Ramadan Violence

by

It seems not even Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been spared suicide bombers in public places. ISIS claims credit, of course.

What does it mean?

I have a few thoughts.

I think people don’t really understand what ISIS is. It is not a rogue nation. It is, in fact, a restoration of an old system that the Muslims used to rule the world. ISIS is a caliphate, an are of the world ruled by a caliph. A caliph is a person who claims to be a successor of the prophet Mohammed. The caliph combines these roles as heads of both church and state for the Muslim people.

The caliphate is the ultimate government, and all people under the jurisdiction of the caliphate must be subject to them. That means that they must be abolished, or become subject to the new caliph.

What the newspapers and media aren’t talking about when they talk about ISIS is this fundamental fact. The entire nation of ISIS isn’t something we’re familiar with nor do we remember how to deal with. It’s time we remembered.

The other thought is that Muslim extremists are more likely to kill other Muslims than Christians or Buddhists or Jews. That is, the greatest danger to Islam is not Christianity or Hindus or anything like that — it is Islam. If we are, in any way, compassionate towards the Muslim people or Islam, then it demands we identify and eliminate the radical portions of their community. It is because of people like George W. Bush who waged war on Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorism worldwide that so many Muslim lives have been spared. The greatest liberator of the Muslims and the greatest protector of Muslims has been him.

Keep in mind that our if the radical Islams waged war only on themselves, we would have no moral justification to wage war on them. It is only when they pour out of their borders and wage war on us that we are morally obligated to fight.

Advertisements

One Response to “Ramadan Violence”

  1. Jason Gardner Says:

    “Keep in mind that our if the radical Islams waged war only on themselves, we would have no moral justification to wage war on them.”

    I have no idea why people think we need a moral justification for war. We should fight wars because they are in our best national interest. Period. Morality be damned.

    In fact, the only morality when it comes to war is the moral obligation to be strong. The Persians had a vibrant culture with a sophisticated religion and developed set of ethics.

    The mongols didn’t worry so much about abstract ethical problems. Wasn’t their forte. They were more of the run-into-your-town-and-put-an-arrow-in-your-back-while-they-steal-your-women sort of people.

    In other words, the mongols were moral in the sense they were strong. Guess what happened? They had a debate at the university and the Persian side won. Everybody was happy because the mongols learned about ethics and the Persians reaffirmed their moral superiority. Shah Ala ad-Din Muhammad went to bed that night comforted in knowing he ran a morally superior empire.

    Just kidding, the mongols killed the men, raped the women and burned cities to the ground. Persia (Iran) has never really recovered, even after almost 800 years have passed.

    The problem with a destabilized middle east is that we have no idea what will come out of the froth. Right now there is the better part of a billion Muslims that lack both an effective government and a coherent ideology. For example, Libya is regressing** into a tribal state. Same of similar for almost all of the other middle eastern states.

    What will come out of it? Is the next Saladin in the works? Nobody knows. That’s the danger.

    The other danger is that we are not strong enough (moral enough) to defend ourselves against a clear danger, should it truly arise. If a Saladin does emerge (an actual threat) would we put on our “Refugee Welcome” t-shirts and march for peace? Would we chant “Diversity is Our Strength!” and march against Islamophobia? Will the men just give up, find the direction of Mecca and grow a beard?

    Islam has declared war on the west and we should act with terrible cruelty. Why have we not seized the Saudi Oil fields? Why do we allow mosques to be build in our lands?

    “That is, the greatest danger to Islam is not Christianity or Hindus or anything like that — it is Islam. If we are, in any way, compassionate towards the Muslim people or Islam, then it demands we identify and eliminate the radical portions of their community.”

    Islam is not a danger to Islam. Islam has been functioning for a good long time just fine. It is an foreign ideology to us but might, in the long run, be the better ideology. We are fighting a war right now to find out. So far, it appears we may be losing. Let’s wait 100 years and see if the west has what it takes. Maybe Islam is more moral than Christianity?

    Only your grandchildren will be able to answer that question.

    In my opinion, I seriously doubt Christianity is in any way fit or able to resist Islam. At least in Christianity’s current form. We worry about morals while they are trying to kill us, enslave us and overthrow our governments from within. And it is working for them.

    Talk about taking a knife to a gun fight…

    **Make no mistake, it is quite common for civilizations regress. If you need recent proof just google Afghanistan 1970s and look at the images.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: