Delftsman

Eurabia?

I've heard some of the Moonbats on our shores decrying President Bush's stance towards Radical Islam; one of their main themes being "lets be more understanding and use the diplomatic,ala the nuanced European approach.

Well read here and see what has resulted from all that diplomacy and ask yourself if thats really the way we should go. The Dutch Reporter has his comments on the story and how it's playing out in the Netherlands also.

The Moonbats sound reasonable in their rhetoric, who wouldn't wish to utilize diplomacy over tough, nonnegotiatable stances, or in the most dire case,force of arms?

The one thing that the Moonbats have forgotten is, that for diplomacy to be effective, BOTH parties have to negotiate in good faith and stick with the terms that are negotiated. The Radical islamists, hell, even the "moderate" Islamists, have openly stated time and again that negotiation is merely a tool for furthur progress towards their ultimate goal of a total Muslim world.

In the West, most people look on religion as a part of life, if they even suscribe to a religion at all. Secularism is the norm for political life.
The heart of Islamic teaching is that religion is not just a part of life, but life is a tiny part of religion. Thus everything in life is dominated by this religion. As such, Islam is a system. It is a socio-political, socio-religious, socio-economical, educational, legislative, judicial, and militaristic system garbed in religious terminology.

In the Hadith, Mohammed was quoted as saying, "The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with the exception of those spoken to reconcile two men that are quarreling, for a man to appease his wife, and in war, because war necessitates deception."

The Muslims of Islamic states, and many within the USA, have the tradition of a worldview that divides humanity into two opposing halves. Dar al-Islam, House of Islam, is the zone where Islam rules. The other side is the war zone that is called, Dar el Harb, House of War. This worldview dictates that war will continue between these two sections of humanity until the supremacy of Islam is fully established throughout the earth.

So here we have a religion that has a world view of being at war with any not of the faith, and it's founder STATING that deception in war is not only accepted, but NECESSITATED by the conditions of war. The Moonbats would have you believe that the war is a spiritual, not a physical, one.
But what does the Koran say?

So when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters, wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush…. (Koran 9:5)

The only punishment of those that wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut-off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned…. (Koran 5:33)

Yep! Sure sounds "Spiritual" to me! The moonbats would say that there are violent passages in the Bible as well, and they would be correct. The DIFFERENCE is that, at least since the Reformation, Christians have been more secularized and take the Bible for allegory, in practice, if not in professed belief.
(and no don't try to point to the "Troubles" in Ireland as an example that I'm incorrect, those were always political/socioeconomic troubles; divided by religeous lines, not over religion itself)
Muslims, on the other hand, have never had a reformation of their own, (hard to have religious questioning in a culture where the very act of asking if there was a different interpretation can result in you being killed as an apostate!)and take the Koran as the literal truth and way of living in all spheres of human life.
It is not a religion that encourages dissent or new interpretation easily. In fact, should Islam achieve it's general goal of world domination, the three major sects would take to continuing the conflict between themselves until only the "One, TRUE Islam" would remain. They only work together in reasonable harmony today because they perceive each of the other sects as only misguided, but redeemable, and needed in the fight against the Infidel.

Within Islam there is the principle of "Al Takeyya." The term means, "prevention". This principle permits Muslims to lie at their discretion whenever they interpret that it is expedient for the influence of Islam or their personal protection and well-being. They justify lying by using the following verse as a springboard for expanded applications of Al Takeyya.

"Let not the believers take the disbelievers for friends rather than believers. And whoever does this has no connection with Allah unless it is done to guard (Takeyya) yourselves against them, guarding carefully. And Allah cautions you against His retribution. And to Allah is the eventual coming."(Koran 3:27)

Imam Abu Hammid Ghazali says: "Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Note that Al-Ghazali is one of the most famous and respected Muslim theologians of all time.

In other words, it is permitted to allow the Infidel to appear to be your friend
(you can negotiate "peace" treaties)
until the time is right and the strength is sufficient to attack and destroy him.
This would seem to negate the validity of any treaty that a Muslim might make.

Yes, even in the the Western world, a "trust but verify" attitude should be taken regarding any treaties between disagreeing nations, but the Western world doesn't have the tradition of using treaties as an instrument in the furthurance of war. Never forget that this is not so in the Muslim world.

For those that still insist that Islam is a religion of Peace, and it's only a "few" extremists that are engaged in this war, I would ask you to take note of something.

In Islam, if a deed,action, or sometimes even a personal opinion, is deemed unacceptable to Islam, a "Fatwa", or judgement will be issued against the offender(s) by the Imam of the sect that considers the offense unacceptable. In many cases, it is a sentence of death to be carried out against the offender(s) by any true believer that has the opportunity to do so.

Name ONE Islamic religious authority to have made a Fatwa against any group that has carried out anti-Western terrorist acts. Make it easier, name the ONE Islamic authority that has issued a Fatwa against those that planned and helped carry out 9/11....Surely such an act would merit some sort of a ruling to distance it from Islam? Remember, under Islamic creed, it is permissable to lie to engender peace, if there is no other way...Still no Fatwa, they won't even go so far as to lie to shield Islam. Tacit approval at least there?

Rather, follow the old Roman adage that "If you wish Peace, prepare for War".

Being adequatly prepared for war has stopped more wars from occurring than all the feel good rhetoric about Harmony among Nations and the Brotherhood of Man has ever done. It's sad that it is the way of the world, but it is the reality.

Ignoring that fact is "sticking your head in the sand", and yes, that last is for you, Wanda.

Update: Never underestimate the power of the Internet! It seems that the Spanish Islamic Commission announced today that they were going to issue a Fatwa against Osama Bin Ladin and recommend that Spanish Imams condemn terrorism in sermons in their Mosques on Friday.

I wonder if they read me? LOL

I was bothered by one little addendem in the article:
The Commission has also drawn up a document designed to 'thank the Spanish people and the government for their attitude towards Muslims' since last March 11, in particular for not taking 'disproportionate' measures similar to those which the Sept 11 attacks sparked in the U.S.

I do not believe that we took "disproportionate measures" here. I have to wonder if this isn't a litle "diplomatic bone" to allay some of the heat that has come down on Muslims in Spain in the last two weeks? Maybe I'm just too cynical, but I can't help remembering that it is an Islamic tenant that:"When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." I would think that giving the impression of being allied against terrorism would be a "permissible goal", even as they continued to engage in it. Also falling under the "self-protection" lying exception also allowed Muslims.

Take it with a grain of salt, but it's still a positive step, if it's done in sincerity.
Trust, but verify. Moniter as we go.

Posted by Delftsman3 at March 10, 2005 04:00 PM