The Jihad You Can’t See

“The Vanishing Private” is a classic Donald Duck cartoon from World War Two. Take a look at an example of what Walt Disney could do back in the days when his company made real cartoons:

For those who prefer not to watch it, here’s a synopsis:

Pvt. Donald Duck is supposed to be painting an artillery piece with camouflage paint. After being dressed down by the Sarge for doing it wrong, Donald looks for better paint. He discovers a bucket of “invisible” paint in a top secret experimental facility, and uses it to paint the gun, which then becomes invisible. During later antics, Donald is propelled into the bucket of paint, and becomes invisible himself.

There follows a series of predictable gags, in which the Sarge chases Donald, who can only be detected by his footprints, splashes in water, his movement through a field of flowers, etc. The climax of the piece comes when the Sarge, carrying bunches of pink posies with a sheepish look on his face (you really have to see the cartoon to get the gag), encounters the General. After that the Sarge comes to grief, and as the story ends he is locked in a cell wearing a straitjacket, with Donald doing guard duty over him.

For the past week or so, whenever I read about ISIS and the jihad in Syria and Iraq, it makes me think of this cartoon.

There are two lines to keep in mind. First, when the Sarge bellows at Donald:

“You’ve got to paint it so you can’t see it!”

And later, when Sarge encounters a very puzzled General, he asks plaintively:

“Did you see a little guy that you can’t see?”

The violent jihad in Syria and Iraq is the big guy we all can see. He makes sure we can see him. It’s absolutely necessary that we see him, because his job is to strike terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, as required by Allah.

The little guy that we can’t see is somewhere else. His most recent invisible appearance was at the Vatican, during an event I call Imamgate, when an imam accredited by Al-Azhar University prayed (in Arabic) for Allah to grant victory over the unbelievers.

This incident received very little media attention, yet it was one of the most important stories of the decade. We are in the midst of an information war with Islam, and we are being roundly trounced. What happened at the Vatican received plenty of notice in the Arabic media, and is understood (correctly) by Muslims as a great victory for Islam. Using stealth and deception, the Al-Azhar imam penetrated the innermost sanctum of Christendom and claimed it for the Ummah.

Muslims understand exactly what happened. Non-Muslims — those few who were paying attention — haven’t a clue.

Mohammed told his followers that “War is deceit.” The information war that is being waged against us involves massive, patient, shrewd, intricate, and successful deception.

When Muslims speak to non-Muslims, they deny they are doing anything of the sort. But it’s important to remember what ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper (commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English) says about lying.

Reliance an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law, because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the alma mater of the imam who claimed the Vatican for the Ummah. There is no higher authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine than Al-Azhar; it is the closest equivalent to the Vatican that can be found in Islam.

Consult Book R “Holding One’s Tongue,” §r8.0 “Lying” at r8.2 “Permissible Lying,” in Reliance of the Traveller, which cites the iconic Islamic legal jurist Imam Abu Hamid Ghazali, for authoritative guidelines on sacred lying:

This is an explicit statement that lying is sometimes permissible for a given interest…When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N: i.e., when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible) and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.

The goal of spreading Islam is obligatory. Lying about what’s happening is obligatory if it furthers that goal.

You can’t discover the truth about what’s going on by asking a Muslim.

You have to look for the little man you can’t see.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

At the end of “The Vanishing Private”, the Sarge begs Donald to get him out of his predicament. He says, “You know I ain’t crazy! Go tell the General that I ain’t crazy!”

Donald replies, “Do you think I’m crazy?”

Take note of who the sentries are that guard us here, locked up in our well-padded cells of blissful ignorance.

5 thoughts on “The Jihad You Can’t See

  1. The Manual of Islamic Law is a free download.
    Search “Reliance of the Traveller”.

  2. ‘Here we go round the mulberry bush’ Great cartoon with some nice backgrounds and attention to detail – clouds, laboratory interior, distant mountains.

    There was some mulberry bushing this morning at the Neo-Guardian (Daily Telegraph)when commentators rubbished an article by the Saudi ambassador to the UK – obviously too pertinent for the moderators who rapidly, very rapidly deleted the majority of comments before closing the thread completely. Even the mildest of comments such as the simple question – “is this a joke” were found not fit for public consumption. I wish I had copied some of the more trenchant responses, but it was still early and I was half asleep.

    The Saudi Prince’s invisible jihad was not working too well in this instance unlike imamgate. However, the DT has sufficient dhimmi editors and moderators in place to ensure that stealth jihad escapes relatively unchallenged on its sullied pages.

    Link to article at

    US air strikes will sign the death warrant of our Muslim neighbours

    by Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf Al Saud is Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the Court of St James’s

    Quote: “We do not and we will not support violence or extremism in any form, anywhere by anyone. At all times we seek and strive for a peaceful co-existence between all people, both within our country and within our region, and in the wider world community.”

  3. Another excellent cartoon from the same period is “Der Fuehrer’s Face”, with Donald as a put-upon German soldier. Spike Jones’ version of the song allegedly earned him a place on the Nazis’ hit list.

  4. “When Muslims speak to non-Muslims, they deny they are doing anything of the sort. But it’s important to remember what ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper (commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English) says about lying.”

    I find it ironic that of all the Westerners unable to discern the habitual practice of deceit in Muslim dealings, the leaders in gullibility–Norway and Sweden–are part of the former heartland of the ancient Norse religion, whose chief god, Odin, was wise, cunning and so duplicitous that his followers often named this as a reason for conversion to Christianity.

    For instance:

    “If you deal with another you don’t trust 
But wish for his good-will, 

    Be fair in speech but false in thought 
And give him lie for lie.”

    Isn’t that diplomacy by another name? How have we managed to lose our self-interest in the “Fog of Peace”? Forget Jack Armstrong! We need Loki!

  5. “Muslims understand exactly what happened. Non-Muslims — those few who were paying attention — haven’t a clue.”

    And if you tell them what happened, they’ll call you a bigot; or they’ll say it doesn’t matter if some Muslims see it that way, because reaching out in tolerance and “understanding” is what people of superior virtue do, and it works a moral force through the world.

    Behind all the gullible infidel outreach is moral arrogance masquerading as humility. The dhimmi appeasers — both religious and secular — are so cocksure of their moral superiority that they don’t think it’s necessary for them to learn what Muslims really think and intend. They practice a perverse form of “understanding” that requires no understanding, but only a recitation of the formula “We’re so sorry we offended you. What can we do to make you happy?”

Comments are closed.