemed to be all those, who support such states or non-Islamic presence/ideologies, so that the usual lines of distinctions between combatants and noncombatants are to be erased/eradicated, with the results that all individuals are considered as acceptable targets. Moreover, because of its origins in an “emergency”, there are no limits on the means in these struggles. Finally, all Muslims are faced with the duty to take part in these struggles or Islamic Jihads, so that it ultimately becomes one’s involving individuals rather than politically organized communities; anyone who accepts this duty—men of fighting age, women, children, and even the aged or infirm—becomes a combatant in these wars.
This extreme interpretations of such ideas of defensive Islamic Jihads, implicitly rejects much of the actual history of such Muslim societies and of their Muslim faiths. It leaves scant room for toleration of “people of the book”, as prescribed in the holy Quran, because it treats the simple presence of Christians and Jews in dominantly Muslim lands/societies as an act of aggression(s). It also leaves no room for differences of interpretations as to what Islam really requires; its reading of the Islamic law is very narrow and unyielding on these doctrines and such behaviors alike. So, social developments identified with modernity are rejected as un-Islamic, even if large numbers of Muslims have accepted them without losing their faiths in Allah…
Osama Bin Laden’s fatwa reflects all these assumptions. The United States is deemed as an able aggressor against all of Islam, because of the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the fact that they are there by agreement and that their purpose is to protect the Saudi, Iraqi and Afghan people from Islamic extremists and aggressive (Muslim) neighbors, not to dominate it. Likewise, the “protracted blockades” against Iraq is viewed as an assault on the Iraqi people, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein’s diversion of its rich resources for his own purposes is the real cause of Iraqi sufferings. The same could be said of Osama bin Laden’s hostility toward the U.S. support for “the Jews’ petty state” and “its occupation of Jerusalem and the murder of Muslims”. In other words, the United States has become the embodiment of the dar al–harb par excellence, engaged in aggressions against Islam, despite the fact that millions of Muslims live and enjoy religious freedom within the U.S. border. But Osama bin Laden’s fatwa takes the radical line of Islamic Jihad to new extremes, when it calls upon all Muslims to kill any and all Americans—“civilians and military” alike—“in any country in which it is possible to do it”. It is no longer a defensive war, but Islamic Jihad on its true offensive!
Osama and his associates, who formulated the fatwa, of course lack the religiously mandated authority to wage collective [offensive] Islamic Jihad, as they do not bear the mantle of succession to the Prophet of Islam. That is why they try to describe the war against America as a defensive one.
By painting the entire nation of America as guilty of “aggressions”, the fatwa can set aside such limits imposed on warfare by normative Islamic tradition. This includes no direct, intended killings of noncombatants and no use of fire (which is totally prohibited among Muslims because it is the weapon Allah will use in hell). Osama bin Laden’s Islamic Jihad or the Just War, not only pits Islam against America and the West as a whole, but ultimately to the rest of the non-Islamic world at large. It also seeks to overthrow contemporary Muslim states and their mainstream views of Islamic traditions among the great majority of contemporary moderate Muslims.
To be sure, like Osama bin Laden, the early Islamic jurists of the Abbasid period also thought that the relationships between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds to be one of perpetual conflicts, and their Islamic notions of collective Jihad reflects the Islamic aim of eventual submission (Islam) of the entire world to Allah. Yet they never defined these eschatological goals as the one that could be achieved only by wars or even primarily by wars... And in the absence of any universal Muslim ruler, bearing the mantle of authority of the Prophet, the Muslim traditions and the Muslim way of life have found ways of pursuing these goals by other nonmilitary means. The radical ideology of Islamic Jihad changes all this by making the use of such violent, terrorist means indiscriminately and without principled limits, a binding obligation for all Muslims.
The idea of ‘Just War’ is also deeply rooted in Western tradition; it is, perhaps, more strongly institutionalized in today’s international law, in American military doctrines and practices, and even in political cultures since the Victorian Age! Though the Islamic Jihad or ‘Just War’ tradition has important Christian roots, it differs from the Islamic juristic traditions in that it can be employed without explicitly religious premises. Similarly, in Western political thoughts and theology, more generally, the nature of the political community, the role of the government and the use of armed forces are conceived in secular, not religious terms. All these features differentiate the Islamic Jihad or ‘Just War’ traditions from the Western ‘Just War’ concept; in Islamic Juristic traditions, Islamic Jihad must be commanded by a pious caliph/imam and is always directed against dar al-hard.
Jihad, Hatred & Major Nidal Hasan
Yet, there are also significant points of contact, which reveal important common interests. I have already suggested this by noting that the mainstream Islamic thoughts and political practices have developed a way, compatible with the international laws, and orderly peaceful interactions with non-Muslim nations. More specifically, both such traditions link the rights to use the force of arms to the exercise of legitimate governing authorities for the protection and of the common good of the Islamic communities. Such common good, moreover, is defined normatively in terms of high ideals of values and behaviors, not in terms of repressions and intolerance. Both Islamic traditions recognizes that even the use of force justified in this way is not without limits, when it comes to the questions of who may be targeted and the means that may be used against the aggressors. These are all matters on which there can and should be a pursuit of common causes. The radical Islamic doctrines of jihad, advanced as the justifications for contemporary terrorism, is a challenge to both of these traditions, and people of goodwill from both communities have reasons to reject it!
So, the reason behind the present killing at Fort Hood Army base at Texas by the lone Islamic crusader, ‘hate doctor’ Major Nidal Malik Hassan, is this Islamic doctrine of Jihad, or Islamic Just War, which is one of the Pillars of Islam. We need to understand this conclusively, that every Muslim, whether moderate or extremist, are indeed sleepwalkers and can wake up on any given day to strike terror into our hearts!

Obama Declares War on Free Speech

The Obama Administration has now actually co-sponsored an anti-free speech resolution at the United Nations. Approved by the U.N. Human Rights Council last Friday, the resolution, cosponsored by the U.S. and Egypt, calls on states to condemn and criminalize “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” What could be wrong with that? Plenty.First of all, there’s that little matter of the First Amendment, which preserves Americans’ right to free speech and freedom of the press, which are obviously mutually inclusive. Any law that infringed on speech at all -- far less in such vague and sweeping terms -- would be unconstitutional.
“Incitement” and “hatred” are in the eye of the beholder -- or more precisely, in the eye of those who make such determinations. The powerful can decide to silence the powerless by classifying their views as “hate speech.” The Founding Fathers knew that the freedom of speech was an essential safeguard against tyranny: the ability to dissent, freely and publicly and without fear of imprisonment or other reprisal, is a cornerstone of any genuine republic. If some ideas cannot be heard and are proscribed from above, the ones in control are tyrants, however benevolent they may be.Now no less distinguished a personage than the President of the United States has given his imprimatur to this tyranny; the implications are grave. The resolution also condemns “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups,” which is of course an oblique reference to accurate reporting about the jihad doctrine and Islamic supremacism -- for that, not actual negative stereotyping or hateful language, is always the focus of whining by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and allied groups. They never say anything when people like Osama bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed issue detailed Koranic expositions justifying violence and hatred; but when people like Geert Wilders and others report about such expositions, that’s “negative stereotyping.” But we still have the First Amendment, right? Legal expert Eugene Volokh, in an excellent analysis of the resolution, explains why it isn’t that easy to dismiss this. “If the U.S. backs a resolution that urges the suppression of some speech,” he explains, “presumably we are taking the view that all countries -- including the U.S. -- should adhere to this resolution. If we are constitutionally barred from adhering to it by our domestic constitution, then we’re implicitly criticizing that constitution, and committing ourselves to do what we can to change it.” He adds that in order to be consistent, “the Administration would presumably have to take what steps it can to ensure that supposed ‘hate speech’ that incites hostility will indeed be punished. It would presumably be committed to filing amicus briefs supporting changes in First Amendment law to allow such punishment, and in principle perhaps the appointment of Justices who would endorse such changes (or even the proposal of express constitutional amendments that would work such changes).” Last year the Secretary General of the OIC chief Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu issued a warning: “We sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed” regarding free speech about Islam and terrorism. And he reported success: “The official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.”For the first time, an American President has bowed to the OIC’s demands and taken cognizance of that “responsibility” -- after years in which George W. Bush resisted such initiatives at the UN. In October 2008, I wrote this in Human Events about early signs that Barack Obama had no great love for the freedom of speech: “If candidate Obama is willing to have people arrested when they say things about him that he doesn’t like, will President Obama have the vision or courage or understanding to stand up against the OIC when it demands restrictions on freedom of speech at precisely the same time that he wants to build bridges to the Islamic world and demonstrate his power to restore hope and bring change to old stalemated conflicts?”
The answer is in. The answer is no.

The Coming War with Iran

Real question is not if, but when

War with Iran is now inevitable. The only question is: Will it happen sooner or later? Tehran's recent missile tests and war games suggest that the apocalyptic mullahs have reached the same conclusion.

Iran is on the march. Their medium-range Shahab-3 and Sajjil missiles can reach Israel, the entire Middle East and parts of Europe. Tehran is slowing expanding its regional sphere of influence. It has backed insurgency groups in Iraq, which have killed U.S. soldiers. It sponsors Hamas and Hezbollah. It has transformed Syria into a political vassal. It has forged an alliance with Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. It has purchased key air defense systems from Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust-denier and virulent anti-Semite. He is a Persian Nazi strongman who vows to wipe Israel "off the map." He is a revolutionary Shi'ite. He believes the Jews must be extinguished in order to usher the coming of the Shi'ite Messiah, the so-called "Hidden Imam."

For years, the fascist theocracy has invested considerable resources into developing a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Mr. Ahmadinejad insists Tehran only wants atomic energy for "peaceful purposes." Yet, he cannot answer one simple question: Why does a country with the world's second-largest natural gas reserves and third-largest oil supply need domestic nuclear power?

Moreover, Mr. Ahmadinejad is a congenital liar. He repeatedly insists that Iran is a "democracy." Rather, it is a brutal police state based on rigged elections and the torture and murder of dissidents. He claims that Iran has "no homosexuals" and that women are treated "fairly." In fact, the Islamist regime routinely executes gays and subjugates women. He says Iran has "nothing to hide" about its nuclear program. The West, however, recently discovered a hidden, underground facility near the holy city of Qom capable of producing highly enriched uranium for weapons-grade nuclear material.

Since establishment of the Islamic Republic in 1979, Iran has been engaged in an ideological struggle against the West. Its two main enemies have been the United States ("the Great Satan") and Israel ("the Little Satan"). From its inception, Tehran has sought to erect a world Muslim empire; to restore medieval Islamic civilization to its former dominance. The regime is reactionary and - in a twisted manner - even utopian. Nuclear weapons are about more than attaining great-power status. They are the means to achieve the final triumph of messianic Shi'ism.

Iran is on the verge of acquiring the bomb. The mullahs have reached the point of no return. Israel - the country that has to live in that dangerous part of the world - believes the mullahs are six to nine months away from getting it.

Hence, President Obama's policy of diplomatic engagement combined with possible sanctions is doomed to fail. It is ineffective, naive and reckless. Direct talks, like those conducted in Geneva on Thursday, only give Iran more time. Mr. Obama is simply providing the mullahs with the cover they need to finish completing their nuclear arsenal.

Washington now has two choices: Sanction an American or Israeli military attack to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities or allow Tehran to go nuclear. Either option means war.

A devastating strike would likely trigger a fierce Iranian response, including waves of suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians and U.S. troops in Iraq. Iranian missiles would pound Israeli and, maybe, European cities. Vital shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf would be disrupted, driving the price of oil to more than $300 a barrel - plunging the West into a possible depression. Hezbollah sleeper cells might be activated within the United States, unleashing deadly atrocities on American soil.

Yet, allowing a nuclear-armed Iran is likely to lead to an even worse regional war. Once the ruling clerics get their hands on nukes, a military showdown with Israel is inevitable. They will seek to destroy the Jewish state once and for all. Jerusalem will not stand by and commit existential suicide. It will retaliate. The result would be a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East.

The winds of war are blowing across the Persian Gulf. Following this summer's crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the Iranian regime is weak, desperate and fracturing. Washington should vigorously pursue a policy of internal regime change; otherwise, Tehran will drag the Middle East into a certain conflagration that could lead to the slaughter of millions.

Instead, Mr. Obama has ruled out "meddling in Iran's internal affairs." His peace-at-any-cost diplomacy guarantees military conflict. It is no longer a question of if this will happen, but when and on whose terms. Mr. Obama is sleepwalking into disaster. America and the Middle East will pay the price.

Jihadist War May be Ramping-Up Against America’s Homeland

In the wake of several recent arrests of Jihadists across North America as well as the Obama administration’s insistence on renaming the very real global war on terror as simply a “transnational challenge,” U.S. Congresswoman Sue Myrick (R.-NC) is connecting the dots in a commonsensical show-don’t-tell approach to fact: Why this asymmetrical war by the Jihadists against us is every bit a full-blown war and not some politically diluted “challenge.” According to Myrick, though there may be no current evidence materially connecting any of the recently revealed terror plots, FBI investigative documents and press releases, clearly indicate a coordinated effort by the enemy based on a single objective. “These plots are all tied together by one thing: a global ideology that is self-identified by its believers as jihadist, or ‘jihadiyya,’” says Myrick in a published statement, last week. “It is hard to ignore this fact when in these cases below several of these men very clearly, and very directly, state that they followed this ideology (jihad), and wanted to kill.” Myrick adds, “I find this connection disturbing seeing as these plots come on the heels of the Administration's efforts to rename ‘jihadists’ – which is what they [the terrorists] call themselves – ‘violent extremists.’” [See letter from Myrick to Barack Obama, Sept. 10, 2009.] The cases Myrick points to include:
FBI Arrests Jordanian Citizen for Attempting to Bomb Skyscraper in Downtown Dallas: “Smadi made clear his intention to serve as a soldier for Usama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and to conduct violent jihad.”
Illinois Man Arrested in Plot to Bomb Courthouse and Murder Federal Employees: “…Finton expressed his desire to receive military training and to travel to Gaza or other overseas locations to become a jihadist fighter.”
NC Boyd Case—New Charges…Possible Target was Marine Corps Base Quantico: “According to the indictment, during the period from 1989 through 1992, Daniel Boyd traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan where he received military-style training in terrorist training camps for the purpose of engaging in violent jihad.”
NY Transit Terror Case- indictment handed down- conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction—explosive bombs—in the United States: Zazi has told FBI investigators that he “attended courses at an al Qaeda training facility” while in Pakistan.
Brooklyn Resident Indicted for the Conspiracy to Commit Murder Overseas and Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists: “According to the indictment and other documents filed by the government, in early January 2009, Kaziu devised a plan to travel abroad for the purpose of joining a radical foreign fighter group and to take up arms against perceived enemies of Islam.” Dr. Walid Phares, an international terrorism expert, echoes Myrick’s concerns in a piece, this week, “Warning: The Jihadists are Mushrooming Inside America”: According to Phares, “The immediate question raised by an increasingly worried public is the connection between these terror cases. While law enforcement and judicial authorities proceed in a bottom-up reasoning, that is to build the case for a global connection between what is happening with the help of legal evidence, counterterrorism and conflict analysts are already understanding what is happening inside America.” Rep. Myrick, who serves on the serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (which has jurisdiction over the U.S. Intelligence community, including intelligence-related activities of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, other agencies of the Department of Defense, and the Departments of State, Justice, and Treasury), is the founder of the 120-member Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader and shipboard counterterrorism instructor, who writes about military/defense issues and has covered conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq and Lebanon. Visit his website at uswriter.com