The Ultmate Goal of the Jihad

The Islamic Jihad against the West has as many reasons and it has goals and objectives for continuing the jihad, no matter the consquences as the means justify the ends. It seems obvious that many millions will die before its over as majority of the targeted populations will simply refuse to acquiese. No matter, Islam and the Jihad have been through this process before: so go easy and some go hard, and the hard ones end up being object lessons for their enemies to show what happens to "foolish" populations that dare resist: they die a brutal and painful death. Those that do capitulate far little better because they enter into a state of slavery or into a state of dhimmituide that envelopes every aspect of their lives.

The terms of their subjugation shows how uttler low they have become as they are allowed to live in fear and humiliation, constantly reminded of how subdued they are and must remain in order to preserve their lives and to keep their children out of slavery.

The Pact of Omar made with Christians Syrians in 637 shows the extent of the dhimmitude made by primitive tribes using simple and effective weapons, one of which was psychology, another was old-fashioned intimidation to exert their will over Christians that had been established for at least 600 years:

The Pact of Omar (With thanks to reader "Lewis Plame", a self-published author who also gives presentations to local groups and "anyone who shows interest." "Lewis" reports that he respons to apologists for Islam's outrageous anctics" and is making sure that the audience "sometimes knows much more than they do."

These are the conditions uncer which we will be forced to exist if Islamists ultimately have their way:

1. We (Christians) shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

2. We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

3. We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.

4. We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children. (Reason: Christians might distort the meaning of the Qur’an.)

5. We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

6. We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

7. We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa (skullcap), the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas (sir names).

8. We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.

9. We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

10. We shall not sell fermented drinks.

11. We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

12. We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar (sash) around our waists

13. We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

14. We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

15. We shall not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims.

16. We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct. If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

17. Omar added two additional stipulations: "We shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

These sound like rules for a men's club or fraternity gone wild, to keep all the exclusive perks for the fraternity brothers.

The following talk, The Goal of the Jihad, by Robert Sencer, with some modifications, was delivered as part of a panal on "The Next Moves of Radical Islam" at the David Horowitz Freedom Center's Santa Barbara Retreat, March 11, 2007.

I am not much for predicting the future, so when it comes to detailing the next moves of the jihadists I can’t tell you what they’re going to do – but I can tell you about the ultimate goal they’re working toward.

President Bush has said that they are hoping to establish an Islamic state from Spain to Indonesia. He could have added in the Americas, too, for their goal is global. This goal is important for many reasons, although a lot of analysts have dismissed it on the grounds that the goal is unattainable. Not too long ago Reuters ran a story about the jihadist plan to establish a caliphate. To show you how important they thought it was, they ran it as part of their “Oddly Enough” feature series, which usually contains stories about man-eating chickens and Jell-O wrestling.

The story quoted a Saudi analyst Faris bin Houzam, and an anthropologist in London, Madawi ar-Rasheed, who both dismissed the caliphate as a serious threat. Ar-Rasheed said: “This is just part of (al Qaeda’s) war of slogans.”I am not much for predicting the future, so when it comes to detailing the next moves of the jihadists I can’t tell you what they’re going to do – but I can tell you about the ultimate goal they’re working toward.

President Bush has said that they are hoping to establish an Islamic state from Spain to Indonesia. He could have added in the Americas, too, for their goal is global. This goal is important for many reasons, although a lot of analysts have dismissed it on the grounds that the goal is unattainable. Not too long ago Reuters ran a story about the jihadist plan to establish a caliphate. To show you how important they thought it was, they ran it as part of their “Oddly Enough” feature series, which usually contains stories about man-eating chickens and Jell-O wrestling.

The story quoted a Saudi analyst Faris bin Houzam, and an anthropologist in London, Madawi ar-Rasheed, who both dismissed the caliphate as a serious threat. Ar-Rasheed said: “This is just part of (al Qaeda’s) war of slogans.”

That flip remark is an example of how the MSM, unable to see beyond their noses, that behaves arrogantly and stupidly, making jokes, taking a dismissive posture, or are in denial when confronted with realty. They would prefer to brush off reality as the ravings of a tiny minority on the lunatic fringe of Islam.

Well they are wrong.

Of course, it should go without saying that however unlikely the prospect of success, the jihadists will soldier on, attempting to advance their cause by both violent and non-violent means.

Also, to dismiss the caliphate as “just part of (al Qaeda’s) war of slogans” fails to recognize how potent slogans can be in formulating public opinion -- witness the success of the Palestinian cause in winning global support through canny use of terms like “occupation” and “apartheid” (and “Palestinian” itself). However unlikely its realization, the quest for the caliphate is increasingly popular -- at least by the evidence of election results in the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Algeria, and elsewhere, and that fact could have extraordinarily serious consequences

Those that live will face very serious consequences indeed: The Caliphate is a very serious political, governmental, military, religious, commercial, and judicial body, rolled up into on umbrella that shades over every...everything, the whole of the lives of the poor wreteches who are sucked ino the maw of Islam.

But we first must understand why we don't want to live under such rule:

The idea of the caliphate itself also needs to be thoroughly understood by those of us who don’t wish to live under one. Why do they want to establish a caliphate at all? It isn’t just so that they can establish the rule of Islamic law: Saudi Arabia itself today is governed by Islamic law, but not by a caliph. The caliph was for Sunni Muslims, who make up 85 to 90 percent of the Islamic world today, the successor of the prophet Muhammad as the spiritual, political and military leader of the Islamic community. The great Islamic empires of the Middle Ages were ruled by caliphs.

But in 1924, the new secular government of Turkey abolished the caliphate. This is identified by jihadists today as the source of all their troubles. Western influence, disunity, laxity in Islamic observance – all this has been traced by jihadists to the loss of the caliphate.

For example, this is from the Turkish branch of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an international political party whose stated goal is reviving the caliphate – or khilafah:

It was a day like this 79 years ago, and more specifically on the 3rd of March 1924 that...the criminal English agent, Mustafa Kemal (so-called Ataturk, the “Father of the Turks”!) announced that the Grand National Assembly had agreed to destroy the Khilafah; and...the establish...a secular, irreligious, Turkish republic....

Since that day the Islamic ummah [nation, community] has lived a life full of calamities; she was broken up into small mini states controlled by the enemies of Islam in every aspect. The Muslims were oppressed and became the object of the kuffar’s [that is, unbelievers’] derision in Kashmir, Philippines, Thailand, Chechnya, Iraq, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Afghanistan, Palestine and other lands belonging to the Muslims [...]

So the crime took place and the kuffar tightened their grip over the Islamic lands and tore it up into pieces....In place of a single Khilafah state they established cartoon states and installed rulers as agents to carry out the orders of their kuffar masters. They abolished the Islamic Sharee’ah [religious law] from the sphere of ruling, economy, international relations, domestic transactions and judiciary.[...]

“Without the Khilafah, the Islamic lands will remain torn up and the Islamic peoples will remain divided. Without the Khilafah the kafir, crusader and colonial states will continue to control us, plunder our resources and create divisions amongst us. Without the Khilafah, the Jews will continue to occupy our sacred places and kill and humiliate our brothers in Palestine. Without the Khilafah, the Islamic peoples in Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kashmir, Uzbekistan and so on will continue to be killed....Without the Khilafah, those Muslims who do not work seriously for its implementation will be sinful and incur the anger of Allâh, even if they fast, pray, make Hajj [pilgrimage] and pay Zakah [alms]. This is because the work to establish the Khilafah Rashidah is a fard [obligation] on every Muslim, and it should be conducted with the most extreme effort and utmost speed.[...]

And there is something else also. In Islamic law, jihad warfare may be defensive or offensive. Jihad is ordinarily fard kifaya – an obligation on the Muslim community as a whole, from which some are freed if others take it up. Jihad becomes fard ayn, or obligatory on every individual Muslim to aid in any way he can, if a Muslim land is attacked. That is what jihadists argue today – that the American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan makes jihad fard ayn, or obligatory on every individual Muslims.

But still, that is just jihad for the defense of Muslim lands. There is also offensive jihad, in line with Muhammad’s command that Muslims offer non-Muslims conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic rule, or war. But in Islamic law, only the caliph is authorized to wage offensive jihad.

That’s a primary reason why jihadists want to restore the caliphate. Some would even say that they’ve already done so. In 1996 the Taliban’s Mullah Omar went to the shrine of the Respectable Cloak of Muhammad in Kandahar and stood on the roof of the shrine wrapped in the cloak. His followers proclaimed him Emir al Momineen, or leader of the believers – a title of the caliph. So far, however, only a jihadist group in Algeria has joined the Taliban in accepting Mullah Omar as caliph.

Also other Caliphates are "being proclaimed" giving legitimacy to the work of the judists in the eyes of the Muslim street.

In any case, the desire to restore the caliphate ultimately highlights the expansionist, imperialist, totalitarian, globalist aims of the jihad movement, even as today it presents itself as a defensive action against Western evils. This is, I believe, a crucial point for our understanding the enemy properly, so that we can formulate the proper defensive responses. If we don’t understand what we’re up against correctly, we will not defend ourselves properly against it. And that is, unfortunately, in many ways the fix we’re in today.

Thank you.

We are in a fix principally because we have rested on our laurels, and are their war with little understand on our part because we chose not to know our enemy. It makes no difference if we have the biggest, most effective, and most well-equipped army to fight the last war, if we don't know how effective we can be against this enemy whose goals and tactics are formulated to deflect and render impotent mighty armies because, until know we haven't taken the time and effort to get to know our enemy as well as they know us.

Comments

[Mark Alexander]

A warm welcome to the blogsphere, Eleanor!

[Eleanor]

Mark: Great to hear from you. Please visit often.