Tuesday, October 5, 2010

The Threat of a Greater Jihad

By Donald Sensing

Europe went on high terrorism alert this month after authorities learned of an al Qaeda plan to attack public places, much like Islamist terrorists did in Mumbai (Bombay), India, in 2008, that killed 160 people.
Such assaults, though deadly, are not the most serious threat from Islamist operatives. Only if terrorists gain genuine weapons of mass destruction and the means to employ them will the threat of violent jihad be greater than that of non-violent jihad.
Violent jihadists want to kill us. Nonviolent jihadists want to conquer us. On Oct. 3's broadcast of ABC’s “This Week,” Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric who speaks for the group Islam4UK, openly called for global Islamic rule, especially in the United States. He told host Christiane Amanpour,
We do believe as Muslims the East and the West will be governed by the Sharia. Indeed we believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.
This is jihad, make no mistake. Muslim apologists say that "greater jihad" is peaceful, fully submitting to Allah by keeping Islam's commandments. Yet the principal commandment of Islam is to propagate the faith and bring non-Muslims into conversion or submission. "Lesser," or violent jihad, differs only in means to this end, not in the end itself. A small minority of jihadists are violent. Far more damaging is the much larger number of "greater" jihadists, who eschew violence but are devoted to Islamic imperialism.
That is why talk of “moderate” Muslims is so misguided. Since 9/11, we speak of "moderate Muslims" to mean those who do not commit or (apparently) support Islamist terrorism. This is a grievous error. Enormous numbers of nonviolent Muslims have the same goal as Anjem Choudary, the total victory of Islam over the West and the conquest of America into the House of Islam.
Jihadists hold almost all the power and influence across Muslim lands.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims who “take their sharia with a grain of salt.” These Muslims put no personal stake in the jihad and may not care whether it succeeds. Some oppose the jihad. Unfortunately, they are inconsequential. “Moderate Islam,” says McCarthy, “is a dream, not a reality” because these Muslims work “against great odds” because presently jihadists hold almost all the power and influence across Muslim lands.
They certainly hold Islam’s purse strings. Saudi Arabia, jihadism’s financial gusher, funds only Islamist triumphalists. Moderate figures, woefully underfunded, lack a pre-propagandized constituency like jihadists have and are mostly ignored by the West’s political class to boot. Perhaps Islamic jihadism shall one day be moderated. And perhaps Cunard lines will sign title of Queen Elizabeth over to me after it's christened this month by Her Majesty.
The method: Acceptance-Endorsement-Enforcement.
Nonviolent jihadists use our political institutions against us. This is the method that the Muslim Brotherhood, ideological wellspring of Islamism, calls dawa, or “summons” to the West to become Muslim. I assess their method as threefold: Acceptance-Endorsement-Enforcement.
First, Muslims in the West plead for acceptance of Muslim practices in America, especially the building of mosques. Mosques are the primary means of radicalizing native-land converts. And if building mosques gains public controversy, the door opens for them to claim oppression and plead for religious tolerance.
Second, greater jihadists demand endorsement of Muslim claims of exceptionalism, such as Islam, the Quran or Muhammad being off limits to public debate or criticism. Here also they have learned how to play the victim card by claiming to be offended by the insensitive, intolerant critics.
Finally, they demand enforcement by Western governments of Muslim privileges and special rights. This process is so far along in Europe that I think my thesis hardly needs defending.
So it’s no coincidence that when the “Ground Zero Mosque’s” principal public figure, Feisal Abdul-Rauf, published his book, What’s Right With America, in Malaysia, he called it, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa in the Heart of America Post-9/11. And Rauf maintains a “Sharia Index Project,” documenting increasing acceptance of sharia in the West, in partnership with longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure Jamal Barzinji. Rauf is both nonviolent and Islamist. There is hardly a paper-thin difference between his goals and those Anjem Choudary espoused to Christian Amanpuur.
Violent jihadists eventually must show themselves, so they are more easily combated than their nonviolent brethren. But the latter are much more influential and pernicious. Muslim terrorists are like weeds in a flower bed, not always easy to identify but removable root and branch. Greater jihadists, though, present themselves as just one flower among many, deserving of the same care and nurture that everyone else enjoys by beneficent institutions and governments.
But make no mistake: they seek to dominate this country and bring it into submission.

Originally published at Right Network

Bookmark and Share