The myth of Radicalization by Vilification
One of my Google Alerts was triggered by an article by Jeffrey Goldberg published by Bloomberg. We plow through 16 of 17 paragraphs before we reach the central point.
extreme vilification of Islam
The self-appointed Prophet of Allah, who founded Islam, married the six year old daughter of his closest friend and consummated the marriage three years later. He included in his Qur’an, a provision for divorcing girls whose marriages were consummated before they had experienced menarche.
The prophet, rejected Zaynab’s parents, fixed up his adopted son with Zaynab. When the time was right, he arranged their divorce and married her. Worse yet, as Allah’s last appointed spokesman, he had Allah bless the corrupt union. His child bride confirmed the obvious: “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” Moe’s sexual proclivities and revelation of situational scripture disqualify him as a Prophet, throwing the entire “revelation” into question.
Moe, speaking for Allah, ordained jihad for Muslims, making it mandatory, not optional. He issued imperatives to wage perpetual war against pagans, Jews & Christians, and confirmed the command. He sanctified, practiced and bragged about being made victorious with terrorism. He promised Muslims that “any step” taken to “injure or enrage” disbelievers would be imputed to them as a deed of righteousness, to be weighed against their sins on Judgment Day.
Does the revelation of true facts about Islam constitute vilification? What is extreme about revealing those facts? If I recall correctly, a wise statesman once reminded us that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”.
Muslims tend to congregate in ghettos and avoid assimilation. A generation which fled tyranny and Shari’ah may be secular, but their descendants feel the tide of Islamic orthodoxy tugging at them. Does anyone really believe that they are unaware of the damnable doctrine genocidal jihad or that they reject it until they read our blog posts? Allah threatens them with the fire if they sit at home, and promises admission to Paradise if they join the jihad.
That word may not be the pinnacle of lies, but it is very near to the top. The standard of Islam is violent and genocidal. Believers are defined by their enslavement to Allah, which is in exchange for admission to Paradise and for which they “fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. ”
Alcohol & fornication are near the top of an adolescent male’s hierarchy of needs. Both are forbidden by Islam. But if a Muslim becomes a Shahid, Allah promises that he will be rewarded with rivers of wine and maidens of equal age.
Offensive jihad is fard al-kifaya, not fard ayn. But it is required in every year, and if it is not performed in a year when it was possible, all who know of the obligation are in a state of sin. [Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.1]
Brig. S.K. Malik’s The Qur’anic Concept of War exposes something we need to know about terrorism and how to defeat Islam.
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him. [pg. 59]
Psychological and physical dislocation is, at best, a means,
though, by no means, conclusive for striking terror into
the hearts of the enemies. Its effects are related to the
physical and spiritual stamina of the opponent but are seldom
of a permanent and lasting nature. An army that practises the
Quranic philosophy of war in its totality is immune to psychological
pressures. When Liddell Hart talks of imposing a direct decision
upon the enemy through psychological dislocation alone, he is
taking too much for granted.
Terror cannot be struck into the hearts of an army by merely
cutting its lines of communication or depriving it of its routes
of withdrawal. It is basically related to the strength or weakness
of the human soul. It can be instilled only if the opponent’s
Faith is destroyed. Psychological dislocation is temporary;
spiritual dislocation is permanent. Psychological dislocation can be
produced hy a physical act but this does not hold good of the
spiritual dislocation. To instil terrorinto the hearts of the enemy,
it is essential. in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate his Faith. An
invincible Faith is immune to terror. A weak Faith offers inroads
to terror. The Faith conferred upon us by the Holy Quran has
the inherent strength to ward off terror from us and to enable
us to strike terror into the enemy. Whatever the form or type of
strategy directed against the enemy, it must, in order to be effective,
be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. A strategy
that fails to attain this condition suffers from inherent drawbacks
and weaknesses; and should be reviewed and modified. This rule
is fully applicable to nuclear as well as conventional wars. It is
equally true of the strategy of nuclear deterrence in fashion
today. To be credible and effective, the strategy of deterrence
must be capable of striking terror into the hearts of the enemy. [pg. 60] [Emphasis added.]
What is the absolute prerequisite for the success of terrorism? What can we do to deprive Islam of that condition? What is the essential first step in defeating Islam? How shall we go about destroying their belief in Allah? These are the questions which few have the courage to propound and none have the fortitude to answer.