Third Jihad: Final Solution for Western Civilization

[Glacier]

Jihad means "struggle," but a particular kind of struggle. Jihad means to struggle to make Islam dominant over all other religions and governments. This is one of the religious duties of all devout Muslims, and according to Mohammad, it is the most important obligation a Muslim must fulfill.

The first jihad started with Mohammad. His armies conquered all of Arabia. In the hundred years after his death, his armies conquered most of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. The first jihad lasted from 622 AD until 750 AD.

The Muslim offensive was finally halted in the West at the Battle of Poitiers/Tours, not far from Paris, in 732 AD. In the east, the jihad penetrated deep into Central Asia.

The second major jihad started in 1071 AD. Islamic armies toppled Constantinople and spread into Europe, India, and further into Africa. The second jihad began to decline when the Muslim army was stopped on September 11th, 1683 at the gates of Vienna, Austria.

Now we are in the third jihad, the third great wave.

Non-Muslims in the past have fought back, of course (otherwise the whole world would already be ruled by Islam). Some successfully resisted subjugation.

But many countries and cultures took too long to recognize the threat or organized their resistance too slowly, and they were swallowed up by Islam's relentless aggression.


"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe—without swords, without guns, without conquest—will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
~ Muammar Gaddafi



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XUub1no1qw

[Urbane]

Excellent topic for discussion, Glacier. I'll have a look at the video tomorrow and it will likely reinforce my belief that we need to wake up before it's too late.

[Urbane]

That's an informative and powerful video that everyone should watch. With radical Islam you have people who willingly send their children off on suicide bomb attacks and who put their political cause above all else and the summary towards the end of the video, simply "Wake Up," is excellent (and necessary) advice. As was pointed out in the video, during the Cold War there was something called MAD (mutual assured destruction) that prevented the USSR and the USA from attacking each other because a nuclear strike by one country against the other would still mean destruction of the attacking country. But with these radical Muslims we don't have that to fall back on because they're ready to die. There are some things that we can do and those are mentioned at the end of the video. First up is to actually watch the video so I won't say anything else at this point except that - watch the video.

[steven lloyd]

That's an informative and powerful video that everyone should watch.

I agree Urb. Everyone should watch this video (with thanks to Glacier for posting it) – and everyone who watches it should forward it to others to watch. I finally found the time to watch it myself and found it to be very scary stuff. A while back I was looking into and writing about concerns of how easy it would be for small nuclear devices to be sequestered and used by terrorists on a suicide mission. At that time I posted a thread here with links to research indicating just how much weapons grade material has gone missing since the fall of the Soviet Union and how there is still no accounting for its whereabouts. It really is not a matter of if but how long before we see a mushroom cloud over an American city (as also referenced in this video). This video also highlights the importance of North America developing fossil fuel independence. People really do need to wake up and recognize this very real threat and see it for what it is and not continue to allow themselves to be dupes in the deliberate masquerade. I would like to see more people get in on this discussion because this could likely be the world’s greatest and most immediate threat right now – certainly a great deal more imminent than climate change.

[Homeownertoo]

I have followed the growing threat of Islam (Islamic radicalism?) since 9/11, first with interest in learning how that event came about and a naive conviction that the radicalism behind it would burn itself out in a handful of years. As I became better informed, however (including the video above that I first saw some time ago), it became obvious to me that we are not in the midst of a short-term spasm of a backward religion but, as the title of this forum suggests, the target of a deep-rooted movement, probably totalitarian to its core, that sees itself on the cusp of a global success.

Its victories to date are many, from the colonizing of Europe and North America by millions of adherents who have no interest in assimilating to the native culture, to the obviously supine reaction of the leadership in the West toward that agenda, to the gradual acceptance in the West of displacing a legal system that defines western civilization with Shariah law.

The Third Jihad video presents a puzzle I have not been able to crack, and look for answers. That puzzle is Dr. Jasser himself. He is unquestionably a moderate Muslim, and very likely an American first and Muslim second. But how is that possible within Islam?

Within Islam, the radicals, whether violent or not, have no problem sourcing their agenda right within the bosom of Islam. And Islam's founder, the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him, was without a shadow of doubt a violent and hypocritical warlord who's word defines the intolerance of his "religion". How can a man like Dr. Jasser identify with such a worldview? How can he find within it a religion of peace? Why do we not see more apostate muslims, as we see apostate marxists? Is Dr. Jasser like many former marxists or former communists prior to their break with the ideology they once thought was the great hope of mankind? Or is Islam's hold on its adherents just too strong, for reasons I do not comprehend?

Tarek Fatah, a Canadian Muslim who strongly opposes the radical agenda, has stated that what Islam needs to do is dispense with the 7th century artifact of jihad. He may be right that this is the path through which Islam can begin to reform itself and dispense with the imperialism and violence that defines the Third Jihad. Perhaps that is the way Islam can convert itself from a totalitarian and imperialistic ideology into the religion of peace we so often hear it proclaimed to be.

But is that even possible with an ideology in which the word of its (alleged) founder cannot even be challenged? And if not -- and this is the key -- then all that is left is for the rest of us to take the necessary steps to protect our cultures and our civilizations. And that means halting all Muslim immigration to the West, now. It means enshrining within our constitutions a prohibition of the enactment of shariah law in any jurisdiction as repugnant to Canadian values. It means defining radical Islam as a political ideology that is incompatible with our civilization and our national values.

I am looking for a way Islam can avoid forcing us to take that step. I don't yet see it.

[Nebula]

Given the recommendations given here, I think I shall sit back and watch that puppy.

[steven lloyd]

I am looking for a way Islam can avoid forcing us to take that step. I don't yet see it.

They are deliberately isolating each other, feeding off each other, reinforcing the brainwashing of each other. It is almost impossible to comprehend how even students, being educated both academically and socially at Western Universities, could want to adopt and impose Shari Law, and could justify that loss of freedoms to themselves - particularly the women students - but we have to see and recognize that is happening. What’s just as scary is that they are also able to manipulate western university students and western principles of democracy and freedom of expression in such ways as to help them to facilitate the growth and spread of this extremist, even evil movement – even exploiting the disenfranchised among the west and recruiting to their twisted cause from their host countries. I say evil movement because the loss of innocent life means nothing and is justified by the way they interpret their religion and teachings. We have got to wake up and start speaking out loudly against, shake by the shoulders those who cry for the freedom of those who want to take our own freedoms away and impose their way even at the mass loss of innocent lives in the most terrible manner. I doubt Martin Luther King saw this coming when he said “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”.

[Nebula]

The Third Jihad video presents a puzzle I have not been able to crack, and look for answers. That puzzle is Dr. Jasser himself. He is unquestionably a moderate Muslim, and very likely an American first and Muslim second. But how is that possible within Islam?

If one reads the Bible, and I mean the whole Bible, including the Old Testament, one can come away with the feeling that the Christian god is a rather vindictive being. Kill children who don't listen to their parents and all that. Yet, we certainly have 'moderate' Christians, don't we?

I found the explanation of the first two jihads left a sort of bad taste in my mouth. I watched the video and understand where the filmmaker is coming from in that there were two attempts to spread Islam through much of the Middle East, Europe and Africa. That is portrayed as a bad thing, of course. The film did not draw parallels to the exact same thing happening with Christianity. That religion has not always been spread bloodlessly.

That said, I found the rest of the video troubling, to say the least. If I can analogize using 'we' and 'they', we, long ago, decided that church and state must be separated, that freedom to choose must be held above all else and conquering is something best left to the past.

They, on the other hand, seem incapable of separating church and state (to the extent that the state and its very laws are from the church), that freedom is an ideal best stamped out and conquering is the goal.

Troubling.

[JLives]

There is one major set back for Islam rule in the western world. Women will not tolerate it and will physically fight back if necessary.

[Nebula]

On the other hand, the movie portrayed a third jihad as a fait accomplis and failed to explore how U.S. foreign policy has contributed to the disdain shown to America by radical Muslims.

If Pakistan or Yemen flew an unmanned drone into the U.S. and shot a missile at anyone they didn't like, there would be hell to pay. I just saw on TV that the U.S. conducted 122 drone strikes in 2012 -- many in Pakistan and Yemen.

[steven lloyd]

There is one major set back for Islam rule in the western world. Women will not tolerate it ...

I was noting young, strong, beautiful and intelligent western women converting to Islam thirty years ago while at SFU so they could enter relationships with handsome Islamic men. At that time I was bemused because of the contradiction between Islamic and feministic values. Little did I know then how insidious it is and how much more was and still is really going on:

Female bomber injures 12 in Russia
by The Canadian Press - Story: 92550
May 25, 2013 / 6:42 am

A female suicide bomber identified as a widow of two killed Islamists blew herself up in the southern Russian region of Dagestan on Saturday injuring at least 12, including two children and five police officers, police said.

The bomber detonated an explosives-laden belt in the central square in the provincial capital, Makhachkala, Dagestan's police spokesman Vyacheslav Gasanov said.

The bomber was identified as Madina Alieva, who married an Islamist who was killed in 2009 and then wedded another Islamic radical who was gunned down last year, police spokeswoman Fatina Ubaidatova said.

Since 2000, at least two dozen women, most of them from the Caucasus, have carried out suicide bombings in Russian cities and aboard trains and planes. All were linked to an Islamic insurgency that spread throughout Dagestan and the predominantly Muslim Caucasus region after two separatist wars in neighbouring Chechnya.

The bombers are often called "black widows" in Russia because many are the widows, or other relatives, of militants killed by security forces. Islamic militants are believed to convince "black widows" that a suicide bombing will reunite them with their dead relatives beyond the grave.

More ...

http://www.castanet.net/edition/news-st ... .htm#92550

[Captain Awesome]

At that time I was bemused because of the contradiction between Islamic and feministic values. Little did I know then how insidious it is and how much more was and still is really going on.

Well, after two major wars fueled by religious and economic causes (or mostly economic caused dressed up as religious to entice the local population), it's no surprise it's still going on. Muslim fundamentalists are very good at turning people onto their side - especially people who have nothing, live in the middle of nowhere and still operate with archaic values and principles. One thing to remember is that their society is radically different from what you're used to - within their society a widowed woman is absolutely worthless. She has no future, she will not remarry, she won't have even a survival job, and go hungry and broke unless her family/her kids take care of her. And since suicide is no option because of religious views, she would be facing years and years of miserable life praying for death. Now, somebody comes along and tells her how she can avenge her husbands death, join him up in heaven, and uphold her family's name. It's a way out with great benefits.

[Homeownertoo]

If one reads the Bible, and I mean the whole Bible, including the Old Testament, one can come away with the feeling that the Christian god is a rather vindictive being. Kill children who don't listen to their parents and all that. Yet, we certainly have 'moderate' Christians, don't we?

The day we see Jews and Christians beheading civilians or off-duty soldiers in the streets, I'll take your comments about the Bible seriously. Until then, I will continue to maintain there is no equivalence. There simply are no Christians, 'moderate' or otherwise, who can be put in the same basket as Islamic fundamentalists. And there never has been a bloody Christianity that could find succor and justification in the Old or New Testaments for the kind of violence Islamic fundamentalists find in the Koran. The New Testament, in particular, is virtually bereft of any injunction to violence. Rather, 'turn the other cheek' is its primary message on how to deal with enemies. Not exactly what you find in the Koran.

[Homeownertoo]

On the other hand, the movie portrayed a third jihad as a fait accomplis and failed to explore how U.S. foreign policy has contributed to the disdain shown to America by radical Muslims.

If Pakistan or Yemen flew an unmanned drone into the U.S. and shot a missile at anyone they didn't like, there would be hell to pay. I just saw on TV that the U.S. conducted 122 drone strikes in 2012 -- many in Pakistan and Yemen.

Ah yes, we must find justification within ourselves for the violence of others toward us. What you forget, or rather, what you ignore, is that the Islamic project is to bring the non-Islamic world into submission to Islam, an entirely different project. You apparently do not comprehend the issues being discussed here or in the video, and instead have reduced it to some tit-for-tat settling of scores.

[Nebula]

There simply are no Christians, 'moderate' or otherwise, who can be put in the same basket as Islamic fundamentalists.

I agree.

And there never has been a bloody Christianity that could find succor and justification in the Old or New Testaments for the kind of violence Islamic fundamentalists find in the Koran. The New Testament, in particular, is virtually bereft of any injunction to violence. Rather, 'turn the other cheek' is its primary message on how to deal with enemies. Not exactly what you find in the Koran.

I am no expert on the Koran but it is my understanding that it does not incite violence so much as the interpretation of Imams does. I don't mind being corrected on that.

In your original post you seemed to have a difficult time understanding how Dr. Jasser can be an American first and a Muslim second. I'm not sure that's true, but he certainly seems as moderate as any Christian can. You asked how that is possible within Islam. It's just as possible as it is with Christianity.

My point about the Bible being rife with violence (yes, the Old Testament) is that there are some rather brutal passages and edicts in that book. People simply choose to not follow those parts. If the Koran contains calls to violence, I suppose some Muslims simply choose to not follow those.

I guess overall I'm questioning whether this is a problem of Islam, the religion, or the bastardization of a religion for other means.