John R. Houk
© March 3, 2014
I don’t wish to sound too sophomoric (a favorite term used by one of my History Professors when a student or pundit said something he considered beneath his intellect), but I have to make that sound – SHAZZAM!
I just read an essay by Dr. Mary Habeck a PhD in history from Yale; a MA in International Relations from Yale and a BA in International Relations, Russian, and Spanish from Ohio State. Those are a lot of letters.
Dr. Habeck’s essay has brought the best clarity for me to understand Islam in that so-called fine line between Moderate and Radical. I use the term “so-called” because I have had quite a bit of difficulty in seeing the difference in beliefs between Moderate and Radical Islam even if there is a difference in practice.
Here is my difficulty with the concepts of “Moderate” and “Radical” within Islam. ALL practicing Muslims believe the Quran is the direct manifested word from their deity Allah as delivered from whom Muslims consider the perfect man their prophet Mohammed (or Muhammad or Mohamet or whatever depending in the time frame someone writes about this guy). That means the Quran is an absolutist holy document. Then the other commentaries on the Quran such as the Hadith and Sira (or whatever combination the Sunna is as part of the Sira – I am unsure of the difference between Sira and Sunna) are of value depending on which Muslim scholar majority opinion says which commentary are authentic or bogus. When there is wide agreement on authenticity on Muslim commentaries those commentaries are nearly as holy as the Quran in its force but still NOT the very word of Allah.
I reassert the word “ALL” because it doesn’t matter whether one is Moderate or Radical, all Muslims believe what I just wrote about the Quran, Hadith and Sira. What Dr. Habeck has accomplished for me is how the Moderate and Radical Muslim interpret the meanings of the Quran, Hadith and Sira.
A Muslim who contends that he/she is Moderate will undoubtedly respond, “Well DUHHHH!” However, in Dr. Habeck’s clarity I also comprehend why there is little public condemnation from a Moderate or as the good scholar Doctor writes, a “typical Muslim” about the terrorist actions of a Radical Muslim. The Moderate Muslim will consider the violence and harshness employed by Radical Muslims as un-Islamic. Even so the Radical Muslim STILL IS interpreting the Quran, Hadith and Sira from their original intent. Ergo even if the interpretation varies in implementation in the now, the Radical Islamic goals of global Islam, a global Caliphate and an absolute Islamic society governed by Islamic Sharia Law; the ends of Radical Islam do not differ from the ends of Moderate Islam. That which differs is the MEANS.
The Moderate (or “typical”) Muslim have updated their “MEANS” with modernity which is indeed is more peaceful than the “MEANS” of Radical Islam. Nonetheless, wherever Islam is already supreme a Moderate Muslim will view Islam as a superior way of life for society and law. This is the case even if Moderate Islam by activity is of a more peaceful manner. In an Islamic society Islamic Superiority is more than an ideological concept it is a norm that is sacrosanct. Hence when a non-Muslim is viewed as being insulting to that which holy even Moderate Muslims can be stirred to go nuts against that non-Muslim.
In Western society differences of opinion in ideology or religion are viewed as an individual right. Especially in the USA where we have enshrined Liberty in the First Amendment of our Constitution. Thus everyone is entitled to their opinion as long as it does not elicit harm to individuals or the community. In America the radical side of Leftism which is an offshoot of Marxism which leads to absolute State control of individuals especially by force is frowned upon even by center-Left Americans. Also the radical side of the Right Wing such as unrestrained Capitalism-Free Market that harms individuals in the name of the bottom line of profit is frowned upon even by center-Right Americans. Also there are the violent Right Wingers that will utilize violence to bring racial superiority ideologies that leads to the harm of individuals is heavily frowned upon by center-Left and center-Right Americans. The key for Americans at the least unconsciously is the harm to individual Liberty.
The Right of individual Liberty is absolutely foreign in Islamic society. The actions, beliefs and Freedoms are viewed through the filter of submission to Allah. If an action, belief or perceived freedom deviates from submission to Allah as understood from the Quran, Hadith and Sira is unacceptable in Islamic society.
This is the real essence of the clash of societies when it comes to Western thought and Islamic thought!
Individual Rights are the very identity of Americans and to a filtered extent due to history to all Western influenced nations. Submission to Allah is the very identity of Muslims. As long as there is a U.S. Constitution Americans as a whole will not accept Islam. As long as the Quran is considered absolute closely followed by authentic Hadith and Sira; Muslims as a whole will not accept or conceive Liberty as a good thing.
Just to be clear – even though Dr. Habeck brought some clarity to my mind, I cannot speak that this is the same clarity that Dr. Habeck has a conclusion of an irreparable clash between Western Liberty and Islamic submission. In fact the essay I read “Attacking America: Al Qaeda’s Grand Strategy in Its War with the World” is less about an inevitable clash between the West and Islam and more about American leaders underestimating the global agenda of Radical Islam especially as embodied in the Islamic terrorist organization al Qaeda. Even so – I have clarity about America and Islam. And thus I feel actually feel better about distrusting all of Islam in general. This is the case even if I am labeled an Islamophobic bigot. If the love of America makes me a bigot, then a bigot I will be when it comes to Islam.
John R. Houk
© June 3, 2013
The blogger Danny Jeffrey has often been critical of the U.N. and Obama international principle of Responsibility to Protect (R2P). The public presentation of R2P is that the international community has a responsibility to protect civilians of a nation placed in a life threatening dangerous position from either its government or perhaps internal terrorism the local government cannot cope with or both. AND that sounds altruistic enough, don’t you think?
Jeffrey’s criticism is simple. R2P is a tool of Leftist Globalists and the U.N. to have an excuse to further the agenda of a global New World Order under some kind of dual Leftist-Islamic design. Danny Jeffrey off the top of my head seems to emphasize the Caliphate agenda of Radical Islam.
I say “off the top of my head” because it seems that Danny’s essays that I have read tend to be suspicious of Islam’s goal to destroy Israel and the Leftist tend to agree with that agenda. I personally think global Leftists and the Caliphate agenda Muslims are taking advantage of each other with the intention of screwing each other over. My reasoning for this thinking is that Leftists are not fond of religious influence in general and Islam is not fond of any other religions or ideologies that are secularist at best and atheistic at worst. As far as Islam is concerned that would run the Leftist gamut of Secular Humanist Socialists to atheistic Marxists.
Thus in my line of thinking the Leftist-Radical Islam unity is more like an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” agenda until that enemy is eliminated. If that situation occurs you can imagine the global bloodlust that would follow a global Leftist vs. global Muslim Caliphate war. It would be like medieval days when the winners destroyed en masse the losers. Protocols of modern Western Civilization would be totally thrown out the door while such a war would be a series of battles in which each battle victory by either side would be an ethnic cleansing moment until the victors would be the only ones standing after ethnic cleansing annihilation.
A global Leftist-Caliphate war would be an End Times apocalypse in nature.
In this sense I agree with Danny that R2P is a nefarious thing that the long term affects will be of no good for people (Mostly Americans) who love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The long term affects of R2P will strengthen the ulterior motives of global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims to the horrible misfortune of Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans. Both Christians and Bill of Rights minded Americans are the target of destruction by global Leftists and global Caliphate Muslims.
However when it comes to Syria, I believe dumping Bashar al-Assad will throw a monkey wrench in the Caliphate agenda because it will highlight the mutual hatred that Sunnis and Shias have for each other. Sunnis represent roughly 90% of Islam and Shias represent roughly 10% Islam.
The largest Shia nation is Iran of which that nation’s Mullocracy are mostly Twelver Shias. They are called Twelvers because they believe a Twelfth or Hidden Imam will reveal himself and force Islam upon the whole Earth. That Twelfth Imam is a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed. Therein lay the hatred between Sunnis and Shias.
The Sunnis beat back the Shias in a war in which the last Mohammed relative that was a Caliph – Ali – had his Caliphate terminated by assassination. The Shias believed only a person of a Mohammed ancestry line could guide Muslims as Caliph. Allegedly the last living relative of Mohammed (the twelfth in lineage that is) disappeared. I am uncertain what the Sunnis believe about this guy – perhaps Sunnis believe he was killed or perhaps never existed; thus ending any claim to a hereditary Caliphate. I am certain that the Shias believe this twelfth Imam and descendant of Mohammed via Ali went into some sort of occultation to be hidden until the time was right for revealing himself to secure the Earth for Islam.
Okay that is a brief summary of the Sunni-Shia divide that is roughly correct but I am sure is filled with anomalies from the Sunni or Shia perspective.
The thing is Iran – a Shia theocratic nation – has regional designs as in being the top Muslim dog in the Middle East. Iran is the only Muslim nation that has an open destructive against both Israel and America that will undoubted be threatening because the development of nuclear weapons.
Iran’s principle allies in the region are Assad’s Shia-Alawite minority Syrian government and Hezbollah-Shia terrorist dominated Lebanon. Taking out Assad from this religious maniac alliance of Iran-Syria-Hezbollah will disrupt the military designs of Iran.
Of course the problem that Danny will point is that Syrian rebels fighting against Assad are religious nuts of radical Sunni-Muslims that essentially and probably will lead to a problem for the USA and Israel. My thinking is though that the USA and Israel already have a problem with Israel. So why not place Iran is a situation that some of their nefarious regional goals are disrupted by killing or booting Assad out of Syrian control?
So here I am in the unenviable position of both agreeing and disagreeing with Danny Jeffrey’s most recent essay on R2P, aiding the Syrian rebels, Obama’s support of those rebels and Senator McCain’s pushing Obama to support those rebels.
And yet I also have to tell you that Obama is the most corrupt President as to supporting the Constitutional principles of the Founding Fathers since Aaron Burr almost attained that Presidency in our then young Republic. When Obama says “Change” he means transform America away from the Bill of Rights and to at least make America a Multiculturalist Socialist-Democratic nation and at worst a Marxist utopia with no Liberty whatsoever.
Here is an alternative Bible Prophecy thought for you. The USA will remain the most powerful military on Earth and will enhance its military position by embracing nationalism to a greater degree. Turkey will supersede Iran as the Islamic regional power. Hamas will look to Turkey as an arbiter of destiny. Israel and Hamas will reconcile with Hamas becoming the dominant organization over Arabs that call themselves Palestinians. Turkey’s Islamic domination will lead Muslims away from Arab nationalism to a kind of Islamic Universalism leading to the reestablishment of the Caliphate under Turkish auspices.
These are just some of the predictions from Walid Shoebat that seems to be the prophetic theme of a new book “The Case for Islamophobia: America’s Final Warning.”
I am guessing the prophetic essay “Prophecy: What Lies Ahead” is a preview of what is in Walid’s book. The essay goes against the grain of recent Biblical prophecy pundits and theologians with an emphasis that the book series “Left Behind” has it wrong.
I am certain Walid’s predictions will be criticized by both geopolitists and Biblical oriented prophetic writers. Nevertheless, the case is well presented and the only real critic will be the progression of time.
Intro: If you do not Know What Resolution 16/18 is …
John R. Houk
Danny Jeffrey has some great thoughts on UN Resolution 16/18! I am so upset about UN Resolution 16/18 (April 2011 text) that I am willing to go to jail to engage in civil disobedience for limiting my 1st Amendment Rights. When you read the text of the resolution there is the first glance reaction is the language sounds amenable to the U.S. Constitution; the problem is about who frames or defines what is incitement to violence and the use of the Latin word inter alia which means ‘among other things’.
Inter alia is a Latin term that means “among other things” It is used to indicate that something is one out of a number of possibilities. For example, “he filed suit against respondents in state court, alleging, inter alia, a breach of contract.”
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) agrees to the wording of among other things because Muslims can cry incitement against Islam while hypocritically ignoring the incitement against Christians and Jews that clearly occurs in Muslim nations on a daily basis. Ergo no matter the defense by the U.S. State Department that Resolution 16/18 does not hinder the First Amendment (If you have the time it would be worth it to watch Heritage Foundation seminar criticizing UN Resolution 16/18) is either idiotic ignorance or deceitful propaganda.
I am cross posting Danny’s post “IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT RESOLUTION 16/18 IS THEN YOU ARE ASLEEP AND IN DANGER.” I should note that I am not the only blogger appreciating Danny’s thoughts. In Googling for background info the title came up all over the place, so there is a good chance you may have read it already. Even so I am guessing there are still a few folks that haven’t Danny’s post yet. Enjoy and think about what you read.
John R. Houk
© January 20, 2012
Here is something that did not surprise me. President Barak Hussein Obama has been cozying up to the radical Islamic organization the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt. The MB originated in 1928 Egypt; however it has become a transnational global movement to restore the Muslim Caliphate on a global scale. In spite of the obvious the MB has ran a propaganda campaign to convince the West and America in particular that it is a moderate non-violent organization. That is a LIE!
The MB was founded as a purist Islamic movement with an intense dislike for the Western World especially against the British that actually governed Egypt by de facto rule even though the nation was a monarchy. In the days between the MB founding and the ascension of Gamel Abdel Nasser, the MB’s modus operandi was terrorism and assassination in the name of Allah. On the other hand the MB was not against using the British as a tool to their ends as well. Nasser and later Sadat were more interested utilizing political power to establish Pan-Arabism than embracing the purity of Islam. Nasser and Sadat shut down the open operation of the MB forcing them to develop different tactics for their ultimate goals within Egypt.
At this time the MB chose infiltration rather than overt confrontation when the political power had more strength. This is a tactic right out of the Quran as exampled by old Mo himself. Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot in Gaza. Hamas is an example of how the MB will operate if they attain the ruling power. Europe has experienced the infiltration of MB tactics to the point that a nick-name has been applied known as Eurabia. The MB has a slew of MB planted organizations in America of which CAIR is the most prominent yet definitely not the only MB organization. The MB has a plan for North America that is to gain political power via infiltration of government on a local, State and Federal level.
With this background in mind ACT for America sent some information that exposes President Barack Hussein Obama as getting cozy with the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. This is the same MB that hates America almost as much as the organization hates Jews. The plan of the MB is a global Caliphate. Furthermore part of that plan is to infiltrate America as part of the plan to achieve the goal of a global Caliphate. The ACT for America email has a little bit of an advertisement for their educational program to understand the dark nature of Islam followed by a truncated version of a Barry Rubin article. Rubin’s article lays out some observations that are astonishing about how BHO is trying to make friends with the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The friendship agenda is probably based on the hope of gaining trust of the Arab/Muslim World for America. BHO’s mission typically is a Leftist utopian enterprise.
Here is the utopian picture.
BHO makes friends with as many Sunni dominated Muslim nations as possible, which will include selling out Israel, and then peace will emerge in the Middle East at least to the extent as it relates to America. BHO should read some history before makes utopian decisions. The Muslim Brotherhood will milk American resources (primarily military) as long as possible before the Islamist organization will kick America out of Egypt much like the Ayatollah Khomeini kicked America out of Iran after Jimmy Carter set the circumstances to allow the Shah to be deposed from the Peacock Throne.
Not only is President Obama selling out Israel. Cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood is selling out America.
John R. Houk
© March 1, 2011
I always get in trouble for this thought: Islam is evil. This three word thought elicits vulgar comments from Muslims and outrage from Left Wing multiculturalists with the accusation of Islamophobe meant as an epithet and not a compliment. In honesty I have often given Muslims devoted to a theological principle of worship with the desire to better oneself via their monotheistic deity the benefit of the doubt. The benefit is a faith of inner peace. The doubt is Islam is just as much political as it is theological. This means there is a direct link between the governing authority and a focus on faith in the religion of Islam.
In my Christian faith, residing in America as well as being a Conservative, I am a huge believer of religion being an influence on governing the State, BUT NOT the State having any influence on any religion. The American Left has warped 20th century Constitutional thought into Judicial Activism believing in the propagandized myth of Separation of Church and State. This means that religion must not have any influence in the affairs of governing as well as the government not having any influence in religious practice. The problem for America with the Leftist vision of religion and State is that the moral foundations of our past are being eroded by the Leftist replacement with Secular Humanism which emphasizes Moral Relativity. Moral Relativity means the values of society are purely measurable by what humanity defines as moral. When humanity defines morality there is no constant standard. Biblical Morality is a constant standard based on the Word of God. The lack of a constant standard by its nature means there is little restraint on the proclivity of human nature to act selfishly. Selfishness in human nature left unchecked leads to an ever evolving descent toward wickedness.
Today in the name of First Amendment Free Speech there is a pervasiveness of pornography; family disunity via divorce; children are disrespectful of authority to the point of social dysfunction that leads to violence in schools, pervasive teen drug use, despicably abhorrent bullying that incites violent retribution or suicide; theft is so prevalent that one is thought a fool if they don’t loc their doors and more.
The absence of a distinctive difference between temporal governing and religious practice in Islam means that the governing authority must comply with Islamic Law and that the governing authority has the duty to enforce society to follow Islamic Law. This leads to a concept of Islamic Supremacism in which Muslim and non-Muslims have severely curtailed civil rights. For the devoted Muslim this may not be bad news; however for the more secular minded Muslim and the non-Muslim civil rights and civil liberty is extremely hampered which is REAL bad news for a person who violates the governing principles of Sharia Law.
It is the theopolitical nature of Islam that makes Islam evil. This is especially so in America in which our nation’s whole foundation is based on the Declaration of Independence which emphasizes the concepts of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. America’s Constitution insures explicitly various rights of Liberty and Freedom which are unalienable. From the Founding Father perspective these unalienable rights are created in humanity by God Almighty Himself. In America life is about choice that does not break the law. In Islam life is about submission to Allah and the deity’s prophet Mohammed.
American representative democracy and Islamic culture are as divergent as night and day. Islam can take no other view other than the American way of life is evil. The Liberty implicit in American culture has no choice but to view Islamic culture as evil. The unfortunate circumstance in America is that American Liberty allows Leftist doctrine and Islamic theopolitical thought to be freely expressed even if it eradicates American Liberty.
To switch gears a bit allow me to express some concerns that is going on in the Muslim Maghreb and Middle East.
The little Muslim nation of Tunisia exploded into a grassroots move to end the government of their dictator. This move in Tunisia spread through the Muslim world as a wild fire. The irony is the apparent Muslim populist movement is very reminiscent of the Bush Doctrine Neoconservative idea that democracy is an infectious way to live if given the opportunity to attach to any nation in the world. After Iraq and Afghanistan began to regard American invasions as an occupation rather than as a deliverance from despotism, the Bush Doctrine took a major dent. Even Neoconservatives began to be disillusioned with democratic nation building. We Neocons believed that the democratization of Germany and Japan after WWII could be a repeated experiment on any form of despotism. The thing is Germany is from the Western tradition. Although Japan has no roots in Western influence, if one examines Japanese history there are surprising similarities between Japan’s feudal past and Europe’s feudal past. It could be that the feudalism of Japan was a precursor making Japan pliable to adapt Western style democratic institutions.
Being Americans, Bush Agenda supporters did not take into consideration that theopolitical Islam would trump civil rights and liberty. Muslim lands have had the curse of a stagnant culture stuck in their successes of the Middle Ages. Also Muslim lands have had the blessing of intense indoctrination of theopolitical Islamic Sharia Law that has made Islam entrenched in the minds of its adherents. The cultural path of Islamic indoctrination enabled each generation of a conquered people to be more and more devoted to Islam. This mind entrenchment thwarts all non-Islamic political ideologies and thwarts the success of an alternative religion from effectively competing with Islam. Alternative political ideologies and alternative religions are not only dealt with harshly by Muslim clerics, but entrenched minds of the populace will take it upon themselves also to deal harshly with alternative concepts.
The indoctrinated entrenchment of the Muslim mind makes it a group of people that have a love affair with the concept of a global Caliphate. One might tell you that a Caliph would have the same significance as the Roman Catholic Pope. The Pope today is considered by Catholic adherents as the head of the Church on earth. Today that is translated as the spiritual head of the Church. An Islamic Caliph has more than spiritual attributes. In Islam the Caliph represents a successor to Mohammed. A Caliph must carry out the directives of the Quran, Hadith and Sira. These directives go beyond a concept of a spiritual leader keeping the Ummah (Global Community of Muslims) on the spiritual path of Allah as espoused by the prophet Mohammed.
Mohammed made it clear that it is the duty of Muslims to bring Islam to the whole earth. If Islam is rejected then it is the duty of the Muslim conquerors to create conditions that makes the choice of converting to Islam easier. Those conditions include brutal temporal conquest, rejecters of Islam monotheists may choose to retain their faith BUT ONLY if there is an agreement to follow Sharia Law, polytheistic rejecters of Islam do not receive a choice of a dehumanized Sharia life or if the combined rejection of Islam and Sharia is the choice then choice as far as the Quran, Hadith and Sira is concerned is to advocate death. Polytheistic rejecters of Islam were cut no slack by historical Caliphs of spiritual/temporal power. The polytheists’ choice was simpler: Convert to Islam or die.
Islam ran into a snag of convert or die in the conquest of India. The polytheistic Hindu population was so huge even in the 7th and 8th century AD that somebody realized that if all the Hindu rejecters of Islam were slaughtered then there would be nobody left to pay tribute called jizya. Still the slaughter and enslavement of the Indian Subcontinent was an immense genocide of the most heinous brutality of conquest to that date in history. After a jizya system was eventually set up for Hindus, Muslim rulers still felt obligated to please Allah every so often to terminate groups of Hindus’ lives by the will of Allah.
This picture of the past is important in this present day.
I foresee a great danger to Western Civilization with the grassroots Muslim uprisings across the Maghreb and the Middle East. Regardless of what you hear about a comparison of grassroots and democracy having a chance in these Muslim lands elucidating the hope that Western democracy will now finally have its opportunity, do not believe it. Islamic theopolitical doctrine and Western concepts of Freedom and Liberty simple are not compatible.
If these Muslim grassroots uprisings are successful I assure you their Islamic indoctrinated mind will eventually look to the Quran, Hadith and Sira for direction in a united Ummah. What do you think a united Ummah entails? A united Ummah would demand a Caliphate. What has been the objective the Muslim Brotherhood (and offshoots), Wahhabis, Salafists, Deobandis (SA Here) and the like including al Qaeda sympathizers? That objective is a reformist return to the purity of Mohammed and the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs which is the establishment of a Caliphate to once again move to force the issue of converting to Islam.
Check out these thoughts from Andrew C. McCarthy on the grassroots uprisings and the potential of a Caliphate:
The caliphate is an institution of imperial Islamic rule under sharia, Muslim law. Not content with empire, Islam anticipates global hegemony. Indeed, mainstream Islamic ideology declares that such hegemony is inevitable, holding to that belief every bit as sincerely as the End of History crowd holds to its conviction that its values are everyone’s values (and the Muslims are only slightly less willing to brook dissent). For Muslims, the failure of Allah’s creation to submit to the system He has prescribed is a blasphemy that cannot stand.
As I recounted in The Grand Jihad, Churchill’s views were not eccentric. A modern scholar of Islam, Andrew Bostom, recalls the insights of C. Snouck Hurgronje, among the world’s leading scholars of Islam during World War I. In 1916, even in the dark hours of Ottoman defeat, he marveled at the grip the concept of Islamic hegemony continued to hold on the Muslim masses:
It would be a gross mistake to imagine that the idea of universal conquest may be considered as obliterated. . . . The canonists and the vulgar still live in the illusion of the days of Islam’s greatness. The legists continue to ground their appreciation of every actual political condition on the law of the holy war, which war ought never be allowed to cease entirely until all mankind is reduced to the authority of Islam — the heathen by conversion, the adherents of acknowledged Scripture [i.e., Jews and Christians] by submission.
Muslims, of course, understood the implausibility of achieving such dominance in the near term. Still, Hurgronje elaborated, the faithful were “comforted and encouraged by the recollection of the lengthy period of humiliation that the Prophet himself had to suffer before Allah bestowed victory upon his arms.” So even as the caliphate lay in ruins, the conviction that it would rise again remained a “fascinating influence” and “a central point of union against the unfaithful.”
Today, the OIC is Islam’s central point of union against the unfaithful. Those who insist that the 1,400-year-old dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims is ephemeral, that all we need is a little more understanding of how alike we all really are, would do well to consider the OIC’s Cairo Declaration of 1990. It is the ummah’s “Declaration of Human Rights in Islam,” proclaimed precisely because Islamic states reject the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights promulgated by the United Nations under the guidance of progressives in the United States and the West. That is, the leaders of the Muslim world are adamant that Western principles are not universal.
They are quite right about that. The Cairo Declaration boasts that Allah has made the Islamic ummah “the best community . . . which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization.” It is the “historical role” of the ummah to “civilize” the rest of the world — not the other way around. (The OIC and the Caliphate; Andrew C. McCarthy; National Review; February 26, 2011 4:00 A.M.)
“OIC” is the abbreviation for Organization of the Islamic Conference. It is crystal clear that the OIC is the foundation for the dreams of a global Caliphate. There will be a galvanizing of Islamic instruments beginning to call for the return of Islamic purity. Those instruments can be seen in Hasan al-Banna’s founding of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the 1920’s and a Muslim Sheik’s embracement of a little known group in the Arabian Peninsula named by the West after Muhammad bin Abd al Wahhab (1701 – 1791). Hence there is term Wahhabism. I understand Wahhabis do not necessarily appreciate the appellation and prefer the term Salafism. The MB and Wahhabism were both puritanical yet they were distinct. Nasser’s crackdown on the MB in the 1960s led much of their group to flee. The Saudi King offered refuge. At this point the MB and Wahhabism seemed to have a mutual infusion. This is important because the MB vision has been a Pan-Arab move toward a Caliphate. Wahhabism was pretty much confined to the Arabian Peninsula focusing on a return to the purist Islam of Mohammed’s days.
The MB-Wahhabi infusion brought a Pan-Arab Caliphate vision to nation that then began to finance the spread of Salafist theopolitical ideology in the Muslim World (dar al-Islam) and to the non-Muslim world (dar al-harb – significantly Western nations).
So let’s recap my thoughts a bit.
There is an inspired grassroots movement among Muslims in the Maghreb and the Middle East to change despotic governments. The West has viewed this grassroots movement as an opportunity for democratic institutions in the Muslim world. The reality is Islamic Culture and Western Cultural democratic institutions are totally incompatible and cannot coexist successfully. Salafi movements of which the Muslim Brotherhood is the best known in the West (there are others) have the objective of a return to purist Islam and a return of the theopolitical Caliphate. The OIC is plugged into the Muslim Brotherhood in a Pan-Muslim objective as well as extending Muslim influence toward non-Muslim lands. The OIC is as much theological as it is political.
All this points to the OIC as being the platform of establishing the Salafist dream of a Caliphate. Multicultural idiots of the West are big on telling their constituents that the West (especially America) is not at war with Islam. Yet Islam across the Sunni-Shia divide has called America the great Satan. This is an indication that Islam is at war with Western principles because America is the embodiment of Western Freedom and Liberty.
Please tell me, someone in the West or America is wise enough to prepare for the inevitable coming conflict between the Secular West (with a Judeo-Christian heritage) and the theopolitical agenda of Islam’s move to a Caliphate?
Links to compare about the course and affect of the OIC: