Islam is a gang culture. Its roots are nomadic. Its core is tribal. Work is done by slaves. Real men enslave. ~ Daniel Greenfield
The Issue Isn’t Radicalization. It’s Islamization. Coming up, another masterful piece from Daniel Greenfield in FrontPageMagazine “The Fallacy of Focusing on Islamic Radicalization”; but first, a little personal commentary.
Face it folks – Islam is an out-and-out warrior culture, not a commercial one. There is no work ethic in Islam, where the glory of its adherents rests in the ability to live off the fruits of conquest and dhimmitude. This is hardly unique to Islam in history, of course, although Muhammad took it to a higher level. Think Alexander the Great for instance. Would he have exchanged the conquest of Asia for a chain of restaurants in Athens? No! Glory and immortality were his goals, and he achieved them both.
Years ago, George W. Bush made a fool of himself by calling Islam a “religion of peace” which is now a standing joke, but there was severe damage done in that characterization because if Islam is anything, it is a religion of war. Muhammad initially tried peace in Mecca, working that seam for some 13 years (which netted him about 1500 followers) before he was pushed out of Mecca and ended up in Medina. He changed the end product to fighting the infidels (ie you and I) while blessing as holy all the most sadistic impulses of the human soul. Result? He took over Arabia, or at least the Hijaz, which was Arabia at that time.
Fast forward to today, and Islam is not in the West to integrate with the profane, it is here to conquer and rule and enjoy the fruits of the labor of the locals, the dhimmis.
All this of course began with Abraham and the banishment of his son Ishmael and his mother Hagar (all in the Book, Genesis Chapters 16, 17, and 18). However, God also described Ishmael specifically that “he will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers”. Amazing and frightening both at the same time. The only good parts in Islam were appropriated from Judaism and Christianity, but they simply provide the illusion of moral sanction for expansionism and terror.
One of the sources of Muhammad’s enmity towards the Jews is his claim that they corrupted the texts, yet the Qur’an also claims that the Torah is reliable. All of the Hebrew prophets were apparently Muslims(!) Solomon too was a Muslim(!) Everyone was Muslim(!) before the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad at the age of forty. Quite a neat trick, wouldn’t you say, but since the entire premise of Islam was/is built on lies upon lies, the johnny-come-lately “religion” (ideology, rather than religion) can thus abrogate Judaism and Christianity by retroactively making Abraham a Muslim and giving it a definitive Arab setting and spin. As much as I have researched and delved into Islam over the past 20-something years, the theological, linguistic, semantic, and exegetical legerdemain that is employed to square up the glaring contradictions of the Qur’an and the accepted Islamic narrative, is quite mind boggling. The current mobs of Islam are simply thieves who have to claim to be the original property owners, since there is absolutely no truth in play in their unholy warrior manual.
Without getting too bogged down arguing semantics, the most outrageous, egregious Islamic jihadist terrorist attacks all carry “divine” sanction. The entire Qur’an is a malevolent book, and Islam because of Muhammad, has an inverted moral compass. There is nothing benign about it. It is sick, twisted, perverted, and deserves zero respect, and Muhammad needs to be placed in the same enclave with the worst human monsters of history, and Islam to that of the foulest of doctrines ever implemented.
A grim future possibly awaits us, but what else has Islam brought to the world except death, destruction and oppression? Like all other malevolent movements throughout history, Islam needs to be confronted, put down, and dispatched to the ash-heap of history where it rightly belongs.
We cannot and will not defeat Islamic terror without honestly and bluntly confronting Islamization. ~ Daniel Greenfield
On now, to Daniel Greenfield…
There are Jihadists from dozens of countries who have joined ISIS. What do they all have in common?
The official answer is radicalization. Muslims in Europe are “radicalized” by alienation, racism and unemployment. Neglected by governments, Muslim youth band together and become terrorists. Muslims in Israel are responding to the “despair and hopelessness” of the “Occupation”. Muslims from the rest of the Middle East are angry over their “dictators”. Muslims from the Ukraine? Who knows.
Radicalization comes packaged with a set of local grievances and explanations. It contends that all Muslim terrorism is a response to local conditions and that we are responsible for those conditions. Even though the “radicalization” is Islamic, it denies that Islam plays a positive role as a Jihadist goal. Instead, like Halal liquor or hashish, it’s what Muslims turn to when they have been disappointed in the West or in their own governments. Islam is just what happens when a Belgian Muslim can’t get a job.
And yet Islam is the only positive uniting factor for Islamic terrorism.
Why otherwise should a Moroccan youth from a French suburb who works at a nightclub, the son of a rural Saudi farmer who has never been outside his country and an American teenager who converted to Islam all risk their lives to form an Islamic State? The Jihadis of ISIS are a truly multinational and multicultural bunch. They have traveled to two foreign countries that most of them have never been to.
What else unites them into a common identity that they are willing to kill and die for if it isn’t Islam?