The illustrious gentlemen in the photo above made the hijrah to Syria in the early days of the “Arab Spring” to volunteer for jihad in the path of Allah. It’s unlikely that they were motivated to do so for financial reasons — after all, the entity that eventually became known as the Islamic State was not renowned for paying its soldiers lavishly. Mind you, some of them may have been lured by the possibility of free chicks (and when the Yazidi and Christian communities were eventually overrun, they got their chance). However, we may presume that their primary motive was one of religious fervor. One thing that Islam is good at is ginning up fanatical zeal among its followers.
Fervent zeal is the product of reform within Islam, and that reformation has already occurred.
The current wave of Islamic zealotry may be traced to the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen) in 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna. The Brotherhood was formed to return Islam to its roots, but it was hardly the first such reform. Waves of fanaticism had occurred periodically before that, including the Sudanese Mahdiyya, which achieved notoriety in 1885 by slaughtering General Gordon in Khartoum.
Islam is prone to these periodic spasms of reformation due to the instructions laid down in its foundational texts. A righteous believer is required by those texts to fight against unbelievers and massacre or enslave all those who refuse to submit and convert to Islam. If he is killed while fighting jihad in the path of Allah, the believer is rewarded with access to the highest level of paradise, where he may partake of banquets and wine and lots more of those free chicks (or “young boys fresh as pearls”, according to his taste). If he survives the jihad, he may share the booty and slaves with his fellow mujahideen and enjoy the perquisites of the victor during his time here on Earth.
Most infidels don’t realize that when reform in Islam occurs, it looks exactly like what is commonly known as “Islamic extremism”. When Islam gets back to basics, it slits throats and subjugates women. It’s in the Koran! (See the Michael Copeland’s extensive compilations for more information about the scriptural basis for Islamic slaughter and brutality.)
I bring all this up because of insightful remarks made by a commenter named Jason on Friday’s post about reform in Islam:
There is a lot that can be said about reforming Islam, but there is one fact that most people seem to miss.
Islam is winning. You don’t reform winning strategies.
It is the losers that need to reform. That’s us.
He’s got a good point there. I’ve often said that the West is currently losing the struggle against the Great Jihad, not because Islam is more powerful or has superior strategies, but because we infidels have preemptively surrendered to it.
Since we have largely abandoned our Christianity, we have nothing left to fight back with. Once upon a time we responded to jihad by organizing the Crusades. Nowadays we heap up teddy bears and light candles.
When those who have a spiritual void within themselves go forth to do battle with righteous zealots, they will invariably lose, regardless of better technology or superior weaponry.
My intuition tells me that when the scimitar is at his throat, the average atheist will submit. It’s so easy just to say the shahada and go through the forms — that plus zakat is all that Islam requires. Yes, there are occasional atheists who are willing to put their lives on the line for their principles — Lars Vilks comes to mind — but they are rare.
Georgiaboy left this excellent response to Jason’s comment:
Re: “Islam is winning. You don’t reform winning strategies.”
You’re quite right: As long as the hardliners within Islam seem to be “winning,” however that term is defined for their side, it makes the job that much harder for would-be reformers to cause change to happen.
The other fact about reform and Islam that so many miss is that reform within Islam may indeed have already taken place, but in the opposite direction of that expected by western apologists and forecasters.
I am referring to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 by then-obscure school-teacher and practicing Muslim Hassan al-Banna. Upon seeing modernity and the West and their effects on the Islam world, many Muslims yearned for a return to the ‘golden age’ of Islam of the distant past and deplored the corruption, decadence and intellectual and more turpitude of Islam in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The founding of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brothers) was therefore ultimately seen by millions of Muslims worldwide as a rejection of modernity and an attempt to return to a past remembered as glorious and storied. In other words, as a sort of reformation.
The founding and rapid spread of the Muslim Brotherhood around the Islamic world since 1928 can therefore be seen as a reformation of the faith — not in a more-modern and secular direction, but a return to its past roots and perceived strength and vitality.
Re: “It is the losers that need to reform. That’s us.”
The answer to the question of why old Europe is now being overrun with Islamic “refugees” and “migrants” who are de facto conquerors — is that much of Europe is now largely secular, in particular western and northern Europe. Indeed, the nations which arguably are best-resisting the invasion are those of Eastern Europe, in particular Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary — all of which are still strongly Christian in comparison to their neighbors in westerner and northern Europe.
For well over a thousand years, Christianity has served as the sword and shield of Europe, which also known then as Christendom.
That’s not just a figure of speech; the strong faith and arms of those heroes of the now-distant past protected Old Europe from dozens of serious large-scale attempts at invasion and conquest by Muslims from the south, and hundreds — perhaps even thousands of smaller raids and engagements during that time.
Charles Martel and his men at Tours in 732; the armada of ships of the Catholic Holy League victorious at the Battle of Lepanto in 1571; the Winged Hussars of Polish King Jan III Sobieski at the Siege and Battle of Vienna in September 1683; there are many other such figures.
These men down the ages were not just legendary warriors of renown, they were devoted Christians whose beliefs were just as devout as those of the Muslims facing them across the battlefield.
For all of those centuries down to the present, over some 1,400 years, Christianity has served as sort of a de facto immune system of the West, one of the means by which Europeans distinguished themselves from those alien to their civilization and its beliefs. It wasn’t simply that Christians defended Old Europe and the West from invaders; it supplied the sense of identity that made them Europeans in the first place.
It is no accident that the present-day fall of Europe is taking place against the backdrop of an enfeebled Christianity whose so-called “leaders” cannot even summon the moral courage to defend their own birthright.
As the old saying goes, apathy and tolerance are the last virtues of a dying civilization.
I think it’s important to put out handy hashtags demonstrating complete disrespect to this barbaric system called islam.
And here’s one: #shariaisshit
I think that Arabic looks like it was written with a runny bowel movement.
I suspect that the Czechs’, Slovaks’, Poles’ and Hungarians’ resistance is also because they remember the Ottoman Turks’ brutality.
@ Mark H
Re: “I suspect that the Czechs’, Slovaks’, Poles’ and Hungarians’ resistance is also because they remember the Ottoman Turks’ brutality.”
Yes, that’s quite correct. Within living historical memory or at least the relatively recent past – within the last couple of centuries – the people of Eastern Europe, parts of the Mediterranean and Russia have lived in threat from one aggressive group of Muslims or another. And if one goes back further, it is the Tartars and the Mongols.
So, certain strategically-located places and peoples have not only suffered under the boot of the fascists and communists relatively recently, but the Saracens as well.
Where I used to live, I knew a very nice Greek family that ran a local restaurant, and once when conversation turned to history, we got around to talking about Islam and its depredations towards their people. I got a real earful, let me tell you. Those people don’t forgive and forget that sort of thing very easily, even though it has been many years.
And grudges are real in that part of the world, too. The Greeks and the Turks still don’t like each other much, even though both are members of NATO.
Well, I can’t argue with any of this. At the time of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, which I interpreted as an announcement by the Muslim world that they intended to rule us, I assumed that secularists would resist any attempt by Muslims to impose Islamic law on us. But it turned out that secularists were only interested in thwarting Christians.
Likewise, I thought that feminists would be up in arms over the invasion by Muslims. After all, doesn’t everyone know that Saudi Arabia in its treatment of women is the equivalent of South Africa under apartheid in its treatment of blacks? And since Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam, that should mean that feminists ought to have been very leery of having Muslims here in the West. Add in the example of Iran in 1979, when women there were moderately liberated at the beginning of the year but were dragged back to the seventh century when the Muslims took over. Yet feminists remain silent. And ditto for gays, other than a few like Bruce Bawer.
So, yes, they are winning, and we are losing.
@ John People
Re: “Likewise, I thought that feminists would be up in arms over the invasion by Muslims. After all, doesn’t everyone know that Saudi Arabia in its treatment of women is the equivalent of South Africa under apartheid in its treatment of blacks?”
Apart from a few exceptions modern western feminists have been as silent as a tomb regarding the abuses of women in Islam. This goes back many years to when I was a younger man.
Likewise, the apparent infatuation of the political left in the U.S. – the cultural marxists in particular (or as they say today, “woke”) – with Islam. One needn’t look any further than “The Squad,” that gang of female Democrats which includes Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), among others.
What gives? Don’t the Democrats favor women’s rights? How can they support Islam while claiming to be in favor of women’s rights (let alone minority rights, which are something else too under Islamic rule)?
I have concluded that the old saying applies: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend…”
Meaning that as long as western civilization and Christianity exist, the Muslims and communists will remain more-or-less united in their shared hatred of them and goal of destroying them both.
After those things are gone is when the “fun” really begins. It is likely that their new-found friends and allies will turn upon the left, and offer them an Islamic version of “plomo e plata” (“lead or silver”) as the Mexican cartels say. Namely, say the shadada or face the consequences.
Re: “And since Saudi Arabia is the heart of Islam, that should mean that feminists ought to have been very leery of having Muslims here in the West.”
There is an ugly secret at the heart of this situation, namely that many western feminists harbor the secret desire to be dominated by Muslim conquerors. I call it “‘The Wind and the Lion’effect,” after the old film in which a female westerner played by Candice Bergen, is captured by a charismatic sheik played by Sean Connery and ends up being infatuated with him.
It is inherent in the biology of the female of the human species to prefer fitter men as potential mates. Female hypergamy is very real, not withstanding the denials of outraged feminists everywhere. Not all women are as driven by the imperatives of hypergamy as others, but the trait is very strong in many woman, in particular during their reproductive years.
It is also inherent for the female of the species to “set up” or create conditions in which would-be suitors and male companions have to compete or fight for her favor. This is unconscious behavior, not something of which most most women are even aware.
Yet, we see this behavior pattern manifested across Europe, as cuckolded native European males are rejected in favor of the swarthy, exotic and masculine newcomers.
Of course, none of this whatsoever is political-correct in the slightest or permissible discussion in what passes for polite society these days. But the truth is a funny thing, it doesn’t go way even when you ignore it.
The Channel Islands British women screwed with the Nazis all through their occupation WW2. Islam could be the art of occupation through immigration.
Hunyadi Janos (Janko de Hunadoira to the Romanians) of Hungary was one of the greatest of all defenders of Europe against Ottoman aggression. Sadly, his story is almost unknown in modern western Europe, which, in itself, tells us a lot about the West.
@ Emmet Scott
Thank you for the tip regarding Hunyadi Janos… as a historian, I very much enjoy learning new things (and there is always history about which you do not know!) and take seriously the idea of doing so. I had not previously hear of him, although I had heard of some of the battles in which he fought.
IRONY ON
Hey, just look at the bright side:
If you are a muslim, you may own a fully automatic AK-47.
Or even a 20mm anti-air gun, or a RPG etc
So, goodbye weapons laws of the West that forbid the ownership of weapons.
Does that not beat the 2nd Amendment?
IRONY OFF
Pssst, Alex, you can find that on the black market in Germany, today. So find yourself a couple of AK’s and a thousand round tin and train with them.
Excellent essay. Thank you for including the post by Georgiaboy. It was very informative.
I’m talking about atheism. The atheists of the first years of Soviet power excellently cut the Basmachi and removed the veils from women. Soft-bodied beings of the present time can hardly be called real atheists who are struggling with the enslavement of the mind by invented concepts of a higher being.
I will argue with you. I talked with my Orthodox Christian acquaintances. They are mentally closer to Muslims than atheists. Because the idea of the One God is closer to them than polytheism or godlessness. Women in general are terrible… For some reason, ugly women are obsessed with the fact that men are sexually horny dirty animals and only Muslims keep this world from falling.
Of course, I apologize terribly to those present. But I have repeatedly written that I do not like the Abrahamic religions. I think that this is an incredible loss for all Humanity – the loss of harmonious concepts of the ancient philosophers of the Mediterranean.
Christianity in my opinion … is a way of spiritual colonization of non-Jewish peoples.
And I will fight to the last against Abrahamism. and its most terrible Third Version. May the Olympian gods help me! (joke)
First of all you put all “Abrahamic” faiths under one umbrella. There is only one and that is Judaism. Neither Christianity or Islam has anything to do with Abraham. You need to study the subject… a lot.
Judaism is terrible. Abrahamism in their version looks completely obscene. God says to Abraham: You give me a piece of skin from the genitals of your men, and for this I give you the lands where other nations live, because I have chosen your people.
It’s disgusting, it’s a deified concept of genocide.
No wonder the Muslims picked it up with such enthusiasm.
Of course, Jesus Christ stands out from this with his Sermon on the Mount. True, his God is the same intolerant jealous egoist, promising hellfire for his rejection.
But… The Christian concept of the universe seems unconvincing to me. Boring. Primitive. Not answering many questions. Therefore, I’d rather go, for example, to the Buddhists. Or I’ll collect a little from everywhere. Who will forbid me?
I have always found Jewish people to be very fair and Muslims phoney.
Again: I’ll see your jihad and raise you one Crusade.
If the mere absence of belief in god is called a “spiritual void”, then I have nothing to say to that. The believer may see it this way, the unbeliever another way. The issue is rather, when this “spiritual void” is occupied with something which is intolerant to disagreeing alternatives, then this does indeed lend a mental fortitude to engage in either aggressive or defensive action, the latter implying that there is another group who has initiated aggression first. Those who are disinterested or favour other paths of truth-seeking, do exhibit a weakness in recognizing when another group is taking its course too far and becomes a threat to peaceful coexistence. In the case of Islam, this blindness is really astonishing and one wonders how many have to be killed, maimed, raped, robbed, exploitet and whatnot before a critical mass notices something is going to happen to their comfort zones if they don’t start worrying about defending them.
The fight for dominance about a spiritual truth which up to this time none of us is equipped to know for sure is the most irrational thing humans like to engage in. It’s not a fight over resources, territory or mere survival. It is this irrationality, its being so illogical and dumbfounding which makes every sane and reasonable person go “What on Earth are y’all about?” — and this way fail to see the danger. Or even be completely unwilling to see any, as the dreamy type going “Why can’t we all live together?” The conclusion is better left unsaid, because the dynamics unfolding as consequence of these conflicting mindsets will not be influenced anyway. To predict the future, we have one hint, though: The open-minded can change. The closed-minded can not and thereby are predictable. Our real and only problem is what we choose not to perceive. But as said, the former have that choice at their disposal, the latter don’t.
Apologies, I always notice just a moment too late when my spelling and grammar is going down the drain. I attribute it to using at least three languages every day and their patterns overlapping are a frequent source for errors not being detected in time.
How do I explain to a preacher I know, that attending his services, or any other in this country, is making me soft? Matters of faith are discussed and studied regularly. The Bible is adhered to, and the focus of doctrine, as well as authority on things argued. Yet never is uttered a word about the encroaching islamic threat, or any of the other ones, only hinted at. Or what to do about them. That’s how Christianity fails in the US. Instead of a forge for weapons (men and women fully aware of the threats, and how to deal with them) it is a weak and flaccid hospital for sinners to get softer and softer, unable to fight against the opposition that is chomping at the bit to annihilate them.
Yes. It observes no doctrine except “Turn the other cheek” and “judge not”. The rest, the harder stuff, seems to have been forgotten.
those 2 are always misused or used out of context. in particular turn the other cheek refer not to surrender to the authority (as most people think about it, like if it was weak) but to the contrary (and it is not a masochist approach): it is the final non compliance to the authority, never bend down, it is the go up to the martyrdom approach.
“How do I explain to a preacher I know, that attending his services, or any other in this country, is making me soft?”
Sadly, I don’t think you can. At least, not in any way that’s likely to result in his [actionable] enlightenment.
The problem, I believe, is that, like the US Constitution—”Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (John Addams)”—truly peaceful (i.e., principally modern Judeo-Christian) religions are wholly inadequate in a jungle context (i.e., where feral animals run amok).
all of the “arab springs” happend under the reign of obamba and killary sponsered by “neocons”, and if i remember correctly also the “international community” (from micron to mutty merkel and others) said alltogheter “Assad must go” and then all of a sudden all of these ISIS / ISIL (whatever the mainstreammedia called them) started to arrive from abroad in syria, to fight alongside the “legitimate rebels” against the dictator armed with toyota vehicles; many of the fighters had even british accent when on video cutting some heads of kidnapped people ( also at the end of ISIS state, the british governement let their foreign fighters come back home after service because under syria they could have faced prosecution and arrest ). but what these muslim fundamentalists never did was to attack israel… which is the greatest ally of US in the middle east. i am not saying there are no muslim fundamentalists, but it is mostly the CIA to use them for their needs in afghanistan where they armed them with stingers to repel the USSR invasion and acentury or so before the english crown used them to foment an arab revolt against the ottomans. nobody even said anything about the kingdom of saudi arabia from where most if not all of the 9/11 people came from and even bin laden himself.
It never ceases to amaze me that all commenting here seem to think and believe we can reason and wish and vote and use civilized means to stop the threat of islams march throughout the west without getting your hands dirty? Well I got news for every one of you, at some point it’s going to go kenotic and those of you unprepared, and that means being unarmed and sitting ducks waiting to be slaughtered, you have a stark choice, either be the sheep, or be the Wolf, and this is the land of Wolves now. To those unarmed and civilized beyond surviving, I have no sympathy or empathy left to give, you made the choice, bloody live with it.
This used to be second nature. What happened? I am in Ireland right now. Where the Muslims are firming up in the local squares. They obviously don’t care what the locals think.
Last 2 years i/v been in Ukraine..
Long story short..Beard guys are not tough at all..I know this empirically from personal account :-))
Bleeding, screaming for mercy before end , like anybody else ..Fearful of capable man..
We in Poland (Hungary, Romania ) learn thru centuries how to deal with them..
My grandfathers teach me right approach ” remember ..you are NOT dealing with other Human being “..