Maybe things like this??
Posted on 03/11/2011 3:31:29 PM PST by IbJensen
"You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?"
Such was Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi's response to my assertion that Islamists seek to resurrect the caliphate and wage offensive jihad to bring the world under Islamic rule (during a 2008 debate titled "Clash of Civilizations").
Today, as onetime arcane words—caliphate, jihad, sharia—become common place in the media, evoked by politicians, and comprehended by Americans, Dabashi's question returns.
You see, ever since Egypt became a hot topic in the media, there has been no shortage of pundits warning against the Muslim Brotherhood; warning that an Islamist takeover in Egypt may have a domino effect in the region; warning that the ultimate goal of Islamists around the world is the resurrection of an imperialistic and expansionist caliphate (see Andrew McCarthy's recent article). Similarly, the controversy caused by the Ground Zero mosque brought Arabic-Islamic concepts that were formerly the domain of academics, such as sharia, into the fore.
Yet, as the West begins to understand the unique nature of its enemy—caliphate, jihad, and sharia all pose a perpetual, transcendent threat—it must also understand that a unique response is required. The clean, hygienic way the West likes to deal with socio-political conflicts will simply not do this time, especially in the long run.
Consider the caliphate: its very existence would usher in a state of constant hostility. Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate's function is to wage jihad, whenever and wherever possible, to bring the infidel world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia. In fact, most of what is today called the "Muslim world"—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate that began in Arabia in 632.
A jihad-waging, sharia-enforcing caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy—not a temporal foe that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions. Such a caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.
In this context, what, exactly, is the Western world prepared to do about it—now, before the caliphate becomes a reality? Would it be willing to launch a preemptive offensive—politically, legally, educationally, and, if necessary, militarily—to prevent its resurrection? Could the West ever go on the offensive, openly and confidently—now, when it has the upper-hand—to incapacitate its enemies?
One may argue in the affirmative, pointing to the preemptive Iraq war. Yet there are subtle and important differences. The rationale behind the Iraq war was physical and practical: it was limited to the elimination of suspected WMDs and against a specific government, Iraq's Saddam regime. War to prevent the creation of a caliphate, on the other hand, is metaphysical and impractical: it is not limited to eliminating material weapons, nor confined to one government or person.
The fact is, the West does not have the political paradigms or language to justify an offensive against an ideological foe in religious garb. After all, the same international culture that saw to it that an autocrat like Egypt's Mubarak stepped down—simply because he was handicapped from responding to the protestors in the name of human rights—certainly cannot approve a preemptive offensive by the West articulated in terms of a "religious" threat.
What if an important nation like Egypt does go Islamist, a big domino in the quest of a caliphate? It is a distinct possibility. Can we also say that it is distinct possibility that the West would do everything in its power to prevent this from happening? Of course not: all the Muslim Brotherhood has to do is continue pretending to be "moderate"—recently by removing its by-laws from the Web, as shown by Steven Emerson, including its intention of creating an "Islamic state" presaging the caliphate.
Indeed, the Obama administration has already made it clear that it is willing to engage the Brotherhood, differentiating them from "radicals" like al-Qaeda—even as the Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah our highest hope." Likewise, a theocratic, eschatologically-driven Iran is on its way to possessing nuclear weapons—all while the international community stands by.
In short, as it becomes clear that violence and intolerance are inextricably linked to concepts like caliphate, jihad, and sharia, so too should it become clear that the threat is here to stay—the caliphate, jihad, and sharia have a 1400-year legacy—prompting Dabashi's observation: "Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?"
Wake up America and Europe ere you wind up like medieval Spain!
Oh, and another thing. The ridiculously evil regime of Obama’s plan is to fill the USA with muslims so that we can keep a close eye on them. There must be more Somalis in America than are left in Somalia.
Only China has what it takes to deal effectively with the Muslim threat.
Islam is unconstitutional. End of discussion.
Odd view of reality, IJ. My hometown was overrun with Somalis under FR's favorite Mohammedan lover George Bush. It looks to me as if it was Bush's plan to populate this country with Mohammedans long before anyone ever heard of Obama. Do you really think it is in the best interests of this country to let parochial political ideology blind the people to the reality of what has happened in this country under both political parties and their regimes? Without understanding that the rot of Mohammedanism and dhimmitude has infected both political parties from the top on down, probably the Republicans more than the Democrats if our participation in the destruction of Eastern Christianity is any measure, there is absolutely no hope that this country will not become a sharia ruled hellhole within two perhaps three generations. Just keep telling yourself that it is Obama and his fellow travelers who alone are responsible for the Islamization of America and you'll all but guarantee that your great granddaughters will be wearing burkhas.
Nuke ‘em ‘til they glow.
You’re right!
Bushman left the doors wide open to populate the nation with the garbage from other nations. The Mexicans crawling over our border with muslim terrorists and other unwanted riff-raff from South America was obnoxious in the extreme.
George, Laura, Barry and Moochelle share many values.
Maybe things like this??
In the upper Midwest, during the Bush Administration, it was churches that brought in Somalians. The excuse was famine and likely, the folks involved, were sincere Christians, as was George W. Bush.
zerO is bringing them in by Executive Order.
There is a difference.
There is? Are they different Somalis today? Were the ones that "Islam is the religion of peace" Bush brought "good" Mohammedans? Bush brought them here because it kept his Mohammedan buddies in the Gulf and the rest of the ME happy; the same reason he acted as midwife to the birth of the Islamic terror statelet Kosovo. Its the same reason he brought in so many South Asian Mohammedans. The Christian involved were in the main Catholic Charities, a far left outfit which needed the money Bush was handing out and its Lutheran counterpart, Lutheran Family Services. Bush did it for the exact same reasons that every American president since Truman has preferred Mohammedanism over Christianity...it makes the oil sheiks happy. "zerO is bringing them in by Executive Order."
And just how do you think Bush got them in here? They all showed up while he was in church and not looking? There is no difference and thinking that there is will advance the rise of sharia law in this country.
Bush's fault?
I believe it was President Clinton who made war in the Balkans.
I agree with you that the West must defeat Sharia if it is to survive.
Islamists have been dedicated to the eradication of Western civilization since before the Crusades.
I can understand your frustration, but the West must move beyond frustration.
What is your prescription?
I am not naive. I am aware of how and who brought the Somalis here. I live 250 miles from the Twin Cities and I have seen them spread to Rochester and Des Moines, which is too close for comfort.
Yes, the Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services had to get _State Department_ clearance. No one can accuse that department of being a tool of Bush. They work for their own agenda and they sandbag Republicans every chance they get. State Department agenda has been consistently anti-American across decades and administrations.
The sad truth is that almost all of the former main stream Protestant institutions have been infiltrated and have become total tools of the entire far left agenda.
Yes, it is obvious that the entire Bush clan was laughably easy for the left to roll on a variety of issues, across two generations. But, there is a qualitative difference between fuzzy elite malleability and purposeful progressive malice.
Sadly, there is no difference in the outcome. However, discernment is preferable to conflation.
YMMV
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.