RUTHFULLY YOURS

My friend Professor Sharon is one of Israel’s most distinguished historians and one of the very few Israelis who understood that the Arab wars against Israel were a jihad. Here is a most prescient chapter from his book so apposite today to what is happening in Europe. This is Chapter 6 of Moshe Sharon’s book Jihad: Islam Against Israel and the West, kindly translated for Outpost by Mrs. Sharon.) Published in February 2014

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/muslim-europe-in-the-making-by-moshe-sharon.html

In 1683 the armies of Islam besieged Vienna for the second time. The first time was a century and a half earlier. The great Islamic Empire of the period, the Ottoman Empire under the long reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, was then at its zenith. It had extended its borders on the Danube far to the west of Budapest and was poised to capture Vienna, which stood between its armies and Western Europe. Suleiman regarded himself at that time as the ruler of the world, and treated the great kings of Europe as his subjects. The actual subjugation of the rest of Europe was, as far as he was concerned, only a matter of time.

Fortunately for the world of Christianity, when the Moslem armies attempted to besiege Vienna for the second time, some 117 years after Suleiman’s death, the Ottoman Empire was already on the decline, its expansion westwards had been checked, and the bastions of European Christianity could then begin threatening the Muslim Empire rather than being threatened by it.
Yet for the Ottomans, the Christian countries of Europe remained Dar al-Harb -– “the Land of War” – the term used by the Muslims for all territories not yet under Islamic rule. The term is both legal and political, and is charged with religious belief and emotional fervor.
Legally speaking, it defines the relations between the lands of Islam and the lands of the infidels. Infidels – in Arabic Kuffar (singular: kafir) – are all those who are not Muslims, mainly Jews and Christians. They are, therefore, regarded to be, both theoretically and effectively, in a state of war with the Muslims. This war does not have to be declared, since from the Muslim viewpoint, it is the only possible state of affairs between the two parties. Moreover, it is part of the divine plan. For after Allah sent Muhammad “with the guidance and the religion of truth” there was no other way but that “he may uplift it above every religion.” (Koran, surah 9 verse 33) In other words, Allah made it incumbent on the Muslims, the Community of the Faithful, to subjugate the whole world and bring it under the rule of Allah.
The fire of jihad, Holy War, must burn in the heart of every Muslim. It is a collective and personal duty; and every Muslim leader, particularly the head of the Muslim Empire, is obliged to pursue this duty ceaselessly. Legally therefore, the appellation of “The Land of War” to Europe is understandable. Every Christian coming from the Land of War – dar al harb – has the status of harbi. This is different from being a dhimmi, the status imposed on Christians and Jews tolerated to live under Islamic rule as a third-class subjects. The harbi is simply an alien, an enemy of Islam, even when no acts of war are in progress between the two sides. This legal outlook reflects the religious obligation to keep the Holy War alive. Since no one can abolish this duty that is enshrined in the words of God in the Koran, it remains an open-ended condition. Similarly the Land of War cannot change its status until it is conquered by the Muslims and becomes part of the Land of Islam.
The emotional aspect of this religious obligation is an integral part of the way by which the relations between the Muslims and the kuffar were defined. The Koran and Islamic tradition taught the Muslims that their Community of Faithful is “the best nation ever brought forth to men,” (Koran, surah 3 verse 110) and that the truth of their religion is the only perfect truth, and that they, as believers, are always on the right side, and the infidels are always wrong.
Europe, more than any other part of the world, personified the land of war. It was the natural place against which the Jihad was to be waged. It was, after all, the major enemy of Islam from its very inception. But Europe proved to be a difficult enemy. It was an enemy that fought back successfully. In the Middle Ages the Crusades brought the Europeans into the heart of the Islamic lands, but Islam somehow recovered from this success of the infidels, which placed the Muslims for the first time in a defensive position, and tormented them with doubts about Allah’s support.
But Islam did not recover from the loss of Spain (“the Jewel in the Islamic Crown”). Once Islam conquered Spain, it became an Islamic land. Its re-conquest by the infidels seemed to be a reversal of history for it negated the rule which says that once an Islamic land, always an Islamic land. To this very day, Spain, which the Arabs insist on calling Andalus, is regarded as a lost Islamic territory, the recovery of which is a religious and political objective and duty, more than a dream.

As was the case in the wake of January’s attacks on Charlie Hebdo magazine and a Jewish supermarket in Paris, it was remarkable how quickly the narrative about the latest terror rampage in the city became less focused on the appalling details of the attacks themselves, and more about reporting on — and celebrating — the public’s response to the attacks.

After the January attacks it was #JeSuisCharlie and cartoons of broken pencils that were going viral. This time it was Eiffel Tower peace signs doing the rounds, along with more fatuous tweets (#TerrorismHasNoReligion, etc.) and montages of national landmarks lit up in red, white, and blue.

And, of course, that guy playing “Imagine” on a piano. They invoke Allah, and we invoke John Lennon.

As in January, this narrative has been crafted by politicians and the mainstream media, and embraced by millions in France and around the world, especially by liberals. It’s a narrative that justly celebrates the resolve of the French people, but which also allows millions with no connection to the horrific events in Paris to join in vicariously. And it enables liberals to indulge in their favorite pastime of virtue signalling and to congratulate themselves on how downright tolerant they are.

Rather than address the consequences of a multiculturalism it promoted as signifying nothing more than happy-clappy falafels and exotic costumes, our political class prefers to decry the public’s alleged intolerance. The next election might bring quite a surprise
The enemy is within, and it is not only gun-toting, bomb-wearing sociopathic jihadists that Australians must worry about — it is their vast anti-Western ideological and institutional support system that must be confronted. This ideological support is essential to the jihadists, as it provides a ready-made justification for their murderous rampages. It also shapes the utterances of their fellow travellers and useful idiots amongst the political elite, in academia, the news media, social media, the ABC, the Human Rights Commission, and NGOs as they trot out the cliché-ridden rationalizations for mass-slaughter in the name of Allah and demand that the West accept responsibility for the attacks upon it.

The most recent glaring example of this ideological mindset is the now infamous statement made by the Muslim Grand Mufti, Dr Ibrahim Abu Mohammed, about the Paris atrocities. His Muftiness’s worldview is obviously indebted to the anti-Western post-colonial theory that dominates our universities and serves as the basic ideological paradigm of the Greens and the far left. Consequently, he indulged in a classic case of ‘blaming the victim’, declaring that the murder of the innocents in Paris had been prompted by “causative factors”, whose origins lie solely within the imperialist and oppressive West, including “racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention”. It is the policies of Western nations, allegedly directed against innocent Muslims, that are the cause of all the trouble. As Andrew Bolt recently observed, “So clearly did the Mufti’s statement read like a warning to submit [to Islam] or die that even Turnbull Government ministers attacked it.”

Yes, Virginia, there was a Santa Claus, but peaceful Islamists cut off his head.

The strength and resilience of Muslim terrorists in their various guises is built on an extremely solid and graduated structure underneath them. One level supports the next above. And the connectivity is bonded with a powerful adhesive, Islam itself
Has there been a hush-hush Islamic revolution? Have the grand muftis produced a redacted version of the Koran, in which only the peaceful passages remain, and slipped it secretly to politicians? It is one of those riddles wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Yet it seems to be the only explanation. Otherwise, how could textual exhortations to kill and enslave be described as peaceful by our elected elite?

Imagine a cone divided into segments. At the base are non-practicing Muslims. In the next are Muslims who occasionally attend mosque. In the next are devout Muslims who ‘religiously’ attend mosque. In the next are extreme Muslims who would like a world caliphate and sharia law. And at the top (‘coneheads’?) are terrorist Muslims who want to kill people in the name of Allah and often do.

Now it is possible, of course, to come up with finer and more complex divisions but these will do. Is my description of the cone’s segments objectionable? I can’t see any reason why it would be. It is simply putting the different views of Muslims into broad categories.