Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/21/2001 9:26:32 AM PDT by Starmaker

US-NATO strategy for waging the war against Pan-Islamic terrorism is to secure as broad as possible a coalition, at least in the initial stages of the war. Toward that end, President Bush has stroked a mass media whose religion is multi-culturalism, Islamic (and some European) governments by emphasizing that American is not at war with Islam but with radicals who have "hijacked" that religion and "hold it hostage." Toward that end, it is said that the original name for America´s battle plan ("infinite justice") was simply a "tentative, working title" that will be withdrawn because it is offensive to Muslims.

No, this is not the 1940s, albeit the President did indicate, the evening of September 20 that the Islamic "radicals" are the heirs of the Nazis. (It would have been accurate, and reassuring if he could have brought himself to mention the Communists, too, but that might have offended our ‘friends´ in China and Russia, though most of the latter, one would think, are glad to have shaken off Marx & Lenin).

One of the most destructive aspects of post-Modern relativism is the moral equivalence applied to very different behaviors, cultures, nations and religions. This equivalence permeated President Bush´s September 20 speech. He mentioned prayers for America and Americans in Hebrew and in Arabic.

The reality was that Israel declared a day of national mourning, donated thousands of liters of blood and tons of medical supplies and teams, while streets and newspapers in Arab lands rang with jubilation, threats and taunts of America.

Yet a day after synagogues around the world chose the Jewish high holy days to invoke G-d´s blessings and protection on America, its people and armed forces, Mr. Bush only mentioned a prayer at a mosque in Cairo. Perhaps there was one mosque among the thousands there that asked for blessings on America, but the Egyptian, Palestinian, Iraqi, Iranian and Pakistani people and media have already spoken a very different story (see Mubrak! Mubrak! It also was a very different story at Farrakahn´s mosque in Chicago, Sept. 16, CNSnews.com).

It is instructive to measure attempts to distinguish Islam from Islamic "extremism" by considering the "Fatwa" issued (09-18) against Pakistan´s dictator, General Musharraf by the Shari´a court of Lahore, Pakistan and its affiliates in London, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Yemen, Kuwait and elsewhere. General Musharraf has long supported the Taliban and Islamic militias attacking India in Kashmir. His nation shelters a host of terrorist groups and recruits terrorists. Yet he now has incurred the wrath of Shari´a (Islamic law) officials in his own land by assenting to America´s demand that the Taliban hand over bin Laden.

This minimal and self-serving tactic to avoid an American strike earned dictator Musharraf the wrath of Islamic law. The court stated, "the USA are at war with Muslims," and have "committed various atrocities against the Umma" (community of Muslim believers). The Court added, "there must be a complete boycott of diplomatic and [commercial] relations with the US and their people [Americans] forbidden to enter any Muslim land."

The evidence is that Muslims simply do not buy the "pluralism" or "pluralistic" distinctions that American political leaders find it expedient to assert. If not, why have they waited until now, when the hammer is raised, to speak out, and even now only here and there?

The sanctions the Fatwa demands against Muslims that in any way assist or even praise the Kufir ("infidels") show that Islam does not buy the "I´m okay, you´re okay" diversity that its western apologists interminably proffer. "Any Muslims so involved [with the Kufr] become Murtad Harbi ["apostates," carriers of war] and Allah warns us, ‘the punishment for those who wage war against Allah…is that they should be murdered or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides." This is not the "Allah" about whom President Bush so glibly spoke.

And these apostates (Muslims who in any way assist non-Muslims in efforts against pan-Islamic terrorists), whether man or woman, "he or she has no sanctity in their life and therefore must be killed whether they ask for repentance or not. Their marriage becomes invalid, their children and money are forfeit. They can receive no inheritance nor pass an inheritance to others."

The Shari´a of Lahore-Syria-London, etc called on "all Muslims to move quickly and capture those Apostates and criminals involved in these crimes, especially the ruler of Pakistan, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia" and others.

This is perfect cover for the militantly Islamic and anti-Western (not anti-Western money or military protection, just anti-western culture) rulers named as apostates. General Musharraf had joined the dictator of Syria, Bashar Asad (who with Yasser Arafat hosts the largest number of long-established terror groups) in demanding that America exclude Israel and India from the anti-terror coalition. This is rather like Hitler demanding that America not ally itself with Britain and the Polish army-in-exile. Israel and India, respectively, are the two nations most targeted by terrorism in the name of Islam, and likely to be most staunch as allies of America, along with Britain and Turkey).

Perhaps this week´s unguent and inclusive rhetoric is merely tailored to phase one of this war that must, because of the Clinton Administration´s degradation of the military (slashed 40% in 8 years) must proceed incrementally and, one hopes, with due stealth. Perhaps the Executive Branch wants as much Arab assistance or at least acquiescence as possible before turning against Syria, Iran, the PLO and Sudan in phases 2 and 3 of the campaign. (Iraq will be hit soon, from Turkey and the Persian Gulf).

But it is possible that there is something at play as fatal as the relentless pressures of the pro-Saudi State Department and its big oil backers, and that is a conceptual inability to grasp the ‘otherness´ of Islam and its fundamental hostility to the west. Professor Paul Eidelberg, distinguished author and President of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy suggests that "Islam is an enemy that multi-cultural American is incapable of conquering." The ideology of inclusion cannot grasp that "authentic, resurgent Islam" sees the world as divided into dar al Islam ("the realm of peace") and dar al Harb, "the realm of war. Any State not ruled totally by Shari´a (a Khalifa state, as frequently demanded by Arafat´s Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrama Sabri) is considered part of the realm of war. Muslims may make temporary treaties with such, as circumstances require, but they are committed to Jihad and Fatah, "conquest."

For months, mainstream Egyptian journalists have insisted that "the issue no longer concerns the Arab-Israeli conflict. The real issue is the Arab-American conflict" (Mahmoud Abdul Murad, Al Akhbar, 08-26-01). Americans who wish to understand what´s in store for them from ‘friends´ like Egypt should consult Joseph Bodansky´s Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument (Houston, 1999). Then review the recent fatwa against collaboration with the Kufr to clarify the need to distinguish friends from foe.

Muslims sense the deep-rooted connections between America and Israel, even if many in the west have forgotten or repudiated them. Read the last pages of John Winthrop´s "A Model of Christian Charity," delivered to the Pilgrims aboard the Arabella in 1630, its extensive, verbatim quoting of Moshe, Isaiah and Micah and use of the covenant, G-d and laws of Israel as a model for the colonies that became the USA.

America´s friends in this long-brewing war are NATO, Russia, Japan, Israel and India. Those who don´t hang together will hang separately. This one´s for keeps and the declaration of war on terrorist-harboring and sponsoring States should come soon for the sake of our own civil liberties.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.