Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Doctrine of Constant Combat

This is a piece of a slide show at the International Herald Tribune which illustrates the point noted by Patrick Poole in his article The Parisian Intifada and “The Project” which can be seen here.
And a funny new arabic word has come into my vocabulary: muqawama, the doctrine of constant combat.
Here's another picture from the slide show, this one of a smoldering public library in Paris. Infidel libraries have been a target of the Muslims from the beginning, since the rightly-guided Caliph Omar commanded the final destruction of the library of Alexandria as a part of his conquest of Coptic Egypt in 640 A.D. "The contents of those books," said he, "are in conformity with the Koran, or they are not. If they are, the Koran is sufficient without them; if they are not, they are pernicious. Let them, therefore, be destroyed." Hence, the precious and irreplaceable papyrus and palm leaf manuscripts kept there were burned by the clever Muslims to heat the public baths for themselves over a period of six months. That library, created at the instigation of Alexander the Great, was the vast storehouse and repository of the assembled knowledge of thousands of years of Western and Mediterranean civilization, from the pharaohs to Archimedes to St. Jerome and beyond.
Omar's cultural descendants are here, today, doing the same work. Mr. Poole lays it out in the context of the "Project" of the Muslim Brotherhood:
1) Muqawama, whether in Israel or in the West, is seen as part of the larger global jihad;
2) Little emphasis is placed on territory;
3) Death is seen as an advantage;
4) Battle is almost
(always) conducted amongst civilians.
The French intifada is taking place not only in the heart of France, but in the heart of Europe itself. Much like the 9/11 attacks that were directed at the financial and political centers of America, both symbolically and really, the constant campaign of violence by Muslims throughout Europe are intended to extend the global jihad to the deepest centers of the West. But rather than confront the West militarily, the battle against Western civilization that they have already enjoined is going to take place in the banlieues, not the battlefield. Various instruments of violence are being used, ranging from crime, rioting, and as we see in Paris today, urban warfare. Terrorism is currently used only occasionally to initiate peak periods, but we can expect its increased use as the conflict continues.
The difficulty for us on the working end of the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” is that our leaders have steadfastly refused to understand the nature of the threat and the interrelation between what is happening in Paris, France and Khandahar, Afghanistan. While different methodologies are being used, the endgame is still the same: the establishment of the global caliphate through jihad. We must come to terms with strategy and operations of radical Islam in the West, the manner in which they manage conflict, and realize the immanent nature of the threat already in our midst – a lesson the French are learning first-hand.
Until we do, the strategic planning of the forces of the global jihad, as expressed in “The Project” and other Muslim Brotherhood planning documents, will continue to meet with unimpeded success.

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Defining the Terms of Debate

Daniel Larison writing in the recent on-line issue of The American Conservative makes some trenchant and crucial points with respect to the terms "Islamofascism" and "Islamophobia" in his recent article. A sample:
Like the perjorative term from which it derives, Islamofascism means whatever the person deploying it wants it to mean. It is ultimately not an attempt at description or explanation but a demon word designed to generate visceral, irrational reaction. This is precisely the opposite of the careful, deliberate, and informed responses we need to cultivate. And since it obscures the actual nature of jihadism, it is not simply a crime against the English language but a dangerous source of misunderstanding.
“Islamophobia” is a word favored by both jihadist apologists and the conventional enforcers of “tolerance” and opponents of “hate speech.” Attributing acts of violence to Islam, criticizing practices in Islamic countries, or even associating the name of Islam with crimes carried out in its name draw the charge. It, like other thought-policing labels, is a tool for defining the limits of speech and shutting down critical thinking while securing select groups from reasonable inquiry and political opposition. The term implies irrational fear and loathing and classes an entire perspective as nothing more than hatred, denying to critics of jihadism their rationality and so denigrating them as being less than fully human. Control of debate, indeed, control over whether there will even be a debate, is the goal.
"Term Limits", the title of his article, is a rather unfortunate choice of words, as it is intended to be a witty means of describing the way the terms of the debate over Islam serve to limit the scope and direction of that debate. Thinking instead that it was referring to a tired issue pertaining to domestic office-holders, I almost skipped the article entirely. I'm glad I didn't.