|
|  |
The European Union in Peril
Political - 20.08.2004 16:30
In an earlier article I have pointed out that the Islam is by definition unfit to coexist and when the number of followers in a particular region increases above a certain threshold it will reveal its expansionist and deeply intolerant nature. I will not repeat the argumentation in its entire but rather limit myself to the most important aspects of the argumentation.
The European Union in Peril
political contributes
Authored by Political for the e-Shoju Counter Terrorism Division
The Islam unfit for coexistence.
In an earlier article I have pointed out that the Islam is by definition unfit to coexist and when the number of followers in a particular region increases above a certain threshold it will reveal its expansionist and deeply intolerant nature. I will not repeat the argumentation in its entire but rather limit myself to the most important aspects of the argumentation.
Often Islam apologists will make believe that Islam teaches tolerance towards the cultural and religious traditions of the land in which they immigrated. Islam spokesmen and local organizations will refer to a subset of verse 4.101 "...And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship..." as proof Islam's inherent ability to adapt to and coexist within a multi-religious society.
The complete verse however reads:
4.101. And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.
Firstly "...And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship..." is constrained by a condition "...if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you..." placing supposed expressed tolerance in a whole different perspective. What in fact is stated reads as follows:
The believer is obligated to fully adhere to the commandments of his/her worship, however while in a position of relative weakness it is acceptable to take a low profile such the population of the land remains unalarmed for as long the position of relative weakness remains. The believer however is reminded, "...In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you ..." that the population of the hosting country (the disbelievers) is and always will be the enemy and peaceful coexistence will only last as long as the position of relative weakness remains.
The assertion "...In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you..."is further reinforced by the following verses:
5.51. O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
28.86. Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord, so never be a helper to the disbelievers.
33.1. O Prophet! Keep thy duty to Allah and obey not the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.
28.86. Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord, so never be a helper to the disbelievers.
33.48. And incline not to the disbelievers and the hypocrites. Disregard their noxious talk, and put thy trust in Allah. Allah is sufficient as Trustee.
9.29. Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
4.76. Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo! The devil ' s strategy is ever weak.
9.123. O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him).
The question will have to be whether a Muslim adhering to the commandments contained in the Quran can possibly integrate in a secular society without betraying his obligations of his faith by joining the ranks of the hypocrites (Munafiqun), verses 63.1...6:
When the hypocrites come unto thee (O Muhammad), they say: We bear witness that thou art indeed Allah ' s messenger. And Allah knoweth that thou art indeed His messenger, and Allah beareth witness that the Hypocrites are speaking falsely. They make their faith a pretext that they may turn (men) from the way of Allah. Verily evil is that which they are wont to do, that is because they believed, and then disbelieved, therefore their hearts are sealed so that they understand not. And when thou serest them their figures please thee; and if they speak thou grivets ear unto their speech. (They are) as though they were blocks of wood in striped cloaks. They deem every shout to be against them. They are the enemy, so beware of them. Allah confounds them! How they are perverted! And when it is said unto them: Come! The messenger of Allah will ask forgiveness for you! They avert their faces and thou serest them turning away, disdainful. Whether thou ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them, Allah will not forgive them. Lo! Allah guideth not the evil living folk.
A hypocrite just like the disbelievers are the believer's enemy "...They are the enemy, so beware of them. Allah confounds them! How they are perverted! ..." The hypocrite will not be forgiven ".... Whether thou ask forgiveness for them or ask not forgiveness for them, Allah will not forgive them...".
Integration into a secular state as loyal law abiding citizen requires the rejecting of most if not all verses quoted. In order to integrate into a secular society in which citizens of all denominations are supposed to interact on an equal footing verses (4.101, 5.51, 28.86, 33.1, 28.86, 33.48) will have to be disobeyed. In order to not be a danger to the state verses (9.29. 4.76., 9.123), and notice that I am only referring to a small selection of similar verses, will have to be rejected, by implication this requires the believer to make their faith a pretext "...Hypocrites are speaking falsely .They make their faith a pretext that they may turn ( men ) from the way of Allah . Verily evil is that which they are wont to do..."
The unavoidable conclusion will have to be that integration as a law abiding citizen in a secular state is contrary to the commandments of the Quran, only when conform verse 4.101 "...And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you..." the believer finds himself in a weak position integration can be faked such to avoid harm being inflicted on him. The use of the word faked is justified by the reminder contained in verse 4.101 "...In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you ..."
Having clearly established that for a Muslim to be a good citizen of a secular state he is forced to disobey various commandments of the Quran and by consequence either join the ranks of the hypocrites or do away with his faith altogether, we have to ask ourselves the question to which degree the Muslim communities within the European States are to be regarded a fifth column.
Of course the assumption that the largest percentage of community members would have joint the ranks of the hypocrites rather as keeping a relatively low profile while faking willingness to integrate is far from realistic in particular as the consequences of disobedience as they have been hammered into the minds of the believers over generations. See as an example:
72.23. (Mine is) but conveyance (of the truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! His is fire of hell, wherein such dwell forever.
The more realistic conclusion is that the largest percentage of the community in any particular secular or non-Islam state will either belong to the activists when the community is sufficiently large or to the fakers while the community still feels vulnerable to potential consequences of open resistance to the foundations of the state.
The two determining factors influencing the degree in which the secular or non-Islam state is at risk of their indigenous Islam community are:
1. The relative size of the community
2. The degree in which policies are in place
facilitating Islam indoctrination and guidance of the community in religious affairs (Mosques)
It may be obvious that once the Islam has become an integral part of the European Union it will be, due to a rapid increase in the number of followers within original member states and the unavoidable consequence that it has established itself as one, if not the major, religion within the Union nothing will be able of stopping it from taking control and turning Europe into an Islamic region in which no freedom of religion and/or expression can exist which is not subservient to the Islam.
In short: "An Islamic state is essentially an ideological state, and is thus radically different from a national state." This statement made by Mawdudi lays the basic foundation for the political, economical, social, and religious system of all Islamic countries, which impose the Islamic law.
This ideological system intentionally discriminates between people according to their religious affiliations. Mawdudi, a prominent Pakistani Muslim scholar, summarizes the basic differences between Islamic and secular states as follows:
1) An Islamic state is ideological. People who reside in it are divided into Muslims, who believe in its ideology and non-Muslims who do not believe
2) Responsibility for policy and administration of such a state "should rest primarily with those who believe in the Islamic ideology." Non-Muslims, therefore, cannot be asked to undertake or be entrusted with the responsibility of policymaking
3) An Islamic state is bound to distinguish (i.e. discriminates) between Muslims and non-Muslims. However the Islamic law "Shari`a" guarantees to non-Muslims "certain specifically stated rights beyond which they are not permitted to meddle in the affairs of the state because they do not subscribe to its ideology." Once they embrace the Islamic faith, they "become equal participants in all matters concerning the state and the government."
In my earlier article I asserted:
If Europe would make the crucial mistake to give in to shortsighted expedient policies put forward by President Bush during the Turkey summit it signs a death warrant over its indigenous populations, cultures and liberty and indeed, in the words of Sheikh Omar Bakri of Syria, "...Christian Europe had better learn to adapt to Islam..."
Why does the US Administration, regardless of whether it is Democratic or Republican, urges Europe to place itself in peril and why does the European Political Establishment seems so eager to call doom over its own people?
The answer to this question is both incomprehensible as obvious and by consequence hard to believe. In order to provide for some clarity I will subdivide my answer into two distinct perspectives:
1. The American Perspective
2. The European Political Establishment's perspective
The American Perspective
The American Political Establishment finds itself confronted with on the one-hand Islamic Terrorism while with an economical threat emanating from an ever growing European economical block that seems to have a tendency to develop into an adversary rather than a partner on the other. At the same time the younger, less European centered, political generation in the US is keenly aware of the increasing market potential in the Far East forming a geographical continuum logically including the Californian economical powerhouse of the US.
The reluctant Old European Continent which already is evolving into the Islamic sphere of influence due to (1) the large Islamic segments within the member states (2) its geographical proximity to the Islam world (3) its political weakness hampering it from adopting policies curtailing Islam expansion within its own borders (4) internal decadence, is rapidly loosing out on the Far East as most desirable partner.
The Far East is on the rise and hasn't yet come close to its full potential. Europe on the other hand can due to the disintegration of its internal coherency be considered a power in decline and by consequence a bad investment. The awareness of this being so is not a new one but rather one which the old European-centered political establishment has been reluctant to accept. The dominant popular segment of the US still, however to an increasingly lesser extend, traces its roots to the old continent rather than perceiving of itself, on a deeper level, as grounded in the American continent. The currently increasing transatlantic rift however is rapidly changing this something of which the new American political establishment is well aware.
Additionally due to the current level of Islamisation on the old continent tuning it into an operational base and a virtual free haven, as resultant of the formation of an Islamic infra-structure within its states, it seems opportune to transform the American popular orientation from Europe centered to an awareness of Europe as an potential adversary allowing for a shift in alliances in favor of the Far East. Which in all honesty and for numerous reasons can be considered the better option for future American development.
On the longer term while considering further Islamisation of Europe as the resultant of inclusion of Islam dominated, political or demographical, states into the European Union the American public opinion will, due the increasingly stronger Islam orientation of European Policies combined with a proportional increase in the terrorist threat emanating from Europe, shift towards favoring new alliances. The Europe to which the dominant segment of the US population traces its roots is no more and has transformed itself into hostile ground.
The economical threat of the European Block at the same time is diminished by (1) the inclusion of economical burden states (2) disintegration of its internal coherency (3) ultimate eruption if civil unrest, which in turn will lead to more authoritarian government further decreasing Europe's desirability, in the popular perception, of Europe as a reference point.
Many questions can be asked in respect to the validity of my argumentation, one of which would focus on the increased Islamic terrorist threat emanating for an Islamic dominated Eurabia to the US. In reality however Islamic Terrorism (Jihad) would shift in focus to the European Theatre as the resultant of anti-Islamic civil unrest unavoidably caused by increased Islamisation in conjunction with further reaching aspirations of conquest.
Islamisation tends to go in phases whereby the subject of conquest, and in particular if this subject is decadent and unwilling to face hard realities, will introduce moderate Islamic structures hoping to avert threats from becoming manifest that however are, due the very nature of Islam, unacceptable to the Islamic aggressor who on the basis of for example verse 9.123. "...O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)..." will not accept anything less than total domination.
Concluding it should be obvious that this shift of focus combined with an American disengagement from Europe in favor of Far Eastern engagement will decrease the terrorist threat to the US rather than increasing it.
My argumentation and its validity should for the European reader be cause to keenly become aware of the peril in which she/he finds him/herself and thereby open his/her eyes to the urgent need to take action in order to avert the European Political Establishment from continuing on the path of self-destruction.
Essential for such a last ditch effort to succeed is (1) spread of awareness (2) mobilization (3) organization (4) internationalization on a European level and (5) plain guts.
There is little or no time left hence nobody can afford to delay or enter into endless discussion on how much later action should be taken as later is too late.
It may sound a paradox but essential is that on a grassroots level a reorientation towards a realignment with the US is initiated, hence stop moaning about preemptive wars and Israeli policies towards Palestinian Terrorists, while forcing the European Political Establishment to show Europe can be a reliable partner rather than an antagonist.
Soldier4liberty and Dewi Sudarsono have published a series of articles both on the main system as in the forum which address issues relating to organization and the possible need for militancy, clearly there are problems attached to implementing such suggestion given legal constrains relevant to Europe which doesn't provide the Constitutional tools required.
However on ha philosophical level we may ask under which conditions a population can or even has the duty to organize resistance such as for example during World War II.
I will not provide the answer right now as it would need to be subject of further research, however if the country and its people are under siege and the government is found collaborating with the enemy war aims isn't it than so that the government would have lost their legal foundation and thereby its mandate.
Ideally resistance would originate from inside the Military Apparatus, which first duty it is to defend the freedom and integrity of the nation.
In the context of this article and in conjunction with the very sensible suggestions put forward by Dewi Sudarsono and Soldier4liberty I would call on members of the national armed forces of the European member states to make individual assessments of the threat facing the nations and on that basis make an evaluation as to (1) at what time and under which conditions a Government may have lost its mandate (2) whether the first duty of protecting the country and its population against an outside threat doesn't include seizing control when the Government is in alliance an invading entity?
Considering the nature of the threat facing the countries, the populations and the integrity of the region, isn't it up to the military to consider its obligations in time of war on the most elementary freedoms of the populations? Why does anyone join the military if it is not from a feeling of responsibility towards their fellow citizens and the willingness to sacrifice one's own life for the cause of freedom? Popular resistance may well be an option at some point but should always be a last resort when both the authorities and the military would have forsaken their obligations, nevertheless due to the short time that rests us it may well be required to plan for the worst.
The European Political Establishment's perspective.
From a logical point of view, considering that all what was outlined as the American Perspective would be known within the European Political Establishment, it would be hard to believe that the European leadership would actively further objectives that are clearly highly counter productive to the European position in a political, economical and a security context. Nevertheless observing its positions one cannot impossibly escape the conclusion that it is doing exactly that.
A majority within the political establishment is actively striving for the inclusion of Turkey into the Union and thereby opening the floodgates for Islam immigration and Islamisation even further than they already are. In Belgium suggestions are forwarded to include Morocco into the Union as well while the Europe bases Islam terrorist cells are Moroccan dominated while the Islam fifth column communities experience their strongest growth from Moroccan immigration directly causing a rise in intolerance and hate against the traditional Jewish segment of the population as towards all other segments of the population deemed inferior by the Islam.
In order to arrive at an answer it is important to take into consideration that the process of Islamisation in Europe has already advanced to a stage in which turning it around would require a very major effort triggering a strong terrorist backlash for which Europe seems unprepared. Economical expediency furthermore adds to the reluctance to adopt the policies required to successfully answer the danger of Islamic domination, instead the political establishment seems to bank on the theory of limited Islamisation as a tool for pacification.
As pointed out earlier limited Islamisation ultimately will be unacceptable to the Islam. We can safely assume that at least a segment of the political establishment is well aware of this fact. Economical pressures and short term gain seem too much of an temptation for politicians to withstand.
Another factor however is one of an urge towards increased control and decreased democracy within a European Super-State consisting of historically divers nations. On the one hand for a European Super-State to become a unified entity ethnic and cultural differences will have to be removed, something which however only can succeed by a sufficient degree of suppression which under normal circumstances would be met bay stiff resistance.
Injection of large numbers of culturally alien immigrants is a rather effective method to divide and subsequently rule a population. When a population looses its coherency it looses its ability to exert itself. Islamisation as a tool for creating internal conflict is, due to the nature of Islam, a very effective one. Internal conflict in turn is the perfect vehicle for creation of conditions under which a bewildered population would start asking for Governmental action curtailing the conflict by (1) legislation and (2) repressive policies that are inherently more compatible with Islamic perceptions of justice than with a democratic state.
In other words Islamisation may well proof an effective tool to the cause creating a more suppressive super-state while ensuring short term economical gain stemming from pleasing the Islamic world.
Earlier I spoke of the inclusion of burden states causing economical decline on a European level, this may seem to contradict my assertions about short term economical gain however the distinction between short term gain and economical decline pertains to the distinction between corporations on the one hand and the population on the other.
The question we should ask ourselves is whether the political establishment within the individual countries is still oriented towards the best of the people or whether the orientation is rather towards higher levels of power within the European Super-State to come. The answer unfortunately seems to be the later.
From many sides it is pointed out that Europe has become weak and decadent to an extend that resembles the final stages of the Roman Empire, it lost its internal strength and determination to stand for itself while at the same time the inner core of policy makers very well is aware of Europe's meager future outlook and have decided on to make the most for itself as long it lasts.
This however is counter to the aspirations of the European people who have a vested interest in their nations survival and future well being as societies worth living in. A long period of high living standards has however eroded its ability to tap into its own inherent strength and resolve, a from the cradle to the grave welfare system has made it unaccustomed to having to standup for its own interest, living in the dream that live is equal to consuming and being protected by a benign leadership which has taken on the role of our all father. Those who see the dangers confronting them tend to resign to the unavoidability of what is in store for them and assert that there is nothing that can be done anyhow.
Well let me put one thing clear, nothing is over before it is over and even the time may be short we still can put up a hell of a fight if we have the guts and will to survive.
 Website: http://www.eshoju.org
|
| Lees meer over: europa | | aanvullingen | | |
