The Minor Threat
Our government is in a rut. Our leaders seem unwilling or incapable of looking beyond the minor threat in “the Global War on Terror,” to face the radical ideology that inspires it. They are surrendering to our enemies without a fight.
In the fifteen years since 9/11, a mountain of readily available literature based on primary and secondary-sources, has eviscerated the prevailing “religion of peace” narrative. After 9/11, one might have assumed that the individuals charged with safeguarding the American people, would have left no stone unturned in a quest to learn everything they could about an alleged “religion” that inspire drive 26 of its members to commandeer four commercial passenger jets and deliberately fly them into major American landmarks, killing themselves and all on board.
By now, knowledge of Islamic ideology and history should be ubiquitous at most levels of our government. But most of our leaders, lacking the courage and resolve to confront this enemy, continue to act as if the peacefulness of Islam is rooted in fact and no longer subject to critical review. This narrative creates a false sense of security in the American people by focusing all of their attention on a few terrorists, and away from the ideology that furnishes motives to terrorists’ actions.
The Pew Research Center has estimated the total number of Muslims living in America at 3.3 million, about 1 percent of the total U.S. population. The January 2016 study also estimates that by 2050 there will be approximately 8.1 million Muslims in the U.S., about 2.1 percent of the population, and credits immigration with a little more than half of the increase in the U.S. Muslim population from 2010 to 2015. Clearly, out of 3.3 million Muslims the number who commit acts of terror is minuscule, but is this a sound basis for concluding that Islam is a “religion of peace?” Hardly.
In his ancient military treatise “The Art of War,” Chinese general Sun Tsu writes, “if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” Our leaders’ ignorance of American history and ideology, in conjunction with a catastrophic failure to know the enemy, imperils the American people and lends itself to conquest.
An example of Western ignorance of the enemy, is the definition of “terrorism,” which has been so thoroughly diluted by attachment to a bevy of terrifying events that it no longer means anything. In his lengthy list of “Terrorist attacks and related incidents in the United States,” William Robert Johnson includes multiple political assassination attempts, the June 6, 1960 mid-air bombing of a National Airlines flight in an insurance plot, the fatal shooting of Malcolm X on February 21, 1965, black riots in Newark, New Jersey and Detroit, Michigan in July 1967, and the June 1, 1969 gunfight at Black Panther Party headquarters that injured 13 policemen. There is little doubt that these events provoked fear in the affected individuals, but the equivalent of Islamic terrorism they are not.
“Terrorism” as understood in Islam has a very specific meaning and purpose. In the Preface to the paperback edition of his encyclopedic compendium of primary and secondary source material on the theory and practice of Jihad entitled, “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims,” Dr. Andrew G. Bostom has written,
[T]his principle of jihad as described by Ibn Hudayl and al-Maqqari, rooted in the Koran—(for example, verses 8:12, 8:60, and 33:26)—that is, to terrorize the enemies of Muslims as a prelude to their conquest—has been provided in the mainstream Pakistani text on jihad warfare by Brigadier S.K. Malik, originally published in Lahore, in 1979. . . . [Malik’s] text—widely studied in Islamic countries and available in English, Urdu, and Arabic—has been recovered from the bodies of slain jihadists in Kashmir. Brigadier Malik emphasizes how instilling terror is essential to waging successful jihad campaigns. . . .”
In “The Quranic Concept of War,” Brigadier Malik underscores the purpose of terrorism:
Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only 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 [sic], it is the decision we wish to impose upon him.
Clearly, the primary target of Islamic terror is not its immediate victims, but those who survive it. It is meant to strike terror in the hearts of the enemy (“infidels”), to “soften” their resolve against Islamic conquest and facilitate their submission once conquest is achieved. Historically, most Muslims have not engaged in terrorism, but their abstention from violent jihad has not prevented “the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet” (Muhammad) from “furnishing motives to human action.” and “spreading desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth.” (John Quincy Adams quoted out of Joseph Blunt’s 1830 edition of The American Annual Register for the Years 1827-8-9). John Quincy’s accurate and elegantly succinct portrayal of “Mohammedanism” in 1829, perfectly encapsulates what Islam is today.
In Islam’s bifurcated view of the world, one is either in Dar al-Harb (the house of war) or Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam). Our leaders must understand that Islam’s “total war” against the West puts America in the crosshairs of Islam’s imperial vision of global Islamic hegemony (i.e. a global Caliphate). Some Muslims’ commitment to that vision drives them to suicide by jihad, but for most, it is expressed in non-violent “cultural jihad,” the gradual subjugation of a host society through infiltration and subversion, aggressive procreation to achieve demographic superiority, and deception and obfuscation to hide their true intentions.
In the end, it matters not to Muslims how a America becomes a Muslim nation, only that it does. We will never stop Islam’s progressive takeover of our society while we insist on superimposing a Judeo-Christian understanding of “religion” on Islam, and cling to the falsehood that terrorism is our greatest threat. We will begin to get our arms around the problem when we abandon denial and begin to view Islamic dogma, as it is understood and taught by every major school of Islamic jurisprudence, as the real existential threat to our way of life. Coming to terms with that reality will entail some extremely difficult decisions and in all likelihood, significant social upheaval.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com