May | 2013 | Defining the Narrative

Milestones in Review – Reposted

30 05 2013

There has been quite a lot of interest in this article recently, so I have republished it for any new “Defining the Narrative” readers, or those who may have missed it or would like a refresher. One of my first articles, it has continued to grow popularity.

I recently read the book Milestones by Seyyid Qutb. He is considered by some to be the father of the modern Islamic revolution.

Milestones was written from an Egyptian prison in 1964. Qutb had spent 2 years in America several years prior, and reported that his prejudices had been confirmed concerning American depravity. America was ripe for the picking.

Qutb’s book wasn’t his first, or his longest work, but perhaps Milestones has had the most impact on the modern world. Although some attribute the modern “Islamic Revolution” to this book, that was not exactly the outcome that Qutb desired.

Actually, Islamic Revival was his desire and purpose. Milestones was to be the “vanguard” publication to accomplish this. By initiating a revival of Islam among those who profess it, the natural outcome would then be an alteration of the course of human history. Revolution would not be necessary, but world conquest would be at hand. Revival of the fundamentals of Islam within the culture itself would make Islam irresistible in both principle and on the battlefield. A revived and truly Muslim population in the cause of Allah would be invincible.

Islam had, according to Qutb, become compromised by moderates and liberals (Muslim) who, for various reasons, embraced Western Culture and prosperity. Obviously the development of Middle Eastern oil fields was responsible for most of this merging of the two worlds, and the petro-dollar brought an ancient culture roaring forward into the industrialized 20^th century with so much speed, there was no time for gradual adaptation. Yet today, there is a stark contrast within these countries, and without the petro-dollar they would shrivel back into the desert survivalist culture of a mere century ago.

Seyyid was disturbed by the fact that Muslims, during the first half of the 20^th Century, were with a few exceptions, content to “live and let live”, professing Islam while immersed in ‘Jahili’ (the state of ignorance of guidance of Allah) culture. A Muslim should withdraw from all Jahilayyah relationships and become joined completely to Islam just as Muhammad and the Companions had disavowed all ties to polytheism and its adherents. A Muslim cannot be true Muslim, submitted to Allah, and retain any ties to non-Islamic influences. Qutb laments, “This is why the true Islamic values never enter our hearts, why our minds are never illuminated by Islamic concepts, and why no group of people arises among us who are of the caliber of the first generation of Islam.” He then adjures, “We must return to that pure source from which those people derived their guidance…[their]concepts of…the universe, the nature of human existence…Our aim is first to change ourselves so that we may later change the society…this system which is fundamentally at variance with Islam…”

Qutb’s call to all Islam was a return to Fundamentalism, that being the founding principles of Islam. This “revival” within Islam would then lead to political reformation in Islamic countries, bringing to bear those governments which had established within their own constitutions; that Islam is the official state religion and Islamic jurisprudence (Shari’a) is the law of the land. This move to “right” Egypt’s secularized government along with his fellow members of “Muslim Brotherhood” is the reason he was imprisoned and consequently executed by “The Arab Republic of Egypt” in 1966.

Egypt was but one of the Islamic Republics which had not implemented Shari’a as enumerated in its own constitution. Turkey is the most widely known which has managed, even today, to maintain a modicum of separation (though currently very tenuous) between religion and state; for practical purposes a secularized government. The United States has, in fact, assisted in the establishment of two of the latest Islamic Republics of the world; Iraq and Afghanistan, complete with constitutions which name Islam as the official religion.

Seyyid Qutb goes on in Milestones to express disdain for Muslim apologists who insist that “Jihad” is simply defensive war. He refers to them as “defeatists”, and explains thatJihad is the means by which to establish the Divine Law (Shari’a). Jihad, according to Qutb as well as Koran, is offensive action that “tries to annihilate all those political and material powers which stand between people and Islam…It is not the intention of Islam to force its beliefs on people, but Islam is not merely ‘belief’.” Then he clarifies, “…in an Islamic system there is room for all kinds of people to follow their own beliefs, while obeying the laws of the country which are themselves based on the Divine authority (Shari’a).”

In other words, you can believe whatever you want, but you will live according to Shari’a Law. This is the mission of Islam defined: Not to convert the entire world to Islamic belief; but to bring the entire world under submission to Shari’a, or Islamic Law.

Muslims are not to commit allegiance to a nation or state or geographic area. Neither is a Muslim bound by any commitment or loyalty or oath to non-Muslims. Only to Allah does one claim or pledge allegiance. Only through Islam is any relationship, contractual or filial valid. “A Muslim has no country except that part of the earth where the Shari’a of [Allah] is established and human relationships are based on the foundation of relationship with [Allah]; a Muslim has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the Muslim community in Dar ul Islam; a Muslim has no relatives except those who share the belief in [Allah]…”

Dar ul Islam is the “house of Islam” which “is that place where the Islamic state is established and the Shari’a is the authority…” The rest of the world is the “house of war” or Dar ul Harb. “A Muslim can have only two possible relations with Dar ul Harb: peace with a contractual agreement [hudna or truce], or war.”

Seyyid further explains, “But any place where the Islamic Shari’a is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant becomes [Dar ul Harb]”.

In the closing paragraphs of Milestones, Qutb conjures macabre images referring to his title, “This intricate point requires deep thought…to whatever country or period of time they belong; for this guarantees that they will be able to see the milestones of the road clearly and without ambiguity, and establishes the path for those who wish to traverse it to the end…Then they will not be anxious, while traversing this road ever paved with skulls and limbs and blood and sweat, to find help and victory…”

This book, the “vanguard” of modern Islamic Fundamentalism, written in 1964 has inspired Jihadists, Mujahidin and Shahada (“martyrs” aka suicide bombers) for 45 years. Seyyid Qutb is considered Shahid by fundamentalist Muslims around the world. I have read several books from and on Islam and would recommend Milestones as essential reading for one who desires to understand the purpose and designs of modern Islam and the resolve of Islamic fundamentalists.

Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: America, Caliphate, Islamic invasion, milestones, Muslim Brotherhood, Seyyid Qutb, Sharia
Categories : Historical Islam, Islam, Jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia Law

The Myth of “Self Radicalization” and the Fallacy of “Radical Islam” – Part 2 of “Jihad? No Jihad Here…”

10 05 2013

Media Trilobites continue to bump into and feed each other nonsensical buzz words that become trendy for a few weeks and are eventually absorbed into the pop culture lexicon. These phrases or terms may lie dormant for ages until suddenly they’re on every television commentator’s lips. If we can’t find a word in the English language to spin up to instant glory, we’ll borrow one from another language. Al Gore did just that when he described himself as having “gravitas” during his run for the White House. Nearly instantaneously, every talking head in the country was using the heavy Latin word, until finally Chris Mathews commented that Barack Obama’s gravitas caused a tingle to run up his leg. It kinda lost its punch after that.

But the real point here is the incessant blathering about “self radicalized” terrorists, specifically the brothers Tsarnaev, better known as the Boston Bombers, who are responsible for nearly 270 maimed, wounded, or dead.

Disregarding the obvious elephant in the room, both the government and the media, began hunting for fleas and swatting at gnats. “Whatever could be the reason for this horrendous tragedy?” The story line continued for hours into days that this had to be the work of some “right wing extremists”, and even the President floated a hint or two about April 15^th being “tax day”, of course insinuating it was a right-wing tax protest, obviously connected to the Tea Party, just like so many other terrorist related events have been linked to them. Like the first bombing of the World Trade Center back in ’93; no wait, that was Islamic jihad. Oh, like the 911 attacks when Tea Party members flew passenger airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and were headed for the White House; oh…sorry, those were Islamic jihadist hijackers. Well, like the DC Snipers who terrorized the city for 3 weeks in 2002; no wait, they were Islamic also. Well then there was the White Supremacist, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, who killed one soldier and wounded another in front of the recruiting office in Arkansas in 2009; sorry, again Islamic jihad.

Well…there are so many events that are known to have connections to “conservative right wing Christian radicals” such as: The Fort Hood Massacre when that Christian shooter yelled ‘Allahu Akbar’ as he gunned down 40 people, killing 13. The 2009 Riverdale New York bomb plot planned by 4 radical Tea Party grandma’s, the Times Square Bomber who had his SUV full of propane tanks and fireworks (surely some redneck like Larry the Cable Guy), the “Fort Dix Six”, the “Underwear Bomber”, the “Shoe Bomber”, etcetera ad nauseam.

My, my, what could it be? What ever could it be that is initiating all these attacks and plots?

[According to this Congressional report, there have been well over 60 successful, attempted, or plotted Islamic Jihad Terrorist attacks on US soil since 9-11-2001.]

Of course, most of these were played off as “Lone Wolf” scenarios where the terrorist was “self-radicalized”.

Listening to all the ‘crack investigative reporters and hard-hitting journalists’, one could come to the conclusion that these guys just must wake up one morning and “self-radicalize” deciding today is a good day to kill some people’.

This term is a copout for lazy journalists and downright deceiving when used by anyone. A person cannot “self-radicalize” any more than “self-socialize”. There must be a cause, a mentor, or an ideology that brings a person to the point that he is willing to, no, compelled to kill random people that he doesn’t even know.

That mentor, in many cases, is a spiritual leader. That cause, or ideology, which is that rather enormous and obnoxious “elephant in the room” that none of the trilobites are willing to discuss? Islam.

Forget Islam as a Religion

The sooner Americans refuse to continue accepting Islam as a viable and peaceful “religion” and begin to view it as the sociopolitical ideology that it truly is, the greater the possibility the America will survive its onslaught.

The root problem for America is not that Islam has come to colonize her, which it has, but the fact that we have allowed “multi-culturalism” (immigration without assimilation) and “pluralism” (all cultures, ideologies, realities are equal) to progress unchecked resulting in a “balkanized” or “tribal” society wherein competing ideologies are viewed as co-equal. Not all ideologies are conducive to civilized society, nor are they consistent with the basic premise of freedom, as established in America’s founding documents.

If I were to try to convince you that Germany’s National Socialism (Nazism) is a peaceful ideology that was hijacked by a few “self radicalized” individuals, resulting in the holocaust, you’d laugh in my face. Well, that’s a pretty good comparison: You have a ‘prophet’ by the name of Hitler who sought to consolidate power under a banner of a unified ideology by clearing the field of competing ideologies, and went to war in order to stoke the economy and gain control of more land area. Had Muhammad access to German weapons of mass destruction he would certainly not have hesitated to use them. Hitler’s Holocaust resulted in an estimated 11 Million deaths, many of which were communist (because Karl Marx was Jewish), mentally or physically handicapped, Jehovah’s Witness, homosexual, or Christian leaders such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer who refused to place their names upon the “Aryan Clause” and become “Reich Churches” to do the bidding of the “almighty Fuhrer”. But his “Final Solution” for 6 million Jews had already been proven and prescribed by Islam’s prophet Muhammad in the Arabian Peninsula 1400 years prior in places with such names as Banu Quaraysa and Khaybar, where Muhammad slaughtered unarmed male prisoners and enslaved the girls, and women, finally appropriating all Jewish property to Muslims.

Both economies required perpetual war. (The fundamental Islamic world view is “Dar al-Islam” or Dar al-Harb: The world is divided and you either dwell in the “House of Islam”, where Islam rules, or you dwell in the “House of War” and are subject to Jihad.)

Both ideologies have religious overtones (Hitler was worshipped and given a godlike status). Both ‘prophets’ were consumed with power. Both cultures fostered distrust and suspicion (Gestapo was everywhere and anyone who challenged the Prophet was dealt with harshly.) Both Nazism and Islam are fundamentally racist. Neither can compete philosophically with opposing values, absent of an oppressive legal system or war.

Consider the following argument:

“Well, you know those “Brown Shirts” are really not as bad as the SS or Gestapo. Now those SS are some evil dudes. SS are the real “radical” Nazi’s. The Brownshirts might beat you up but those SS will kill you! We really need to reach out to those individuals and find out why they hate us so much. But most of the Nazi’s are moderate. They aren’t violent at all. Sure, they go to the rallies where Hitler is speaking, but they’re just normal folks like you and me! They want the same for their families as we all want. Yeah, Nazism is actually a very patriotic and peaceful ideology, it’s just been hijacked by some radicals who seek to politicize it, and destroy property and kill people and take their property in the name of this peaceful movement.”

Well, as you can see this defense of Nazism just doesn’t fly! Ironically, this is the exact apologetic defense that Islam gets from not only the American mainstream media, but from our government as well!

“Self Radicalization”

This term makes about as much sense as “Obamacare”. An individual who is willing to commit a violent act of mass murder and mayhem in the name of his god, or any other cause, is soaked in an ideology which is taught or programmed into a person’s psyche. That ideology doesn’t simply spawn in the mind of the perpetrator. It comes from someone else, whether through print or other media; from a teacher, guide or mentor. But the term “self radicalize” is specifically designed to deflect attention from that aforementioned ‘elephant’ sitting in the middle of the room.

Islam is that ideology and it can be taught by other people or the documents themselves, the Koran, Hadith, and countless commentaries and books of Islamic scholars (such as Seyyid Qutb) may be read and studied by the individual, even to the point of the student acting upon those teachings. Tamerlan Tsarnaev did not “self-radicalize” anymore than Nidal Hasan or Osama bin Ladin. He was taught. He was taught the purest form of Islam, the Fundamentals of Islam. He believed it, he consumed it, and finally it consumed him. His actions were based on his faith in his Scriptures (Koran), his prophet (Muhammad), and his god (Allah).

“We Love Death more than You Love Life”

The first victim of Islam is the Muslim. Islam is, as I have pointed out before, a Great Black Beast. It will consume everyone in its path if left unchecked, until finally there is no competing religion or ideology permitted. There is a creed that surfaces occasionally when studying the Islamic culture which is so shaped by the obligatory act of jihad: “We love death more than you love life.” It has been a part of Islam since its earliest doctrines were formulated during that period immediately following Muhammad’s death in 632 (AD). This is that age of Islamic conquest the four “Rightly Guided Caliphs”, It is used by Hamas in their propaganda media. It was recently used in a letter to the British government by six terrorists who pleaded guilty of planning an attack on the EDL last year. It was repeated by the Madrid terrorists and actually earned a slide in a power point presentation by Nidal Hassan prior to his jihad attack which resulted in 13 dead and 32 wounded at Fort Hood, Texas. Islam is the largest death cult in the world. Those countries and regions where Islam rules unchecked are anything but bastions of freedom.

CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) came up with a new word in order to try to embarrass and defeat anyone who opposes Islam. They have been quite successful in defining the Islamic narrative in the United States. That word is “Islamophobia”. The goal is to paint opposition to Islam as bigoted, racist, and xenophobic. It doesn’t stick. Sorry CAIR, I am not afraid of Islam, I am not a racist, nor am I a bigot. But I will tell you what true “Islamophobia” is. Just as the word says, “Fear of Islam”. But CAIR has misplaced the word.

Islamophobia is when a free press self-censors for fear of offending Muslims and consequential retribution from Islam.

Islamophobic is a government which refuses to name the enemy in a war which has been declared on the United States of America by the collective ideology called Islam, for fear of political influence of CAIR, ISNA, ICNA among Islamic organizations, and fear the Saudi’s will pull out of Wall Street and crash our economy.

Islamophobic is a White House which is more interested in “winning the hearts and minds” of a sworn enemy than defeating him, while Islamic groups like CAIR and the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) filter every training manual and terrorism report issued by the Pentagon.

Islamophobia is when a military acquiesces to the demands of that same sworn enemy to deny Christian or Jewish religious ministry to its own soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen on sovereign soil of our military bases in Afghanistan, but allows an Imam to pray over our dead SEAL’s at Baghram AFB, damning their souls in the name of Allah.

Islamophobic is a President who is more interested in punishing the producer of a two-bit video “slandering the prophet” than he is about punishing those who murdered 4 Americans in Benghazi, Libya in a jihad attack, for fear that he will lose the upcoming election if he offends Muslims. THAT, my friends is “Islamophobia”.

In the words of Billy Vaughn, father of Aaron Vaughn, one of 26 Navy Seals killed in the “Extorsion 17” helo crash in Wardok Province in 2012, “When you hide the truth, you become part of the lie.”

Americans must face the truth. We have allowed our government and our media to hide the truth. We have hidden our own faces from the truth. The ideology that is Islam is fundamentally, and diametrically opposed to America and all that she stands for.