Islamic culture is based upon a strict series of rules that govern virtually every aspect of a devout Muslim's life. Unfortunately, when there is a non-Muslim minority in a country dominated by Sharia they must also live under its guidelines or face severe penalties. I have already discussed this topic in my previous post "Better Dead than Dhimmi" but now I want to discuss a very specific aspect of dhimmitude: the jizya. The jizya is a poll tax levied against any "protected" people, or dhimmis. The jizya is what America's Founding Fathers would have called "taxation without representation;" that is, those who pay this tax are not allowed an active voice in how that money is spent. It is extortion plain and simple that serves two purposes: it funnels wealth from the productive class of farmers and craftsmen to a consumer class of soldiers and bureaucrats while serving as a constant reminder to Jews, Christians, and Hindus (among select others) of their inferiority. This tax was established to break any possible spirit to resist Islamic occupation among conquered (and unconverted) peoples as well as deny them the funds and resources to put up a fight.
Since the glorious events of the Arab Spring, there has been extensive talk about the establishment of a new Caliphate (discussed in the previous post "Keys to the Caliphate"). Sharia-based governments are springing (no pun intended) up all over the Middle East. Naturally, with the world economy the way it is right now, some very influential Muslim scholars have called for the official return of the jizya to help cover costs. Nowhere is this talk more rampant than Egypt. Egypt's Coptic population has been a target of violence and discrimination for decades, but the heat has really been turned up in the months since Mubarak's exit. Recent testimony to the United States House of Representatives by Cynthia Farahat has provided insight as to why the Copts have been so persecuted: "The large and educated minority of Copts in Egypt is the biggest obstacle for Islamists to turn Egypt into another Iran or another Saudi Arabia." Such a large, educated minority of non-believers is the perfect target for repressive taxes designed to transfer wealth toward the least productive elements of Islamic societies.
Ahmed Imran of Egypt's Salafi "Party of Light" said, "I say to those who fear we might govern, that it was the Muslims who liberated the Copts from Roman slaughter and that Copts are obligated to pay the jizya, and it will only be half a dinar, taken from the rich and given to the poor." Wow, somebody's been watching re-runs of old Robin Hood movies, haven't they? If you were listening to that speech, you could be forgiven for mistaking the position of the "Party of Light" with the position of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. Actually, there really isn't a mistake: it's the same position. Socialists, Communists, and Islamists all want someone else to pick up the tab for their lifestyles. This is one reason that they all work well together despite what may seem like irreconcilable differences (the whole "Religion is the opiate of the masses" thing doesn't mesh well with Islamic fervor). Once the actual productive members of society are either exterminated or dominated, the various "-ism" groups will fight for power. But that is the subject of another article for another day.
The words of Koran 9:29 may sum it up best: "Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day...until they pay the jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." The purpose of targeted economic pressure is to express dominance, whether over dhimmis or the German Jews of the 1930s. That is why the Founding Fathers chose the issue of taxation as the hill that they were willing to die on. They understood that the ability of a free man to control his destiny is inexorably linked to his ability to control his wealth. When a portion of that wealth is claimed by someone who has not earned it, whether a government bureaucrat or an Islamic invader, you lose a portion of your self-determination.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Back in Action
For those of you who didn't notice last week's post, my temporary break has come to an end. I will be changing my posting schedule so that new posts will be up every weekend instead of specifically Fridays. This will allow me a bit more leeway. The alternating Mondays poll schedule will not change. Look for a full post tomorrow. It's good to be back.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Iran: The Coming Conflict
For over three decades, the Iranian regime has been a major player among the world's bad guys. Granted, at the time of the Iranian Revolution most of the world was still overwhelmingly concerned with a little spat called the Cold War, but we should have been paying attention to the long-term. Iran waged a brutal war with Iraq (hard to know who to root for in that one) and became the key supporter for terrorist groups in the region and beyond. But in the 21st century, the Iranians have upped the ante by seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. While the majority of the speculation focuses on a genocide against Israel (and not without reason), none of the Sunni-majority nations are eager to see the Iranians gain such devastating capabilities. There is a sort of dreadful certainty among anyone paying attention to these events that we are rapidly approaching a point of no return, although what that point looks like and what it will mean are still unclear.
While the world may seem on the brink of war, in some ways the fighting has already started. The Iranians have spent decades playing in the shadows, and their games are starting to get serious. Iranian intelligence services are engaging in an information blitz, trying to dominate the intelligence game in the region from the very start of any conflict. The Iranians have also been working on electronic warfare, which could reduce the advantage of technically superior Israeli or American forces. The Iranians have already hacked the so-called "virtual embassy" set up by the American State Department, and they claim to have taken control of a RQ-170 drone that appears to have crashed in Iran. The Iranians are also growing increasingly fearful of conflict, particularly because of the destabilization of Syria, a key Iranian ally. The Iranian regime has also been heavily invested in a propaganda campaign in the Middle East, and especially in the Arabian Peninsula. But perhaps the most disturbing move made by the Iranian regime has been the recent string of targeted assassinations against Saudi diplomats.
While we watch the Iranians carefully, we must not forget about their proxy groups such as Hezbollah. In fact, one deterrent against an Israeli strike on Iran has been the threat of retribution by Hezbollah forces. The terror group has acquired thousands of rockets, including a large delivery from Syria, and have them aimed at every square inch of Israeli territory. That is a reality Israelis have be forced to deal with for years. Any military action against Iran will likely spark a new war between Israel and the Hezbollah-led Lebanon, with the possibility that Syria may join the fighting (if their troops are not too busy butchering their own people).
As bad as things look at the moment, Israel and the United States (if we get some real leadership in Washington, D.C.) will have unexpected allies against Iranian aggression. The Saudis, who are getting pretty peeved about the whole "assassinations" thing, are one group that we can be reasonably sure will support any action that will eliminate their primary threat in the region. Saudi Arabia is still the powerhouse of the Middle East and does not want to surrender that title to some wacky Persians (and Shias, to boot!). They have even been strengthening their ties to Pakistan (who is also uncomfortably close to Iran and does not want to be stuck between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear India) in the hopes of acquiring a few nuclear weapons of their own as a deterrent to Iranian aggression. The Turkish government has also expressed serious concerns about Iran. Turkish Ambassador Namik Tan said rather pointedly, "We cannot tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon." However, he didn't go so far as to say, "We'll even support those yucky Jews if we have to."
Yet there may be a path that does not require open warfare and the devastation it will inevitably produce on an already reeling world economy. The major Western powers need to get serious about supporting the Iranian resistance (and, while we're at it, the resistance in Syria, as well). The Iranian regime appears strong, but it is brittle. I have already written about some of the internal vulnerability in my previous post "Modern Janissaries: Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps." The Ayhotollahs need to keep their people in fear of the outside so that they will not rise up against them. We need to challenge that. For one thing, Christian evangelism efforts must be stepped up and openly supported by the West. Christianity is spreading quickly in Iran, and recent crackdowns have been a direct result of that surge in popularity. Another problem facing the regime is the widespread series of strikes. The regime has, like all other totalitarian systems, ruined much of the country's economic sector and now is facing some of the consequences. Opposition forces in Iran are better organized than the regime would like to admit, and are believed to be responsible for a series of attacks against Revolutionary Guard bases, refineries, and pipelines.
Whatever we may be doing, the Iranians are certainly getting ready for war. The Revolutionary Guard has been ordered to operational readiness status. The Iranians are alert. The question now is, "Are we?"
While the world may seem on the brink of war, in some ways the fighting has already started. The Iranians have spent decades playing in the shadows, and their games are starting to get serious. Iranian intelligence services are engaging in an information blitz, trying to dominate the intelligence game in the region from the very start of any conflict. The Iranians have also been working on electronic warfare, which could reduce the advantage of technically superior Israeli or American forces. The Iranians have already hacked the so-called "virtual embassy" set up by the American State Department, and they claim to have taken control of a RQ-170 drone that appears to have crashed in Iran. The Iranians are also growing increasingly fearful of conflict, particularly because of the destabilization of Syria, a key Iranian ally. The Iranian regime has also been heavily invested in a propaganda campaign in the Middle East, and especially in the Arabian Peninsula. But perhaps the most disturbing move made by the Iranian regime has been the recent string of targeted assassinations against Saudi diplomats.
While we watch the Iranians carefully, we must not forget about their proxy groups such as Hezbollah. In fact, one deterrent against an Israeli strike on Iran has been the threat of retribution by Hezbollah forces. The terror group has acquired thousands of rockets, including a large delivery from Syria, and have them aimed at every square inch of Israeli territory. That is a reality Israelis have be forced to deal with for years. Any military action against Iran will likely spark a new war between Israel and the Hezbollah-led Lebanon, with the possibility that Syria may join the fighting (if their troops are not too busy butchering their own people).
As bad as things look at the moment, Israel and the United States (if we get some real leadership in Washington, D.C.) will have unexpected allies against Iranian aggression. The Saudis, who are getting pretty peeved about the whole "assassinations" thing, are one group that we can be reasonably sure will support any action that will eliminate their primary threat in the region. Saudi Arabia is still the powerhouse of the Middle East and does not want to surrender that title to some wacky Persians (and Shias, to boot!). They have even been strengthening their ties to Pakistan (who is also uncomfortably close to Iran and does not want to be stuck between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear India) in the hopes of acquiring a few nuclear weapons of their own as a deterrent to Iranian aggression. The Turkish government has also expressed serious concerns about Iran. Turkish Ambassador Namik Tan said rather pointedly, "We cannot tolerate Iran having a nuclear weapon." However, he didn't go so far as to say, "We'll even support those yucky Jews if we have to."
Yet there may be a path that does not require open warfare and the devastation it will inevitably produce on an already reeling world economy. The major Western powers need to get serious about supporting the Iranian resistance (and, while we're at it, the resistance in Syria, as well). The Iranian regime appears strong, but it is brittle. I have already written about some of the internal vulnerability in my previous post "Modern Janissaries: Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps." The Ayhotollahs need to keep their people in fear of the outside so that they will not rise up against them. We need to challenge that. For one thing, Christian evangelism efforts must be stepped up and openly supported by the West. Christianity is spreading quickly in Iran, and recent crackdowns have been a direct result of that surge in popularity. Another problem facing the regime is the widespread series of strikes. The regime has, like all other totalitarian systems, ruined much of the country's economic sector and now is facing some of the consequences. Opposition forces in Iran are better organized than the regime would like to admit, and are believed to be responsible for a series of attacks against Revolutionary Guard bases, refineries, and pipelines.
Whatever we may be doing, the Iranians are certainly getting ready for war. The Revolutionary Guard has been ordered to operational readiness status. The Iranians are alert. The question now is, "Are we?"
Friday, November 4, 2011
Short Break
Unfortunately, due to the demands of an outside project I will have to temporarily postpone new blog posts for the next month or so. In the case of breaking news stories or other important events I will put up new posts as I can. There will also continue to be new polls every other Monday, so keep visiting. I will do my best to keep this break as short as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Sharia: 3-Democracy: 0
Ah, just smell that Spring air. The Arab Spring, that is. What a glorious example of oppressed peoples rising against tyrannical governments in order to achieve freedom. Why, it's just like 1776 all over again and- wait, what's that? All of the countries that have seen real changes (Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya) are adopting hardcore Sharia as the basis for their new governments? But... but Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that the Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular." Okay, some people like Glenn Beck pointed out the dangers of the Arab Spring from the very beginning, but that guy is "really angry" (Business Insider), "delusional" (David Brooks), engaging in "hysteria" and brings to mind "Robert Welch and the John Birch Society" (William Kristol). Plenty of these useful idiots on both the Right and Left have been trying to put their words into the mouths of the revolutionaries (after all, it's not like any of these commentators actually understand Arabic) in order to advance their own agendas. The academic Left sees it as an end to "imperialism" or "neo-colonialism" or whatever other "ism" has earned their ire (simply because they've been told it's bad) and the revolutionary Left sees both a collection of kindred spirits and a means to further destabilize things. Meanwhile those on the Right who support the revolutionaries see the Arab Spring as a fulfillment of the Bush-era idea that Islamism will be halted by spreading democracy in the region. Oops.
While tensions have been high for years, it was the revolution in Tunisia that really kicked off the landslide. Dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (try saying that three times fast), who had not really faced any well-organized opposition up until that point, was overwhelmed by the sudden uprisings. In a stunning turn of events, Ben Ali resigned and fled to Saudi Arabia less than a month after the riots began. The international media rejoiced. The plucky underdogs had defeated the oppressive regime, and they had done it quickly enough that the viewing public had not grown bored with it. Of course, in all the excitement no one bothered asking, "How did these uprising spring up so fast, and who was coordinating them?" Well, now we have at least some idea. The Islamist party Ennahda, which was banned by Ben Ali, won the election and took control of the government. While the media has portrayed Ennahda as "moderate" (at least they didn't say "largely secular"), the group was founded according to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb (one of the major theorists of modern Islamism) and has been tied to a series of terrorists attacks. The Tunisian group still maintains close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and have also reached out to Turkey's AK party (see "Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey" for more on them). Ennahda has made the imposition of Sharia one of its top priorities. Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda's founder and leader, defended the move. "Sharia is not something that is strange or alien to our societies... For example, in Britain we have Islamic finance and Islamic banking, and Islamic family law can be applied for marriage and divorce."
In other words: Sharia Law- Coming Soon To A City Near You!
Egypt was the next domino to topple. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt and has engaged in acts of assassination and terror against the government for the better part of a century. Now they have formed an official political party for the first time since 1954, known as the Freedom and Justice Party, and are poised to make big gains in parliamentary elections. Meanwhile, Egypt's Coptic Christian population has suffered tremendous persecution since Mubarak was deposed (to be fair, it wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops while Mubarak was in power). One event on October 9th, which would see the worst violence since Mubarak's fall from power, involved a massive mob that attacked a group of Christians who were protesting for better conditions in central Cairo. Rather than prevent the Muslim mob from beating, stabbing, and shooting the Christians, the security forces either stood by to watch or actively joined in the fray, including one incident in which a security van smashed into a crowd of Copts. When the dust settled, over twenty-five people were dead and hundreds more injured. To make matters worse, the military (the same ones that failed to stop the violence) have used the massacre as a tool to further strengthen their grip on the country.
While Ben Ali and Mubarak agreed with Shakespeare's Falstaff that "The better part of valor is discretion," Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi decided to stay and fight the revolutionaries that threatened to overthrow him. It worked in the short-term. Ghaddafi stayed in power much longer than Ben Ali or Mubarak had. But in the end, thanks in no small part to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi ended up with a bullet in the head. I've already written a post on this subject. However, it is worth repeating that the same people who very likely executed their prisoner in cold blood and are suspected to be responsible for mass graves have taken control of the government. At least Ghaddafi waited until he was in charge before committing war crimes. Some experts believe that Libya could be the next Afghanistan, run by a radical Taliban-style government and a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Already the National Transitional Council under Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has declared that they will follow a more strict interpretation of Islamic law than many Western analysts predicted (go figure). Included in the new decrees were orders to reverse the ban on polygamy (Muslim men can have up to four wives under Sharia) and to forbid banks from charging interest in accordance with Sharia regulations.
We face an interesting dilemma when looking at the Arab world: every leader is tyrant on some level and as (mostly) freedom-loving people we despise tyrants. However, the current attitude of "We should support any movement to topple these dictators" is incredibly nihilistic. There are many in the West who say, "Who cares that Sharia is taking hold of these countries? That's what they want." The problem is that whenever a democracy votes itself into a dictatorship, it doesn't simply return to a democracy during the next election cycle. The German people elected Hitler, but it wasn't like the Nazis just said, "Okay, well we've been a totalitarian nightmare, but our term is up so we're going to go home." What happens if the people decide they don't want to be governed by Sharia any more? It has been so entrenched in the system that it would take another revolution, and a much bloodier one at that, to simply give people the option. And for those of you who still don't give a flying crap about the people in the Middle East (which probably aren't a lot if you've come to this blog), consider that these radical regimes are sitting on significant natural resources as well as critical supply choke points like the Suez Canal.
So now we know what "democracy" looks like: women in burkas, polygamy, virulent anti-Semitism and brutal apostasy laws. It doesn't appear as much like 1776 as it does 776.
While tensions have been high for years, it was the revolution in Tunisia that really kicked off the landslide. Dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (try saying that three times fast), who had not really faced any well-organized opposition up until that point, was overwhelmed by the sudden uprisings. In a stunning turn of events, Ben Ali resigned and fled to Saudi Arabia less than a month after the riots began. The international media rejoiced. The plucky underdogs had defeated the oppressive regime, and they had done it quickly enough that the viewing public had not grown bored with it. Of course, in all the excitement no one bothered asking, "How did these uprising spring up so fast, and who was coordinating them?" Well, now we have at least some idea. The Islamist party Ennahda, which was banned by Ben Ali, won the election and took control of the government. While the media has portrayed Ennahda as "moderate" (at least they didn't say "largely secular"), the group was founded according to the teachings of Sayyid Qutb (one of the major theorists of modern Islamism) and has been tied to a series of terrorists attacks. The Tunisian group still maintains close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and have also reached out to Turkey's AK party (see "Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey" for more on them). Ennahda has made the imposition of Sharia one of its top priorities. Rachid Ghannouchi, Ennahda's founder and leader, defended the move. "Sharia is not something that is strange or alien to our societies... For example, in Britain we have Islamic finance and Islamic banking, and Islamic family law can be applied for marriage and divorce."
In other words: Sharia Law- Coming Soon To A City Near You!
Egypt was the next domino to topple. The Muslim Brotherhood was formed in Egypt and has engaged in acts of assassination and terror against the government for the better part of a century. Now they have formed an official political party for the first time since 1954, known as the Freedom and Justice Party, and are poised to make big gains in parliamentary elections. Meanwhile, Egypt's Coptic Christian population has suffered tremendous persecution since Mubarak was deposed (to be fair, it wasn't exactly sunshine and lollipops while Mubarak was in power). One event on October 9th, which would see the worst violence since Mubarak's fall from power, involved a massive mob that attacked a group of Christians who were protesting for better conditions in central Cairo. Rather than prevent the Muslim mob from beating, stabbing, and shooting the Christians, the security forces either stood by to watch or actively joined in the fray, including one incident in which a security van smashed into a crowd of Copts. When the dust settled, over twenty-five people were dead and hundreds more injured. To make matters worse, the military (the same ones that failed to stop the violence) have used the massacre as a tool to further strengthen their grip on the country.
While Ben Ali and Mubarak agreed with Shakespeare's Falstaff that "The better part of valor is discretion," Libya's Moammar Ghaddafi decided to stay and fight the revolutionaries that threatened to overthrow him. It worked in the short-term. Ghaddafi stayed in power much longer than Ben Ali or Mubarak had. But in the end, thanks in no small part to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi ended up with a bullet in the head. I've already written a post on this subject. However, it is worth repeating that the same people who very likely executed their prisoner in cold blood and are suspected to be responsible for mass graves have taken control of the government. At least Ghaddafi waited until he was in charge before committing war crimes. Some experts believe that Libya could be the next Afghanistan, run by a radical Taliban-style government and a safe haven for Islamic terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. Already the National Transitional Council under Mustafa Abdul-Jalil has declared that they will follow a more strict interpretation of Islamic law than many Western analysts predicted (go figure). Included in the new decrees were orders to reverse the ban on polygamy (Muslim men can have up to four wives under Sharia) and to forbid banks from charging interest in accordance with Sharia regulations.
We face an interesting dilemma when looking at the Arab world: every leader is tyrant on some level and as (mostly) freedom-loving people we despise tyrants. However, the current attitude of "We should support any movement to topple these dictators" is incredibly nihilistic. There are many in the West who say, "Who cares that Sharia is taking hold of these countries? That's what they want." The problem is that whenever a democracy votes itself into a dictatorship, it doesn't simply return to a democracy during the next election cycle. The German people elected Hitler, but it wasn't like the Nazis just said, "Okay, well we've been a totalitarian nightmare, but our term is up so we're going to go home." What happens if the people decide they don't want to be governed by Sharia any more? It has been so entrenched in the system that it would take another revolution, and a much bloodier one at that, to simply give people the option. And for those of you who still don't give a flying crap about the people in the Middle East (which probably aren't a lot if you've come to this blog), consider that these radical regimes are sitting on significant natural resources as well as critical supply choke points like the Suez Canal.
So now we know what "democracy" looks like: women in burkas, polygamy, virulent anti-Semitism and brutal apostasy laws. It doesn't appear as much like 1776 as it does 776.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Dictator Is Dead. Long Live the Dictator.
I apologize for my failure to post the last couple of weeks. A combination of distractions and computer malfunctions are to blame, but I will do my best to make up for lost time. Stay tuned over the coming week for more posts, but until then here's something to whet your appetite.
It has been a couple of months since Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi became the former Libyan dictator. Now he has officially become the late Moammar Ghaddafi after a chaotic gun battle in his hometown of Sirte resulted in a fatal wound to the head. The interesting part about this story is that Ghaddafi was captured alive and in relatively good condition before being killed "in the crossfire." I've heard a couple of theories from people skeptical of the official story regarding how a healthy captive became a decidedly unhealthy corpse. There are those who think Ghaddafi was killed by his own side in order to save them the embarrassment of being seen as following a criminal (if he was brought to trial). I think that a complete lack of discipline is to blame, either on the side of the insurgents (or new rulers, I guess) or on the side of Ghaddafi loyalists. But it would not surprise me for one second to find out that orders had come down from the very top of what passes for a chain of command among the Libyan revolutionaries that Ghaddafi was to be executed on the spot.
Ultimately finding who is to blame is not important. The die has been cast, and it is too late to turn back. Ghaddafi's death changed the game for the so-called Arab Spring, which until that point had seen the relatively peaceful transfer of power. This could be an important threshold and, unfortunately, we could see an upswing in violence in the remaining revolutions in the Arab world. After all, the revolutionaries will notice that violence took down Ghaddafi, so they must be wondering why it couldn't take down the government of Syria or Yemen?
An interesting question that I have is, "Okay, what is going to happen to the NATO forces deployed to Libya?" Political leaders around the world have been giving speeches about how the Libyans have now achieved their freedom. That makes for lovely little sound bites, but already the country appears to be devolving along regional and ethnic lines. If that happens we could see a significant upswing in violence as disparate groups fight for territory, resources, and influence rather than work together to properly run Libya's government. In such a case there are really two possible outcomes: the new government is too weak to keep the country from collapse or the new government will crack down on any troublemakers to preempt any civil unrest. Remember, the revolutionaries have not won a contest proving that they are more capable caretakers of Libya than Ghaddafi was. They have simply shown that they are willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Is there an actual depth to their abilities, or are they a one-trick pony? Look at the celebrations in Libya because Ghaddafi is dead. Not necessarily that they are free, but that their enemy is no longer living. That is a bit chilling when you think about it. When faced with the challenge of running a troubled nation, the gut reaction of the revolutionaries will be the use of force. And the one who can use that force best will naturally rise to the top. That is not to say they are doomed to a dictatorship, merely that the odds lie heavily stacked against them.
Something has seemed off about the Libyan revolution from the very beginning. I do not think that even a man like Ghaddafi deserved to die like he did, but ultimately it was inevitable. While the world cheers (including some of those who cried foul about bin Laden and al-Awlaki), Libya faces a difficult future. I know that there are many Libyans who sincerely seek a peaceful, stable government without oppression. But will they stand by and watch silently as the new government picks up where Ghaddafi left off as long as they are now the ones with power, or will they continue to stand against anyone who would rule by fear and intimidation? More importantly, how will the new government interact with the extreme Islamist elements at work in North Africa and within their own movement? Would they embrace the idea of a Caliphate with open arms or truly stand for independence?
One final thought: Obama made the announcement to the Libyan people that, "You have won your revolution." If Libya collapses into anarchy, and especially if there is a cry for renewed NATO operations, will we hear the media drone on and on about how mistaken Obama's speech was like they did to George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Then again, it was the same media that ignored the fact that Bush's speech was actually about how much harder things were going to be in Iraq, so perhaps we shouldn't expect too much from them.
It has been a couple of months since Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi became the former Libyan dictator. Now he has officially become the late Moammar Ghaddafi after a chaotic gun battle in his hometown of Sirte resulted in a fatal wound to the head. The interesting part about this story is that Ghaddafi was captured alive and in relatively good condition before being killed "in the crossfire." I've heard a couple of theories from people skeptical of the official story regarding how a healthy captive became a decidedly unhealthy corpse. There are those who think Ghaddafi was killed by his own side in order to save them the embarrassment of being seen as following a criminal (if he was brought to trial). I think that a complete lack of discipline is to blame, either on the side of the insurgents (or new rulers, I guess) or on the side of Ghaddafi loyalists. But it would not surprise me for one second to find out that orders had come down from the very top of what passes for a chain of command among the Libyan revolutionaries that Ghaddafi was to be executed on the spot.
Ultimately finding who is to blame is not important. The die has been cast, and it is too late to turn back. Ghaddafi's death changed the game for the so-called Arab Spring, which until that point had seen the relatively peaceful transfer of power. This could be an important threshold and, unfortunately, we could see an upswing in violence in the remaining revolutions in the Arab world. After all, the revolutionaries will notice that violence took down Ghaddafi, so they must be wondering why it couldn't take down the government of Syria or Yemen?
An interesting question that I have is, "Okay, what is going to happen to the NATO forces deployed to Libya?" Political leaders around the world have been giving speeches about how the Libyans have now achieved their freedom. That makes for lovely little sound bites, but already the country appears to be devolving along regional and ethnic lines. If that happens we could see a significant upswing in violence as disparate groups fight for territory, resources, and influence rather than work together to properly run Libya's government. In such a case there are really two possible outcomes: the new government is too weak to keep the country from collapse or the new government will crack down on any troublemakers to preempt any civil unrest. Remember, the revolutionaries have not won a contest proving that they are more capable caretakers of Libya than Ghaddafi was. They have simply shown that they are willing and able to use violence to achieve their goals. Is there an actual depth to their abilities, or are they a one-trick pony? Look at the celebrations in Libya because Ghaddafi is dead. Not necessarily that they are free, but that their enemy is no longer living. That is a bit chilling when you think about it. When faced with the challenge of running a troubled nation, the gut reaction of the revolutionaries will be the use of force. And the one who can use that force best will naturally rise to the top. That is not to say they are doomed to a dictatorship, merely that the odds lie heavily stacked against them.
Something has seemed off about the Libyan revolution from the very beginning. I do not think that even a man like Ghaddafi deserved to die like he did, but ultimately it was inevitable. While the world cheers (including some of those who cried foul about bin Laden and al-Awlaki), Libya faces a difficult future. I know that there are many Libyans who sincerely seek a peaceful, stable government without oppression. But will they stand by and watch silently as the new government picks up where Ghaddafi left off as long as they are now the ones with power, or will they continue to stand against anyone who would rule by fear and intimidation? More importantly, how will the new government interact with the extreme Islamist elements at work in North Africa and within their own movement? Would they embrace the idea of a Caliphate with open arms or truly stand for independence?
One final thought: Obama made the announcement to the Libyan people that, "You have won your revolution." If Libya collapses into anarchy, and especially if there is a cry for renewed NATO operations, will we hear the media drone on and on about how mistaken Obama's speech was like they did to George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln? Then again, it was the same media that ignored the fact that Bush's speech was actually about how much harder things were going to be in Iraq, so perhaps we shouldn't expect too much from them.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Palestine? What Palestine?
In recent weeks, one of the leading stories around the world has been the Palestinian push for official statehood by the United Nations. Of course, while the world continues to beg the Israelis to "pursue peace" they conveniently overlook the terrorist acts of the Palestinians. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is perhaps the most high-profile struggle in the modern world. For generations, world leaders have sought to make their mark on history by resolving the issue. But, time and time again, those same leaders have proven a complete lack of understanding of the reality of the situation. The truth of the matter is simple: Palestinians do not have a "right" to a sovereign state, even if Israel returned to the 1967 borders. A bold statement? Perhaps it seems so, but only because the ability to tell even simple truths has been so lacking among the media and political figures who have controlled the debate for decades. Let's examine some of the reasons I can make that statement.
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
1. Who are the Palestinians?
The history of the Middle East is a complex and sweeping epic that would (and has) taken entire libraries to fully catalogue, but in the interest of brevity I'm going to keep things simple and relatively recent. Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1917 at the end of World War I, the British took possession of a chunk of real estate in the Middle East. They named this territory "Palestine," which comes from the name the Roman Empire gave to the region: "Palaestina." The British wanted to help create a homeland for the Jewish people, but they decided to divide the territory between Arabs and Jews. The Arabs were to receive the British Mandate lands east of the Jordan River, an area referred to as Transjordan, while the lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River would be used to help create a Jewish homeland. The Transjordan became the Kingdom of Jordan in 1946 while the term "Palestine" would be used to refer to the rest of the British-held territory. It was from these lands that the Zionists would attempt to make a Jewish state, but the division of the land was not finished yet. Not by a long shot.
2. Why didn't the Arabs get a sovereign state alongside Israel?
The short answer is: they did. Or at least, that was the original plan. In November of 1947 the United Nations adopted the Partition Plan to further divide "Palestine" into two distinct states: one for Arabs and another for Jews. For those of you keeping score at home, that is two times that the British "Palestine" got narrowed down in order to give Arabs land so they would accept a Jewish state in their midst. And so, after the Partition Plan everyone shook hands and went home with nothing but love and peace in their hearts. Right? Eh, not so much. In fact, before the ink was dry a war had erupted between the Jews and Arabs (including an army of foreign fighters from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, and even members of the Muslim Brotherhood from Egypt. Boy, none of those places are causing trouble right now). Despite fighting a numerically superior foe with significant foreign support, the Jews managed to achieve significant victories. In 1948 the British, who had grown tired of getting caught in the cross-fire, decided to pack up and head home for good. On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel was officially created as a sovereign nation. The very next day what had been a not-so-civil war became a massive international conflict with the armies of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia invaded the newly created Israel, hoping to eliminate it before it truly had a chance to begin. Naturally, the Israelis looked around at the massive waves of Arabs swarming towards them, yawned, and started to obliterate all comers. The Israeli fighting forces were so effective that they not only survived (obviously) but they captured significant portions of the lands set aside for the Arabs by the 1947 UN Partition Plan. When a ceasefire was declared in 1949, the remaining Arab lands of the Partition Plan were gobbled up by other Arab countries. The West Bank was seized by the Kingdom of Jordan. Meanwhile, the All-Palestine Government was set up in Gaza City by the Arab League, but it was not recognized by any non-Arab country. In reality, the Egyptians ruled the Gaza Strip completely, though they never officially annexed the land. While the Jordanians offered the people of the West Bank citizenship, no such offers were made by the Egyptians who kept the people of the Gaza Strip in refugee communities that relied heavily on the UN. When someone tells you how horrible the Israeli "occupation" is, bring up the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip or even the not-as-brutal Jordanian annexation.
3. If Israel returned to the 1967 borders, who would claim the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
President Obama made quite a stir when he said that the Israelis should expect a return to 1967 borders "with mutually agreed swaps" as part of peace negotiations. But think about it. During the Six Day War Gaza and the West Bank were not part of some Palestinian territory that got bulldozed in the fighting. Gaza was Egyptian territory while the West Bank was held by the Kingdom of Jordan. So, if we were to return to 1967 borders those lands should be returned to the country that owned them before their capture. If a Palestinian homeland is such a big deal, why are the Israelis the only ones expected to give away land? Where were the desperate pleas for a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank while those areas were turned into hellholes by the Palestinians' so called "allies" prior to 1967? The answer to that one is easy: prior to the Six Day War, it was believed in the Muslim world that a united Arab army would easily sweep the Jews into the sea and then the Arab world could truly unite and become a world power in their own right (maybe even restore a Caliphate). Only it didn't happen that way. Twice. So Arabs like Yassar Arafat decided to change tactics and began twisting history to tell a tragic tale of stolen lands and trampled rights that played right into the revolutionary mood sweeping across the world in the late '60s and into the '70s, particularly in America, hoping to turn the world's opinion against Israel. After that, it was simple inertia. Decades of propaganda have turned the story of Israel's stand against a sea of totalitarian enemies into a story of Israeli hatred and oppression. It is time we changed that. The tale of Israel is one of miracles, triumph, and hope in a dark world. What greater inspiration is there?
Of course this only scratches the surface of the true history of the Israeli/Arab conflict. I hope that this will be a beginning for you to seek out more of Israel's amazing true history. I have several links I will post at the bottom so you can continue to learn. I will close with a final observation. One of the Arab claims since the failed war of 1948 was that the United Nations had no right to create the state of Israel (which is an oversimplification in itself). Why, then, would the Palestinians go to the United Nations and seek a similar process? Using their own logic, would that Palestinian state not be illegal, as well? Round and round the circular logic goes; when it makes sense, no one knows.
Links-
Who Are The Palestinians? (video)
The Truth About The West Bank (video)
The Truth About The Peace Process (video)
Debunking The Palestinian Lie (video)
31 Opportunities for Statehood Squandered in Favor of Genocide
Monday, October 3, 2011
Slight Delay
Due to unforeseen circumstances, I will have to postpone today's post until Wednesday. I apologize for the delay and hopefully everything will be right on track in the near future.
Saturday, October 1, 2011
The Death of Anwar al-Awlaki
al-Qaeda is having a bad year. On May 1st al-Qaeda's founder and earliest financier Osama bin Laden met his well-deserved end by the hand of the elite SEAL Team Six. Now Anwar al-Awlaki, sometimes referred to as the "bin Laden of the Internet" for his use of 21st century electronic media to spread the jihadist message, has joined bin Laden in the great big harem in the sky. The CIA and United States Joint Special Operations Command wiped the influential terrorist off of the map with a drone strike in Yemen earlier today.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
It can be argued that the death of the fiery cleric (a term which now applies quite literally to al-Awlaki) will have a greater operational impact on al-Qaeda than the death of bin Laden almost exactly six months ago. For those of you unaware of al-Awlaki's terrorist resume, he was an incredibly influential imam who was the spiritual mentor of many notorious terrorists. In 2000 al-Awlaki was preaching at a mosque in San Diego attended by Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, two of the 9/11 hijackers. He was investigated by the FBI, but they quickly decided he had no relevant connections to terrorist groups. In early 2001 he moved to Falls Church, Virginia. There he would serve as the spiritual guide for Nawaf al-Hamzi and Hani Hanjour, a third 9/11 hijacker. After praising the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki spent a brief stint in the UK before leaving for sunny south Yemen. In 2006 he spent eighteen months in prison on charges of conspiracy to kidnap an American military attache. But al-Awlaki really hit the big time between December 2008 and June 2009 when he exchanged a series of e-mails with Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan discussing the ethics of engaging in the jihad. Hasan, who attended al-Awlaki's mosque in Falls Church at the same time as 9/11 hijackers al-Hamzi and Hanjour, would go on a murderous rampage that would leave thirteen dead and thirty more injured. In December of 2009, about a month after Fort Hood, a Nigerian man named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (known more commonly as the "Underwear Bomber") tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines jetliner headed for Detroit. Intelligence later revealed that al-Awlaki was involved in the day-to-day operational side of that attack. Abdulmutallab was personally sponsored into a jihadist training camp by al-Awlaki, who then taught the Nigerian techniques for avoiding detection and the precise time to detonate the bomb for maximum casualties. Remember that if someone tries to tell you that al-Awlaki was just a cleric who never actually engaged in terrorism himself.
While al-Awlaki's death has been making the headlines, another important jihadist was killed by the drone strike. Samir Khan, also an American citizen, was the co-editor of al-Qaeda's web magazine "Inspire" before meeting his end courtesy of an American Hellfire missile. Anwar al-Awlaki made a name for himself utilizing the Internet as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His Salafist sermons inspired many zealous Muslims to head to the Middle East and become jihadists. With the release of "Inspire" al-Qaeda was able to give aspiring shaheed, or martyrs, worldwide a training tool that would update regularly. Wannabe terrorists would be able to learn how to execute advanced bombings and other attacks without having to actually go to Yemen or Pakistan (and thus leave a trail for American intelligence agencies). The actual success of "Inspire" is a topic of debate. But whatever way you look at it, the sharp increase in homegrown jihadist threats, such as the attempted bombing of Times Square in May 2010, shows that al-Qaeda hit upon a growing trend. Khan may not get the attention in the media, but he represented a danger to the United States and his work should not be ignored by anyone serious about national security.
Of course, there are those who have released statements condemning the attack. Ron Paul has come out against the strike, telling MSNBC, "I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems." He added, "But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the President assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad." To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!" Ron Paul also came out against the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, saying the attack "absolutely was not necessary." The main concern in the al-Awlaki case seems to be the fact that the cleric is, or was, a citizen of the United States and thus, the argument goes, an assassination order would violate the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial. And I would agree... to a point. It would be incredibly dangerous to give the President or any government entity the authority to assassinate anyone it deems troublesome. But there are a couple of other points to be made. The Sixth Amendment pertains to criminal prosecutions, not attacks on strategic targets in a time of war. As far as al-Awlaki's citizenship is concerned, the US Code states that voluntarily serving in the armed forces of a nation at war with the US is cause for loss of citizenship. Anwar al-Awlaki ran away from the United States to work more directly with al-Qaeda. While al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, they are an organization that is certainly at war with the United States. Under that classification, he has engaged in an action that would cause the loss of citizenship. If he forgot to sign a couple of forms, it was because he was too busy inspiring and training people to murder his former countrymen. This type of warfare has no real precedent, and it is situations like this which will decide what actions the United States will be able to take in the future. Operating by the same hidebound traditions designed to fight a different kind of threat led to disaster on 9/11, and a failure to adapt to a savvy enemy will lead to continued defeat. The targeted assassination program should continue, but there should be severe limitations on who can be put onto it. There is no doubt, however, that the world is a better place without the "bin Laden of the Internet" or his cohorts in jihad.
Because there was no post last week, I will put up another post on Monday along with a new poll.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Keys to the Caliphate
I was unable to post last week due to technical difficulties, but we are back on track this week. Enjoy!
March 3, 1924 is a date that is seared into the collective consciousness of the Islamic world. That is the day that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's government officially abolished the Caliphate and brought an end to the Islamic empire. What is not widely known is that a couple of attempts to continue the Caliphate were made after Ataturk abolished it. King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz claimed the title of Caliph but held onto it for about a year before his dreams of empire were crushed by the ascendant Ibn Saud. The next year a summit was convened in Cairo to determine how to revive the Caliphate, but it was about as effective as an UN General Assembly meeting (I bet the speeches were about the same, too. "We all agree it was the fault of those nasty Jews. Wait, what are we talking about?") Muslims have yearned for a renewed Caliphate for almost a century, but recent events such as the so-called Arab Spring and the rise of Islamism in "secular" Turkey have sparked a discussion among jihadists and Western experts as to the possibility of a reestablished Caliphate. It was Osama bin Laden's dream to unite the Muslim world under the banner of a strong Caliph to challenge the West's superiority, a dream he shared with Islamists all over the world. While he is dead, there are many who are willing to take up his cause. In fact, al-Qaeda even established a timeline broken down into seven stages detailing how Islam would come to dominate the world. Stage Four involved the collapse of the Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East and was predicted to take place between 2010-2013. That's a little spooky, considering that the document revealing this timeline came out six years ago and the whole "Arab Spring" thing just started last December. The Caliphate would officially be established in Stage Five and would then proceed to make open war on the non-Islamic world.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to skip the whole, "Will they? Won't they?" regarding the chances that a new Caliphate will be formed and will instead work under the assumption that it will. Who will be in charge of this united Muslim world, and where will the seat of power be located? The Caliphate is as much a spiritual entity as a political one. There are four countries that I believe are the strongest contenders for the throne, so to speak, each for a unique reason. Let's take a look at the contenders for the keys to the Caliphate. Here they are, in no particular order:
Turkey
At first it may seem the height of irony that the country which abolished the Caliphate would be the one to call a "do-over." But upon reflection, it would make sense. After all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the Islamic Empire at the zenith of its dominance and had control of the Caliphate for about four hundred years. Modern Turkey has a significant amount of military, economic, and diplomatic power. They have been showing increasing hostility to Israel, which is scoring them big points with Islamists around the world. The Turks are also adept at manipulating the international media and Western governments alike to supporting their points of view. The Turks also control major natural gas and oil pipelines from the East into Europe, giving them an extra bit of leverage in political negotiations or times of war. Turkey is a NATO member that boasts an impressively modern military. Turkey's strong resources, influence, and geographic location would make it a formidable challenger for the seat of the new Caliphate.
Egypt
Egypt has played a significant role in Islamic history, a role that historically-minded Muslims would likely take into account. Cairo was the home of the Fatimid Caliphate from 969 until 1171 and would be able to leverage that history into support from Shia Muslims. Egypt was also the center of the powerful Ayyubid dynasty founded by famed Islamic general Saladin. The connection to the man largely responsible for driving the Crusaders out of the Middle East would serve as a powerful propaganda tool (even Saddam Hussein tried to portray himself as a modern Saladin, which is bizarre considering Saladin is Kurdish). Fast forward to 1928 when Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist groups still in existence. The Muslim Brotherhood established the framework of Islamic revolution that has lasted for almost a hundred years and spawned huge numbers of copycats or splinter organizations. It is true that modern Egypt is not as strong as Turkey or as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt has really become the centerpiece of the Arab revolutions and Tahrir Square in particular has been cemented in the mythology of this new international Islamist movement. If, as I believe is possible, these revolutions are intended to bring about a Caliphate then the importance of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab revolutionaries of Cairo should not be underestimated.
Saudi Arabia
Of course, one can never forget the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula. Home to the founder of Islam itself and to the twin spiritual centers of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia holds sway over the religious heart of Islam. Saudi Arabia was also the seat of power for the original Caliphate until Caliph Ali moved it to the Iraqi city of Kufa in 656. And, as mentioned before, the Caliphate survived in the Arabian Peninsula for a brief period after its official abolishment by the Turks.
Islamists may find the best way to get around the problems with the Saudi monarchy is to simply depose them, which would necessarily be a ghastly and dreadfully difficult business but one that could prove inevitable. Should a true Islamist government rise to power, or a coup within the monarchy that would place a more radical member of the royal family on the throne, Saudi Arabia could (and I believe would) put up quite a fight for the right to be the capital of the Caliphate.
Iran
Now, Iran is an interesting case. Persia was always more of an outpost than a real center of political power, despite the fact the Persian empire had been a formidable enemy and the area remained a flourishing cultural center. On a quick side note, both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have some interesting connections to the Nazis. Iran's real historical connection to a new Caliphate would be the tremendous efforts they have made in order to spread the Islamic revolution since 1979. While the Muslim Brotherhood was working toward the same goals, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that really showed how a modern Islamic state could operate. Taking advantage of the Cold War, the Iranian government quickly spread their influence throughout the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has made no secret of its desire to acquire nuclear weapons and to drive the Israelis into the sea (which the politicians insist are mutually exclusive concepts). Iran has also been increasingly friendly with Russia and Venezuela, revealing a network of influence that truly spans the globe. The Iranian government also believes it is their task to help pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who would be the ruler of the entire Muslim world (and naturally a Caliph). One challenge that the Iranians face is the fact that they are Shia while the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and it would be difficult to find common ground when establishing any sort of lasting Caliphate.
What do you think? Is there a country that I missed that you think should be on the list? Which country do you think is most likely to take control of a revived Caliphate? Do you think that a conflict for dominance could lead to open war? Don't forget to send me your Comments!
March 3, 1924 is a date that is seared into the collective consciousness of the Islamic world. That is the day that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's government officially abolished the Caliphate and brought an end to the Islamic empire. What is not widely known is that a couple of attempts to continue the Caliphate were made after Ataturk abolished it. King Hussein bin Ali of Hejaz claimed the title of Caliph but held onto it for about a year before his dreams of empire were crushed by the ascendant Ibn Saud. The next year a summit was convened in Cairo to determine how to revive the Caliphate, but it was about as effective as an UN General Assembly meeting (I bet the speeches were about the same, too. "We all agree it was the fault of those nasty Jews. Wait, what are we talking about?") Muslims have yearned for a renewed Caliphate for almost a century, but recent events such as the so-called Arab Spring and the rise of Islamism in "secular" Turkey have sparked a discussion among jihadists and Western experts as to the possibility of a reestablished Caliphate. It was Osama bin Laden's dream to unite the Muslim world under the banner of a strong Caliph to challenge the West's superiority, a dream he shared with Islamists all over the world. While he is dead, there are many who are willing to take up his cause. In fact, al-Qaeda even established a timeline broken down into seven stages detailing how Islam would come to dominate the world. Stage Four involved the collapse of the Arab dictatorships throughout the Middle East and was predicted to take place between 2010-2013. That's a little spooky, considering that the document revealing this timeline came out six years ago and the whole "Arab Spring" thing just started last December. The Caliphate would officially be established in Stage Five and would then proceed to make open war on the non-Islamic world.
For the purposes of this article, I am going to skip the whole, "Will they? Won't they?" regarding the chances that a new Caliphate will be formed and will instead work under the assumption that it will. Who will be in charge of this united Muslim world, and where will the seat of power be located? The Caliphate is as much a spiritual entity as a political one. There are four countries that I believe are the strongest contenders for the throne, so to speak, each for a unique reason. Let's take a look at the contenders for the keys to the Caliphate. Here they are, in no particular order:
Turkey
At first it may seem the height of irony that the country which abolished the Caliphate would be the one to call a "do-over." But upon reflection, it would make sense. After all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the Islamic Empire at the zenith of its dominance and had control of the Caliphate for about four hundred years. Modern Turkey has a significant amount of military, economic, and diplomatic power. They have been showing increasing hostility to Israel, which is scoring them big points with Islamists around the world. The Turks are also adept at manipulating the international media and Western governments alike to supporting their points of view. The Turks also control major natural gas and oil pipelines from the East into Europe, giving them an extra bit of leverage in political negotiations or times of war. Turkey is a NATO member that boasts an impressively modern military. Turkey's strong resources, influence, and geographic location would make it a formidable challenger for the seat of the new Caliphate.
Egypt
Egypt has played a significant role in Islamic history, a role that historically-minded Muslims would likely take into account. Cairo was the home of the Fatimid Caliphate from 969 until 1171 and would be able to leverage that history into support from Shia Muslims. Egypt was also the center of the powerful Ayyubid dynasty founded by famed Islamic general Saladin. The connection to the man largely responsible for driving the Crusaders out of the Middle East would serve as a powerful propaganda tool (even Saddam Hussein tried to portray himself as a modern Saladin, which is bizarre considering Saladin is Kurdish). Fast forward to 1928 when Hassan al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, one of the oldest Islamist groups still in existence. The Muslim Brotherhood established the framework of Islamic revolution that has lasted for almost a hundred years and spawned huge numbers of copycats or splinter organizations. It is true that modern Egypt is not as strong as Turkey or as wealthy as Saudi Arabia. However, Egypt has really become the centerpiece of the Arab revolutions and Tahrir Square in particular has been cemented in the mythology of this new international Islamist movement. If, as I believe is possible, these revolutions are intended to bring about a Caliphate then the importance of both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Arab revolutionaries of Cairo should not be underestimated.
Saudi Arabia
Of course, one can never forget the desert sands of the Arabian Peninsula. Home to the founder of Islam itself and to the twin spiritual centers of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia holds sway over the religious heart of Islam. Saudi Arabia was also the seat of power for the original Caliphate until Caliph Ali moved it to the Iraqi city of Kufa in 656. And, as mentioned before, the Caliphate survived in the Arabian Peninsula for a brief period after its official abolishment by the Turks.
Islamists may find the best way to get around the problems with the Saudi monarchy is to simply depose them, which would necessarily be a ghastly and dreadfully difficult business but one that could prove inevitable. Should a true Islamist government rise to power, or a coup within the monarchy that would place a more radical member of the royal family on the throne, Saudi Arabia could (and I believe would) put up quite a fight for the right to be the capital of the Caliphate.
Iran
Now, Iran is an interesting case. Persia was always more of an outpost than a real center of political power, despite the fact the Persian empire had been a formidable enemy and the area remained a flourishing cultural center. On a quick side note, both Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood have some interesting connections to the Nazis. Iran's real historical connection to a new Caliphate would be the tremendous efforts they have made in order to spread the Islamic revolution since 1979. While the Muslim Brotherhood was working toward the same goals, it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that really showed how a modern Islamic state could operate. Taking advantage of the Cold War, the Iranian government quickly spread their influence throughout the Middle East by supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah. Under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has made no secret of its desire to acquire nuclear weapons and to drive the Israelis into the sea (which the politicians insist are mutually exclusive concepts). Iran has also been increasingly friendly with Russia and Venezuela, revealing a network of influence that truly spans the globe. The Iranian government also believes it is their task to help pave the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam, who would be the ruler of the entire Muslim world (and naturally a Caliph). One challenge that the Iranians face is the fact that they are Shia while the majority of the Muslim world is Sunni and it would be difficult to find common ground when establishing any sort of lasting Caliphate.
What do you think? Is there a country that I missed that you think should be on the list? Which country do you think is most likely to take control of a revived Caliphate? Do you think that a conflict for dominance could lead to open war? Don't forget to send me your Comments!
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Updates: Hezbollah, Pakistan, Turkey, Oh My!
Instead of a normal article, this week I will be providing updates on some of the stories that I have covered in the past. These updates are organized in the order the original articles were posted.
Iran's Connections in the Western Hemisphere
It is common knowledge in counter-terrorism circles that Iran has been very interested in expanding their operations in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has grown even more chummy over the past few months. As the Western world finds itself increasingly under seige, Tehran and Caracas have bonded over their mutual dislike for anything resembling the culture and society that made the West great. Think of them as being the two old hecklers from "The Muppet Show," except they also like to chuck dynamite onto the stage as well to further destabilize the situation.
Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been busy, as well. They have spent several years securing a position in the Tri-Border Area of South America, something the U.S. intelligence community has been well aware of for quite some time. As mentioned in the original article, Hezbollah has established close ties to powerful drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border. The instability in Mexico is a great way for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to make money, purchase or sell weapons, and trade information and training with the cartels and each other. American and Mexican law enforcement have been tracking increased activity centered around drug and arms trading between terrorist groups and major cartels. To make matters worse, the Cubans have joined in on the game, opening their doors to Hezbollah to establish a real presence on the Caribbean island stragetically located only 90 miles away from the United States. As Iran strengthens its position in the backyard of the most powerful nation on Earth (you don't get to be the "Great Satan" for nothing) it is shocking to see so little attention paid to these stories by the rest of the media.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?
Oh, Pakistan. From your corrupt and strongly Islamist military to the near-constant hell you put your Christian population through, could we really have asked for a better ally? For those of you in the audience that are sarcasm-deficient, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Basically anybody would be a better ally at such a crucial moment (maybe even the Turks, though that ship is sailing fast). As America, and the world, prepares to remember the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, you can bet your bottom dollar (go ahead, it's not really worth much anyway) that right around the corner we'll be hearing about the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. While Iraq, the so-called "bad war," has all but wrapped up, Afghanistan continues to waste American lives, money, and resources. Why is that? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan just not as good as those sent to Iraq? Or could the huge safe zone along the border with Pakistan that allows Taliban troops to move with ease and lukewarm support from our supposed ally have something to do with it? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
In other fun news, an incident occured between Indian and Pakistani forces stationed in Kashmir on Wednesday. The Pakistani's claimed the Indians attacked them without provocation. We should trust them. I mean, it's not like they've lied to us in the past, snuck around our backs to get nukes, or sheltered the most wanted terrorist in the entire history of the world, right? Anyway, a showdown between Pakistan and India would not be in the interest of world peace, but it could provide yet another rallying cry for the global Caliphate that is slowly but surely coming together.
Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey
And finally, we come to Turkey. On the international front, Turkey's relationship with Israel has become rocky, to put it very mildly. They have expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israel has refused to apologize for the flotilla raid last year. Turkey has also said, in spite of a report from the UN which cleared Israel of illegal activity (I know, I had to read that one again, too), they will continue to demand an apology, compensation to the families of the nine people killed, and an official end to the Gaza blockade. In response, Israel laughed so hard that milk squirted out of their nose. Okay, I may have added that last part, but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happened.
I mentioned in my previous article that, after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, it was the constitutional mandate of the Turkish military to prevent the nation from falling back into the grip of Sharia and Islamism. Well, Prime Minister Erdogan will not let a little thing like that stand in his way. Very recently, the head of the Turkish armed forces decided to "retire" at the same time as the officers in charge of Turkey's ground, naval, and air forces. That would be equivilant to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff deciding to spontaneously resign from their posts at the same time. From another perspective, it would be like the entire Supreme Court (as protectors of the Constitution) deciding to retire at the same time for no particular reason. But this little news story received so little attention I didn't even know about it until a couple of weeks ago. As the movement to restore the Caliphate gains steam, it is more than a little ironic that the same country that abolished the Caliphate is jockeying for position as a possible seat of power should a new one arise.
If you have anything you'd like to add to these stories, or perhaps something I may have overlooked, please leave me some Comments below.
Iran's Connections in the Western Hemisphere
It is common knowledge in counter-terrorism circles that Iran has been very interested in expanding their operations in the Western Hemisphere. The relationship between Iranian President Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has grown even more chummy over the past few months. As the Western world finds itself increasingly under seige, Tehran and Caracas have bonded over their mutual dislike for anything resembling the culture and society that made the West great. Think of them as being the two old hecklers from "The Muppet Show," except they also like to chuck dynamite onto the stage as well to further destabilize the situation.
Iran's proxy Hezbollah has been busy, as well. They have spent several years securing a position in the Tri-Border Area of South America, something the U.S. intelligence community has been well aware of for quite some time. As mentioned in the original article, Hezbollah has established close ties to powerful drug cartels along the U.S.-Mexico border. The instability in Mexico is a great way for Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations to make money, purchase or sell weapons, and trade information and training with the cartels and each other. American and Mexican law enforcement have been tracking increased activity centered around drug and arms trading between terrorist groups and major cartels. To make matters worse, the Cubans have joined in on the game, opening their doors to Hezbollah to establish a real presence on the Caribbean island stragetically located only 90 miles away from the United States. As Iran strengthens its position in the backyard of the most powerful nation on Earth (you don't get to be the "Great Satan" for nothing) it is shocking to see so little attention paid to these stories by the rest of the media.
How Do You Solve A Problem Like Pakistan?
Oh, Pakistan. From your corrupt and strongly Islamist military to the near-constant hell you put your Christian population through, could we really have asked for a better ally? For those of you in the audience that are sarcasm-deficient, the answer is a resounding, "Yes!" Basically anybody would be a better ally at such a crucial moment (maybe even the Turks, though that ship is sailing fast). As America, and the world, prepares to remember the 10th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, you can bet your bottom dollar (go ahead, it's not really worth much anyway) that right around the corner we'll be hearing about the 10th anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan. While Iraq, the so-called "bad war," has all but wrapped up, Afghanistan continues to waste American lives, money, and resources. Why is that? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan just not as good as those sent to Iraq? Or could the huge safe zone along the border with Pakistan that allows Taliban troops to move with ease and lukewarm support from our supposed ally have something to do with it? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
In other fun news, an incident occured between Indian and Pakistani forces stationed in Kashmir on Wednesday. The Pakistani's claimed the Indians attacked them without provocation. We should trust them. I mean, it's not like they've lied to us in the past, snuck around our backs to get nukes, or sheltered the most wanted terrorist in the entire history of the world, right? Anyway, a showdown between Pakistan and India would not be in the interest of world peace, but it could provide yet another rallying cry for the global Caliphate that is slowly but surely coming together.
Islamists Flexing Their Muscles in Turkey
And finally, we come to Turkey. On the international front, Turkey's relationship with Israel has become rocky, to put it very mildly. They have expelled the Israeli ambassador because Israel has refused to apologize for the flotilla raid last year. Turkey has also said, in spite of a report from the UN which cleared Israel of illegal activity (I know, I had to read that one again, too), they will continue to demand an apology, compensation to the families of the nine people killed, and an official end to the Gaza blockade. In response, Israel laughed so hard that milk squirted out of their nose. Okay, I may have added that last part, but it wouldn't surprise me if it actually happened.
I mentioned in my previous article that, after Ataturk abolished the Caliphate, it was the constitutional mandate of the Turkish military to prevent the nation from falling back into the grip of Sharia and Islamism. Well, Prime Minister Erdogan will not let a little thing like that stand in his way. Very recently, the head of the Turkish armed forces decided to "retire" at the same time as the officers in charge of Turkey's ground, naval, and air forces. That would be equivilant to the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff deciding to spontaneously resign from their posts at the same time. From another perspective, it would be like the entire Supreme Court (as protectors of the Constitution) deciding to retire at the same time for no particular reason. But this little news story received so little attention I didn't even know about it until a couple of weeks ago. As the movement to restore the Caliphate gains steam, it is more than a little ironic that the same country that abolished the Caliphate is jockeying for position as a possible seat of power should a new one arise.
If you have anything you'd like to add to these stories, or perhaps something I may have overlooked, please leave me some Comments below.
Friday, August 26, 2011
Libya: Where Do We Go From Here?
2011 has been the year of revolution, particularly in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and North Africa that once formed the core of the Islamic Caliphate. The world watched as dictatorships once thought completely secure were toppled virtually overnight, first in Tunisia and then in Egypt. Things got a little more complicated when other heads of state refused to bow to the pressure of the mob. In particular, Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi proved a little stubborn in the face of "rage and change." Now, thanks to military intervention by NATO, Ghaddafi has been kicked out of Tripoli and the rebels have seized control of the majority of the country. Yay us! Victory for the people over tyranny, and all that. What could possibly go wrong?
Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.
Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.
Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.
It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.
Since the beginning of NATO operations in Libya, one question has taken center stage (and refused to leave): why? Oddly enough, that seems to be the question that kept popping up during the NATO campaigns in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia in the Clinton administration. Say what you want about Afghanistan and Iraq, but at least the leadership of both nations actually considered themselves to be our enemies. Libya presented no true threat to any external power, certainly not to any member state of NATO. The only real reason presented was the "responsibility to protect" doctrine adopted by the United Nations in 2005. Libya has been the first practical application of this doctrine, which states that it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene on behalf of oppressed people in a civil war/genocide situation. Of course, you don't see any movement to protect the citizens of Iran or Syria, so I guess the international community is allowed to be picky about who they want to save. It is very possible that this same doctrine could be used against Israel, to "protect" the Palestinians, or even the United States if a politically favored group puts forth the claim that they are being oppressed. Is this idea a bit paranoid? Maybe, but we have plenty of enemies in the UN that would love to use such techniques against us at the first opportunity.
Another problem with the so-called "kinetic military action" in Libya (like the Obama administration had to point out that the military action was, in fact, moving) is that it exposes just how thinly stretched NATO forces are. Military equipment broke down with alarming regularity, and the European members of the coalition actually started running out of precision munitions within the first month of military operations. More recently, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle actually broke down and had to be withdrawn from the area of operation for repairs, putting a major dent in the French ability to project power to Libya. While the United States has not suffered problems anywhere near this magnitude (because, you know, we actually know what it takes to fight a war) the resources and manpower needed to stretch us out into a third theater of conflict are placing further strain on our military at perhaps the worst possible time.
Finally, there is little we can do but wait and see who will take over the oil-rich country. It has been widely known that the Libyan rebels were at least sympathetic to al-Qaeda, but just how sympathetic remains to be seen. It would be more than a little ironic for al-Qaeda, weak and on its last legs, to find a safe haven to rebuild in Libya thanks to the "brave" efforts of NATO. As the jails have been opened by the victorious rebels, hundreds of dangerous jihadists that were mingled in with the political prisoners have been released onto the streets of Tripoli. Of course, the Europeans don't care as long as they get access to exclusive trade deals with the new regime and access to Libya's oil. I guess as long as it's not an American conservative that wants to attack an oil-rich nation, it's completely fine with the international media.
It doesn't take a genius to realize there are forces at work with the situation in Libya that are unfriendly to the interests of the United States and her allies. That doesn't mean that the new rulers are necessarily worse for us than Ghaddafi. But we must be very careful regarding our next move, something the Obama administration has shown no signs of doing. Just one more domino in the Arab world, but one that could have profound consequences.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Anarchy in the UK
I realize this article is a little late to be immediately topical, but the underlying theme is too important to ignore and goes along with a theory I have been developing for quite a while. For all three of you who don't know what happened, violent riots broke out across the United Kingdom beginning a little over a week ago. The rioters were supposedly protesting a shooting by police officers on August 4th. The "protests" quickly spun out of control (or, from another perspective, did exactly what they were intended to do), leading to massive rioting, looting, arson attacks, muggings, and general lawlessness that left at least 5 people dead and over 200 injured. Of course, the leftist spin machine was out before the fires had really started to claim that the rioters were just "poor, underprivileged, oppressed, victims of (insert favorite -ism here)." In reality, many of the rioters were from the middle or even upper classes and were inspired to violence because, essentially, "everybody's doin' it" (just as a side note, if anyone, ever tries to convince you with that argument, you should simply run in the other direction as fast as you can).
A major problems, according to the British authorities, was the massive spike in gang activity during the riots. This is important because gangs have several characteristics that will feature heavily in the coming months and years. Most are based on racial lines (Caribbean gangs, Pakistani gangs, etc.) and as multi-cultural Europe breaks down I believe we will see more such divisions in even the non-criminal communities. In the United States we witnessed racially-motivated violence by mobs at the Wisconsin State Fair mere days before the British riots started. Gangs are also organized and can effectively control small patches of cities to the point where even the police are reluctant to enter without heavy firepower. Gangs also have the numbers to do a lot of damage with minimal equipment. Guns are extremely hard to find on the streets of London, but the gangs don't care. They can attack victims from all sides with knives, pipes, baseball (or cricket) bats, or their bare fists. What politicians on both sides of the Pond don't seem to understand is that people who are committed to pursuing violence will find a way around whatever petty rules are put in their way.
Something else is important to note: the backlash among the non-rioters. The police were seen as ineffective and useless. In a statement that would be laughable if not for the creepy Big-Brother (not the reality show, the 1984 one) vibe, British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested shutting down any social networking sites at any time if the government feels that the site is being used to plan criminal activity. But worse than the overbearing but ultimately futile attempts by the government, I fear that we may see a wave of vigilante violence against gang members and other violent criminals very soon. Depending on how effective these counter-attacks are, we may even see some gangs taking the role of "defender of the neighborhood" to both maintain control of their territory and also to gain respect and support from normal civilians.
Among the loudest voices screaming for vigilante justice were from Britain's Muslim community. One of the worst cases of violence during the riots was a particularly nasty attack in Birmingham during which black gang members plowed a car into a crowd of people at full speed just to cause injury and death. Three brave young Muslim men, Haroon Jahan, Shazzad Ali, and Abdul Musavir, who were seeking to do nothing but protect their family's place of business from looters, were run down and died as a result. One man from the neighborhood who witnessed the scene threatened the gang members responsible with the following statement: "We'll hunt down these black men, cut off their heads and feed them to our dogs." While Tariq Jahan, Haroon's father, spoke out against retaliation, we will have to see which path is more popular in a Muslim community that believes that they are the only ones who can protect themselves (which, to be fair, is actually probably true).
So where does this leave the rest of us? Unfortunately, I believe that the recent acts of mob violence are a sure sign that Western civilization is unravelling. Now, before you call me an alarmist (or any mean name), I am not saying that civilization is collapsing. But there are loose threads in the fabric of our society, and every faction that seeks to destroy Western civilization and supplant it with their own misguided ideology has been pulling like crazy over the course of several decades. What we are seeing in the UK (and elsewhere) is simply the inevitable result. What's more, these events are also a warning to the rest of us. It is not too late for us. Why are the Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and every other variety of -ist you can think of (okay, maybe not capitalists. Not most capitalists, anyway) teaming up to batter Western civilization from all sides? It is because they are afraid of us! There are still enough good, intellectually honest men and women from all over the world who are guided by the desire for true freedom (and the willingness to accept the responsibilities associated with those freedoms) to turn back the tide of evil that threatens to spill across the globe. But that can only happen if we have the wisdom to wake up and the courage to stand up for the cause of freedom.
A major problems, according to the British authorities, was the massive spike in gang activity during the riots. This is important because gangs have several characteristics that will feature heavily in the coming months and years. Most are based on racial lines (Caribbean gangs, Pakistani gangs, etc.) and as multi-cultural Europe breaks down I believe we will see more such divisions in even the non-criminal communities. In the United States we witnessed racially-motivated violence by mobs at the Wisconsin State Fair mere days before the British riots started. Gangs are also organized and can effectively control small patches of cities to the point where even the police are reluctant to enter without heavy firepower. Gangs also have the numbers to do a lot of damage with minimal equipment. Guns are extremely hard to find on the streets of London, but the gangs don't care. They can attack victims from all sides with knives, pipes, baseball (or cricket) bats, or their bare fists. What politicians on both sides of the Pond don't seem to understand is that people who are committed to pursuing violence will find a way around whatever petty rules are put in their way.
Something else is important to note: the backlash among the non-rioters. The police were seen as ineffective and useless. In a statement that would be laughable if not for the creepy Big-Brother (not the reality show, the 1984 one) vibe, British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested shutting down any social networking sites at any time if the government feels that the site is being used to plan criminal activity. But worse than the overbearing but ultimately futile attempts by the government, I fear that we may see a wave of vigilante violence against gang members and other violent criminals very soon. Depending on how effective these counter-attacks are, we may even see some gangs taking the role of "defender of the neighborhood" to both maintain control of their territory and also to gain respect and support from normal civilians.
Among the loudest voices screaming for vigilante justice were from Britain's Muslim community. One of the worst cases of violence during the riots was a particularly nasty attack in Birmingham during which black gang members plowed a car into a crowd of people at full speed just to cause injury and death. Three brave young Muslim men, Haroon Jahan, Shazzad Ali, and Abdul Musavir, who were seeking to do nothing but protect their family's place of business from looters, were run down and died as a result. One man from the neighborhood who witnessed the scene threatened the gang members responsible with the following statement: "We'll hunt down these black men, cut off their heads and feed them to our dogs." While Tariq Jahan, Haroon's father, spoke out against retaliation, we will have to see which path is more popular in a Muslim community that believes that they are the only ones who can protect themselves (which, to be fair, is actually probably true).
So where does this leave the rest of us? Unfortunately, I believe that the recent acts of mob violence are a sure sign that Western civilization is unravelling. Now, before you call me an alarmist (or any mean name), I am not saying that civilization is collapsing. But there are loose threads in the fabric of our society, and every faction that seeks to destroy Western civilization and supplant it with their own misguided ideology has been pulling like crazy over the course of several decades. What we are seeing in the UK (and elsewhere) is simply the inevitable result. What's more, these events are also a warning to the rest of us. It is not too late for us. Why are the Islamists, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and every other variety of -ist you can think of (okay, maybe not capitalists. Not most capitalists, anyway) teaming up to batter Western civilization from all sides? It is because they are afraid of us! There are still enough good, intellectually honest men and women from all over the world who are guided by the desire for true freedom (and the willingness to accept the responsibilities associated with those freedoms) to turn back the tide of evil that threatens to spill across the globe. But that can only happen if we have the wisdom to wake up and the courage to stand up for the cause of freedom.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Sorry for the Delays
I realize that two weeks have gone by without a new post from me. I've got several that I'm working on at the moment, but my schedule has been unusually hectic lately. I will have a new post up this Friday as well as a new poll on Monday. I will also be adding extra posts as time permits to make for the weeks that I missed. I apologize for the delays, but I hope you find that the wait has been worth it. Thanks for reading, and be sure to keep spreading the word if you like what I have to say. If you hate it, you can go ahead and keep it to yourself.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Why the Norway Murders Changed the Game
All right. I realize that this story has been examined ad nauseam in the media already, but I still had some thoughts and questions that I would like to bring to the table. For those of you who have been living under a rock (but strangely are able to make it to this blog), on July 22nd an explosion rocked downtown Oslo. As the Norwegian authorities scrambled to make sense of the devastation, a man dressed in a police uniform approached a political summer camp run by the Labor Party and began mercilessly slaughtering the children present. In total, about 76 people had been killed (though early reports had a higher number of dead) by both attacks. While a Muslim terrorist group initially claimed credit for the attack, it was soon discovered that the perpetrator was 32-year old Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian who claimed that the attacks were in response to unchecked Muslim immigration. The apparent motive of the attacks was to draw attention to his "cause" and to spark similar acts of violence across Europe. As quick as the media have been to call Breivik a "Christian extremist," a number of prominent conservative thinkers including Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter have shown that this claim is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. But this post is not about retreading what is by now old territory. Instead, I would simply like to make some observations and ask some questions that have still not been answered to my satisfaction. As such, there will be relatively few links to other websites. After all, if someone has the information that I want, I wouldn't need to ask the question.
The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that the radical nationalist elements in Europe have begun their counter-assault on the encroaching Islamist presence in their countries. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is frankly inevitable and will only continue to get worse as the sane elements of the anti-Jihad are demonized and ignored. People with good intentions will be pushed to violence because it will be the only recourse left to them by the ruling elites. By no means do I intend to excuse or justify any of these violent actions or those who commit them. On the contrary, I do what I do so that the sane people of the Western world can shake off the coma that has consumed their society before a violent conflict becomes necessary. But there are genuine monsters lurking on the edges of society that will take advantage of the chaos that is headed our way (and already started in some places) to commit truly hideous acts. This guy, in particular, has earned my ire for his almost comical misuse of the Knights Templar as a symbol to "purify" traditionally Christian lands. Seriously, how come no one has called him (or those who parrot the line) on this simple fact: the Knights Templar did not exist to kill Muslims, they existed to ensure safe travel to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The "Knights Templar" that Breivik talks about are closer to a Dan Brown novel than historical reality.
The second possibility is one that I have heard (or read) no one considering: a false flag attack. A false flag attack occurs when one group attacks a second group but makes it look as if a third group was responsible. Before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist, I am not saying that I believe that this is the case, or even that it is likely, but the implications should be examined regardless. From the beginning, I have thought that Breivik seems to be a caricature of Christianity and the political right, spewing almost nonsensical statements that the media seizes upon without hesitation. To be fair, many in the left-leaning media view most right-wing Christians as closet psychopaths seeking to kill anyone different from themselves, so no one would expect them to find Breivik's statements to be ridiculously over-the-top. The man's "manifesto" was largely copied from the work of the Unabomber. The rest of Breivik's manifesto also presents a problem for those seeking to easily categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist as he lays out plans to work with "the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout factions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations" (pg. 959 of "A European Declaration of Independence). So the media tells us that Breivik wants to kill the first Muslim that he sees, yet he is actively planning on working with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and Iran! Not to mention the fact that his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which provided the media with his earliest "pro-Christian" statements, had only been set up five days before the attack took place and such an attack would have taken much longer than a week to plan and organize. Adding to the discrepancies are his sudden ability to construct a relatively sophisticated explosive device (which, as the attempted Times Square bomber, the Underpants Bomber, and several other examples have proven, is not an easy task even with a moderate level of training).
No matter which scenario is correct, there is no doubt that the game has changed. I actually hope that this is a false flag attack by one of the "usual suspects" because that means that ordinary Europeans still have more time to prepare themselves morally and spiritually for the coming crisis. But if this was, as Breivik hoped, the first shot in some sort of war we will not have long to wait before another attack occurs. The explosive element of the Oslo attack at least suggests the hand of a larger group (not al-Qaeda sized, but larger than a kook with a chemistry set) which could possibly be operating internationally. Again this is speculative at the moment, but consider the situation that Europe is in right now. Communist revolutionaries are already active throughout Europe, especially in economically troubled nations like Greece or Portugal. Any reader of this blog knows (or is just a few clicks away from knowing) how active Islamist revolutionaries are throughout Europe. For example, a recent study showed that over the past five years every rape committed by a stranger (i.e., not incest) and in which the rapist was identified by the victim was by a Muslim immigrant and targeted almost exclusively native Norwegians. As the situation worsens, the ordinary people of Europe may seek protection from both of these groups and find their governments unable or unwilling to provide it. When that happens, nationalist "right-wing" (although the term is misleading when applied to European politics) revolutionaries will present themselves as a bastion against the barbarian hordes threatening to tear down European society. The moderate, sane voices will be drowned out (or eliminated) and the people of the Western world will find themselves increasingly squeezed from the center and toward one of these three anti-freedom factions as they struggle for dominance. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe between the end of World War I and the start of World War II to find a situation eerily similar to our own (except we have the added bonus of radical Muslims blowing themselves up in major cities).
There's nothing like good news, and this post has been nothing like good news. I may not present a bright shiny future of hovercars and universal brotherhood, but I strive to tell you exactly what I believe may be headed our way. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject in the Comments section, and keep tuning in (metaphorically speaking) each week.
The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for this attack. The first is that the radical nationalist elements in Europe have begun their counter-assault on the encroaching Islamist presence in their countries. This sort of thing, unfortunately, is frankly inevitable and will only continue to get worse as the sane elements of the anti-Jihad are demonized and ignored. People with good intentions will be pushed to violence because it will be the only recourse left to them by the ruling elites. By no means do I intend to excuse or justify any of these violent actions or those who commit them. On the contrary, I do what I do so that the sane people of the Western world can shake off the coma that has consumed their society before a violent conflict becomes necessary. But there are genuine monsters lurking on the edges of society that will take advantage of the chaos that is headed our way (and already started in some places) to commit truly hideous acts. This guy, in particular, has earned my ire for his almost comical misuse of the Knights Templar as a symbol to "purify" traditionally Christian lands. Seriously, how come no one has called him (or those who parrot the line) on this simple fact: the Knights Templar did not exist to kill Muslims, they existed to ensure safe travel to the Holy Land for Christian pilgrims. The "Knights Templar" that Breivik talks about are closer to a Dan Brown novel than historical reality.
The second possibility is one that I have heard (or read) no one considering: a false flag attack. A false flag attack occurs when one group attacks a second group but makes it look as if a third group was responsible. Before you dismiss me as a conspiracy theorist, I am not saying that I believe that this is the case, or even that it is likely, but the implications should be examined regardless. From the beginning, I have thought that Breivik seems to be a caricature of Christianity and the political right, spewing almost nonsensical statements that the media seizes upon without hesitation. To be fair, many in the left-leaning media view most right-wing Christians as closet psychopaths seeking to kill anyone different from themselves, so no one would expect them to find Breivik's statements to be ridiculously over-the-top. The man's "manifesto" was largely copied from the work of the Unabomber. The rest of Breivik's manifesto also presents a problem for those seeking to easily categorize him as a Christian fundamentalist as he lays out plans to work with "the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout factions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations" (pg. 959 of "A European Declaration of Independence). So the media tells us that Breivik wants to kill the first Muslim that he sees, yet he is actively planning on working with al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, and Iran! Not to mention the fact that his Facebook and Twitter accounts, which provided the media with his earliest "pro-Christian" statements, had only been set up five days before the attack took place and such an attack would have taken much longer than a week to plan and organize. Adding to the discrepancies are his sudden ability to construct a relatively sophisticated explosive device (which, as the attempted Times Square bomber, the Underpants Bomber, and several other examples have proven, is not an easy task even with a moderate level of training).
No matter which scenario is correct, there is no doubt that the game has changed. I actually hope that this is a false flag attack by one of the "usual suspects" because that means that ordinary Europeans still have more time to prepare themselves morally and spiritually for the coming crisis. But if this was, as Breivik hoped, the first shot in some sort of war we will not have long to wait before another attack occurs. The explosive element of the Oslo attack at least suggests the hand of a larger group (not al-Qaeda sized, but larger than a kook with a chemistry set) which could possibly be operating internationally. Again this is speculative at the moment, but consider the situation that Europe is in right now. Communist revolutionaries are already active throughout Europe, especially in economically troubled nations like Greece or Portugal. Any reader of this blog knows (or is just a few clicks away from knowing) how active Islamist revolutionaries are throughout Europe. For example, a recent study showed that over the past five years every rape committed by a stranger (i.e., not incest) and in which the rapist was identified by the victim was by a Muslim immigrant and targeted almost exclusively native Norwegians. As the situation worsens, the ordinary people of Europe may seek protection from both of these groups and find their governments unable or unwilling to provide it. When that happens, nationalist "right-wing" (although the term is misleading when applied to European politics) revolutionaries will present themselves as a bastion against the barbarian hordes threatening to tear down European society. The moderate, sane voices will be drowned out (or eliminated) and the people of the Western world will find themselves increasingly squeezed from the center and toward one of these three anti-freedom factions as they struggle for dominance. Don't believe me? Take a look at Europe between the end of World War I and the start of World War II to find a situation eerily similar to our own (except we have the added bonus of radical Muslims blowing themselves up in major cities).
There's nothing like good news, and this post has been nothing like good news. I may not present a bright shiny future of hovercars and universal brotherhood, but I strive to tell you exactly what I believe may be headed our way. Please let me know your thoughts on the subject in the Comments section, and keep tuning in (metaphorically speaking) each week.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Temporary Delay
I realize that I did not post anything this past Friday. I am following the Oslo terrorism situation very closely and will have a related post up shortly. I simply did not wish to jump into the debate before the facts were settled and end up having to eat my words if proved incorrect. But even if the terrorist was not Islamic, there are still unanswered questions and important ramifications for the future of Europe's relationship with Islam. Hopefully I can have something up by Wednesday. If not, I will just make it this week's post. As always, thank you for reading. Please continue to tell your friends about The New Knighthood, and leave me a Comment if you have concerns, questions, or suggestions for later posts.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Tragedy Strikes Mumbai Once More
In November of 2008, the Indian city of Mumbai suffered a devastating terrorist rampage that left 164 people dead (including 10 terrorists) and over 300 wounded. The Lashkar-e-Taiba group based out of Pakistan was found to be the culprit, and many experts support the theory that Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) provided some support to the terrorists. Now, less than three years later, the people of Mumbai have been dealt another serious blow. On Wednesday, July 13, three bombs detonated almost simultaneously. The explosions occurred in the densely populated urban neighborhood of Dadar, the jewelry markets of the Zaveri Bazaar, and the business district of Opera House in southern Mumbai. At least 21 people were killed in the blasts and another 141 were injured. The Blaze has more on this story, but be warned that the article contains graphic images.
The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.
The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).
The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.
The guilty party in this most recent attack appears to be the Indian Mujahideen, a "homegrown" group that adheres to radical Sunni ideology. While these bombs were certainly deadly, STRATFOR points out that "this attack does not appear to be as sophisticated as the 2008 attacks," which involved a highly coordinated strike by foreign operatives on Indian soil that lasted for 60 brutal hours. One of the main reasons for concern (beyond the tragic loss of life) is the fact that Lashkar-e-Taiba has significant ties to the Indian Mujahideen. According to some reports, bombmakers from Lashkar-e-Taiba may have constructed the devices used in Wednesday's attack because the top bombmakers of the Indian Mujahideen are all in prison. The Indian Mujahideen have tried bombings over the past couple of years, but the devices proved to be defective. Why, all of a sudden, would they be able to coordinate explosions of this magnitude? If this connection is true, then Pakistani groups may be hiding behind local Indian terrorists to advance their common agenda and spread Indian security forces dangerously thin. It would also give the ISI yet another layer of deniability without limiting their opportunities.
The Pakistani government officially condemned the attack, but in reality this means very little. I do not doubt that most of Pakistan's political class are upset at further disruptions to their negotiations with the Indian government. Unfortunately for them, these politicians have less power than they pretend. The military and intelligence services, particularly the ISI, are the real power-players in Pakistan and operate with virtual impunity. The situation is made more disturbing as Pakistan draws increasingly close to China even as Pakistani-US relations worsen. The Indian government is sure to recognize the potential consequences of two of its nuclear-armed neighbors (and rivals) establishing such a cozy relationship with one another. As Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram (read that out loud and tell me it doesn't sound like the title of a camp song) said, "We live in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world. Every part of India is vulnerable." The real question is whether the politicians and analysts in Washington D.C. understand what is happening and have the nerve to stand beside India at a time when the region is turning against them (Huh. You know, that sounds an awful lot like another "I" country suffering from regular Islamist attacks. But more on that in a later post).
The continued attacks on Mumbai highlight an important element in the jihadist strategy: weaken the enemy's financial institutions until they collapse under their own weight. At such a delicate economic time in the world, such a strategy could prove devestating. With riots spreading across the European Union and looming in hard-hit areas of the United States, one critical strike could send the entire world spinning into chaos. And that is exactly what the Islamists, along with their Socialist and Communist allies, want. The people of Mumbai have been hit with another major tragedy. It is important for all of us to recognize the implications of that tragedy. Chaos is on our doorstep, and if we are not careful the entire world could find itself in the same situation as the unfortunate victims of Mumbai.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Three-The Spoils of War
In the previous installments of this series, I have presented the idea of Islam's fundamental dependence on slavery from the perspectives of sexual slavery and slave labor. Now I want to wrap it all up where it pretty much all began: slaves as spoils of war. To be clear, taking captives to use as slaves in wartime is as old as organized warfare itself, so I am not saying that Islamic culture is responsible for this phenomenon. Nevertheless, the use of captives (almost always non-combatants) to fuel the war effort, either as a labor force or as human shields, is still a core element of the jihad and must not be overlooked or forgotten.
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
According to Islamic doctrine, the world is broken into two groups: Dar al-Islam (the land of submission, as in those who have already submitted to Mohammed's message) and the Dar al-Harb (the land of war, as in those who still resist the dictates of Islam). The term "land" literally refers to whether or not the national government is subservient to the dictates of Islam, in other words run under sharia. The mere existence of the Dar al-Harb serves as sufficient justification for any act of war by Muslims. Thus smooth-talking Muslim "moderates" (as opposed to Muslims who actually seek to reform their religion) can assure the media that jihad was only meant for defensive purposes without actually lying. You see, Islamic doctrine holds that the entire world began under a sort of proto-Islam that was then corrupted until the people fell away from Allah. The simple fact that we (non-Muslims) are not dead, converted, or kept in a state of dhimmitude means that we are "occupying" what should be Muslim lands and are thus fair game. With that very simple but crucial bit of understanding, it becomes easier to grasp why Islamists do what they do, including the use of slavery as a tool of war.
Historically, the capture of slaves was a priority for Islamic conquerors. Only a few centuries after the death of Mohammed, Muslim raiders were striking as deeply into Christendom as Rome itself. Early Muslim generals used captives as expendable front-line troops (with the hope that opposing armies would hesitate when facing their own countrymen). Hundreds of years later, the Ottomans would perfect that art with the Janissaries, Christian boys captured in raids or taken from occupied lands at a very young age and raised to be some of the fiercest warriors of their era. The picture was the same on the seas as Muslim pirates would attack Christian merchants or warships and take as many sailors prisoner as possible. These prisoners would either be used to bolster the Caliphate's navy or sold when the pirates returned to port. Miguel Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote, suffered for five years as a slave in Algiers when his ship was attacked by corsairs in 1575. Though he was saved by the efforts of the Trinitarians (a Christian group dedicated to purchasing freedom for slaves), untold thousands were not as blessed and never tasted freedom until their death. The corsairs became such a persistent threat that, after the Holy Land was lost, the Knights Hospitallar became wholly focused on stemming the tide (no pun intended) of Islamic piracy. Later, the United States would go to war with the Barbary States (twice!) in order to protect American sailors from such a fate. While the abolishment of the Caliphate by Attaturk shattered the Muslim world's military might, the use of slaves to progress the jihad still lives on to this day.
When Muslim raiders attacked a village, their favorite tactic was to slaughter any men who would be able to resist then kidnap women and children. Those two groups were preferred captives for several reasons. First, neither group would have received any real combat training and would be easier to control through brute force. Second, their capture would have a demoralizing effect on the survivors and could prevent pursuit if the villagers were afraid the captives would be harmed in retaliation. Third, women and young girls (as well as a surprisingly large number of boys) would be valuable as sexual slaves while young men would work in the fields or as household slaves. Boys would also be drafted into the army while they were young enough to be malleable. We see this today (though again not restricted to Islam) in the abduction and brainwashing of child soldiers, particularly in central Africa.
The country of Sudan provides a chilling example of such practices in action today. Anti-Slavery International reports that between 5,000 and 14,000 people have been abducted in armed raids and forced into slavery since 1983. Almost exclusively, the targets of these raids have been the non-Muslims in the south. Rather than fighting this scourge, the Islamic government of Sudan has been a key player in these events, using militia forces to ravage the Christian and animist communities. The militias are instruments of pure terror, looting then burning homes and churches and murdering scores of innocent civilians. In response, several organizations have been working on purchasing freedom for the captives in the same way Cervantes was freed over four hundred years ago. Two of the groups active in this effort have been Christian Solidarity International and the American Anti-Slavery Group. These efforts have not always met with support from European and American officials who want to maintain good relations with Khartoum. Moreover, the government of Sudan, along with a handful of other Muslim governments, has accused those fighting the slave trade of defaming Islam. I say that is all the more reason to keep going!
In conclusion, I want to bring your attention back to Salwa al-Mutairi. You remember her, the delightful woman who wanted to restore legalized sex slavery in Kuwait? Well, a key part of that story was the fact that she advocated that "POWs" from the "Chechnyan war" be bought and sold as slaves rather than be "slaughtered." That should provide quite a bit of insight into the differences between the Western and Islamic views of war. In the West, there are many rules governing the treatment of prisoners. But Muslims waging the jihad torture and execute captives so that anyone with an Internet connection can watch. Captives exist as propaganda tools and nothing more. From that frame of mind, al-Mutairi's argument makes a certain element of sense. Why simply kill a captive when you can make a bit of profit on the side? Anything to make the Dar al-Harb weaker and strengthen the Dar al-Islam.
This series has taken us down some roads that most people in our supposedly civilized society would choose to ignore. In the next decade, I believe that we will see advocates for legalized slavery (although they would call it something different, of course) pop up in Europe and maybe even America as the Muslim communities grow bolder and increasingly radicalized. One thing is certain, however: as long as the West continues to pretend the problem doesn't exist, the worse it will get. Only honest examination of slavery, past and present, can allow us to move toward a solution to this problem. The abolition movement of the 1800s gave way to the civil rights movements of the 20th century. Will we see a similar movement in the 21st century, or is ending slave practices permitted by the Koran simply not acceptable for the politically correct "social justice" crowd?
Friday, July 1, 2011
On Vacation
This week I am on vacation, but I will be back with the final chapter in my series "Slavery and Islam" next Friday.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Slavery and Islam: Part Two-Slave Labor
America's turbulent history of slavery has been used by many progressives as a club to intimidate political opponents and push for redistribution of wealth. However, these same people turn a blind eye to the rampant slavery that continues to this day in the Islamic world. In part one of this series, we examined the slave trade as it pertains to sexual slavery along with some very nasty comments from influential figures urging Muslim legislators to restore the legal status of sex slavery. Part two is focused on the more traditional version of slavery that Americans read about in our own history: slave labor. Slavery has been a part of Islamic expansionism since Mohammed began spreading his message because it broke the spirits of defeated peoples while providing free labor and human shields to build the empire.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
The North African country of Mauritania, just south of Morocco, is a perfect example of the slavery that still exists in Islamic countries and how it is divided along racial lines. Mauritania was one of the last countries in the entire world to write legislation outlawing slavery in 1981. However, these laws are rarely enforced. Some estimates have current slave numbers somewhere around the 600,000 mark (about 20% of the entire population). Mauritania was a center of the Arab slave trade for many years, and the descendants of the black slaves (the Haratin) make up the vast majority of current slaves. This racial tinge is not unique to Mauritania. Part three of this series will delve more deeply into the racial underpinnings of Islamic slavery.
Our "good friend" Pakistan is also rife with instances of slave labor, especially in the rural north. In particular, household servants (drawn largely from the minority Christian population) are routinely beaten and raped. There are numerous cases of Muslim landowners claiming that someone owes them a debt (without proof) and demanding bonded labor until the fictional debt is repaid. People who have refused to work for such masters have been attacked by mobs and arrested. Even children are forced to work, usually young girls as maids. Some children have been abducted in order to pay off a family debt (real or imagined). In most cases, the slaves are offered better conditions or even cancellation of the debt if they convert to Islam (historically a common tactic by victorious Muslim armies).
It should be telling that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Mohammed and the spiritual heartland of Islam, did not formally abolish slavery until 1962, and even then only under intense international pressure. While the slave markets of centuries past stand deserted, the underlying philosophy has not changed. The oil-rich nations of the Arabian Peninsula have a workforce almost entirely composed of foreigners. These foreign workers are often abused and forced to work in miserable conditions by their employers. In addition, despite the fact that they make up the backbone of the economy (and comprise a third of Saudi Arabia's population), foreign workers are consistently mistreated in the legal system. It is not only Saudi Arabia that has this problem. As Dubai has rapidly expanded in the last decade or so, there has been a flood of semi-skilled laborers. These laborers were lured by the promise of work but find themselves working in horrible conditions and paid so little that they cannot return home.
While isolated incidents involving members of a group does not mean that the group itself is at fault, the sheer number of abuses in Muslim countries and the theological support from the Koran means that the problem is deeper than a few individuals. I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of those Muslims who choose to stand against slavery; on the contrary, those efforts are deserving of the highest praise. But individual nobility does not excuse centuries of history and a culture that places a lower value on some human beings than others. As Winston Churchill said, "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in all the world." And this was coming from the guy who went toe-to-toe with Nazism in England's darkest hour. If he says Islam (or "Mohammedanism" as he called it) is a negative influence, we should take his word for it.
Stay tuned for the third and final installment, "Slavery and Islam: Part Three Spoils of War," next week.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Slavery and Islam-Part One: Sex Slavery
The history of slavery and its abolition in the United States has been written in blood. While many Americans foolishly believe that slavery began with Christopher Columbus' discovery of the New World and ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, that is simply not the case. But what they do not know, and has been carefully ignored by progressive historians, is the relationship between Islam and slavery. While the historic roots of Islam's impact on the slave trade run deep, this series will focus on the modern slavery still rampant in Islamic cultures.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Recently, a couple of videos featuring Egyptian cleric Abi-Ishaq al-Huwayni have been making the rounds. In his first clip, the prominent Islamic scholar explained that, "The poverty that we're in-is it not due to our abandonment of jihad?" He goes on to say that jihadist raids against the West could solve Muslims' economic woes because, "Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women, and 3 or 4 children (emphasis added)." While this may sound shocking to Western ears, for the past millennium the practice of slavery has been the cornerstone of Islamic economics (see my earlier post "Better Dead than Dhimmi").
Of all the forms of slavery condoned by Islam, the most horrific is the practice of sex-slavery, whereby young girls are bought and sold to be used as the playthings of Muslim men. In Islamic jurisprudence, these slave girls have very few rights and can be used and discarded on a whim. In the case of these slaves, normal Islamic rules governing behavior between men and women do not apply. For example, according to Koran 4:24, "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess." That means that, even if a slave is married to someone else, it is not adultery to use her for sex. Slaves were also given reduced status in the eyes of the law. Koran 2:178 says, "O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female (emphasis added)." According to this passage, slave girls would have both their slave status and the fact that they were women held against them. If a slave girl was killed by her master, the consequences would be nowhere near as severe as if the master killed a free Muslim man, essentially amounting to a slap on the wrist.
This may seem like a custom from the medieval era, but in reality sexual slavery is still not all that uncommon in the Islamic world. In many places, such as Egypt or Pakistan, Christian women are kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam and marry a Muslim man. Under sharia law, returning to Christianity is punishable by death. Many of these forced brides are "kept as virtual slaves." In addition, human trafficking is a booming business in Muslim countries like Syria, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Eritrea, and Mauritania (keep an eye out. Some of these countries are going to pop up again and again in this series).
The most important thing to remember is that, while Christianity demands spiritual growth and the free acceptance of God's grace, Islam is static. Through the Koran and the Hadith, there is no aspect of a Muslim's life that is left unregulated. Islam also discounts the existence of free will as an insult against Allah's supremacy (for an all-powerful deity, Allah is awfully sensitive). As a result, because slavery is not only accepted but mandated as the birthright of all Muslims, you will never see a serious Islamic movement to abolish slavery. The only reason slavery is officially illegal in the Middle East today is because it was outlawed by the Western empires.
With Islamism gaining more power, we have begun to see more public calls for the restoration of legal slavery. Our good buddy al-Huwayni had a recent telephone interview in which he attempted to clarify his earlier position, which he said was taken out of context. "Do you understand what I'm saying?" he asked. "Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels." Oh. Okay. So he wanted to put in context that slaves are only to be taken from unbelieving population. 'Cause that was totally misunderstood in the first video. But then he doubled down on his slavery comments by saying, "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her. I choose the man I like, one with strong muscles, or if I want a boy to work in the house, and so forth. I choose one, and pay him a wage. I employ him in a variety of different tasks, then I sell him afterwards." So not only does he not want Muslim slaves, he endorses slavery for all unbelieving men, women, and children. Talk about an equal opportunity employer, huh?
But it's not just one influential Egyptian cleric who endorses enslaving infidels. Female political activist and former candidate for the Kuwaiti parliament Salwa al-Mutairi has called for legislation to legalize enslaved female concubines for Muslim men. She said that Muslim men fear being seduced into immoral behavior by beautiful female servants and that some of these servants have been "casting spells" on them. These poor men, who lack the free will to keep it in their pants, risk committing adultery if they have sex outside of marriage. Of course, slave girls don't count, so they can be used to satisfy the Muslim men until a real wife (or four) comes along. Like al-Huwayni, al-Mutairi says that "free" Muslim women cannot be sex slaves. Instead, she suggests blonde women taken from Russia because Muslim men prefer blonde women. Apparently blondes don't always have more fun. She tries to sell it as humanitarian: "In such a case (the "Chechnyan war") there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there?" In her mind, there is no possibility of releasing the prisoners, so why not make a little profit on the side?
There are many elements of Islamic philosophy wrapped up in the issue of slavery, particularly sex slavery, but there are some that are worthy of special attention. First, all non-Muslims are sub-human and worthy only of death or slavery. Second, Muslim men have no free will of their own to resist temptation so other arrangements must be provided in order to protect their honor (a group concept in Islam, remember). Every sexual whim must be granted, either by a wife or a slave girl, and the same system carries over into Paradise. Third, all efforts to spread Islam must crush the will to resist within the infidel populations and make them easier to convert or destroy. That is why the Coptic community in Egypt is particularly hard-hit by kidnappings and forced marriages. And fourth, the war against the infidels must be viewed through pragmatic eyes. To paraphrase al-Mutairi, why kill a defeated enemy when you can make him (or her) your slave?
Legalized slavery may have ended in the West, but if the Islamists have their way we could see clerics from Dearborn to Hamburg claiming their "divine right." Where are the apologists for Islam on this issue? For that matter, where is the media or the government? Every minute they spend blind to the realities on the ground, more people will be sent into a life of servitude. Hopefully this series will open some eyes to the situation. The more people who know the truth, the harder it will be for the enemies of freedom to maintain their illusions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)