The following guest-essay was sent in by Brigadier Chitranjan Sawant, a retired general in the Indian army.
Archaic Islam Promotes Terrorism
By Brigadier Chitranjan Sawant, VSM
“Islam means Peace”. However, in its 14-century long history it has rarely promoted peace. Violence in all its forms has been its hallmark The turbulent times that its founder, the Prophet Mohammed, peace be on him, saw and experienced convinced promoters of new religion that violence was the panacea for all worldly ills. The Prophet was himself banished from his place of birth and work, Mecca, to find refuge in Medina. It was only through an armed struggle that he regained Mecca. Thereafter it was the sword of Islam which spread the new faith to many continents. The faithful followers indeed reaped what they sowed.
The Prophet Mohammed breathed his last in 631 AD. The war of succession followed. The great divide then took place, followed by violence and war of great magnitude. The Shi’ite and the Sunni sects parted ways forever. The Sunnis almost imposed their will on Shi’ites regarding succession through violence and slaughter. The Shi’ites have been mourning their losses ever since.
Violence as a creed to give effect to political plans grew firm roots in Islam. Perhaps the terrorists of today have inherited this philosophy of life, along with a conviction that ends can be achieved by terrorising opponents. A terrorist snatches away from the terrorised individuals the most precious right, namely, the right to life. Obviously a civilised society cannot afford to find excuses to condone an act of terror, be it in the name of religion, faith or anything else.
Islam, as it is interpreted and practised in Madrassas, the archaic schools of religious teachings, breeds hatred for non-believers who are contemptuously called Kaffir. The maulvis and imams, in their post-prayer Friday prayer sermons, preach violence and contempt for those who do not believe in Islam. There may be exceptions, but these are few and far between. Those who do not believe in Islam are terrorised to embrace it. As a result, terror is promoted as a part of belief in Islam in Madrassas and mosques. Moderate elements in Islam turn Nelson’s eye to the spread of what Tony Blair termed a “perverted form of Islam”. Terror is the tactic to subjugate those men and women who do not toe the line of the promoters of the belief that the world revolves around Muslims, and that others have no right to live in it.
The archaic laws applied by Muslim countries are far removed from modern jurisprudence. The teachings by archaic schools of Islamic thought adopt the psychological methods of brainwashing, and convert young recruits ready to die for all the wrong reasons. The term fidayeen is an offshoot of an archaic and misplaced belief that an Islamic terrorist who kills others and is in turn killed goes to Heaven. Terror takes root in minds of men who discover this shortcut to Heaven.
It is relevant to add that the concept of Heaven in Islam is a place where a ghazi or a martyr receives in abundance all that is forbidden in this mortal world. Wine and women find a place of prominence among comforts offered to a martyr in an Islamic heaven.
Where do we go from here?
All sane persons should encourage moderate elements in Islam not only to oppose archaic thoughts by word of mouth, but by action. Ideas have to be combated with ideas. The obscurantist preachers in mosques should be singled out and put through reformatory schools. Modern jurisprudence and progressive laws of the land, both civil and criminal, should be compulsorily applied to Muslims, too.
China has done so with success. In China Muslim males are not permitted to take four living wives at a time. The principle followed in China is Nan nyu ping deng, that is, equality between men and women. In Islam women are not allowed to have four living husbands at any given time, likewise men should not be permitted to have four living wives at a given time. It is worth emulating. It should be strictly enforced all over the world. It will make Muslims realise that they cannot be beneficiaries of an archaic system prevalent in medieval times in a Middle Eastern society. This will in turn promote modern social thinking and wean away the misguided youth from maulvis. The youth will indeed learn to merge with the mainstream of social life.
The Islamic terrorism of today is a global problem. It has to be tackled globally by men and women of all creeds and castes, region and religion. No one, neither individual or nation, should look for excuses to condone terrorism. Ideas have to be fought with ideas, and the likewise terror committed by a sect or a religious group has to be fought with all might at the command of a country or a group of countries. The rule of law is fine, but it should be borne in mind that Islamic terrorism has to be eliminated at all costs. One should not hesitate in putting into practice the primitive law “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” This was put to practical use by the Police in the Punjab, India against Sikh terrorists and separatists and by the British army in Malaysia to put down terrorism ruthlessly. Of course, new laws may have to be enacted banning preaching of religious terrorism in mosques and the eulogising of slain terrorists or honoring them as martyrs. Active support of moderate Muslims should be forthcoming in rooting out Islamic terrorism.
Muslim women, if and when liberated from the clutches of obscurantist males, will have a major role to play. They are oppressed souls now. Many Muslim priests are opposed to allowing women inside mosques to say prayers. Women have no role in decision-making. The system of Triple Talaq gives Muslim males right to divorce their wives at will by just pronouncing “talaq talaq talaq” These triple pronouncements spell doom for the marital life of a Muslim female.
When Muslim women are liberated, they will have a sobering influence on society and discourage irresponsible thought and action by their loved ones. A fine example of liberated Muslim women playing a responsible role in a society is that of Turkey. With the result that the government, especially the armed forces, ensures that Turkey does not revert to an archaic form of Islam. The modernisation of Islamic society by Kemal Ataturk showed them the path to prosperity and peace of mind. It is for others to follow suit and help curb terror through liberalisation of Islamic concepts. A country which does not wish to liberalise its archaic dogmas will only be promoting concepts conducive to terrorism.
Besides Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and even the much-maligned Iraq gave varying degrees of freedom to their women. Maybe Muslim women will come forward and raise the flag of liberation, liberation from bigotry and fanaticism, so that their children and children’s children live in peace and prosperity along with their brothers and sisters of other faiths all over the world. All will walk on the path of righteousness and eliminate the very concept of terror.
Women form half of the human society. The Chinese say “Pan tian” , that is, they are half of the universe. If our women join the war on terrorism, no Osama will dare promote it in any part of the world. The 9/11 in New York, the 7/7 in London and that dastardly terrorist attack on the Hindu temple of Ayodhya will indeed become history. We will await that glorious sunrise.
Let all sections of society move together for improving the quality of life in the civil society, irrespective of personal beliefs of a section. As the Vedas, the most ancient book in Man’s library, say: “Sangacchdhwam samvadadhwam samvo manasi jantam”, that is, “Let us walk together, let us talk together.” Let us shape our thoughts together for the good of one and all. Let all sections of a civil society know that we must swim or sink together. This change of mind and heart will sound the death knell of terrorism.
This is all very fine and multi-cultural, but it misses two rather important points.
One, moderate (reformed) Islam can never effectively combat the violence of Koranic Islam. The chief response of the moderate Muslim is to submit to violence rather than fight against it. In every recorded case of violent Islam being tamed, it was done by non-Muslims. And the reason is central to the reformed Muslim’s view of the tragic comedy that was Mohammad’s life, the example of “the best any man could hope to be”. Much has been made of how immoral his actions were by those opposed to Islam, what many seem to miss is that, according to Islam, there is no hope of anyone doing better…or even as well. It is a religion of existential despair that predates the European philosophers by centuries.
The violence of Koranic Islam is to the moderate Muslim as the atrocities of Communism are to the secular humanist. You cannot fight Koranic Islam with reformed Islam any more than you could expect to fight totalitarian Communism with fashionable literary communism. Yes, there is a difference between a KGB officer and a morally vacant professor of humanities…I wouldn’t shoot the one for the crimes of the other. But that doesn’t mean I’ll make Eng. Lit. degrees the primary qualification to fight on the front-lines against the Chinese People’s Army.
Which brings up the second point…maybe I’ve watched too many videos of Chinese military marches and training exercises, but whereas I think that Islam only poses a threat to the West as long as it is supported by the traitors holding political power, I’m pretty sure that the Chinese can force WWII any time they like. And depending on what you mean by “winning” in that scenario, they stand a fair chance of claiming victory.
More can and must be done to prevent the continued deterioration of Western military power below the level necessary to restrain Chinese dominance. The continued restraint of Beijing in regards to actual military adventures should terrify rather than reassure any student of the Chinese. All it means is that, unlike Hitler, they have the patience to bide their time until victory is certain.
This is cause for hope if one deals realistically with the implications. The Chinese have allowed a significant (though still unsatisfactory) degree of economic liberty because it was simply not possible to overtake the West with communism. If the Western nations are able to restore the foundations of the meritocracy that depended on the actual contributions of an individual to assess the rewards deserved and received, then eventually China will have to follow suit or abandon their designs altogether.
Reasonable people are much more potentially dangerous than the insane, but also much more predictable. There are upsides to that.
The current infiltration of the Western nations by Koranic Islam is the more pressing threat, but you must look to the future as well. Beware of China…they have quietly subverted all attempts to prevent the transfer of military technology to Muslim nations while exerting subtle political pressure to ensure continued multiculturalism (unless they think you are a potential agent, in which case they send you instructions on what you can do to help).
Many learned friends think that islam should be reformed. Who disagrees? Its followers. But the question is, why bother? Who wants to comb through the koran looking for any pearls of wisdom? Who would read such a book? Surely not the followers of mohammed.
These advocates of reform can not seem to take the logical step that islam needs to eradicated in its entirety. There are no good parts to save. If they take out the more repressive parts of shariah law, start treating women better, stop thinking that terrorism is sound political tool, then they will not be muslims any more.
Our learned friends seem to think that there is something in islam worth saving or moderating. What could this be? Should we teach muslim men that they should only beat their women on Tuesdays? That terrorism should be used sparingly and only when they really, really want their own way? They think that we can force to imams to teach the ‘good’ things in the koran. What insanity it this? Why not just shut down all mosques and take care of the problem once and for all. This would be much easier and more effective then trying to monitor the thousands of mosques in the world. They also think that there are moderate muslims that want to live ‘just like us’. That they have the same dreams and aspirations as the rest of us. There is no evidence of this, but we keep being told this is the case.
I remember a story in Israeli news about a muslim mother from Gaza that brought her child to Israel for a life-saving operation. After the successful operation, the mother was interviewed. She was asked if she was grateful for the Israelis for saving her child. She answered that yes she was because she still wanted him to grow and kill Jews. Yet we as told ad nauseam muslims are ‘just like us’.
We cannot combat a mindset that is instilled at birth. We cannot take the time or effort to find the ‘good’ muslims. The truth is the only good muslim is an ex-muslim. Islam itself does not support half-hearted muslims. Either you are in or you are out. Our learned friends need to take this to heart. There is no reforming evil to make it partly good.
I think this essay makes one major error: that of thinking that Islam’s women are the key to reforming anything. They are as much if not more gung-ho on the plan to exterminate and/or enslave the rest of the human race as Islam’s men are.
Muslim immigration to the West must cease.
Incentives for Muslim departure must be put in place.
Draconian incentives to abandon jihad and the advocacy of shariah must be devised. There must be an immediate revocation of citizenship or green card for advocacy of sharia, esp. death for apostasy and blasphemy.
Islam must be declared to be a subversive political doctrine and the Koran declared to be one of the greatest evils ever to have been loosed upon the earth.
NPR must be engaged to broadcast endless elucidations of the dusted-off concept of “enemy alien” and documentaries about the expulsion, enslavement, or murder of Christians, Bahais, and Jews, inter alia, at the hands of Muslims lands from the time of Mohammed. Tony Blair can help explain why this was a good thing for the Christians, Bahais, and Jews.
Any maulvi, maulana, mullah, sheik, imam, or ayatollah in any foreign land who issues a fatwa calling for the murder of any person outside the borders of that land should have a warrant issued for his arrest and a list of such miscreants should be published worldwide. Any citizen of that land who kills the issuer of such a fatwa should be given $250,000, a free house, a flat-screen TV, a university education for his children, a U.S. passport for his parents, spouse and children, and eternal immunity from extradition. Maybe even an appointment to West Point or one of the other service academies.
Every IED that kills or attempts to kill a U.S. soldier, and every rocket fired into Israel, should be deemed an act directly authorized by the highest levels of the Iranian government and appropriate strikes made on Iranian security forces.
Saudi Arabia must be directed to cease all proselytizing in the U.S. and to destroy all mosques constructed in the U.S.in whole or in part with Saudi money.
All Muslims or pseudo Muslims must be discharged from the armed forces forthwith.
All Muslim prison visitation and instruction must cease forthwith.
All DOD, FBI and DHS kissy face with Muslim subversive advocacy groups must cease forthwith.
Constitutional difficulties, if any, to be dealt with appropriately — by stripper legislation in the short term, if need be.
All such measures to be saturated with the underlying principle of lex talonis, as Brig. Sawant essentially suggests.
I would rather live under a Communist regime than under Islam.
When Communism does not deliver there are no Imaginary Virgins to provide Eternal Orgasmic Pleasure to delusional Male Fools, thereby perpetuating the Planet Destroying World View of Islamists.
We will yet thank China for the backbone it will show to stop Global Jihad.
The only way to stop Global Jihad is for the Four Great Unbeliefs: the West, China, Russia and India to stop their short sighted squabbling among themselves.
The rapid growth of Christianity within the Chinese population will quell Chinese aggression.
About Mohammedan women and “reform” (i.e. social engineering towards disaster, with yet more power for the welfare state), the Soviets tried it, and failed miserably.
I submit that a genuine interest in “moderate” Muslims should by all means make Muslim women a prime target as a group to be thoroughly researched. So far, Muslim women have mainly vanished into the background of ongoing discussions, dominated by violent or stealth male jihadists, only to gain incidental prominence as “victims” (and victims only) of Islam, e.g. in the odd Amnesty report (when even they can no longer deny the many stones flying around in Muslim majority lands), or as “promises” for integration in PC/MC government reports (see this photograph for instance).
I think researching this group and, on a more general level, providing well researched arguments as to why “moderate” Muslims are a threat to our freedom just as well, is extremely important. I already have thought of a title for the publication: “Holy Gruel: the Quest for the Moderate Muslim“. (Obvious room for improvement here).
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
“Muslim immigration to the West must cease.” I just read that the US relies upon the UN to determine whether a person is a refugee and that the UN denies refugee status to Christians from Muslim countries.
Well, I guess if the Western nations are really determined to sell themselves as slaves to Beijing, it cannot be helped.
Great comments you guys,
Yes, this is how individuals and the masses function in order to ignore serious world problems. They hold a theory that is untenable, then they intentionally avoid researching it so they can continue within the comfort of the fantasy.
Therefore groups like Amnesty International are actively NOT searching for truth regarding the “moderate Muslim” and their treatment of women. That way they have the comfort of knowing that no one finds out the horror called “no moderate Islam”, which would in turn make conservatism a necessity for liberty. Can’t have that happen now, can we?
Yeti, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, Moderate Islam.
I can understand Chiu’s frustrations; but the Western Left and PCs are leading us to self-destruction.
Slaves to Beijing is preferable to slaves to Islam; one can at least rationalise with atheists even if they are communists – but not so with religious supremacists.
We are on the same side Chiu … there is always the danger of not being in tune with reality and you bring a cautionary note to the China situation.
I appreciate your sentiments …
It is not possible to edit the words of Allah. Islam will have to be destroyed.
We have treated Muslims like equals. They are not. Churchill understood that a Muslim must feel our boot on his neck or else he will be slashing our throat.
We must end Muslim immigration to the West. We must cut off ALL welfare. We must confront their demands with a resounding NO.
I am not quite ready to argue that China is responsible for Islam. But those who have followed the situation in the Middle-East closely cannot help but notice that there are certain countries which have made disproportionate contributions to the military power of those particular regimes most hostile to the West.
Back in the day it was the Soviets who seemed to find the more rabid Islamic nations a convenient dumping ground for their excess military hardware. The surge of surplus Soviet hardware dumped into the world’s black market during the breakup of the Soviet union seems to have successfully hidden the fact that much of the more advanced hardware available to pariah states is now coming from China (with the North Koreans taking a significant share of the lower end market).
Certainly, European and American companies have been implicated in skirting economic sanctions intended to prevent transfer of military technology, but China simply ignores such restrictions entirely, going so far as to send thousands of their own techno-serfs out to construct entire military technology complexes when an anti-Western state has more funds than technical skill.
Nor are they completely innocent when it comes to advancing the culture of PC in both governments and businesses. The declassification of Cold War era KGB files proves beyond any doubt that the “Western Left” was being heavily funded and influenced right out of Moscow…but I wouldn’t hold my breath for the equivalent files to be available from Beijing anytime soon. The Chinese are not as economically robust as they pretend, but they certainly aren’t going to implode before America and the EU.
Beijing is actively lobbying Western governments and businesses to continue insane policies that help spread the rot of lawlessness and criminality. Racial preferences in loans imposed on U.S. banking institutions were a major factor in the economic crisis that has dragged on for over four years, inexcusable laxity in immigration controls (keeping in mind that it is insane to continue normal immigration in the current situation) has quiet but very firm support as well.
The American electoral system has enough transparency to make it inexcusable for any American over the age of thirty to have missed the horrific (and completely illegal) flow of Chinese money in political support of leftist candidates and policies. And the deference that EU leaders pay to China is very evident in the U.N. and the economic policies of the EU.
China didn’t create the crisis with Islamic terrorism, but they are exacerbating it at significant expense and they aren’t doing so by accident.
“If the Western nations are able to restore the foundations of the meritocracy that depended on the actual contributions of an individual to assess the rewards deserved and received.”
In such a system, the question of who is bestowing the rewards deserved by the individual and the criteria used for assessing the actual contributions of citizens, becomes vitally important and possibly a bone of contention. Care to elaborate?
On the economic side and from that perspective, me thinks that China is way too weak (much weaker than we’re lead to believe) to play the global policeman/agressor part.
Kind regs from Amsterdam,
There are several systems that are used to reward individual acts according to their merit.
The one that we are most disposed to think of is government. Governments are a mechanism that functions in economic terms as a geographically bounded monopoly on violence. This is beneficial as long as the power of monopoly is used to drive down the supply of violence while driving up the “price” (the criteria you must meet to receive violence against yourself).
The particular method by which governments corner the market on the available suppliers of violence varies considerably. The Constitution of the United States (in its original construction) takes the approach of incorporating the armed body of the people as a whole into the enforcement of fixed laws which are generally understood. Other methods, like disarming and pacifying the people while amassing a vast store of weapons used by a small group of full-time employees of the state (characteristic to some degree or another of most nations–particularly police states) are possible. Ultimately, if the government fails to secure an effective monopoly then there is no way to hold down the supply of violence and the ‘price’ drops quickly.
Because distributing violence is the natural domain of governments (which one hopes they do as inefficiently as they do everything else), governments should be the main entity which rewards individuals for their acts of violence.
Businesses are concerned with profiting from more traditionally economic activity such as the production of goods and services. So it is normal for them to be the primary agents which reward individual acts of production of goods and services, by purchasing them at such a price as they can then be resold at a profit.
Acts of affection and personal love are received, and naturally reciprocated, by individuals. Each individual should respond to their neighbor who has treated them with compassion and love.
Thus, the question of which agent of society ought to reward an individual act depends on the type of act, which determines the proper form of reward, which indicates the best supplier of that reward.
As for the other point, China has no intention of acting as a global policeman in the sense we have become accustomed to imagine. The leadership in Beijing (and probably the vast majority of the Chinese) have no interest in ensuring fair dealings among nations or protecting the human rights of peoples in other countries.
But China can easily play the role of neighborhood bully…in fact they will do this much more effectively than the United States has ever managed regardless of whether they manage to surpass the peak relative military dominance ratio the United States has held at various points in the past (that they intend to permanently surpass this ratio and could do so if current trends continue is clear).
Demographically and politically, China is very well poised to sustain massive military operations that emphasize the sacrifice of soldiers rather than of money, equipment, and international influence. One cannot realistically imagine inflicting casualties on the Chinese military or population as exerting the slightest reduction in their national will to fight. Nor can one expect the Chinese going to any great lengths to protect the civilian population of a nation with which they were at war.
If we have learned nothing else from the military actions being fought in the Middle East, it is that disregarding the value of life dramatically reduces the other costs of fighting a war. Of course students of war have never needed to learn that lesson, the cheapness of providing lethal violence compared to protecting against it is a constant throughout the history of war, regardless of variations in the exact ratio between them.
Chiu, your cautionary words on China are appreciated.
Your name sounds Chinese (excuse my ignorance) and you may have greater insights than the rest of us.
I do believe that we should seek an alliance with China.
And I am dismayed that they are supporting Pakistan:
and playing games with the West.
However, they are not strait-jacketed by the gazillions of Useful Western Idiots as we are.
They will do what they have to do if Islamists seek to extend their Global Jihad to China as well.
Therein lies our bleak Salvation from the Wrath of That Angry God.
We are spineless in the West, cowards who cannot call a spade a spade, who turn a blind eye to the worst of injustices just because the Side that is performing these injustices is in PC fashion.
My father, bless his racist heart, is Chinese. He is on the one hand subject to the peculiar nationalism that arises from a feeling of racial commonality with a great nation and on the other hand one of the many Chinese dispossessed of their homeland by the Communists. At the time, his attitude towards the murderous regime in Beijing has softened in proportion to their evidencing some understanding of economics. Nor has he ever been utterly hostile to the culture of his homeland.
I myself do not feel a strong sense of racial connection to China. The ancestors of my heart are primarily to be found in my mother’s genealogy, and they were less concerned with their more recent European ancestry than with recovering the heritage of primitive Christianity. Even to them I can only claim a weak connection. My true nation is perhaps not so easily defined or discovered.
At the current time, an alliance with China is premature. The leadership in Beijing is not so foolish as to destroy their own nation’s economy for ideological purity, but they are also not so wise as to believe that the destruction of the West is inherently unprofitable for them. They can be kept in check as long as the Western nations have the economic and military strength to make outright hostility unprofitable. But they have spend many decades weakening the position and influence of and political economic liberty. The current leadership has reason to fear both, for should the Chinese people ever be free they would instantly turn on those who have murdered over a hundred million of their countrymen and forced most of the remainder into virtual and often literal slavery.
It is better to study exactly what they are doing right for China and discern the manner in which they have contributed to what is going with America and Europe. Some of this is easy to trace, illegal financial support of leftist political candidates, pressure exerted through the U.N. and other international organizations, business deals that range from shady to blatantly criminal.
In terms of what they have done right, it is more a matter of looking at direction rather than direct comparison. China is providing ever greater freedom to businesses to compete, while their rivals in Europe and America struggle under ever more onerous regulation. They conserve their military strength and avoid fruitless adventures, and have been modernizing and upgrading at a remarkable pace while clearly winning the espionage battle that America seems not to realize is still raging. The truth is that we have no really accurate idea of Chinese military capabilities while they know our limitations better than we do.
The West has had no choice except to militarily engage the Islamic nations, but those engagements should have been short and sharp, with clearly defined objectives achieved through secretive means in combination with overwhelming force. Instead our military has been squandered on idiocies like providing long term humanitarian assistance to our enemies and, better yet, having our soldiers walk through potential minefields to prove that they aren’t afraid of enemy IEDs or snipers (this may sound like a joke, but it is actually a current policy being implemented in Iraq and Afghanistan at a significant cost in casualties, both those killed outright and those permanently maimed by loss of limb).
The Western nations have the strength to stand up and defend the heritage of their civilization. And they are going to have to do it without expecting help from China. They can be persuaded to be less overt in their efforts to undermine the West, but don’t expect them to become friendly towards any free nations until long after the current leadership is safely dead. They have too much to lose if the people gain power before the sins of the past have been sufficiently buried by the passage of time.
P.S. for myself, I’d gladly trade them sanctuary and a chance to live out their natural lives for the freedom of China. But they have to deal with the Chinese, who may not be ready to be so forgiving if they had the power to do other than endure it.
I still extend the same offer to those who now seek to destroy America’s freedom, leave off now, before the revolution, and we will let you shrivel and die in peace. I will gladly forget the wounds you have already inflicted on my body in your murderous attempts to silence me, if you will abandon your designs now. And I may flatter myself, but I think that I am not the only American still willing to trade away vengeance in exchange for freedom. Even so, time is running out, for you approach the point of no return.
China “owns” a substantial part of the foreign dept of the bankrupt US nation. They are stuck with worthless dollars. How’s that for undermining the West?
Actually, the joke is on Europe, which holds a substantial fraction of worthless Chinese paper that they never intend to redeem. Estimates as to the actual amount of Chinese debt instruments varies…not that it matters.
People talk as though China would actually be losing anything if they pulled the plug on the dollar by dumping U.S. securities into the market. Yeah, they would be losing the opportunity to collect vast amounts of worthless paper in exchange for real goods that could be consumed by Chinese people.
Fortunately for the U.S. and global economy, the Chinese still consider the threat of dumping U.S. debt instruments a potent tool for guiding the policy decisions of Western nations. But that situation won’t hold forever. When the West is less militarily significant, they will collapse the global economy (which only helps them feed and house their people) and then move to assert military hegemony as it becomes economically impossible for the West to mount a coordinated and effective military response.
Ad-Dukhan, Chapter #44, Verse #30, “And indeed We saved the Children of israel from the humiliating torment:”
If all the word, fight, in the Holy Quran is meant to demand muslims to slaughter non-muslims, there should not be any reason for muslims to rescue the children of Israel as mentioned above?
Thus, it is irrational to relate the word, fight, in everywhere in the Quran to be interpreted as the encouragement of muslims to fight against non-muslims or else Allah would have called his apostles to slaughter the children of Israel instead of rescuing them.
Stop lying, Zuma. We know about abrogation.