PART III - ADAMANTLY UNCOMPROMISING
A great divide separates two opposing power challengers in the world of Islam: the progressive secular group - holders of the Imperial Sceptre like Turkey, Egypt, Jordan and Syria; and the conservative - bearers of the Sword of Allah, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the Sudan, Libya and Algeria.
Moslem progressive leaders with true liberal trends in the Abode of Peace often meet with a violent end. Conservative Power Challengers (CPC), carrying the sword in the name of religion, cut the liberals down before gaining strength to introduce constitutional reforms and democratise their countries on secular lines. CPC are the ardent Moslems and religious leaders, advocates of sectarianism. They allegedly hold jurisdiction over their subjects and their daily activities in all walks of life. They are upholders and guardians of the Islamic law. They monitor the conduct of their subjects, making sure that they do not stray from (Al-Sarat Al-Mustaqeem) the straight path of the faith. Activities are watched, especially in matters of morality and religion. Engagement in sports, public entertainment and all forms of athletics, is practised under the strict guidelines of the Islamic Shari’a law.
CPC act as guardians on the morality of Islam. They machinate the elimination of elements that advocate and indulge in secular activities that disagree with Islamic tradition. They accuse Moslem liberal minded leaders of secularism and apostasy, issue religious edicts (fatwas) and eliminate them. The attempt on the life of Riyadh Al-Solh, the Prime Minister of Lebanon in the early 1950s; the assassination of King Abdulla of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in July 1951; General Abdul Karim Qassim in Baghdad, in 1963 by the current Iraqi Regime Ba’ath Party; the deposal and fleeing of Mohammad Reza Shah from Iran in 1979; and the assassination of President Anwar Sadat of Egypt in October 1981 by an Islamic organisation named Al-Jihad, are just a few examples of the violent methods Islamic Conservative Power Challengers use to intimidate and retain sectarian control over governments.
CPC, hoisting the banner of Islam, resort to violence. In a show of force, they challenge liberal leaders that have social and progressive trends. Liberal leaders that lean towards Western culture or enhance the Western parliamentary system are targeted for total elimination.
Liberal leaders with trends of secular policies raise doubt in the minds of Islamic conservative power challengers of their sincerity to Islamic traditions. CPC accuse such liberal minded leaders of secularism, of treachery, of abandoning the Islamic values and of collusion against Moslem countries of the Abode of Peace.
CPC are a combination of self-seeking ambitious collaborators, not necessarily clerics, comprising of ardent Moslems and religious leaders. They form an opposing front in an attempt to eliminate secular leaders. The CPC use the teachings of the Koran and the Hadeeth (sayings and deeds of the prophet) to justify their actions.. Secular leaders suspend secular reforms for fear of being branded un-Islamic. The risk of being branded apostate for introducing democratic reforms becomes real. According to the Shari’a, their elimination becomes lawful, after pronouncing a fatwa verdict against them. In Surat al-Imran 3:118, the Koran instructs the Moslems not to befriend non-Moslems. “Believers, do not make friends with any men other than your own people.” (Pryce-Jones, 1989: 112-113, 251, 323, 358; Hiro, 1989: 15, 29, 80).
In the eyes of Islam, Westernisation is secularisation; hence self-indulgence. No matter how liberal, strong and despotic Moslem secular leaders may be, they are prisoners of the CPC. With the backing of the radical Islamic spiritual leaders, the CPC factions pressure Islamic secular leaders to revert to the rule of the Islamic Shari’a law, according to the demands of the Koran and the Hadeeth, and the hidden agenda of Dar Al-Silm and Dar Al-Harb. Saudi Arabia and Iran have already taken the lead, followed by the Sudan, Libya, Algeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Indonesia seems to want to follow suit.
Secular leaders who advocate secular ideals face growing opposition. The religious authority, in collaboration with CPC, want the secular leaders to project themselves as advocates of the Islamic doctrine and work towards redemption of Islam.
To remain in power, a secular leader needs to give allegiance to the Islamic doctrine, adopt (Shari’a) Islamic laws and reform his country in the interest of the Abode of Peace and Islamic (umma) nation, over and above all other secular interests. The slightest deviation from the Islamic path will immediately attract Conservative Power Challengers to counter him. They lie in wait to topple him. CPC seek the support of the religious authority to gain a religious edict (fatwa) to justify his elimination, violently if need be. It is an entrapment. By law, a Moslem layman cannot opt out of his religion, how much more a Moslem leader. By introducing secular reforms, he is allowing himself to be branded an apostate, hence liable to elimination. According to Islamic (Shari’a) law, a fatwa against him becomes warrantable and his elimination lawful (halal). (Hiro, 1989: 19; Polk, 1991: 491; Aburish, 1995:117).
Conservative Power Challengers view their opponents as deviant. In their view, reprehensible Moslems are those that pose questions, are soft on western ideals, befriend aboriginal nationals, express their own personal views or enhance secularisation. Regardless of status, Moslems who break the Shari’a Islamic Law or dare debate religion or criticise the ruling system openly, expose themselves to unnecessary risk. CPC accuse such persons of heterodoxy and describe them as disbelievers and slanderers.
Unless secular leaders repent and return to the fold of Islam and abandon secular reforms, their elimination becomes justifiable. King Abdulla, Abdul Nasser, Assad and Sadat - all four Arab leaders had at one time or another during their lifetime been accused of apostasy for their rapprochement to the West. Their attempt to introduce constitutional reforms was described by their CPC opponents as intolerable heresy. They were issued with discreet religious (fatwa) edict for their elimination.
King Abdulla was assassinated. Although Nasser died of a heart attack as a result of his failure in winning the war against Israel, a fatwa issued against him earlier was another factor that had added to his depression and sudden death. Sadat was kalashinkoved and Alawi Assad, after quelling his religious CPC Sunni opponents, returned to the fold of Islam and followed the straight path of observing its rituals, putting secular reforms on hold, in the hope that they would be implemented by his succeeding son, Bashar. (Pryce-Jones; 1989: pp 251-252).
For a leader of an Islamic regime, the way to survive, is to go like Qathafi; wrap himself in traditional attire and alternately live the nomadic life of an Arab Bedouin in an oasis in proximity to his hometown on the out-skirts of the desert. And praise be to Allah.
In the Abode of Peace, the Arabs having unwittingly let part of the “Palestine” territory slip through their fingers to the Israelis feel deceived. After the Islamic conquest of the Middle East in the mid-7th AD, all the nation states of the region were absorbed into the (Dar Al-Silm) Abode of peace and integrated into the Islamic (umma) nation. To the Arabs, the name Israel was extinguished and so was Assyria, both language and people in race and national identity.
With the steady rise of Islam in the early years, Jewish and Christian holy sites were destined to either total destruction or conversion into Islamic Mosques and sacred shrines. The non-Islamic communities, residents of the Middle Eastern region, were suppressed in a bid to erode their racial identity. By adopting repressive measures and placing unjust limitations on their personal freedom in areas of self-expression, politics, religion, travel and association, the multiethnic communities became prisoners in their own homeland.
During the Khilafah period and until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, the name of the Biblical Land of Israel was dropped. Its name was politically documented as Palestine and put under the strict control and jurisdiction of the Abode of Peace. Palestine was given to mean extension of its physical and geographic landmass to include the whole of ancient Israel and it has since been considered as an Islamic territory. Islam calls it Palestine, relating it to Arabised Palestine.
In Islam, Israel is only mentioned for defamation; not praise. The Arabs will do whatever is needed to conquer it, even Jerusalem, which historically never belonged to Palestine, let alone to the Arabs. The ultimate aim of the Islamic states of the Abode of Peace is to recover lost territory by any means, especially Jerusalem, a one time Canaanite city of the pagan king Adoni-Zedek.
Throughout the ages Jerusalem has earned itself the name - the Holy City, the city of David, the City of Peace, the capital of Israel – not at all the city of the Arabs. The Islamic scheme to re-conquer lost land, eradicate Israel and expand their domain is ever alive.
Maltreatment of the Jews all over the world was one of the main reasons Islam was emboldened to continue persecution of the Jews and come hard on them, especially during the Third Reich of Nazi Hitler.
Not recognizing them as the indigenous people of the land of Israel, the Jews were not allowed to return to their traditional homeland. Now that the West has reconciled with itself, after World War II, recognising the Jews as an independent people, Arab/Islamic governments refuse to recognise them as a nation in their own God-given land. Islam’s uncompromising attitude and adamant stance has led the bitter Arab-Israeli conflict to reach a deadly impasse.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not a purely local dispute or a minor confrontation, it is an Islamic-Israeli war. It is a religious war. It is an all out war. Otherwise why would Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and scores of other Islamic nations that are not Arab in race and nationality, and thousands of kilometres apart, condemn Israel and refuse to recognise the Jews as a people in their own right? Israel is the inheritance of the People of Israel; so is Assyria the inheritance of her displaced Assyrian people in northern Mesopotamia.
The misnomer of the Holy Land of Israel as Palestine is a grievous error, which the world body needs to rectify. The borderlines of the Holy Land, which the Moslems call 'Palestine' do not reflect the true picture of the traditional Israel. The boundaries of the disputed region need to be politically redrawn for the capital Jerusalem to fall within the State of Israel as its traditional capital. Jerusalem would then remain as the physical capital of Israel and as the spiritual capital of the world open to all nations to go and worship there.
Historically, the approximate size of the original Palestine was no more than the Gaza strip of today. Islamic states treat Assyria and the Assyrians as nonexistent, equally the same as Israel and the Jewish people. Dar Al-Silm considers both Israel and Assyria as, vanquished states and their respective peoples either extinct or Arab.
Arab Islamic states relate Israel and Assyria to ancient history. In fact, the estimated census of the Israeli people as at the end of 1999 is estimated at about eighteen million. Two thirds of its population still live in the diaspora. The Assyrians whose population has grown to about five million is in a worse situation. Their territory has been invaded and their properties and homes appropriated by the Kurds with encouragement of the Islamic states of the Abode of Peace to give the region a distinctive Islamic feature. Assyrian villagers in northern Iraq are being constantly threatened to move out and leave their homes to the oncoming hostile nomadic Kurds. The Kurdish manoeuvre is to discourage the international community from rehabilitating the Assyrians in their own traditional homeland. The Kurds cause tactical flare-ups to keep the UN and the international community worried and as an unwelcome gesture to the Assyrians to discourage their return to their old towns and villages.
The Jews have persistently claimed, based on historical facts, that the Biblical Land, Eretz Yisrael belongs to them. Their capital city, Jerusalem and the Temple on Mount Zion is an historical proof of their claim to their ancestral homeland. Since dispersal of the Jews in 131 AD throughout the Mediterranean Basin of the Roman Empire, for their constant rebellion against the Imperial power of the Roman rule, the Jews always ended their prayer with a plea for their return home. They hoped that someday their historical land would be restored to them and that they would all meet in their homeland, Eretz Yisrael, and praise their Jehovah God on Mount Zion.
For 19 hundred years while living in diaspora, many countries did not accept the Jews as equal and were told to go away. They lived an estranged life. No matter how faithful they were and how much they contributed to the country in which they lived, they were not accepted as full citizens and on occasions, were totally rejected. Now that they have gone back to Israel, to where they came from, the Moslem world does not want them. Why not? With the passage of time, enmity towards the Jews increased to the point where some countries treated them as outcasts, clamped down on their freedom. Still not satisfied, some undemocratic regimes in both the East and the West aroused deep anti-Semitic feelings and hatred against the Jews and conspired to annihilate them. Their systematic persecution and massacres, especially during the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews in World War II, culminated in their return from banishment to part of their ancestral homeland – Israel became a reality again.
The confusion and arguments arising from the area referred to as Palestine seems to fall into three historical periods, namely, (1) ancient Palestine known as Gaza, (2) Arab Palestine known as part of the Abode of Peace, after the Islamic conquests of the Middle East and (3) the Mandated Palestine under the British rule until May 1948. During these three periods the borderline of the so-called Palestine fluctuated.
The Palestinians demanded that the mandated Palestine be established as a unitary state, under Palestinian rule, in par with the rest of the Arab states in the region. The British government rejected the ‘Arab’ Palestinian demand for a unitary state on the grounds that auxiliary Arab nomadic tribes and militias had not physically participated in the liberation of the mandated Palestine. Besides, Britain had pointed out that it had never made such a pledge in the McMahon-Hussein eight-letter correspondence of 1915-16.
Not all the territory is up for grabs by the Arabs. If the present Palestinians are truly indigenous to ancient Palestine, claiming the historical Palestine as their home, then let them restrict their claim to within the borders of the Gaza Strip. If they, as they claim, are Arabs then they are invaders and occupiers. Let them accept what has been apportioned to them. Israel is a geopolitical reality and different from Palestine, period.
Jericho was the first Canaanite city that the Israelites conquered. After the death of Moses, Joshua the son of Nun took command. He was chosen by God and succeeded Moses. In the Spring of 1743 BC, Joshua assumed leadership of the Israelites. The Israelites, by God’s command and under Joshua's leadership, crossed the river Jordan on dry grounds and conquered the first Canaanite city, Jericho.
Consequently, with divine assistance, the seven condemned kingdoms that were within the borders of the Canaanite land were defeated, among them the city of Jerusalem. They fell to the Israelites in rapid succession in fulfillment of God’s promise to them. The Israelites conquered most of Canaan, the land that God had earlier designated and promised to their forefather Abraham that He would give it to His people the Israelites. The territory of Palestine, at the time, was no more than a narrow patch of coastal land that stretched along the southern seaboard of the Mediterranean Sea between Gaza and their northernmost city Ekron (Michael Avi-Yonah, 1972: pp 66-69; Holy Bible: Numbers 34: 1-13; Leviticus 18: 3-25; Deuteronomy 18: 9-12; Exodus 23: 23, 24; 34: 11-16; Joshua 3: 13-17). Present day Israel is significantly smaller in size than the ancient biblical Israel.
The Arab Palestinians claim that the whole ‘Palestine’ is an integral part of the Arab territory and indivisible -- an ambiguous border definition of the ‘Arab’ Palestine. Arabs speak of their past glory and territorial landmass, presuming Israel as part of the Abode of Peace of the Islamic Umma Nation.
Pan-Arabism seems to have recently surged to a want of the whole of the Middle East and North Africa, as “the Arab World” – an overly ambitious notion of extending their domain, disrespecting the land rights of the indigenous people of the region. By their definition, all residents of Palestine, during and after 1947, were Palestinian Arabs, subject to the Arab rule of law. (Ref: articles two, five and six of the Palestine National Covenant). Islamic countries treat the indigenous Assyrians in the Arab States in the same manner as they treat the Jews, progressively altering their nationality to Arab.
Spain is an anathema in Islamic history. The Arabs, under the Berber leadership of Tariq Bin Zeyad, invaded Spain in 711 AD. Islam occupied Spain and ruled it for nearly eight centuries. However, the Arabs were ultimately forced out of Spain. Spain stemmed out Arab rule from its midst and restored Catholicism as its official Christian religion. It succeeded in liberating itself from (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace by bringing the Spanish political and military forces under one unified command against the Arab occupier.
January 2, 1492, marked the end of Islamic reign in Spain. It has since become an indelible black mark in Islamic history. Islam reiterates that Israel will not be a repeat of Spain. Islam as a whole will never endorse recognition of Israel. It is against their doctrine to surrender land that they have already won and falls within the realm of the Islamic Nation. In their dictum, the biblical land of Israel became part of Palestine, a so-called state of the Abode of Peace, after it fell to the Arab invaders during the early days of the Islamic conquests of the Middle East, and that it should remain so.
For example, the Palestine National Covenant declares in Article 6,
No matter how many Islamic states recognise Israel, there will always be some militant hardliners that will reject it. They will act on behalf of certain defiant Islamic states and continue to oppose its existence. With continued financial and manpower support by such hostile states, the militant Mujahideen act as proxy and fight their war.
All the Islamic governments in the Abode of Peace want to do away with their Western style parliamentary system and replace it with their own sectarian one, based on their religious law of (Majlis Al-Shura) the Consultative Assembly, or (Majlis Al-Watani) the National Assembly. They bitterly oppose the existence of Israel and restoration of Assyria to the end. Their jihad (holy war) slogan is: do or die; either perish or pressure the Islamic states to revoke their recognition of Israel and suppress the Assyrian identity to the end. The policy of the (Dar Al-Harb and Dar Al-Silm) Abode of War and the Abode of Peace dictates never to surrender gained territory but rather enlarge the community and ultimately declare their faith supreme globally. (Pryce-Jones, 1989: 27-28).
Losing Islamised territory outside (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace geographical zone is considered a relapse and regrettable, like Spain and the Balkans. But to lose Islamic territory within the borders of the Abode of Peace, like Israel and the future prospect of re-establishing self-rule in Assyria, is unforgivable - To Islam it is a bitter pill, hard to swallow. It is against their Islamic doctrine. It is contradictory to the adherence and fulfilment of their Prophet’s personal message of global Islamisation. Regress does not mean abandonment of their mission.
Mujahideen are the poker of Islam that faithfully keeps the Jihad fire astir. The demise of the Soviet presence and their troops in Afghanistan is still fresh in the Russian people’s minds. This was done by the surging wave of the Mujahideen against the Soviet troops not for the love of America or the West or mere hatred of Communism, but for the love of Allah and in fulfillment of their prophet’s message of global Islamisation. They insist on following the path of spreading their message (Al-Da’awah) by force rather than preaching it by oratory and open dialogue.
The October 1917 Russian Revolution gave the West rise to Western concern over the emergence and rapid spread of communism. Western democratic governments – conservative elements, heavy industrialists and Religions (mainly Christianity and Islam), began to counter it at all levels. For example, in the Catholic Church, there emerged the prelacy of Opus Dei – (God’s Work) – in particular; and later in Islam, militancy of the Central Islamic Axis emerged to protect their own existence. (Robert Hutchison, 1997: pp 15, 230-234). They planned to marginalize and counteract progressive elements of leftist trends, hence the open conflict between the two camps of democracy and free enterprise against communism and atheism.
During the decolonisation period, the Western Powers began to build defensive walls against communism. They created strong Islamic governments in opposition to Marxism and Leninism through treaties and ententes. They provided them with financial assistance, technical and military training and support. The Islamic countries became death traps to thousands of innocent people and progressive elements of democratic trends. In the name of combating communism and promoting freedom of religion and democracy thousands upon thousands of innocent people were falsely accused of subversion. Apparatus of the government agencies were purged of all suspicious elements. They were either summarily dismissed, or tried and imprisoned. Many received long-term prison sentences. Others disappeared, never to be seen by their parents, their loved ones and relatives. They were killed, murdered or died under torture and buried in unmarked mass graves. All this was committed for the false reason of state security.
Anti-communism policy gave rise to Arab ultra-nationalism. Islamic hardliners clamped down very heavily on many liberal intellectuals and non-Islamic native institutions. It was an opportune moment for the Islamic states to consolidate their hold on new territories during the decolonisation period. With the help of the West, Moslem countries added new territories to their (Dar Al-Silm) Abode of Peace, guised as formidable walls against the spread of communism. From the early 20th century, beginning with the Assyrians in (Mesopotamia) Iraq in 1933; early sixties in Cyprus and Indonesia and early eighties in Chile, the culling went on with full intensity.
Their new territories extended from the Assyrian Province of Mosul and Hasitcha-Khabur (in the Iraq-Syria) District to Eastern Cyprus, to Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Archipelago of Indonesia and Irian Jaya in the Pacific Ocean.
In the process of decolonisation, the mandated powers did not institute protection for the indigenous nationals in the constitution of the Islamic countries from which they withdrew or created such as, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq in the Middle East, and the Sudan, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco in North Africa and Indian and Pacific Ocean countries. Instead, the mandated powers gave the Islamic countries a free hand in ‘culling undesirable elements’ in the name of promoting freedom and security.
The mandated powers fostered the infamous and repressive ‘millet provision’ to the (Turkish) delight and pleasure of the Islamic states, and satisfaction of the West - all in the name of freedom and democracy. The position and support of the West had been exploited either out of ignorance or for its lack of concern about Islam’s hidden agenda of Islamisation of non-Islamic native communities through coercion.
The West’s main concern was to win the war against communism at any cost. In the mind of the West, Assyria was ancient history, something of the past. Islamic propaganda, in agreement with the West, buried the Assyrian issue. It dismissed it, ignored it and has since attempted to keep it dormant.
Now that communism has collapsed and vanquished in those regions, the United Nations Organisation being aware of such constant provocations and abuse of human rights has an essential role to play in addressing the situation.
The United Nations has the responsibility to intervene and take the necessary steps, urging such oppressive regimes to stop suppressing its native nationals, under the pretext of “communistic leanings, leftist trends or decadence”. The UN is in a position to act and urge existing governments of such tyrannical regimes to introduce secular constitutional reforms to guarantee the aborigines their natural rights. Or else, help the aboriginals free themselves to regain sovereignty over their land under protection of the UN.
There is a need to keep up the pressure on unrepenting regimes to reform their government systems. The UN and those international organisations that are responsible and allege that they work in the interest of all humanity need to be reminded to apply themselves and show real positive outcomes. Otherwise, they will become self-seeking lackeys and easy tools in the hands of the petrodollar masters, multinationals and their bureaucrats.
Advanced technology gives the West the elusion that their arsenal and superior power will keep their defiant enemy in check and ultimately win the day. This may be true, but at what cost? The key issue here is not firepower or subjugation of a people, but rather a united approach to stop and deter future acts of genocide in attempting to achieve absolute rule through violence.
Islamic conviction in achieving the ultimate of their irreconcilable ideology will most definitely end up in a catastrophe. Their intimidation and open defiance in forcing themselves into a foreign western country, under the pretence of asylum seeking refugees, resembles the mob of gate crashers to an uninvited party, or the hijacking of a plane or vessel forcing it to land or dock at the point of their choosing.
There is mounting evidence to confirm that this defiant course of action is being rigorously pursued. Certain Islamic countries that adamantly refuse to reform their sectarian or oppressive constitutional system, lax their security borders and allow unchecked multitudes to travel and invade European countries.
They take advantage of international humanitarian laws, jumping the queue, notwithstanding that military force would not be used to stop them from landing at their pre-planned migration destination. The international community and UN agencies do not seem to have an adequate response to this growing global problem since the source of the problem is not being addressed.
The illegal immigrants call themselves asylum seekers instead of criticizing their own government system. Instead of rising up against their oppressive leaders and demanding the introduction of secular democratic reforms, they go and invade European countries. They carry the same fanatical ideas, which they practised in their countries back home and plan to continue to practice them in the West with the intention of implementing them on others well into the future. They are unrepentant. Ideologically, they believe that their religion is a spiritual, social reformer and agreeable to all political and economic climates. Yet, their practice is ritualistic, rigid, lacks compassion, does not respect life, especially of a non-Moslem, and lacks spiritual transparency.
Disrespect for political borders, open defiance and violence have become the conduct of the daily ritual of (jihad) holy war. After decades of living together as neighbours, the Moslems machination is put to motion scheming against the Christians, in demand for a separate Islamic state. They drive the non-Moslem neighbours away, inflicting heavy loss of life and damage to property in the name of Allah to further their cause of expanding their Abode of Peace (Dar Al-Silm) domain.
So long as social change is rejected and does not go along with Islam’s objectives, whether in the Abode of War or the Abode of Peace, nationalism and ethnic tension will increase.
Suppression of the ethnic communities under Islam in the Abode of Peace will continue. So will the ethnic tension, under racism, in the West carry on. Peaceful coexistence with Islam is sceptical. The hidden agenda of spreading the call of their Islamic mission (Al-Da’awah) with open demands for total separation from their host country by force of arms is ever alive.
The Islamic states, however, remain slumped in the mire of their chaotic, unattractive and inflexible lifestyle. They continue to live in opposition to secular constitutional reformation. The native nationals are constantly pressured by the big Western powers to give in to their insatiable demands. The West will come to attention and take heed of its own interest and security only when terrorism penetrates its front door, or sees the dynamite laden terrorist approach its gateway. The West would not tolerate what Israel lives with everyday.
Western sincerity and contribution to help the Islamic world to let go off their fanaticism is repeatedly shunned away and often rejected bluntly. The recent arrest of the eight foreign staff from an International Aid Agency in Afghanistan for promoting Christianity to Afghani locals and closure of Christian aid organisations is a reminder that Islam’s defiant trend will, from now on, be pursued openly. It takes the form of priority in the Islamic world to instil fear of Allah in the hearts of Christendom, be it in (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace or otherwise. Christianity in the Middle East and other Islamic countries is living under the heel of Islam.
The destruction of historical sites, churches, holy shrines and Christian holy crosses is another way of sending the message to the Moslem Mujahideen world over that their Islamisation process is in progress. This gives Islam the satisfaction that they are on the right track. It helps boost their morale, especially the Albanian Mujahideen in the Balkans, the Moros in the Philippines, the militants in Pakistan and Kashmir, and in other locations such as Northern Iraq against the Assyrians, in Israel against the Jewish people, in Eastern Cyprus against the Greek Cypriots and the Sudan. The Moslems of South Africa have belatedly begun ruffling their feathers, by wearing the traditional Islamic headgear in group demonstrations as a prelude to drawing public attention to specific Islamic demands rather than encourage South Africa to continue its path along secular reforms.
The West will never be able to change Islam’s deep faith and intensive drive for world dominance. It is a far-fetched wish of those nations that believe in the Holy Bible, to expect a change of heart and toning down of Islam’s criticism and opposition to their religion. Islam’s animosity and daily criticism of Western values is commonplace. It is indicative of their open challenge to Judaism and Christianity as a growing trend to open confrontation at a wider scale. Jihad seems to suit all situations. Jihad is an undeclared war against established world order of the day, not with regular armies, but with any non-Islamic ideological stance.
Islamic governments distance themselves from the Mujahideen and play down their aggressive approach, denying any knowledge of, or involvement in, their destructive actions or moral or financial support to them. Yet, Mujahideen institutions, offices and training centres are spread all over the Islamic world extending from Pakistan to the Balkans with the full knowledge and in full view of the world at large. Their civil organizations are autonomous. They appear to work in isolation, independent of the state authority. Yet, they operate openly and promote their (Da’awah) publicly as any other legitimate organisation similar to Hamas, Jihad, and Hezbullah and scores of other parties, and organizations that are spread all over the Abode of Peace.
Since Islamic governments cannot match the military might of the West, Mujahideen become the forerunner battalions of Allah’s army, the vanguard of Islam. The potential army of the Mujahideen is built from the local Moslems, residing in the host countries of (Dar Al-Harb) the Abode of War. The Mujahideen converge on the land they want to control and raise supporters and ‘freedom fighters’ from the Moslem locals of the area they intend to bring under their control.
Like the ineffective French Maginot Line that was outflanked by the Germans in World War II and rendered useless, so are the political borders of non-Moslem countries of (Dar Al-Harb) the Abode of War to the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen smuggle themselves in, across the border with the help of the Moslem locals, avoiding checkpoints and barriers, unhindered. They establish a chain of command and launch guerrilla type attacks at the time and place of their own choosing. With determination and decisive strikes against the host government, they bring certain areas under their direct control.
The military might and heavy guns of the West end up becoming useless and unable to dislodge them, as witnessed in the Philippines, Kashmir, Chechenia, Cyprus and the Balkans. The Moslem residents are obliged to cooperate fully with the Mujahideen. They go by the (Hadeeth) saying:
That is, a Moslem who has been forced to act contrary to his conscience is not a transgressor. In other words, any religious order or fatwa issued against a non-Moslem in the name of religion is obligatory and (Halal) lawful. It should be executed. Moslem residents in the war zone become selective volunteers. (Pryce-Jones; 1989: pp 31-33).
There is no end to the demands of the supreme religion. Once they consolidate their foothold, the Islamic militant leaders begin orchestrating demonstrations, demanding separation and international recognition for an independent state of their own. Their first tactic is playing the role of being the victim, of being denied freedom of exercising their full cultural rights. From that point on, they obtain the support of humanitarian organizations such as the UN. Then, escalation of violence picks up in execution of the fatwa that is issued discreetly, against the existing nationals of the territory they intend to attack and the targets they aim to destroy.
Physical confrontation and sudden suicidal attacks on Christians and Jews are all premeditated. This course of action sniping at pedestrians, homes, motor vehicles, shops and business centres, is to restrict movement of the Christians and Jews and diminish their economic growth and threaten their survival. Their aim is to discourage the Christians and Jews from venturing outside their perimeter. Under such constant pressure, the Mujahideen want the Christians and Jews to feel that they are under siege, trespassing on enemy grounds. Their aim is to discourage the Christian and Israeli inhabitants from indulging in business ventures at the local level, leaving the way open for their Moslem counterparts to step in and take over. Islamic states prefer that non-Moslem countries establish private business contacts with Moslem enterprisers rather than Christian or Jewish locals. The boycott policy is still deeply entrenched in their mind.
This Islamic cultural behaviour seems to be taking a formal shape of acceptance and approval by their respective governments and the Arab League. Their justification, for lack of a legal mechanism to include members of the ethnic groups, in such business ventures is straightforward. Moslems must eventually be ahead in all aspects of life.
The Master-slave relationship appeals to them and would apply it beyond Saudi Arabia. More so, it reflects in terms of their work contracts and distant behavioural attitude with their employees. Scandals of cheap labour and mean employment contracts for domestic service and foreign labour give one the idea of how ill the Moslem employers treat their employees. They hold them in low esteem, and exploit them to the point of physical exhaustion and mental fatigue. Any attempt to redress their grievances is considered by the Moslem employer insubordination and breach of contract. They are dealt with, severely. The local Moslem employer is assured of his government’s support and backing for the action he takes against a foreign worker regardless of his nationality. By depositing the foreign worker’s passport with him, under lock and key, as a security measure, foreign employees, especially domestic servants become prisoners, held at the mercy of their Moslem employer. (Aburish; 1995: pp73-75; 91-97).
The Islamic states of the Abode of Peace apply racism openly, in breach of the international conventions and in violation of the United Nations Charter. They deny the basic rights of the indigenous people and refuse to recognise their existence. They do not recognize them as native to their land and do not guarantee them natural rights as full citizens in the constitution. The ethnic communities in Islamic states of the Abode of Peace have been kowtowed to utter submission. While Moslems in non-Moslem countries engage in acts of open hostility to achieve secession from their host countries.
In Dar Al-Harb Islamic communities depend on the rapid increase of their population through immigration and natural growth. They eventually need more elbowroom and demand more space to function comfortably. Contrary to other communities, they expand their area without integrating with the mainstream majority. No wonder that some Islamic businessmen do not contribute to their local council for public Christmas decorations of their commercial area zone. They consider it as an un-Islamic act.
Moslems cannot accommodate themselves comfortably under the secular constitution of the host country. Islam does not believe in dialogue. It considers secularism as the enemy of Islam. By allowing their members to accept and conform to secular laws, Islamic clergy lose their authority on their community members. Secularism frees the individual, whether male of female, from certain outdated rules and traditions. The religious edict (fatwa), for instance, restricts a person in his options to choose the lifestyle he or she finds most agreeable without fear of retribution by their elders. While under a secular constitutional system, the edict (fatwa) would lose its effect and become invalid in the Abode of War (Dar Al-Harb).
The only way for the clergy to hold the Islamic community together would be by separation and imposition of their own system on their community. Like the Turkish Cypriots, the Albanian Moslems and the Moros of Mindanao in the Southern Philippines, they eventually break away from their host country and establish their own rule of law.
Once the Moslem community decides on this course of action, its members forcibly evict non-Moslem residents from their homes. They force them to abandon their habitat or suffer revenge attacks. Moslems destroy and remove any landmarks that link non-Moslem culture to the territory they move into, beginning with total destruction of non-Moslem houses of worship.
Unless they accept the Shari’a rule of law and conform to the Islamic ‘millet’ provision, non-Moslems are expelled or killed, depending on the severity of the fatwa issued against them. In Kashmir, Hindu shepherds, or other individuals caught in isolation are instantly killed, so are Jews in the West Bank and Serbs and the gypsies in Kosovo.
In Kosovo, Eastern Cyprus and Kashmir the pattern of execution of the fatwa differs. The Mujahideen either ambuscade their victims, snipe them, or raid their homes, drag them out and kill them in cold blood. Such methods serve as a warning to others that the region belongs to the Moslems. By venturing out of their confines, the non-Moslems are trespassing into the so-called zone of the Islamic territory.
The above three states are considered part of the Abode of Peace, under the protection of the Islamic Umma Nation. They are beyond the reach of the International law. It is very likely that the Arabs in Palestine have already been issued with such a fatwa to snipe at the Israelis. Arabs will continue in this trend and killing of Israelis will escalate. Indications are that the same pattern of hostility is now being applied against the Assyrian villages in their habitat of Northern Iraq. Unless the religious edict (fatwa) is revoked by the Mufti, Head of the Islamic Clergy publicly, violence will continue.
Once in full control, such Islamic groups form their own style of government based on their religious Shari’a law. By pronouncing religious edicts against them, they drive the non-Moslems away by overwhelming their neighbourhood with new Moslem comers. Lebanon is now facing that dilemma, and so is Macedonia. Unless the West takes up the challenge seriously, and disarm the Moslem insurgents and dissolve the militia troops that crop up and melt away at will, in the host countries, the Christian populace will crumble before its growing rival.
Like the other Middle Eastern countries before them, in a few generations, Islam will reduce its rivalry to insignificance and all the enclaves under the control of the Islamic mujahideen will become an integral part of the Islamic Abode of Peace, ruled by the Shari’a law, under the umbrella of the Islamic Umma Nation. It is the ‘chisel’ policy of Islam.
Ethnics existing within the realm of the Islamic Umma are systematically being pressured to convert to the Islamic state religion and to integrate as loyal subjects of the Islamic nation. Dar Al-Silm States are determined to make citizens of all the Islamic regimes totally subordinate to their religious authority. They have no intention to reform their Islamic political system on the line of secular democracy. To be accepted as full citizens and be treated as equal, the indigenous nationals must first recant their faith and become totally true to the Islamic religion, to be elevated to the higher status of the Moslem citizen. The ultimate aim of the Islamic nation is to subject all its citizens to Islamic rule and rid themselves of the ethnic minority problem.
Saudi Arabia is a vivid example in spearheading the Islamic message. It propagated its call to Islam in the Arab Peninsula, by surging forward and purging the Arab Peninsula from paganism, polytheism and all other religions. With the support of other Islamic States of the Abode of Peace and the petrodollar, Islam bides its time in a bid to affirm its authority on the whole Middle Eastern region. Israel’s sincerity in its effort to reach a durable solution to the regional conflict is portrayed by its traditional Arab enemies as deceptive and heel dragging. To sabotage the peace process, Islamic countries continue to incite the Palestinian negotiating team to demand more concessions that are unreasonable. The ‘chisel’ policy continues unabated.
In non-Moslem countries where Moslems are in the minority, like the Moros in the Philippines, the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus, the Pakistanis and Indians in England and the Black Separatists in the United States of America, Moslems live with certain resentment. They regard themselves as living under occupation. Their faith dictates to them through their religious leader (Imam), not to mix, convinced that:
They should not be influenced by people of other religions. For this, they keep to themselves and seldom, if ever, associate with other than their own kind (Hiro, 1989: 131). Moslems come to the West, from developing countries, with myths, old-fashioned ideas, and fanatical practices, some of which conflict with modern realities.
Instead of adapting to the way of life of the host country, Moslems insist on living in their own world. They have, on many occasions, objected to certain codes of the secular laws, in view of extending their practices beyond their community. They pretend not to understand the meaning of civil liberty and personal choice, shielding themselves behind their religion.
Since they do not have the freedom to opt out of their world, they continue to practise it in the West, on the grounds that it is part of their religious custom and should culturally be acceptable. They reject secularisation. They refuse to accept that the civil law applies to all the citizens, regardless of the ideological pursuit and country of origin.
Individually, they are afraid to come to the fore and to stand up and fight for their personal right. To them freedom of choice is a daydream and unattainable. They are afraid to come forward and be counted. They are fettered to their religion. They dare not be honest and break away for fear of being accused of apostasy and harmed through their religious leaders by announcing a fatwa against them. That would affect their social status in their Moslem community; lose their family, their business and place their life in danger.
In some cases the religious leaders, through Islamic courts in their communities abroad, cut off liberal members from their society completely. They put them in isolation to expiate their sins and rehabilitate them. They warn them of being eliminated if they did not repent and return to the fold. A fatwa, religious edict issued by the Imam, religious leader overrules all other civil court edicts of the host country. Freedom of choice is the number one enemy of Islam.
Individually, they are withdrawn and are timid. Collectively, they act boldly and in most cases harm or kill their encounter. Their men take advantage of other secular societies abroad. On many an occasion they act as macho to gain the respect and trust of their surrounding and instil fear in others around them.
By tradition, Moslem teenagers are allowed to go out of their community on their own, outside their immediate environment to experiment and experience life. They put to test their high quality of Islamic morality and their superiority on members of non-Moslem communities, in whatever field they fancy. It is the process of growing up. Their parents and elders knowingly monitor their change of behaviour; yet play ignorant of their daily activities.
In the field of entertainment, social and sexual relationships, the teenagers target mainly non-Moslems. Moslems consider the non-Moslems as easy targets, loose, promiscuous and readily available. Moslem teenager males mix with them with covetous intent. By acting so, they gain their confidence and become sort of friends with a hidden motive to achieve their desired wishes.
More often their wish is selfish and injurious to its victim. To the Moslem teenager, it is the process of maturing to young adulthood, at the expense of the non-Moslem, emulating his Moslem predecessor. Such occurrences are commonplace and well known to the elders of the Islamic community, locally and abroad. They have been practicing it in the Islamic States of the Abode of Peace for centuries. The Moslem individual is encouraged to indulge in worldly pleasures and material gains so long as such engagements take place with the non-Moslem.
In Egypt alone several hundred girls have since mid-1998 disappeared from the city streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Asyût, never to be seen again, believed to be kidnapped by Moslems. All of the kidnapped girls are Coptic Christians. Complaints and reports to the police are not acted upon seriously. Government authorities add their names to the list of ‘missing persons’ and stop at that, without pursuing the matter any further.
In the case of their own Moslem females they are watched and protected to the point that they are not allowed to participate publicly in sports or other social activities except where it benefits their cause and on very strict conditions. Moslem males are not allowed by the Islamic Shari’a law to socialise with Moslem females. Individual Moslem females, who participate in sports independently, or choose sports as a career, are alienated by their society. Islam describes their behaviour as un-Islamic. Female athletes receive death threats and are forced to withdraw from sports completely.
Moslems never intend to openly blend with other societies or assimilate into cultures of the countries they come to live with. Their females deliberately distinguish themselves from other cultures by veiling their face or wearing a distinct headdress that flows down over the shoulders, or wrap themselves in a black, brownish or bluish cloak – a loose outer garment. They avoid public gatherings, local and national celebrations and entertainment. They watch such events and functions with reservation, and on occasions with scorn and detestation. Yet, sometimes they watch with interest and wish they could join in. But they restrain themselves and restrict their behavioural freedom to mere indifference for fear of being exposed to male members of their own society who might happen to be also there watching. To avoid embarrassment, they walk away. Islamic women live in alienation of non-Moslem societies. Their Islamic custom dictates seclusion of their women from non-Moslem societies. (Polk, 1991: 4).
By staying together and by the sheer increase of their number in non-Islamic countries, the Moslem community causes occasional tactical flare-ups. They conduct long and noisy processions, resounding with shouts of
“Allaho Akbar”, in support of their fellowmen in other countries that demand secession and separation. In some countries, they press their demands very vigorously, followed by a sudden wave of a barbaric act of violence. They target police stations,
blow up a prestigious
building, hijack airplanes, kill priests, nuns and burn churches. They ambush an army or civilian vehicle,
kidnap villagers and kill them. They take hostages, high-ranking officials, industrialists and tourists. Sometimes they hold them to ransom and later kill them with brutality. By resorting to force, they spread terror in areas they intend to control.
Akbar Greater, adj., comparative of great Al Definite article, ‘the’ Aleha gods Allah God, the Creator Allah God of the Moslems A-qi-bah Consequence Arabiyya Arab Aslim Submit to Allah (become Moslem), verb Auroba Pan-Arabism; Arab nationalism Ayeh (Ayet) Verse Chai-khana Tea-house Da’awah Call; Mission Dar Abode Fatwa Religious edict (Islamic); Plural: fatawi/fatawa Ghazzu Raid Hadeeth Sayings and deeds of the Prophet Mohammad Halal Lawful (to handle and own) Ijtihad Diligence Illa But (except) Janissary Janissary or Mamluke: Christian children and slaves raised in the Islamic faith and trained as special (Kamikaze) soldiers to protect the Turkish Sultan and his interests throughout the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan gave the Janissaries full authority in levying tax. They were responsible to the Sultan and reported direct to him. They increased in manpower, grew in strength and became very powerful and influential. They were known for their notoriety, for their wheeling and dealing and blackmail. Other Janissaries of either gender, were also used as domestic servants for the elite and as public janitors, doing menial work and running errands for their Turkish masters, especially the military corps. In times of war, the Janissaries were used by the Turkish armies as human shields in their attacks of enemy troops and invasion of enemy fortifications. The Turks used the Janissary as a dispensable commodity. Growing in manpower and military strength, the Ottoman Turks feared the Janissaries and decided to get rid of them. The Ottoman Government put the Janissaries to the sword in masse. Those that were spared the sword were dumped in Turkish colonies, spread throughout North Africa to the Balkans. Many Balkan Moslems are residues of the Janissary Mamlukes. Jihad Struggle (for the sake of Allah) Kafir Infidel Khalidah Eternal Khaliphah Successor Khilaphah Succession Khulapha’ Successors La No (there is no) La ilaha No god, (there is no god) Majlis Council (Majlis al-Shura = Consultative Council). millet: multitude; pl., millal – a distinct group of people, non-Islamic in faith; may be of the same nationality and religion but denominationally different, yet indigenous, whose native land is conquered and occupied by the Moslem invaders; in this case, during the Islamic conquests, beginning in the mid-7th century AD. As a result, the genuine nationality of its native people and land rights are abolished. The natives are divided into millet (multitudes) – groups of people – according to its sect and church affiliation, henceforth identified not by its racial identity but by its distinct sectarian name as a separate religious community like, Nestorian, Chaldean, Jacobite, Maronite etc. All members of the millet are acknowledged residents but are not recognised as natural and full citizens of the country. They are bound by the Islamic law of the land. Millets are subjugated to the form of the Islamic government of the day, with a view to fusing them into (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace States, under the umbrella of the Islamic (Umma) Nation, after their conversion to Islam. (For meaning of ‘millet’ see Arabic-English Dictionary by Hans Wehr, Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic ; edited by J M Cowan, 3rd edition, 1976; page 819; also, BCD 2.0). Mujahideen Strugglers (for the sake of Allah). (Moslem religious warriors). Mullah Savant, versed in Islamic knowledge Mushrik Polytheist. Pl., Mushrikoun or Mushrikeen Muta-wwa Mutawwa = Religious police, in Saudi Arabia. Government official, who seeks out, arrests and punishes those who break the Islamic law. Plural: Mutawe’ah. Nashr Spread; propagate Qulb Heart Rassoul Messenger Risalah Message Shura Consultation, (noun). Consultative, adj. (Majlis Al-Shuri: Consultative Council). Souq Market; marketplace Sura Koranic Chapter Taslam Saved (will be spared) Thatu of (that which is) Ulama’a Savants Umma Nation a political body, the concept of several Islamic countries, having the same aspiration towards establishment of a united Islamic nation, under the Islamic (Shari’a) law system of government, collectively known as (Dar Al-Silm) the Abode of Peace, under the umbrella of Umma – one nation government. Islam’s long term objective is to expand the borderlines of (Dar Al-Silm), the Abode of Peace States, by bringing (Dar Al-Harb) the Abode of War - land yet to be conquered – under its direct control and rule, thus encompass the whole world, forming one single global Islamic nation, to be known as (Ummat Al-Islam) the Nation of Islam. Wa-illa Or else, Otherwise Wakheema Dire; disastrous. Pronounced: Wa-Khee-Ma.
© Frederick P. Isaac. All Rights Reserved.