Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The War With and Within Islam
I keep hearing the press refer to the countries that are subject to the lull in immigration as “predominately Muslim” or “majority Muslim.” They are much more than that. With the exception of Iran, they are each in the midst of unrest that can only be characterized as civil war – Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. And these are not just “majority Muslim” countries. To the extent that one can describe the form of government employed by whatever current gangs claim authority in these countries, including Iran, they are not monarchies, republics or democracies. They aren’t even true thugocracies. They are totalitarian theocracies ruled by fiat and a few self-appointed clerics and their acolytes. Sharia law, the religious law of Islam, is the official law of these lands. It is informed, even instigated by Ayatollahs and Imams, Mullahs and Muftis and it is enforced by Islam, by tradition; that is by the mob.
The civil unrest and war results directly from Islam; that is the various and different local interpretations of Islam, the Shia Ja’fari and within the Sunni, the Wahhabi, Salafi, Hanafi and Maliki, all purporting to be the true Islam. Clannish tribal traditions further complicate the various rivalries. Brutal readings of the Koran and sacred texts leave little to no room to tolerate alternative interpretation. There is but one penalty for apostasy or refusal to submit to the interpretations of the subject sect: death. There is a reason why Islam has such a bloody and brutal history.
Our only consolation is the fact that, as much as these clerics hate the America (and Israel) they cannot help but turn on rival Islamic clans and factions first. The Islamic tradition of fratricide and patricide has continued for 10 centuries; this is how it has always been except that now, with money oozing from the very ground beneath their feet, some have commandeered the resources to obtain the weapons of war necessary to effectively impose their particular will on a massive scale.
In fact, most majority Muslim countries are sharia theocracies, even those 40 some odd majority Muslim countries not on the “no-entry” list. Some may have presumably republican governments or monarchies, however make no mistake, merciless Sharia is the law of the land. Those in power know how close that they are to sectarian war. The ruling classes have formed a nervous pact with local Mullahs, Muftis, and Imams in exchange for a loose grip on power and money. They fully understand the tenuous hold they have and greatly fear that unrest, no chaos, will cross their borders.
This terror war is indeed with and within Islam. The countries on the no entry list are at war among themselves and with us. If we really do not know who the asylum seekers are, inviting them to our country is suicidal. They come from a kind of hell. Some will want to bring it here with them.
Published in General
You did overstate the case, but I believe you did it sincerely. That’s what worries me.
I think you genuinely believed that this is what the OIC, or the heads of Muslim countries like Iran, were saying. I doubt you would have made the claim without believing it was true, and I also think you’re truly surprised that there actually are not quotes like that floating around as a dominant part of Muslim diplomatic discourse.
I am not doubting you’re a good, decent man – I think you are, as far as I can tell.
I also don’t think you’re stupid – I think you’re smart.
What interests me here is how someone like yourself can so committedly believe to be facts things that are so easily disprovable.
(You disproved them yourself in five minutes using google, right?)
What is the cause for this, what is the mechanism and what are the likely outcomes? All of this disturbs me – don’t you think that it should? Doesn’t it disturb you too?
The trouble is, Zafar, I’ve been reading about this general subject for a decade or more. And I never had a mind for details to begin with. So I don’t recall where I read about Muslim leaders wanting to “drive them [Israel] into the sea” and such.
Mark Steyn, Daniel Pipes, Caroline Glick, Jewish World Review, MEMRI, Haaretz, Jihad Watch, and a YouTube channel called Political Islam are some of the sources which have informed my view over the years. In this conversation, I have at least provided evidence of a common anti-Semitism throughout Muslim nations and sometimes voiced by officials. Their hatred of Israel is beyond doubt, though some prefer the status quo to Iranian regional dominance and so negotiate with Israel.
Another complication is the explicit efforts of the OIC, Muslim governments, and the groups they fund (even here) to silence critics of Islam and Muslims through accusations of “Islamophobia” and hate speech laws in Canada, France, the Netherlands, and ongoing attempts through the UN. Even many Western conservatives are too initimidated to speak their minds about Islam. Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook, owned and operated by Democrats, are sympathetic to such censorship. Google, Microsoft (Bing), Mozilla (Firefox) are similar.
So when I can’t find the quotes, is it because they don’t exist, because they happened years ago, or because search engine results are not free of bias (in ordering, at least)? I don’t know. Trust is difficult these days.
I almost forgot @annikahernrothrothstein in that list. But I only became aware of her writing this past year.
Surely if a recent quote was out there jihad watch would have it? (I remember reading that ‘into the sea’ thing too, but I think it’s 1950s?)
But also – isn’t it interesting how one’s position informs how one reads reality?
From where I sit there seem to be plenty of people (Conservative and Progressive) who criticize Islam in the West. (Which is fine, imho, so long as it’s informed and intelligent and rational – and doesn’t confuse feelings with facts.) If Conservatives are intimidated it’s not particularly noticeable.
Where there is Conservative silence is when it comes to any (public) criticism of Israel’s founding, the Nakba, Naksa, occupation, etc. Maybe it’s around on Ricochet, but I don’t notice it?