As most readers have already noticed, the United States — and the entire Western world — is well on the way to losing the “War on Terror”.
Oh, we’ve got great weapons, and our war-fighting capabilities have no historical precedent. But this technical and military superiority only serves to highlight the abject failure of our political and cultural defenses.
For the last eight years, even as we waged magnificently successful military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have been surrendering piecemeal to our future Islamic masters. Somehow, despite all our firepower, the nations of the West are drifting a little further every year into the rule of Islamic law.
Don’t believe me? Consider some of the bellwethers.
We expended blood and treasure to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, and now, according to The New York Times, the Taliban are being invited back into polite society:
KABUL, Afghanistan — The leader of the United Nations mission here called on Afghan officials to seek the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists, as a first step toward opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group.
In an interview, Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative, also implored the American military to speed its review of the roughly 750 detainees in its military prisons here — another principal grievance of Taliban leaders. Until recently, the Americans were holding those prisoners at a makeshift detention center at Bagram Air Base and refusing to release their names.
Together, Mr. Eide said he hoped that the two steps would eventually open the way to face-to-face talks between Afghan officials and Taliban leaders, many of whom are hiding in Pakistan. The two sides have been at an impasse for years over almost every fundamental issue, including the issue of talking itself.
This is what we spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives to achieve?
To make matters worse, since gaining our “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have eagerly enshrined sharia law in the Afghan and Iraqi constitutions. Oh, yes, the documents are prettied up with all the fine-sounding rights that we would like them to confirm. But both constitutions clearly state that nothing in them may be construed as going against Islamic law.
The most brutal and degrading legal system ever codified was written into those constitutions — by us.
Things weren’t always this bad. Back before 9-11, after the first World Trade Center attack, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the attack on the Cole, the nature of radical Islam was still widely discussed in the media. For a year or two after 9-11, “Islamic terrorism”, “Islamofascism”, and other terms identifying the nature of our enemy were still permitted. Our political and military leaders could still refer — albeit timidly — to “the threat posed by radical Islam”.
But no more. Now we have “violent extremism”, or, grotesquely, “acts that are contrary to Islam”. The Fort Hood report fails even to mention the “I” word. A troubled childhood, social isolation, too high a concentration of PCBs in the environment — anything but Islam is put forward as the cause of terrorist behavior.
The danger posed by Islam — which is a violent, insidious, and deadly political ideology — no longer exists in the public lexicon.
We have been silenced, and we did it to ourselves. No conquering army occupied our capitals to censor our discourse. It was our own doing.
We have denied ourselves the vocabulary to describe the enemy we face.
Before 9-11 an Islamic terrorist might make an occasional appearance as a villain in a movie. But now the fictional terrorists are all neo-Nazis, and any cinematic religious violence is generally restricted to fundamentalist Christians. By common consensus, depictions of Muslims in our popular culture have been sanitized.
And consider our wider cultural self-Islamization. The removal of piggy banks. The deference to Islamic customs during Ramadan. Halal meals in schools, even for non-Muslims. The suddenly-discovered obligation to avoid any and all depictions of Mohammed. The emergence of “Islamic finance”, which was all but unheard of ten years ago.
The most glaring examples of our surrender may be found in the criminalization of speech that criticizes Islam. In the years since 9-11, Europe, Canada, and Australia have seen an explosion of prosecutions for various forms of hate speech and “discrimination” against Muslims. The United States has recently lurched in the same direction with its newest federal “hate crimes” law.
Our ongoing defeat is underlined by the increasingly bold behavior of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC is an umbrella organization of fifty-seven Muslim countries (sometimes reported as fifty-six), and is the second-largest supranational group after the United Nations. It purports to represent the entire Islamic world, and styles itself as the Ummah, the collective of all those who worship Allah, follow Mohammed, and revere the Koran.
Up until the 1920s, when the institution was officially abolished by Kemal Ataturk, the Caliphate was the political entity that represented the Ummah. It was ruled by a single leader, the Khalifa, who answered solely to Allah. Mohammed’s leadership at the birth of Islam in the 7th century was succeeded by the four “Rightly-Guided Caliphs”, and after that the institution passed by bloody struggle through various dynastic groups until it finally ended up in the hands of the Ottoman conquerors of Anatolia and the Middle East. At its height under the Ottomans, the Caliphate encompassed the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa, Asia Minor, Persia, the Caucasus, and large chunks of Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, the Indian subcontinent, and the archipelagoes of the Indian Ocean.
During those heady days, the glory of the Ottomans was the glory of Islam. The plunder and slaves flowed into the imperial center from the infidels on the bloody borders. The mosques and minarets rose over the landscape, and the Sultan ruled it all from Istanbul as the Caliph. The Ummah and the Ottoman Empire and the Caliphate were one and the same thing. Until they were turned back at the gates of Vienna in 1683, devout Muslims had every reason to believe that they were on their way to achieving Mohammed’s dream: a worldwide Caliphate in which every human being bowed to Allah and recognized Mohammed as the Prophet of Allah.
When the ascendancy of Europe began and Russia emerged from the yoke of the Tatars, the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. Bits and pieces of it dropped off as the superior technology and organizing skills of the Europeans took their toll. With the advent of the colonial era in the 19th century and the expansion of the European powers into Africa and Asia, the Ottoman dominions were further reduced, and Turkey became the “sick man of Europe”. From then on the power of the Turks steadily declined, and it was only the machinations of the British Empire — determined to contain the power of the Czar — which kept the Ottomans on life support into the 20th century.
The Great War gave the coup de grace to the Caliphate, which came to a formal end in 1924. But the Muslim world never forgot it, because the mandate for the Caliphate’s existence is fixed in the holiest scriptures of Islam. Every devout Islamic scholar dreams of the return of the Caliph.
Which brings us back to the OIC. Since the speakers at OIC events often refer to those assembled as “the Ummah”, what about the Caliphate? Might there be a nascent Caliphate in the current makeup of the OIC?
The OIC is certainly flexing its political muscles. It has devised a ten-year plan for fighting “Islamophobia” and intends to use the United Nations — in which it is the single largest bloc — to implement a ban on the “defamation” of Islam. The progress of this ten-year plan will be monitored by the OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory”.
And now the outlines of a political structure within the OIC are beginning to emerge. According to the OIC website:
Ihsanoglu Calls for the Establishment of the OIC Peace and Security Council
The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, called the Member States to establish a department for peace and security within the OIC General Secretariat, an OIC Peace and Security Council and to activate the Islamic Court of Justice for the resolution of conflicts among Islamic countries.
He also called for the setting up of a collective mechanism with the objective of protecting and maintaining Member States’ collective peace.
– – – – – – – – –
Ihsanoglu expressed his regret that the Muslim world’s region is most besieged by conflict and instability. He stated that despite such a situation, there still is no collective outfit dedicated to the resolution of conflicts or the preservation of security and stability in the Muslim world, which has allowed others from outside the region to intervene to fill that gap according to their self-interests. He insisted, at the same time, on the need to set right for the Islamic world to take things in hand and be the main responsible for the resolution of its conflicts and the preservation of its security and stability.
Ihsanoglu said that the OIC General Secretariat, inspired by the stipulations of the OIC Charter and the Ten-Year Programme of Action, has made a number of important preemptive initiatives aimed at ensuring reconciliation and resolving and managing conflicts among OIC Member States. He also expressed his conviction that conflict prevention and peace-building require proper handling and management of the roots of the conflicts, not simply offering temporary tranquilizers which do not hold sway in the face of persistent differences. In this regard, he stated that OIC’s approach has been rooted in the in-depth management of internal conflicts and the resolution of these underpinning causes which manifest themselves in different forms such as political grievances, social injustice, economic lag and absence of good governance.
Such were the remarks of the Secretary General in his address to the Meeting of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on the future role of the OIC in the maintenance of security, peace-keeping and conflict resolution in the Member States, held at the OIC headquarters in Jeddah on 23-24 January 2010.
Ihsanoglu added that the OIC General Secretariat has been, and still is, an active mediator in various conflicts such as in Palestine and Iraq, the issue of Sothern [sic] Philippines, Thailand, and Jammu and Kashmir, having designated special representatives for the Secretary General to follow up these conflicts at close quarters and in an effective and direct manner. He emphasized that OIC’s interest in the subject of collective peace and security is not a matter of mere intellectual luxury. It is rather deeply anchored in the social and political reality in Islamic world states, calling for the use of all possible means to firmly manage conflicts and crises and to preserve peace and security.
Ihsanoglu concluded his speech by calling for the organization of an Explorative Forum to be comprised of international authoritative experts and Muslim learned figures to examine the OIC’s prospective role in the area of peace and security preservation, and invited the delegates of the Member States to offer insights in this sphere in preparation for a comprehensive report to be submitted to the Council of Foreign Ministers.
You’ll notice that Turkey plays a very large role in the OIC. Secretary General Ihsanoglu is Turkish, and many of the most important OIC confabs are hosted and mediated by Turkey.
Turkey obviously sees itself as the rightful source of any emerging Caliphate, and its entrance into the EU is of paramount importance for the re-incorporation of Europe into the Ummah. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe has even elected its first Turkish President:
(ANSAmed) — STRASBOURG — Mevlut Cavusoglu was elected President of the Parliamentary Assembly at the Council of Europe today. He is the first Turkish member to take the position since Turkey became a member of the pan-European organisation in 1949. “I am the first President of the Parliamentary Assembly born east of Vienna. For the last 60 years the Presidents have come from just ten countries,” Cavusoglu said, during his first meeting with the press as new President of the Assembly.
Mevlut Cavusoglu says that his presidency “will help Turkey to reach European standards and gain access to the European Union”. In this matter Cavusoglu stressed that “Turkey has done a lot, but not all that it needs to, but also pointed out that the European Union should encourage the process and not set up barriers”. Asked what advice he would give Ankara to facilitate the membership procedure for the EU, Cavusoglu replied that the current Constitution is one of the obstacles.
The current Constitution is an “obstacle” — it can’t get much more overt than that, can it?
So we Westerners are gradually being Islamized, sliding imperceptibly closer every year to the rule of Islamic law. What will it be like for us when we get there? For those who decide to convert — or “revert” — to Islam, it will be no problem (at least for the men). Show up at the mosque for prayers, give up pork and beer (at least where anyone can see you) , marry your four wives, and remember which hand to wipe yourself with — that’s about it.
For those who decline to be Muslims, a life of dhimmitude awaits. If you are lucky, your status under the new regime will be graciously tolerated, as long as you behave yourself and pay the poll tax. FACT International describes the conditions enjoyed by infidels in Morocco, which is probably about the best you can hope for:
Non-Muslims Enjoy Religious Freedom in Morocco
Government protects rights of religious minorities within tolerant Morocco’s borders.
Many people wonder what relevance shari’a — Islamic principles — has in the modern world. In Morocco it has influenced national laws, especially the civil code and family law, primarily in a positive sense. Coupled with the country’s tradition of tolerance and openness, this has provided the Moroccan government with a foundation for protecting the rights of religious minorities within its borders.
The law protects these religious spaces from violence. Most importantly, laws allowing freedom of expression and assembly, as well as the ability to worship both privately and publicly, are clearly stated in the Constitution and the Penal Code, both of which were written shortly after Morocco’s independence in 1956.
Morocco’s approximately 3,000 Shi’ites generally assemble freely, and have established organisations like the Organisation of Moroccan Shi’ites, Attawassoul Association in the city of al Housseima, Al Inbiaat Association in Tangier, and Al Ghadir Association in Meknes. Nor have they experienced any problems with holding their rituals publicly.
And for many years, Jews have been practicing their faith safely in synagogues and during regular pilgrimages to local Jewish saints’ shrines all over Morocco. The Christian community has established churches, schools, hospitals and orphanages without interference from the government.
The Catholic Archbishop of Rabat, Vincent Landel, says: “Muslims and Christians coexist and live in peace and fraternity.”
Although active proselytising to Muslims is illegal — a law based on Islamic principles — Archbishop Landel notes that Christians in the country can practice their faith freely. Furthermore, interfaith marriage is allowed, though only for Muslim men: Muslim women’s future spouses are expected to convert to Islam before marriage.
The government tries to maintain and promote positive attitudes regarding religious freedom. It is this peaceful co-existence between religious communities that Morocco hopes to perpetuate in order to be a positive example to the rest of the Muslim world. [emphasis added]
This is what lies in store for formerly infidel countries that move under the Islamic umbrella. The government tries to keep Muslims from doing anything bad to non-Muslims. Non-Muslims are not allowed to try to convert Muslims. And men may not marry into a Muslim family without conversion.
The Moroccan branch of the Ummah is what passes for tolerance in Islam, and it really is the best you can hope for, because it is not mandated by Islamic law. Such beneficent conditions depend entirely on the humane whim of the prince, king, sultan, or emir of the Islamic state in question.
Or the Caliph. Keep an eye on the OIC, because the Secretary General of the OIC is the proto-Caliph. Watch those “collective mechanisms” for protecting peace and security and managing conflict among the member states. It will be interesting to see what they morph into over the next five or ten years.
Previous posts about Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu and the OIC:
Hat tips: TB, KGS, Insubria, and TV.