At War with Islam - Why are We Afraid to Utter the Truth?

By VILLEM MAHERSTEIN

October 5, 2016 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org – Recently, the Executive Director of the HAMAS tied Council on American Islamic Relations - Nihad Awad - was interviewed in an Arabic language publication, Al Sharqq Al Aswat.

The discussion centered on the just enacted American legislation entitled, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which made it possible for the families of the victims of the 911 attacks - in which the Saudi government was heavily implicated - to sue the kingdom for damages, about which Awad stated:

…the legislation as an anti-Muslim attack…a continuation of the series of [actions] attaching terrorism to Islamic societies, the Islamic world and Islamic countries, as well as Islamic personalities, since it aims to demonize Islam…so that things have reached the point of attaching the accusation of terrorism against Saudi Arabia, which is the heart of the Muslim world, and accusing it is an accusation of Muslims all over the world." [source, CAIR's Awad: Anti-Terror JASTA Bill Part of "War on Islam" , Investigative Project on Terrorism]

As noted by the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Awad has been promoting the terrorist group HAMAS for over 20 years [see, CAIR Executive Director Placed at HAMAS Meeting, IPT News]:

“The executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Nihad Awad, participated in a three-day summit of U.S.-based HAMAS members and supporters in 1993...Previously available evidence shows Awad was at the 1993 HAMAS meeting. He can be seen on videotape the following summer, acknowledging "I am in support of the HAMAS movement" during a seminar at Miami's Barry University.”

Though Awad has no credibility when he feigned sorrow after the Paris attacks while claiming with a straight face that “ ISIS does not represent Muslims ,” he does speak with authority when he expresses the view that those who run the Muslim world and therefore those who define the ideology have unalterably adopted the view that the West is waging war against Allah, his messenger and Muslims.

Islamic jurisprudence is fairly littered with similar declarations, and we need no greater authority than that of Osama bin-Laden, quoting from his 1998 fatwa “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders:”

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life." On that basis, and 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 [source, Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders. FAS]

It might be helpful in reading the above to understand that according to Islamic doctrine, it is every Muslim’s sacred duty to propagate “the religion of Allah,” and that any impediment to the establishment of a global caliphate is viewed as an attack upon the Umma.

Very clearly then, even the merest resistance to “the message of Islam” is viewed as an act of war against Allah and his people, which explains why Muslims divide the world into two camps, Dar-al-Islam, the House of Islam and Dar-al-Harb, the House of War - against the unbelievers.

None of this should be at all controversial. Since Islam is believed to be the very word of Allah, how can mere mortals reinterpret, change, modify or fail to heed the commands of the Qur’an?

Yet despite over 20 years of bloody proof, if in the minds of Western leaders we are not at war against Islam, one might hope that they comprehend that it has manifestly been at war against our way of life.

It’s truly odd to observe the West grovel for just the right combination of weasel-words to avoid the sheer idiocy of, “further pissing-off” Mohammed’s children, when tens of thousands of them are daily laying waste to much of the world, their wrath leavened only by the fact that they do not - yet - have access to nuclear weapons.

The question arises, how do you further enrage someone who is already trying to break through your front door in broad daylight while screaming that his god is telling him to kill you?

Allow us to examine the logic of the “experts” - the very one’s afflicted with this cultural version of erectile dysfunction, who have brought an entire civilization to its knees against a vastly inferior enemy…

Those who run normative Islam, the leaders of the 50 Muslim majority countries, the imams, ayatollahs, muftis, mujahideen and to a great extent the majority of the Umma have already made up their mind, that the West is at war with their belief system and thus they act accordingly.

So the thought process which the West brings to this civilizational conflict is spurious, we have already been indicted, if not from the inception of Islam in the 7th century then certainly from the date of the First Crusade in 1095.

We thus operate under the weight of and accept the stain of an externally imposed “original sin,” which cannot be expunged. Obviously there is nothing we can do to alter that dynamic so perhaps we should give them the fight that they are looking for?

Shed of its ephemeral religiosity, Islam as it is largely practiced today is a sacralized, triumphalist ideology of domination, the idea that individuals can become “radicalized” by a poor choice of words on our part is frankly silly.

The dodge of, “radicalization” is just a poorly contrived effort to avoid confronting the fact that it is the Islamic belief system itself that is driving modern terrorism, not some weird, ahistorical aberrational form of the “religion of peace.”

No, of course not all Muslims have an AK spirited away in their closets…at least in parts of the West, but it is irrational to claim that is evidence of a lack of malignancy or that our language is responsible for “recruiting” the head choppers.

When Caliph Umar dispatched his forces to conquer North Africa we find it hard to believe that his recruits [those who were not slaves] were motivated by anything other than belief, in any case they certainly were not the language police.

End note:

The reader might find Defence and Jihad in the Qur'an instructive. Having been presented as a scholarly paper at the Second Conference on Islamic Thought held [1984] in Tehran, lends it a certain gravitas in modern Islamic jurisprudence. This is especially true in that author was a member of The Guardianship Council of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the chief of the Islamic Propagation Organization.

For example the following from his monograph, quoting Islamic scripture that is anything but ambiguous:

O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that God is with the God ‑fearing. (9:123)

The above‑mentioned verse calls for jihad against unbelievers who live in vicinity to Muslims; and it is natural that their efforts at propaga­ting Islam should begin with nearby regions and then spread gradually to distant ones. In the ensuing discussion, regarding the aims of jihad, we will explain how the starting of war against unbelievers (al jihad al‑ 'ibtida’i) is also a natural right.”

 

©2016 PipeLineNews.org. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.