July 05, 2007

Adjusting so as to Deal with Islamists Who Seek to Use Democracy in Order to Destroy Democracy

Yesterday morning I watched the film "Muslims Against Jihad," produced by Frank Gaffney and Martyn Burke. I'd like to comment on a particular passage in it. Here it is, as quoted on the Foehammer blog:

Around 8 minutes into the first segment of the program is the Omar Bakri statement that I believe is one of the most important utterances from an Islamist that I have ever heard:

"The only way you can stop us, by give up your democracy. If you give up democracy and Freedom of Speech, and start to stop us and ban us the way you started to do, that the way you can stop us. But that mean we succeed. We say to the people: 'You see? Democracy-Hypocrisy. We have always said so.' You do not believe in democracy."

What exactly is Bakri referring to? Why does he say we have to give up democracy in order to stop people who want to destroy democracy? Here's the background that specifies what Bakri is referring to.

1. Islam is a political project with the goal of dominating any society in which it can implant itself. In the words of Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

Islam is a political project. It is a supremacist movement. It has a three-tiered stage, and has always had that. And those stages - the first one is dawa, or missionary work, persuading individuals to agree with the basic tenets and principals of that political project. The second is hejira, or emigration - spreading the faith, by planting people who have been converted to the faith, in other areas. And finally there's the stage of jihad. And that, I don't have to tell you.

2. A key strategy for domination of the host society, is the filling of the Muslim community with rage and hatred so that there are always Muslims itching to do violence. As I have posted recently:

Ayaan is describing the phenomenon we are all beginning to become aware of. Islamists emigrate into an area, and once there in sufficient numbers, they begin threatening the public with riots and violence. They do this not by specific direction; that is, they don't, as the Mafia did, have leaders who identify specific targets for attack. Instead, they do this by general direction, as per the Koran, to be at war with non-Muslims in general. This effectively results in enough acts of violence because the Islamist culture is intentionally filled with hate for non-Muslims, so that there are always more than enough Islamists itching to do violence. The non-Islamic host culture is unused to such an attack. Arresting the specific perpetrators of violence doesn't solve the situation, since the Islamist culture always produces more violence-prone Islamists. The non-Islamic host culture typically has no systems in place to root out the Islamist culture that is attacking it. Blindsided, without thinking about the long-term implications, the non-Islamic host culture usually attempts to appease the Islamists by giving them more and more of whatever they demand, hoping that they will then abandon violence. But Islam doesn't seek co-existence; as Ayaan says, Islam is a political project. It seeks political domination and supremacy. In many cases the result is that the non-Islamic host culture is destroyed, in a manner comparable to a body attacked by cancer.

This is a strategy that is brilliantly crafted to attack non-Islamic cultures. It has been developed and honed literally over centuries.

3. One of the principal methods used by the Islamists to fill the Muslim community with rage and hatred, is the continual exhortation of crowds at mosques, by Imams, to hate all non-Muslims. A few examples:

- British TV exposed the hate-filled preachings of the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham, England.

- The Society of Americans for National Existence exposed similar events at mosques in the U.S.

- Religious, government, and media leaders in Islamic nations, routinely call for murder to be done in the name of Islam:

Imam of the "Red Mosque" in Islamabad, Pakistan Threatens to Send Students to Anti-Government Suicide Operations

Egyptian Cleric Hazem Sallah Abu Isma'il on the Rewards of the Martyr

Children of Palestinian Suicide Bomber Rim Al-Riyashi on Hamas TV: Mama Killed Five Jews and She Is in Paradise

Dr. Muhammad Salim Al-Awa, Secretary-General of the International Union for Muslim Scholars, Explains the Rationale for Supporting Female Suicide Bombers

Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi Justifies the Killing of Israeli Women and Children in Suicide Operations

Palestinian Minister of Religious Endowment Speaks in Praise of Martyrdom at Friday Sermon in the Presence of Abu Mazen

So Bakri is saying that democracy protects his right to fill Muslims with rage and hatred, such that there will always be some Muslims who, on their own initiative, without being specifically directed to do an attack, go out and commit murders, a la the many murders attempted and/or committed by Muslims almost weekly in various nations - including last week in England and Scotland.

Which brings me to the comment I'd like to make on Bakri's statement. Under our present system, Bakri is right that there is nothing we can do to stop Islamists from pursuing the strategy of jihad to commit murder and destroy our culture. We must figure this out; we must make an adjustment to our laws to enable us to shut down Islamist leaders who preach hatred of non-Muslims. It should be doable. We've rightfully made it impossible for anyone to say anything hateful about Blacks. Why shouldn't we be able to make it impossible for Muslims to say anything hateful about non-Muslims?

The alternative - and not an unthinkable one - is to recognize that Islamists have declared war on us, from within our midst; and to declare war back on them, and throw the hate-preaching Islamists in jail under the rules of war, rather than under the rules of civil society.

It's probably going to have to be one or the other of these two alternatives.

That the Islamists have declared war on us is not a matter of question. From About.com:

A crucial distinction made in Islamic theology is that between dar al-harb and dar al-islam. To put it simply, dar al-harb (territory of war or chaos) is the name for the regions where Islam does not dominate, where divine will is not observed, and therefore where continuing strife is the norm. By contrast, dar al-islam (territory of peace) is the name for those territories where Islam does dominate, where submission to God is observed, and where peace and tranquility reign.

In Islam, by "peace and tranquility," is meant the absence of free speech; the oppression and eventual absence of Christianity, Judaism, and atheism; separation of men from women before marriage; the absence of freedom for women; legal status for women as being one-half that of the legal status of men; so-called honor killings of women by their own family members; beatings of wives by husbands; the instilling of rage and hatred into little children; and the whole list of specifications for hell on earth that is actually put into practice in Islamic nations today.