Monday, September 12, 2005

Investor's Business Daily Is Not Afraid of CAIR

Appeasement and political correctness are endemic in mainstream media (MSM). Muslim advocacy organizations like CAIR and ISNA have enormous influence with our politicians, corporations and media. Widespread documentation of their 'ignore the Islamist behind the curtain' propaganda is willfully ignored, even aggresively avoided. But not Investor's Business Daily. It's founder O'Neill is highly respected on Wall Street, and the IBD is widely read by small investors. They have a website which is excellent, but it's subscription for most of it.

Today they had an excellent excerpt "Jihads: From Muhammad To Atta" from Andrew Bostom's new book The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims just published by Prometheus Books. This may become the next big seller among a growing Islamaware US citizenship after the recent success of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" I am thankful we have a few media outlets that have national recognition and readership that are not afraid to tackle the Islamists. It's just not something you would expect to find in IBD, but the owners obviously do not believe they are beholden to political correctness about fighting the jihad. The Muslims and their apologists must be furious at IBD for these ongoing articles about Jihad.

Writing in Investor’s Business Daily, Andrew Bostom sums up the doctrine of jihad as it has been taught and practiced for over a thousand years.

Jihads: From Muhammad To Atta by Andrew Bostom

We Americans, with our singular heritage of religious freedom, endeavor to think the best of all faiths. But the past four years—since Sept. 11—have challenged our accustomed ecumenism.

The questions arise: How much do we actually understand about Islam, and is it compatible with liberal democratic ideals that evolved, uniquely, in the West?

Elected leaders tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Muslim terrorists who destroyed New York’s World Trade Center, slaughtering 3,000 noncombatants, adhered to a perverted form of their own faith. Muslim leaders in America now routinely condemn terrorist acts against innocent civilians.

“Islam considers the use of terrorism to be unacceptable for any purpose,” declared the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) after the recent bombings in London, also perpetrated by Muslims. “MPAC condemns the exploitation of people and issues, regardless of the perpetrators and their justifications.”

Although Muslim spokesmen may condemn the killing of innocents—neglecting to make explicit who “qualifies” as innocent—few have spoken up to condemn and disown the Islamic doctrine of jihad. The reason may be that jihad, which means “to strive in the path of Allah,” is so much a part of Islamic faith and history, it represents a permanent Muslim institution.

The foundations of the institution are found in the Quran. Sura (chapter) 9 is devoted in its entirety to war proclamations. There we read that the Muslim faithful are to “slay the idolaters wherever you find them. . . . Fight against such as those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah. . . . Go forth, light-armed and heavyarmed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah. That is best for you, if ye but knew.”

From such verses in the Quran and in the “hadith” (i.e., words and deeds of Muhammad, recorded by pious transmitters), Muslim jurists and theologians formulated the Islamic institution of permanent jihad war against non-Muslims to bring the world under Islamic rule (Sharia law).

The consensus on the nature of jihad from major schools of Islamic jurisprudence is clear. Summarizing this consensus of centuries of Islamic thought, Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, who died in 1406, wrote:

“In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty because of the universalism of the mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense.”

Only Islam, Ibn Khaldun added, “is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Muhammad himself started things off with a series of proto-jihad campaigns to subdue the Jews, Christians and pagans of Arabia. Within a century of his death in 632, the jihad wars of his successors had expanded the Muslim empire from Portugal to Pakistan. Later Muslim conquests continued in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe.

The Christian kingdoms of Armenia, Byzantium, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Croatia and Albania, in addition to parts of Poland, Hungary and Romania, were conquered and Islamized. Arab Muslim invaders also engaged in continuous jihad raids that ravaged and enslaved sub-Saharan African animist populations, extending to southern Sudan.

When the Ottoman Muslim armies were stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683, over a millennium of jihad had transpired.

These tremendous military successes spawned a triumphalist jihad literature. Muslim historians recorded in detail the number of infidels slain, or enslaved and deported, the cities and villages pillaged, and the lands, treasure and movable goods seized.

Christian and Hebrew sources, and even the scant Hindu and Buddhist writings that survived the ravages of the Muslim conquests, independently validate this narrative and complement the Muslim perspective by providing testimonies of the suffering of the non-Muslim victims of jihad wars.

A prominent 14th-century Muslim treatise on jihad written by Ibn Hudayl revealed the violent methods employed during the conquest of the Iberian peninsula:

“It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden—if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them—as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word to do everything that might ruin and discourage him.”

Terrorism was often a prelude to conquest. The Muslim historian al-Maqqari, commenting in the 17th century on the brutal tactics of Arab raiders, wrote, “Allah thus instilled such fear among the infidels that they did not dare to go and fight the conquerors; they only approached them as suppliants, to beg for peace.”

Later centuries saw Muslim fortunes decline. Many conquered lands liberated themselves from Muslim rule. But the ideology of jihad was handed down unchanged to all future Muslim generations.

“Even today, the study of the jihad is part of the curriculum of all the Islamic institutes,” wrote Lebanese law professor Antoine Fattal in 1958. “In the universities of Al-Azhar, Najaf and Zaitoune, students are still taught that the holy war (jihad war) is a binding prescriptive decree, pronounced against the Infidels, which will only be revoked with the end of the world.”

Sadly, almost 50 years since Fattal made his observations, learning the Manichean theory of jihad war remains an integral part of the formal education of many Muslim youth.

The historical record demonstrates that this jihad war theory has been put into practice by Muslims across the globe for well over a millennium through present times.

This fourth anniversary of the carnage of 9-11—caused by a major act of jihad terrorism—would be an appropriate occasion for contemporary Muslim clerical and ruling elites to formally acknowledge, renounce and begin dismantling the devastating Islamic institution of jihad war.

Andrew Bostom is an associate professor of medicine and the author of “The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims,” just published by Prometheus Books.


Anonymous said...

Brilliant. You're just nailing it, as usual. IBD is indeed one of the few mainstream media outlets (there is also the Washington Times and... er... that's it) that is now afraid of speaking out on the subject of jihad.

Hopefully, more will come.

Anonymous said...

please read "not" in place of "now" in the post above.

Anonymous said...

The historical record demonstrates that this jihad war theory has been put into practice by Muslims across the globe for well over a millennium through present times.

So, what we're seeing today is not a hijacking at all. The pc propagandists just don't want that truth to get out.

Dag said...

I spend a lot of time boring my readers with the history and background of what is today called "politically correct" ideology.

Let's look at what "politically correct" means: In Stalin's early career as dictator and mass murderer he convinced the people of the Soviet Union and Communists abroad that linguistics is a superstructure on the base mode of production, i.e. that language is in conformity with the way social relations are organized in a particular way of economies.

Not clear? Well, if you live in a capitalist system you speak in terms of capitalist production; you speak in term of bosses having the right to take the profit of your labour from you; they alienate you from the product of your labour. You make something, they take that something, skim the profit, which is your labour value, and take the profit for themselves by right of...what?

That is the process of mystification. You, dear reader, are left in the dark, going to work for a man who takes the product of your labour and gives you in exchange for it-- mere money. And since you are in the dark about how and why this happens, being unenlightened as you are by the ways of language made to confuse you about your state of alienation, you are either sympathetic to the system as it is, in which case you are falsely conscious of your own life and relationship to the state and the nature of your own life, i.e. you are living inauthentically, or you are completely stupified by the opiates of capitalism, such as religion, a thing deliberately concocted to make you stupid and unaware of your exploitation.

There is reality as proposed by the evil conspiracies of capitalism, through it's devilish use of religion and linguistics, and then there is real understanding, available only to those truly conscious of the historical reality as it is, known to those who have mastered the intricacies of Marxism/Lenisnism, the understanding of historical dialectics and the scientific socialism that must follow inevitably even if it is resisted by counter revolutionaries and reactionaries.

Those who will not listen to the party analysis are not getting the real story of reality as it is so obviously so and true if only they understood the nature of the historical dialectic. People don't "get it' partly because they are corrupted in their thinking by the nature of capitalist forms of speech. Reality for the worker unenlightened by Communist analysis is false. Reality itself is not objective, it is politically generated for and by the mode of production: in a Cummunist state, reality itself is Communist, and therefore more real because unalienated. For those poor fools who don't live in an enlightened Communist state, they still speak, and therefore think in false terms. Politics, therefore, is reality, and if ones political reality is vitiated by capitalism, it is inncorrect, politically incorrect. Reality is a political construct. Nothing is right or wrong, there is only the correct or the incorrect according to the politic of production.

I spend a great deal of time trying to lay out the history of this ideology of the Left, beginning for the most part with the Counter-Enlightenment of 1790, a reaction against the Modernity of the French Revolution and the spread thereof by Napoleon inot, among other places, the German Principalities.

I look as often as I think my readers will bear, at the origins of this ideology. I deal with von Herder and Fichte, for example, and the linguistic basis of the origins of German fascism and anti-semitism, today alive and well at home in the Left politic.

It's my major premis that the Muslims we face as our enemies are merely proxies used by a fascist movement to defeat the forces of universal Modernity in favor of neo-feudalism and the restoration of privilege and entitlement.

My opinion here is that the civil servants of old are the civil servant of today, the mediocrites of the ages who wish to destroy the valid and the real in order to restore the rule of the idiocies of rural living, as Marx puts it so nicely.

The weazpons of choice for the mediocrites are autarky ineconomics, i.e. anti-globalism, anti-capitalism, and fascist enviornmentalism based on Romance fascism; and obscurantism in the intellectual and social realms, i.e. New Think and Double Speak.

I do go on. In fact, I go on daily at great length on these topics. If you would like to cntribute to this discussion and add your essays I would welcome any expertise, whether you agree or not.My feeling is that the worst enemy we face is ignorance, and disagreement opens up the debate to those who might learn more than they bargain for by simply reading other points of view, a possibility that is increasingly doomed in the mainstream media.

Good to see you at JW.

Love your book reviews.

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,

徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦

Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社