Defining the Narrative

As the Media Trilobites once again flounder about trying to bring their version of the “news” to the viewer, the coverage of the latest big event involving the Islamic State, the media are stumbling all over themselves bringing their profuse apologetic narrative to a fever pitch, which coincides perfectly with President Obama’s narrative that “ISIS is not Islamic!!”

Via FrontPageMag.com

The execution by burning alive of Jordanian pilot Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, 26, by the Islamist “Islamic State”, has been hijacked by those who would rather “use a crisis” to further their own agenda.  That young man is the same age as my own son (a USMC Sergeant), and the pilot died in the service of his King and country, fighting an enemy who will, if not stopped, take not only Syria and Iraq, but also Jordan, just as they will Saudi Arabia and the rest.  The pilot, while himself a Muslim, is considered apostate, and was fighting in the service of an Apostate King, in the eyes of the Islamic State and Caliph Al-Baghdaddi.

Apologists all over the news networks, both British and American, spent seldom mentioned this story without profusely making the point that “There is no mention in Islam for this kind of barbarity!” “This is proof that ISIS is not Islamic!”  Al Jazeera English even joined in the chorus with an editorial from a California State University professor calling ISIS a “nihilistic death cult acting in the name of Islam…”  Shoot, I’ve been calling Islam a death cult for years.

It seems that with every savage instance of Islamic Terrorism, from 911 up to every sordid beheading video that IS releases, the media is more concerned about a “potential backlash against Muslims”, than the butchery itself!  The “Backlash” that never happens!  Perhaps those Muslims who may be concerned about becoming a victim of a “backlash” might want to be more concerned about the butchers because the Caliph looks upon any Muslim who desires to integrate into Western Society and enjoy its freedoms, as one of two things: Apostate, which according to Sharia “deserves to die”, or Jahili, which is a back-slidden Muslim, and if non-repentant, also may die.

Muslim Brotherhood‘s own Seyyid Qutb writes all about this Jahili in his “Milestones“, the vanguard publication for the modern Islamic Revival, published 1965.  Qutb explains that Muslims must repent and remove themselves from that Jahiliyyah (a state of ignorance) leadership which has enticed Muslims into submitting to earthly, man-made rules and rulers, instead of submitting to Allah by means of following his laws (Sharia).  This theological doctrine is the root of everything we are witnessing in the Islamic world today.

Muslims are not to commit allegiance to a nation or state or geographic area.  (This is why there is little or no national loyalty in Islam.) 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.  Qutb writes,

“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]…” [p. 108, 109]

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…” [p. 158]

The Trilobites were finding “scholars” and “experts” wherever they could drag them out to reassure that “burning a human is not acceptable in Islam”.  They continued this for hours, expressing “how barbaric” this mode of execution is, and this is proof that ISIS is not Islamic.  Really?  Is it more barbaric than sawing a mans head off with a dull knife?!

Burning is indeed not only an accepted means of execution, it has a history in some Islamic applications.  Apostacy is an especially grievous sin against Islam, and in 1400 years there has never been an Islamic society which has not enforced the capital laws against leaving Islam for another religion, or no religion at all.  You see, Sura (Quran) 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion…”  is abrogated by 9:29, commanding to fight non-muslims until they are subdued (dhimmi).

The Islamic State (IS, ISIS, ISIL) is ruthlessly following the model of Islamic conquest that was practiced by Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s (the prophet) top lieutenant and most trusted friend.  He gave his young 6 yr old daughter Aisha to Muhammad to wife, making him the prophet’s father-in-law, and was Muhammad’s first convert outside the family.  Immediately after Muhammad’s death in 632 AD, the tribes began to quit Islam, becoming apostates, and refusing to pay the zakat (required alms of Muslims).  Abu Bakr thus became the 1st Caliph and began a systematic military campaign that swept across the Arabian Peninsula, known as the Ridda Wars, or the Wars of Apostacy.  Within 2 years he had put down or executed those Muslims who refused to pay, even though they practiced the prayers, referring to them as apostate because they failed to practice all 5 pillars of Islam.  Therefore their blood was on their own hands.

In a letter sent out to the various apostate tribes, Abu Bakr warned that, “the Apostle of Allah…struck whoever turned his back to him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.”  And then that, Allah had called him (Abu Bakr) ” to fight those who deny Him“, and that Abu Bakr “will not spare any of them he can gain mastery over, but may burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means…take women and children…nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam.” Within 2 years Abu Bakr had brought the “apostate” tribes back under his rule, and had sent his generals to conquer the Sassanids (Persians) in Iraq and Persia.  This was a very speedy and overwhelming conquest in which Khalid’s light cavalry could swoop down on a city and own it before the indigent armies could respond.  The Caliph then declared Jihad against the Byzantine Christians.

Abu Bakr only ruled for a bit over 2 years and was the 1st of the “Four Rightly Guided Caliphs”, the other 3 of which led short, bloody reigns as well.  These “Four Rightly Guided Caliphs” were all personal companions of Muhammad’s, and are yet today highly revered as men who closely followed in the steps of Muhammad.

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, via Wikipedia

It is no accident that the current Caliph took this name – Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  This man holds a PhD in Islamic Studies from the University of Baghdad and has been supervising and enforcing the Sharia since the mid-2000’s.  He is indeed an expert on Islamic Law (Sharia).  His job as Caliph is to punish apostates and carry jihad to non-believers who refuse to embrace Islam.  If you deny this, you deny 1400 years of history.  You have to be an imbecile to refuse to make the connection of true Islamic doctrines and theology to fundamentalist Islamic militant groups such as IS.

However, we are dealing with the Trilobites; a media organism who has no knowledge or desire to investigate history beyond their last bowel movement, which is incidentally about the same consistency of what they report. Jordan’s military, just like Saudi Arabia, exists pretty much to keep the Royal Families safe.  Hardcore movements against Islamic State are not going to be part of the program for either country.  Jordan may divide shortly with a lot of internal upheaval and Saudi will be soon to follow.  The military for both of these countries are paper tigers, perhaps Jordan’s a little tougher.

Any true security or stabilization in the region is going to have to come from one of 3 sources: USA, Israel, or Russia.  President Obama isn’t interested, despite the fact that Jordan is probably the most moderate Arab country in the region, obviously the most stable and is a pretty good ally to Israel.  Obama keeps throwing up a straw man argument that it’s either continue our ineffective airstrikes or send in 300K ground troops, and that’s not an option of his.  He will give aid but no Middle Eastern leader trusts him now anyway, enough to depend on him.

Israel knows it is the ultimate target and continues to monitor the progress of IS and has attacked positions in the Golan area of Syria/Lebanon.  Saudi Arabia is depending more and more on Israel for its own security and Jordan is working with Israeli military also.

Yep, it’s gonna get pretty sporty…