Islam is Islam 14

 

The map shows the spread of Islam round the tiny state of Israel – which President Obama wants to make even smaller – as it is now.

In the latter half of this century the greater part of Europe, if present demographic trends continue, will also be predominantly Muslim and governed by sharia law.

Think of it: a vast expanse of Asia from Bangladesh to Turkey, from Turkey across Europe to Britain, from north Africa to the top of Norway, all Islamic lands, all governed by sharia.

And no, it is not likely to be a “milder form” of Islam in Europe than in Afghanistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. There is only one Islam and it’s only name is Islam.

We take these extracts from an article, which needs to be read in full, by Andrew C. McCarthy at Family Security Matters. It is titled Islam is Islam:

Islam … is an entirely different way of looking at the world. We struggle with this truth, which defies our end-of-history smugness. …

So we set about remaking Islam in our own progressive image … We miniaturize the elements of the ummah (the notional global Muslim community) that refuse to go along with the program: They are assigned labels … Islamist, fundamentalist, Salafist, Wahhabist, radical, jihadist, extremist, militant, or, of course, “conservative” Muslims adhering to “political Islam.”

There is a “real Islam” – McCarthy’s “we” pretend – which is  a “religion of peace”. “The vast majority of Muslims,” it is said ad nauseam, “are peaceful and law-abiding”. Abiding by what law given a choice? It’s a question “we”  don’t want answered.

We consequently pretend that Muslims who accurately invoke Islamic scripture in the course of forcibly imposing the dictates of classical sharia — the Islamic legal and political system — are engaged in “anti-Islamic activity,” as Britain’s former home secretary Jacqui Smith memorably put it. When the ongoing Islamization campaign is advanced by violence, as inevitably happens, we absurdly insist that this aggression cannot have been ideologically driven, that surely some American policy or Israeli act of self-defense is to blame, as if these could possibly provide rationales for the murderous jihad waged by Boko Haram Muslims against Nigerian Christians and by Egyptian Muslims against the Copts, the persecution of the Ahmadi sect by Indonesian and Pakistani Muslims, or the internecine killing in Iraq of Sunnis by Shiites and vice versa — a tradition nearly as old as Islam itself — which has been predictably renewed upon the recent departure of American troops.

The main lesson of the Arab Spring ought to be that this remaking of Islam has happened only in our own minds, for our own consumption. The Muslims of the Middle East take no note of our reimagining of Islam, being, in the main, either hostile toward or oblivious to Western overtures. Muslims do not measure themselves against Western perceptions, although the shrewdest among them take note of our eagerly accommodating attitude when determining what tactics will best advance the cause.

That cause is nothing less than Islamic dominance.

‘The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism,” wrote Samuel Huntington. “It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture.”

Samuel Huntington famously called the conflict between the West and Islam “a clash of civilizations”. But it’s better described as a clash of Western civilization with Islamic barbarism.

Not convinced merely in the passive sense of assuming that they will triumph in the end, Muslim leaders are galvanized by what they take to be a divinely ordained mission of proselytism — and proselytism not limited to spiritual principles, but encompassing an all-purpose societal code prescribing rules for everything from warfare and finance to social interaction and personal hygiene.

An all-purpose societal code. That is what sharia is.

Most Americans still do not know that hurriya, Arabic for “freedom,” connotes “perfect slavery” or absolute submission to Allah, very nearly the opposite of the Western concept. Even if we grant for argument’s sake the dubious proposition that all people crave freedom, Islam and the West have never agreed about what freedom means. …

The Muslim Brotherhood is the ummah’s most important organization, unabashedly proclaiming for nearly 90 years that “the Koran is our law and jihad is our way.”

Hamas, a terrorist organization, is its Palestinian branch, and leading Brotherhood figures do little to disguise their abhorrence of Israel and Western culture. …

[Yet] the Obama administration, European governments, and the Western media tirelessly repeated the mantra that the Brothers had been relegated to the sidelines. …  Surely the Tahrir throngs wanted self-determination, not sharia. Never you mind the fanatical chants of Allahu akbar! as the dictator fell. Never mind that Sheikh Qaradawi was promptly ushered into the square to deliver a fiery Friday sermon to a congregation of nearly a million Egyptians.

The Arab Spring is an unshackling of Islam, not an outbreak of fervor for freedom in the Western sense. Turkey’s third-term prime minister Recep Erdogan, a staunchBrotherhood ally who rejects the notion that there is a “moderate Islam” (“Islam is Islam, and that’s it,” he says), once declared that “democracy is a train where you can get off when you reach your destination.” The destination for Muslim supremacists is the implementation of sharia — the foundation of any Islamized society, and, eventually, of the reestablished caliphate. …

President Obama is cultivating a warm friendship with Recep Erdogan.
Led by the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic parties have become expert at presenting themselves as moderates and telling the West what it wants to hear while they gradually ensnare societies in the sharia web, as slowly or quickly as conditions on the ground permit. They know that when the West says “democracy,” it means popular elections, not Western democratic culture. They know the West has so glorified these elections that the victors can steal them (Iran), refuse to relinquish power when later they lose (Iraq), or decline to hold further elections (Gaza) without forfeiting their legitimacy. …
Andrew McCarthy predicts -
Once in power, they are sure to make virulent anti-Americanism their official policy and to contribute materially to the pan-Islamic goal of destroying Israel.
And he warns -

We should not be under any illusions about why things are shaking out this way. The Arab Spring has not been hijacked any more than Islam was hijacked by the suicide terrorists of 9/11. Islam is ascendant because that is the way Muslims of the Middle East want it.

That is the way Islam wants it.

Are the Western powers deliberately blinding themselves to these realities? Not Obama. He knows what Islam is and he positively favors it.

And European leaders? Whether out of obstinate ignorance, or despair, or self-disgust, they are beckoning Islam to come and overwhelm their countries. But not all Europeans want to live under sharia, and the clash of their civilization with Islam may become civil war.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • AllahisOne

    you’re absolutely right my friend it is Islam against the west, sadly for you victory is with Islam……

    • http://www.facebook.com/steve.m.cardon Steve M Cardon

      Haha, don’t worry, I think I see a drone in your near future. If by victory you mean you will soon be with Allah, I might agree (figuratively speaking of course)
      BTW You know that Allah is gay, and Mohammed slept with “unclean” women right?

  • Anonymous

    My postulate: Islam is a cult, not a religion; same as Jim Jones’ Peoples Temple.

    Agree, or simplistic?

    • Jillian Becker

      Hi, philclock – 

      All religions are cults, all cults are religions. For a full explanation of this, please put “Send in the clown”  (posted October 10, 2011) in our Search slot.

  • Anonymous

    Islam is all about irrational mysticism. 

    Intelligent people who refuse to be steeped in mindless nonsense are not compatible with such foolishness.

    They will make it (er, they already HAVE made it) “us versus them.” 

    We cannot allow them to win, or all of civilization will be lost.

  • Liz

    Good point that it is not two civilizations clashing – it is civilization and barbarism. 
    Evolution in humans is too slow to see its development, but in this case we can see the results of its arrested developement.  Frozen in the dark ages.
    What could the left possibly think they are good for?  That by returning to the dark ages it will stop the evils of capitalism or something?  “Submit to beheading and save a rainforest!”

  • Liz

    Good point that it is not two civilizations clashing – it is civilization and barbarism. 
    Evolution in humans is too slow to see its development, but in this case we can see the results of its arrested developement.  Frozen in the dark ages.
    What could the left possibly think they are good for?  That by returning to the dark ages it will stop the evils of capitalism or something?  “Submit to beheading and save a rainforest!”

  • Anonymous

    Anyone with a graduate degree can interpret the Quran as a worthwhile form of spirituality, by dismissing the violent an intolerant parts as either metaphorical or specific to a time and place.

    But to anyone who hasn’t studied comparative religion, it reads like a justification to persecute infidels.  It’s too dangerous for the masses.

    • Jillian Becker

      WmarkW – 

      Please explain. 

      What is “spirituality”? 

      What is a “worthwhile form” of it? 

      What is not a “worthwhile form” of it?

    • Jillian Becker

      WmarkW – 

      Please explain. 

      What is “spirituality”? 

      What is a “worthwhile form” of it? 

      What is not a “worthwhile form” of it?

    • Jillian Becker

      WmarkW – 

      Please explain. 

      What is “spirituality”? 

      What is a “worthwhile form” of it? 

      What is not a “worthwhile form” of it?

      Why do you need a graduate degree to interpret the Quran?

    • Anonymous

      Understanding the Quran requires some background knowledge about the religious situation on the Arabian penninsula at the time.  That’s why the Mecca verses talk about “believers,” a unity of Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians; while the Medina verses pit the Muslims against the Infidel (everyone not politically allied with Muhammed.)

      Have I posted here my belief that Muhammed of Medina is not the  same person as Muhammed of Mecca?  Some warlord took the name of the guy who invented a respectable faith, and turned it into a violent, conquest-oriented pile of shiite.

      • Anonymous

        Not quite sure that there is such a concept as a ‘respectable faith.’

      • Liz

        Agreeing with cheongyei and Jillian – can you really describe faith as “respectable” or spirituality as “worthwhile”? 
        I guess, relatively speaking, you could say that those things apply to the ‘Mecca’ verses in comparison to the ‘Medina’ verses. But why split hairs?  Its all fiction anyway – fiction based on other fiction based on more fiction…
        Its not worthwhile to study ficton as though it were fact, or respectable to promote it and demand that it be treated as if it were fact when everyone else has been onto reality for centuries.