Islam : an Empirical Crisis for the West

and a new, Rational Doctrine for Neutralizing that Threat.

https://i0.wp.com/deskofbrian.com/wp-content/uploads/Monroe-Doctrine-cartoon.jpg

A New “Monroe Doctrine’ for Countering Islamic Terrorism

In my prior post, The Theological Nature of Islam, I described the rationale and conclusions I’ve reached regarding ‘radical’ Islam. Those conclusions implied a solution to the West’s empirical crisis with Islamic terrorism.

My conclusion is that Islamic radicalism, in all its forms and personages, from the Palestinians to the Iranians, whether Hamas or Hezbollah are a symptom, not a cause and that the cause is Islam itself.

I do not however propose that the West make ‘conventional war’ upon 1.5 billion Muslims. Instead I propose to convincingly threaten to make war upon Islam’s holiest shrines, to make the survival of Islam’s holy shrines, of unique and inestimable importance to Muslims, hostage to ALL Muslim’s future ‘good’ behavior, bringing the consequence of an unthinkable price to pay for any future aggression and terrorism. I contend that deterrence is possible, if properly constructed.

It is my contention that by doing so, Islam’s fanatics will finally face a consequence and thus a deterrence, that they are not prepared to accept. And in their unwillingness to accept that consequence, it will also allow for the time needed for Islam to slowly self-destruct, as it must because I contend that Islam cannot survive another century of cultural exposure to the modern world. The modern world’s culture represents, to Islam, a mortal threat and, that is what has given rise to the resurgence of Islamic jihadism against the West.

It is also my contention that our current course will eventually and inevitably result in nuclear terrorist attack(s) upon cities in the West and, that will finally force the West to confront the reality of the threat that Islam presents to the West.

It is time for the politically correct fantasies to be put aside and for reality to be faced, for otherwise a ‘nuclear terrorist reality’ will sooner or later be imposed upon both the West and the US.

But of course, the left will not allow the politically correct fantasies to be put aside until reality becomes undeniable. Just that reason alone is sufficient to declare that the left is of far greater threat to the West than Islam because they are blocking the implementation of effective defensive strategies. It is the left’s premises and the beliefs that extend from those premises, that is preventing the West from responding effectively and appropriately to Islam’s aggression.

It is my contention that there is only one effective deterrent strategy against Islam because there is only one thing that ‘radical’ jihadist Muslims cherish above their hate for the West.

That strategy starts with recognition that the West is under ideological and physical assault from Islam, that ‘rogue’ nations and terrorist organizations are merely Islam’s agents in its war with the West. This is because the Qur’an, Islam’s holiest of holies, the unalterable words of Allah, proclaims that armed struggle to establish Islam over the entire world is the absolute duty of every Muslim.

Which means that Islam will continue to throw it’s jihadists and logistical resources at the West. If necessary for the next 1000 years, just as it intermittently has for the last 1400 years. Islam is an aggressive, expansionist totalitarian ideology, wrapped within the trappings of a religion. It must act according to its nature, just as the scorpion does…and it is critical to this doctrine to make clear to all Muslims, in an unequivocal and unapologetic manner, that its own tenets declare this to be the case.

This strategy recognizes that Islam does not value, as in the West, their nation’s, tribes or even an individual’s survival, as Islam’s tenets declare that Muslims have no individual value, since Islam implicitly rejects self-determination. That there is only one thing that devout Muslim’s cherish more than the imposition of Islam upon the world…and that is the survival of Islam itself.

Therefore, the only strategy that has even a prayer of deterring terrorist attacks upon the West is to make Islam itself responsible.

That strategy would consist of a new doctrine, that would declare that any future terrorist attack upon ANY Western nation’s cities or peoples, by any nation or terrorist organization… will bring an immediate tactical response upon Islam’s holiest shrines; that conventional terrorist attacks will result in a proportional retaliation upon Islamic mosques and a nuclear or WMD attack upon any Western city will result in the immediate and utter destruction of Mecca, Medina, the City of Qom and the complete conventional demolition of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

Many westerners fail to appreciate the inestimable value Muslims place upon their holy places. Mecca, or more specifically the Kaaba in Mecca is the foremost in value and is so revered that it is the holy duty of every Muslim to make a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in their life. It is so important, that it is proclaimed to be the fifth of the Seven Pillars of Islam. Every Muslim in the world is required to get down on their knees and pray toward Mecca five times, every day. And there are no ‘holidays’ from this duty.

Mainstream, fundamentalist Imams and Mullahs are the primary force driving Islamic radicalism. Once they are convinced that Islam’s most cherished sites, which act as a talisman for their power… are mortally threatened, they will be profoundly reluctant to put them at risk by sanctioning a nuclear attack upon the West. And, since conventional terrorist attacks will place their mosques and them at risk, it will no longer be just the jihadist terrorist who faces reprisal.

“Those who oppose the Mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the Mullahs [and Imams] and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the Mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam– begging to have their blood shed for Islam.” –Ayatollah Khomeini

Islam would now face a choice; a conventional terrorist attack will result in the consequential retaliation upon Islam’s mosques and a nuclear or WMD attack upon the West would result in all of Islam’s holiest shrines, ceasing to exist within moments of a nuclear terrorist attack.

That is the reality and inescapable consequence with which the West must confront Islam.

Realistically, it is a virtual certainty that elements within Islam will not believe the West capable of following through with such a policy, so inevitably the West will have to demonstrate its resolve.

When the West announces its new doctrine, the West should warn Muslims that if sufficiently provoked, such as by ongoing rocket barrages on Israel, an appropriate demonstration of resolve will be the bombing of the Dome of the Rock. And that its future survival is hostage to their good behavior.

Based on past experience, Islamist radicals will be ‘certain’ that the West is blustering, so when they attack the West with a terrorist attack, even if it only uses conventional explosives or methods, the immediate bombing of the Dome of the Rock would begin and the West would announce that the bombing won’t stop until the Dome of the Rock is completely destroyed.

When Muslims around the world fly into a predictable rage, the West should be ready with a response at the UN. The West should look the world and Islam right in the eye and say, “OK, now you know we’re serious. Would you like to go for Medina next or do you want to throw Mecca into the ‘pot’ too and go ‘all in’?

Announcing such a doctrine with its identification of Islam as the West’s enemy, will necessitate the West also announcing that in the event of any blockade, embargo or aggression against the West by Islamic elements, such as seizing and mining the Strait of Hormuz or attacking oil fields or pipelines will also result in the consequence of Islam’s holy shrines and/or mosques being attacked.

That is the reality with which the West must confront Islam’s Imams and Mullahs who direct jihadist terrorists.

The West must make absolutely clear to Islam and all Muslims that any attack upon the West, with weapons of mass destruction, nuclear or otherwise, that threatens the existence of the West’s cities … will result in the unthinkable happening to them.

That is the reality with which the West must confront Islam.

The Theological Nature of Islam

The Theological Nature of Islam

I’ve recently and reluctantly reached some conclusions regarding radical Islam.

I’ve reached the conclusion that Islamic radicalism is a symptom not a cause. Regrettably, I’ve been forced to conclude that the cause is Islam itself.

I base this assessment upon Islam’s holiest and most fundamental theological tenet, which when fully appreciated inexorably leads to the logical conclusion that it is Islam itself, which makes war upon Israel and the West.

That tenet compels Islam to do so and allows for no deviation from that path. It also allows for no internal reform of Islam, makes reformation impossible and accounts for the silence of ‘moderate’ Islam.

That tenet is simply this; Muhammad didn’t write the Qur’an (Koran) GOD did…

Muhammad made this most extraordinary theological claim in establishing his religion, which led to certain immutable assumptions from which Islam cannot retreat because to do so, would destroy Islam’s theological foundations and collapse the entire theological rationale and edifice.

Muhammad claimed that the Archangel Gabriel physically visited him and perfectly (he’s an angel) transmitted God’s words directly to Muhammad for transcription. That Muhammad merely took dictation and that Gabriel was there to make sure that he got it exactly right.

Thus, the Qur’an is the perfect word of God, directly from the ‘big guys’ mouth and therefore inviolate.

Theologically, to change even one word, even one comma is to distort God’s own, perfect words and that, no mere man may do.

Upon this claim by Muhammad rests his assertion that he is God’s prophet and because Muhammad brings God’s words directly to mankind, Islamic doctrine concludes that Muhammad is God’s final prophet.

There are theological contradictions in the Qur’an but since Allah cannot be perfect if he contradicts himself and, as God’s perfect, final prophet, Muhammad can’t contradict himself either, by long settled Islamic doctrine, the later violent passages supersede the earlier, more peaceful passages. Moderate Muslims know this and that is why they are so strangely silent in the face of their culpability in the violence upon innocents.

Quite simply, the radicals are on far firmer theological ground in their interpretation of Islam than the moderates and because of the aforementioned foundational tenets of Islam, the moderates have no theological basis for opposing the ‘radicals’, who are simply following Muhammad’s dictates to follow the Qur’an’s dictates, i.e. to follow God’s dictates…to conquer the world.

This is also why Islam cannot reform itself, for to do so it must ‘reform’ the Qur’an, which would necessitate rejecting Muhammad’s claim that the Qur’an is the direct, perfect word of God. Which logically destroys Muhammad’s claim to prophethood through his claim that Gabriel visited him. Literally begging the question; if Muhammad got something as basic as the Qur’an’s authorship wrong, what else did he get wrong?

The inevitable theological result is that Islam’s theological foundation is removed and the entire rationale for Islam disappears, collapsing into dust.

Medieval Islam is confronted with the modernity of the West’s culture…an existential struggle that leaves Islam no choice but to engage in a fight to the death. Either the West is subdued or eventually Islam will no longer be Islam.

Osama bin Ladin, the radical Imams and Mullahs know this and that is why they hate the West. To them, we are the great Satan and nothing can change that because the alternative is the abandonment of their religion’s theological foundations.

Which is exactly what the moderates have done, while living in denial of the theological reality, simply ignoring the parts of the Qur’an that they find uncomfortable.

Wherein the problem lies for the moderates is that participation in the ‘Ummah’ requires the condoning of the inherent violence of the Qur’an and the radicals who follow its dictates, which by Western standards and law, equates to criminal culpability in the violence.

Thus, moderates are confronted with a fundamental paradox; to remain Muslim means to participate in the violence by fulfilling Burke’s dictum; “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”.

But to overtly reject and condemn the violence means to condemn and reject Islam’s tenets and dictates and commit apostasy.

So moderates have to decide, do they stand on the side of love or hate?

“For a man cannot serve two masters”…he will turn to one or the other”

Geoffrey Britain

—————————————————————————————–

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!…Islam says: Kill the [ non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. … Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! …”

“Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!”

“There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

“Those who oppose the mullahs oppose Islam itself; eliminate the mullahs and Islam shall disappear in fifty years. It is only the mullahs who can bring the people into the streets and make them die for Islam– begging to have their blood shed for Islam.”

those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under Allah’s law.”

There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun [or] joy in whatever is serious.”

Ayatollah Khomeini

Another interpretation of the Bible’s message: Part I

Recently I ran into this post:

The primary message of the Gospel is:
1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.
2) Humans are sinful by nature, and no matter what we do we cannot make ourselves righteous before a perfect God.
3) The penalty of our sin is death, or separation from God.
4) Jesus Christ came and lived a sinless life, being both God and human, and died a sacrificial death on the cross as an atonement for the sins of all humans.
5) Those who believe and accept Jesus’ sacrifice will spend eternity with God; those who do not will spend eternity separated from God.

This is the accepted Christian interpretation. the poster then says:

“People may misinterpret what the bible says to conform to their own views (nonbelievers and Christians alike) but the bible’s main message has not changed in the two thousand plus years it has existed in recorded form.”

I started to respond but by the time I had arranged my thoughts the moment had passed, so I am posting here.

Indeed, the Bible’s primary message hasn’t changed but other than popular agreement, to what can we point to dispute the assertion that men’s interpretation and understanding of that message may be flawed?

For your consideration, I offer the following alternative ‘interpretation’;

The primary message of the Gospel is:

1) God is real; God is perfect and God loves you.
2) Humans are sinful as a
consequence of gaining ‘knowledge’ prematurely and, the practical consequence is separation from God.
3) No matter what we do, we can’t cure ourselves from separation from a perfect God.

4) The consequence of our unavoidable inheritance of sin is separation from God, which prevents life from continually renewing, resulting in death.
5) Jesus, a human being, lived a sinless life, someone whose ‘spiritual umbilical cord’ remained intact, allowing him to stay fully connected with the divine. Who, after attaining the ability to fully embody the ‘sonship’ of God, the ‘Christ’, then conducted his
ministry of example and accepted a sacrificial death on the cross as a symbolic message for all of humanity.

6) Those who accept Jesus’ message and surrender their individuality to God for renewal and cleansing, will spend eternity with God; those who do not make the free-will choice to do so, will remain separated from God.

Geoffrey Britain

Another interpretation; Part II

Explanatory thoughts for the post above:

On this matter, most people are imprecise in their thinking, positing that humans are sinful by nature. The premise is illogical for how can a perfect God create imperfection? God created us, originally as perfect because he is incapable of doing otherwise. That our nature has become sinful is an important distinction.

To use a computer analogy, we screwed up our operating system (the premature acquiring of the knowledge of good and evil) but our basic hardware/base code remains perfect, otherwise we would have no hope of being ‘born again’.

Mankind’s operational software is dysfunctional, (as we ‘think’ in our hearts) resulting in an inability to refrain from error, regardless of intention. Adam & Eve’s ‘sin’ was the premature ingestion of the knowledge of good and evil, prior to the attainment of the wisdom necessary to handle it. Just as willful children indulging in sexual activity before emotional maturity results in premature pregnancies.

I suspect that the ‘virus’ of ‘original sin’ is inherited through the father, which is why God used the very rare but scientifically established methodology of a ‘virgin birth’ with Jesus. Simply because it was the only physical way God could bring into existence someone ‘free’ from original sin, yet born of woman.

God does not penalize. He’s not ‘into’ punishment.

He does allow consequence because otherwise you cannot have a universe of cause and effect. Reality as we know it could not exist otherwise.

Accountability and responsibility are necessary in order to learn and progress.

No one can ‘atone’ for your sins but yourself. For Jesus to atone for our sins would be for God to absolve us of any responsibility for our own actions. That would violate a universe based in cause and effect. It would undermine accountability. The entomology of the word atone is “at one with” so atoning for our sins is allowing God to fully cleanse us, so that we may reconnect with him and experience at-oneness with divinity.

Our sins are forgivable because our ‘sins’ are the result of our inheritance; we really, truly, do not ‘know’ what we do.

Just as the insane do not ‘know’ right from wrong…and we do not hold the criminally insane responsible… Would God be less understanding? But in order for us to be cured of this dis-ease we must allow God, our personal physician, to do the work within that is needed.

Not because God wants to rule us, for how then to explain our free will? No loving God could be simultaneously a sadist, giving a gift but then insisting we not use it. We do misuse our free will, using it in ways that are neither to our or our brothers and sisters benefit. Surrender is necessary because it is the only way to cure us! Just as, when we have a ‘cancer’, we have to trust the modern physician who recommends the seeming ‘death penalty’ of radiation and chemotherapy.

We didn’t eat the ‘apple’ but we do have to live with the consequences of our ancestor’s actions. And yes, all of us would have behaved exactly as Adam & Eve did, because Eve’s curiosity and willingness to ‘take a chance’ and Adam’s steadfast love for Eve are symbolic of our nature.

Islam’s central premise that we must freely surrender our will to God is correct.

The Bahai’s are right that all religions are divinely inspired attempts by man to understand his existence. Each ‘religion’ is but part of the truth and all are partially distorted by man. All represent efforts by God to ‘reach’ mankind.

Hinduism’s central premise that we come into existence multiple times with the goal of gradually increasing the embodiment of our ‘Christ’ self is self-evident. What kind of ‘loving’ parent gives a recalcitrant child but one chance to repent? Remember the prodigal son? He had a symbolic lifetime to return.

Buddhism is right in its premise that we are all on the road to our own ‘Buddha-hood’ (awakening to our true spiritual nature). That we are all blind and, see but part of the ‘truth’ (reality).

Native American spiritual practice is right in its perception that all existence is just different aspects of the creator. Including us and, if we are but one aspect of God, his most self-aware creation, i.e. all children of God, then by definition we are he

Judaism is right in its central premise; the metaphoric explanatory message contained in the Genesis story. It’s how we got to be in this mess and where we come from and of what our true nature consists.

Christianity is right in its central premise that Jesus found the way that leads to reunion with God. Jesus embodied that way to the extent that he became that way and fully embodied the Christ, making him permanently one with God. That is why he must be accepted (followed) because only one ‘door’ opens to the godhead (the source of divinity) simply because God’s nature is singular and undivided.

Geoffrey Britain