THE COMING ISLAMIC WORLD WAR (AND THE WEST'S INEVITABLE TRIUMPH [VANITY])

self ^ | Nov 26, 2005 | Edward Watson

[roaddog727]

Fine piece.

Thanks

[Thombo2]

Well written.Islamic reformation?I've come to the conclusion that islam is incomapatable with freedom,peace,or tolerance for that matter.I don't think islam is capable of a radical change in it's basic philosophy,which is violent subjugation of non-believers.

[no-to-illegals]

may your life be filled with dreams dreamed,
dreams achieved.

[Semper Paratus]

All it needs to do is seize control of the Kaaba mosque, put it on a ship and move it from place to place.This will then play havoc with the religion since Muslims are obligated to pray towards the Kaaba (not Mecca) five times a day and moving it from place to place means they will have to face different directions every time,

LOL. Better yet put in in a non-geosychronous orbit.

[TomSmedley]

Islam cannot coexist with any other cultural entity, be it religion or secular

Well, the Turks use blunt force -- a ruthlessly secularized military -- to put and keep the islamist djinn back in the bottle. I don't know how well that unabashedly "modern" solution will fare in a post-modern world, though.

[humint]

Yours is a well researched work, but is a fully academic piece that is doomed to suffocate in a logical vacuum. Islam is an extremely diverse faith supported by a myriad of cultures and philosophies. Our President is absolutely right to call Islam a “religion of peace” because his is an effort to empower peaceful Muslim leadership to perpetually define Islam as such. The stark reality on the ground in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to name a few is that Americans do have ideological allies among Muslims and your piece whitewashes them and their effort. Worse yet, your single suggestion, to manipulate Muslim’s method of worship is devoid of any possibility of practical application. Beyond that, the theoretical results of doing anything remotely similar to what you suggest is unlikely to improve the situation for our diplomats or our men and women in uniform serving overseas.

I suggest you point your exceptional analytical powers toward Islam as it is applied and find targets for your assaults there. For example the Iranian regime and its fascist theocratic government are a target not because of the Koran, but because of their interpretation of the Koran. In sheer defiance of Iran’s Shiite Muslim’s true leadership, the ideologically backward Ayatollah Khomeini redefined the role of Islam in Iran. Valeyat e-Faqhee or rule by Supreme Islamic Leadership is an anathema to much of the world’s Muslim population. Democracy dissidents in Iran are primarily Muslim!

To find tangible solutions and define Americas enemies in the coming wars I believe we must look to the roots of how religion is applied in our politics and theirs. To that end I posted Islam, Democracy and Iran. I do not portend that I or anyone else has all of the answers. I don’t think you do either but there has to be a path to finding the right answers and that path has to be one we can all live with. After reading this work, I have a strong suspicion that you’re not on it.

[attiladhun2]

Actually, Muslims can co-exist, and I think many would like to do so. Unfortunately, throughout the history of Islam, fanatics (who begin to take certain passages in the Quran seriously) and the power hungry (who use jihad to further their own ambitions) have started movements to spread the religion by force. This phenomenon did not represent a threat to the West when these jihadist and Madhist movements were confined to isolated parts of the world. This is no longer the case. In short, Muslims who desire to live in peace with other religions must renounce the jihadist texts of the Quran as being incompatible with the modern world. Unfortunately, modern technology has also aided the jihadists and has given them a global outlook, much like the Communist revolutionaries of past generations.

[Edward Watson]

Absolutely valid point but I was contrained by word-count limitations as well as the desire to restrict the piece to military conflict.

I'm sure you're aware there's an enormous amount of areas that could be examined to show the fundamental threats and inherent instability of Islam. Deciding what to include and what to exclude is always tricky.

For example, I had to remove the coming western European flight from Europe which will accelerate the Islamic conquest of the continent. I removed the tremendous danger of Prince Charles if he ever becomes king because of his apparent secret conversion to Islam (well known among Muslims but unmentioned in the MSM) and desire to become the Constantine of Islam. I also removed the grassroots militia movement amongst Europeans who are in the process of preparing for the coming religious war. I also removed the much worse threat of China to our very survival.

In short, it's going to be messy and incredibly violent in the next three decades.

[Restorer]

Excellent essay.

The problem is that the West, especially in Western Europe, has drifted so far from rationality that only the most drastic medicine can cure it. The Islamists, unknowingly, are likely to provide this medicine.

It is possible, although in my opinion unlikely, that the elite will continue to cling to their shibboleths of PC, multiculturalism, etc. even as they are being dragged to the beheading ground. Ordinary people, not being as "educated," are not so stupid.

I would add to your projections that the backlash against the elites who have got them into this mess is likely to be awesome, especially in Europe.

[Bahbah]

Another essay I wrote for class (got an "A"....)

Well, you certainly deserved it. As I read through, I completely forgot it was not something from a major publication.

[Edward Watson]

Thanks for your excellent response. Much as I'd like to agree with you on a practical level, the very real problems endemic in Islamic history, scripture, and mindset makes it ultimately unworkable.

My central tenet is Islam is, at its core, a conquering movement. It cannot tolerate an existence where it is not in control. Mohammed's words and actions are to be taken seriously; we just can't sweep them under the carpet. Neither can we wish away the Islamist minority of Muslims who are determined to kill us and convert the world to Islam and Sharia.

I can point to 1400 years of Islamic history, the Koran, the Hadith, and every single Islamic-majority society today as proof non-Muslims aren't considered equals by Muslims.

[As an aside, I'm of the opinion Persia would've been the second most powerful nation on earth today if only Islam didn't conquer it.]

Lastly, there is a difference between "could" and "should."

I'm saying the West *could* intellectually shatter Islam in the event of a real genocidal religious war by simply seizing the Kaaba mosque and transporting it onto a ship and move it from place to place. I'm not saying we *should* do itg, only we *could* if we wanted to.

Let's be honest here. Is there any real doubt if the roles were reversed and Islam possessed the military capability to utterly destroy other religions and societies without fear of mutual destruction that it would hesitate to do so?

Of course not. Allah wouldn't tolerate it. It is only the West's restraint and sense of decency that prevents us from doing so.

[webboy45]

Convert them. We could and should convert many of the Muslims that we have access to. Conversion of those on the perimeter would keep the religion from taking over Western society.

[IronJack]

The appeal of multiculturalism fades rapidly in the light of reality: the Madrid bombings, the London bus bombings, the Trade Center attacks, the riots in France ...

Eventually the tepid "Give peace a chance" rhetoric is going to be rightfully ignored, and its proponents pushed aside as the comic idealists they are. Then, sense will prevail, and the world will impose the limits on Islam that its practicioners should have imposed on themselves just out of commonality with their fellow man.

If that fails, civilized men will move to eradicate the barbarians, and Islam doesn't stand a chance. As the author so clearly points out, all it takes for the West to triumph is for us to employ the same degree of savagery as our enemies. All that constrains us is conscience.

[SauronOfMordor]

The problem with Muslims in France (and elsewhere in Europe) is that the vast majority have no real marketable skills. They sit around on the dole collecting welfare

Real soon now, the strain of providing welfare to ever-more Muslims will snap the system.

It won't be pretty, on the day the welfare checks don't come.

[mc6809e]

You offer a false dichotomy.

I feel perfectly fine accepting atheism, moral relativism, and the need to fight radical Islam. If anything, people like me have the most to lose and so have the most reason to fight.

I'll agree though, that nihilism is can be disarming, but I don't think a Judeo-Christian society is the only solution. It isn't for me, at least.

[mc6809e]

But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Matthew 5:44

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.

Luke 6:35

This is exactly the sort of Christian attitude that is going to get us killed.

[Liberty Wins]

"The author claimed that militant Christianity was the only way to save the west. I don't agree."

Militant Christians:

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
Gen. Douglas MacArthur
Gen. George Patton
Teddy Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
Gen. George Washington

There are a few hundred others that come readily to mind but you get the picture.

[Pepper777]

"I removed the tremendous danger of Prince Charles if he ever becomes king because of his apparent secret conversion to Islam (well known among Muslims but unmentioned in the MSM) and desire to become the Constantine of Islam."

I keep hearing of Prince Charles conversion to Islam, but is there any proof?? I wish you would have had the room to include Prince Charles in your essay. If he has converted, he should admit it. The following link was rather interesting concerning Prince Charles:

http://www.meforum.org/article/356

[brazzaville]

Good evening.
"If so, please share...."

No, I don't know either, but if I have anything to do about it, it won't be the USA.

I do know that Islam is spreading among the Indians in Chiapas and I would bet that the mullahs are proselytizing like mad among the poor brown peoples.

Michael Frazier

[Edward Watson]

Please note I didn't mention atheism. Moral relativism yes, but not atheism. Moral relativism asserts there is no real right or wrong. Those who follow it deny those who are blowing up civilians and children in markets, hospitals and wherever are actually "evil" people who must be opposed.

One of the most moral persons I know is an atheist. He's consistent with his beliefs and places a clear demarcation between what he perceives to be right and wrong. IOW, he doesn't subscribe to moral relativism despite denying the existence of a supreme being.

Thus the dichotomy I presented is indeed valid.