The excellent milblog Faces from the Front has an incredibly well-researched and blistering response to the NYT‘s Bob Herbert and the Guardian‘s Gary Younge leftist blather:
â€œWe want to inform the Ummah [all Muslim believers] that your brothers in the Al Qaida organization will not stop Jihad until the Sharia of Allah is the only source of laws on earth.â€
When I first read those words from an Al Qaida In The Land of Two Rivers press release in April, shortly after the insurgent’s failed attack on Abu Ghraib, I was obviously wrong about about their goals and how to deal with terrorism.
I am so grateful the New York Time’s Bob Herbert and The Guardian’s Gary Younge set me straight.
By the end of the piece, the argument that we can placate the Islamists ends up being crushed to powder. Whoever wrote this piece knows their stuff, and knows the enemy far better than the left.
The nature of Islam is inherently expansionist. The “father” of the modern Islamist movement, Sayyid Qutb followed through with a totalitarian Islamic ideology that divides the world into two camps – Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb (The House of Submission and the House of War respectively). Anyone who does not embrace strict Islamic shari’a law is living in Dar al-Harb and must be forcibly converted or killed. The radical Islamist ideology believes that the West represents the single greatest force for jahiliyyah (or pre-Islamic paganism) in the world.
The goal of Islam for the radical Islamist is the destruction of all the forces of jahiliyyah and the imposition of a single Islamic state. The article references this critical passage from Sayyid Qutb:
“This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs and it uses physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system which prevents people from reforming their ideas and beliefs but forces them to obey their erroneous ways and make them serve human lords instead of the Almighty Lord.”
“It would be naive to assume that a call is raised to free the whole of humankind throughout the earth, and it is confined to preaching and exposition.”
“It is immaterial whether the homeland of Islam – in the true Islamic sense, Dar ul-Islam – is in a condition of peace or whether it is threatened by its neighbors. When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure. The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e. the Law of the society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God alone.”
“With these verses from the Qur’an and with many Traditions of the Prophet – peace be on him – in praise of Jihaad, and with the entire history of Islam, which is full of Jihaad, the heart of every Muslim rejects that explanation of lihaad invented by those people whose minds have accepted defeat under unfavorable conditions and under the attacks on Islamic Jihaad by the shrewd orientalists.”
“What kind of a man is it who, after listening to the commandment of God and the Traditions of the Prophet – peace be on him-and after reading about the events which occurred during the Islamic Jihaad, still thinks that it is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders?”
“The reasons for Jihaad which have been described in the above verses are these: to establish God’s authority in the earth; to arrange human affairs according to the true guidance provided by God; to abolish all the Satanic forces and Satanic systems of life; to end the lordship of one man over others since all men are creatures of God and no one has the authority to make them his servants or to make arbitrary laws for them. These reasons are sufficient for proclaiming Jihaad. However, one should always keep in mind that there is no compulsion in religion; that is, once the people are free from the lordship of men, the law governing civil affairs will be purely that of God, while no one will be forced to change his beliefs and accept Islam.”
“Those who say that Islamic Jihaad was merely for the defense of the ‘homeland of Islam’ diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life and consider it less important than their ‘homeland’. This is not the Islamic point of view, and their view is a creation of the modern age and is completely alien to Islamic consciousness.”
There can be no doubt, based on this passage that were we to simply leave the Middle East alone we would be safe. Quite instead, we would be inviting further attack. To do so would not only fail to provide a true sense of security, but it would indicate to the Islamists that America is once again a weak target. For instance, Time magazine gives this view into the mind of bin Laden himself:
In his own words at his celebration dinner, bin Laden laid out bluntly his theory of power: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” Maybe so. But when they see a supposedly strong horse later show himself to be weak, they will want all the more strongly to send it to the glue factory.
Bin Laden’s moment of honesty exposes the nature of his view of the West. After the disastrous events in Somalia, bin Laden saw the United States as a paper tiger – inflict a few casualties, drag them in the streets in front of a few cameras, and America will fold. That playbook is still very much in force. The center of gravity for this war is as much in the Midwest as it is in the Middle East. Bin Laden and the rest of the terrorists know that a direct military confrontation with the West is tantamount to suicide. The weakness of the West lies in its unwillingness to fight over the long term, and bin Laden and al-Zarqawi are actively trying to exploit that weakness in Iraq.
Even if we could buy our safety, what would the costs be? Would Herbert and Younge argue that the people of Israel wouldn’t be “driven into the sea” as the Islamists have promised to do? Would Herbert and Younge care to trade the freedom of millions in order to buy ourselves the illusory safety of surrender and appeasement? What about the women who would be forced into the veil, into abusive arranged marriages, or murdered for the “crime” of being the victim of rape? Would Herbert and Younge argue that selling out the very concepts of freedom and human rights is worth the utterly false sense of security that surrender would provide.
It disgusts me that four years into this war, there are many people out there, especially people who profess to be “academics” who still don’t understand the nature of the enemy we fight. Especially when there’s plenty of evidence to their true intentions. One would think that the supposed paragons of textual analysis, evidence, and reasoned argumentation would have read Qutb, would know who Sayyid Abu’l-A’la Mawdudi was, and would understand the actual philosophies behind radical Islam.
Yet it would seem that despite atrocity after atrocity, some people have been so blinded that they can’t see evil what it is.
If we want “peace” through accomodation, then there’s an easy way to achieve it. Pull all the women from every university and put them under the veil, forbidding them from every showing their face in public. Execute every homosexual. Kill every Jew. Convert to Islam and reject jahiliyyah.
If those options are unacceptable to us, and they damn well had better be, then we will always be a target. Leaving Iraq won’t make us less of a target. Leaving Afghanistan won’t make us less of a target. Letting the people of Israel be slaughtered won’t make us less of a target. They will simply reveal our weakness and indicate that we’re that much closer to being conquered.
Make no mistake: the ideology of radical Islam is inherently expansionist. The goal of the Islamists is not to defend their borders, but to ensure that all the forces of jahiliyyah are utterly expunged. Hoping that we can buy them off by allowing a few million here and there to be plunged into theocratic totaltarianism will no more purchase our safety than the appeasement of Hitler at Munich stalled World War II. Those who advocate such a solution want the same “peace in our time” – a “peace” that leaves millions dead, millions more enslaved, and a world in which a threat to true peace and stability is left to fester.
The followers of radical Islam take Qutb very seriously — it’s sad that our own chattering classes don’t.