It’s About Sharia! It’s About Submission to Allah…

The former speaker of the House gets the war on terror. For one thing, he refuses to call it the “war on terror,” which should be the entry-level requirement for any politician who wants to influence how we wage it. Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom. He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat. That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives — whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs — are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system.

This being the Era of the Reset Button, Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years. It is the jihad begun when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran, heralding a revolutionary regime that remains the No. 1 U.S. security challenge in the Middle East, as Gingrich argued Thursday in a provocative speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.

Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.

Sharia, moreover, is anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments, Gingrich observed that the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.

On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.

It makes no sense to dismiss our enemies as lunatics just because “secular socialist” elites, as Gingrich called them, cannot imagine a fervor that stems from religious devotion. We ought to respect our enemies, he said. Not “respect” in Obama-speak, which translates as “appease,” but in the sense of taking them seriously, understanding that they are absolutely determined to win, and realizing that they are implacable. There is no “moderate” sharia devotee, for sharia is not moderate. Gingrich noted that in response to global outcry against the prospect of death by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, convicted of adultery, the mullahs’ great concession appears to be that she will be hanged instead. Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.

And it has been since Mohammad came slobbering and raving out of his cave.

There are moderate Muslims. There are Muslims who take their religion with a glass of ice cold beer. There are Muslims who believe that they can co-exist. There are Muslims who were simply born Muslim and know not much more about it than that their parents were Muslim.

Not all Muslims care to spread their religion.

That! We must not forget.

However, there are millions of Muslims who believe that Allah commands them to spread their religion. Through their life path as well as through teaching, witnessing and preaching and, yes, by there are many millions of Muslims who wholeheartedly believe in conversion (reversion) by the sword.

The problem with Islam and Muslims is that it is an enormously pressurised world. Peer pressure is a real danger. I have seen peer pressure turn a room full of irreligious Muslims who drink and cavort and chase girls all through the night and weekend into a motley crue of raving fundamentalists simply by the entrance of one religious individual.

Read their histories. Once Jihad is called, no one will dare denounce it for fear of being “unIslamic.” Read of the Afghan Constitutional Convention and how their Constitution came to include Sharia and the Qu’ran. It was not a forgone conclusion. It entered the room with a Mullah who publicly dared the assembly to exclude it by asking who in the assembly would stand against Sharia and the Qu’ran.

No one dared do so.

Not even Rashid Doostom. Doostum, who is one of the most secular Afghani of the age. Doostum who is infamous for his riotous drinking and womanizing. Dostum who hated the taliban and has publicly stated that he doesn’t see the need for women to cover themselves nor the reason that they should not attend university or be shut in the home.

This man mounted on horse back and did battle against the Taliban alongside US Special Forces and stood in battle and taunted the Talib Commanders.

This man was too fearful to denounce the inclusion of Islam, the Qu’ran and Sharia law in the Afghan Constitution.

To be seen as an infidel, one who is against Islam, in the lands occupied by Islam is to write your own death warrant. From the highest in society to the lowest.

Ask Malalai Joya. Read of her life and mission.

There are many Muslims who wish to live under a secular government and to live out their religion in private.

The problem is the Mullahs and those who use Islam as a means to power.

Our war is with the Mullahs. It’s with the Ayatollahs.

Even then, not all Mullahs wish to live out their lives as Government agents. Look to the Sufis who believe that religion is a private matter and that all religious leaders should stay out of politics.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran are the enemies of freedom.

Rid ourselves of them and the tide turns.

I’ll state again. Not all Muslims and not all of Islam is the enemy. Just as I believe that not all Christians desire to force their religion on all and sundry. I believe the same of Muslims.

There are key elements.

1. Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia

2. Iranian Revolutionary Islam

Take out those two and the battle is won.

Hezbollah, the Quds force and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are the major exporters of Iranian Shi’a War on the West.

Wahhabism is the father of all Sunni terror lords and murderers. The Taliban and the Deobandi of Central Asia, Pakistan and India are all end points that can be traced to the Nejd of Saudi Arabia and their evil cult of al Wahhab. The Muslim Brotherhood is the father of all Sunni Terrorist Organizations. The MB were followers of al Wahhab and his desert madness.

Yet, we claim that Saudi Arabia is our ally.

And Iran is defended in the West by fools. Fools who side with Hizbollah against Lebanon and Israel. Fools who support Hamas.

Fools who support a Wahhabi Shrine mere feet away from Ground Zero.

https://i0.wp.com/sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/sharia-poster-crowd.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Sharia_Muslim_Women.jpg

The Muslim World

https://i1.wp.com/content.bored.com/photos/derf.jpg

I like this. Except that I don't see any of them as scary. I see those labeled as scary as folks who need to be dealt with violently. Not all, but, those who would act violently against US.

On the Muslim World

Muslims see themselves as a community. They always have and always will. The only way to stop that is to kill all of them.  Christians think of themselves as a community as well.  Christendom is a concept only recently gone out of fashion. There are mentions of Christendom from the 19th Century, I know. Europe was still speaking of Christendom until only recently. I think Churchill mentions it a few times. That was the 20th Century.  It is not a foreign concept to think in terms of a World Wide Religious or Cultural community.  We think of the West. The West is Christian. No matter how greatly this is denied by atheists and secularists within the West.  The West is merely a more secular term for Christendom.  The West is as guilty of this kind of speak as is Islam.   The difference is that we, in the West, agree with Western Culture. We don’t see it as problem and arrogantly believe that the rest of the World should be overjoyed to join us.   Muslim lands. Christan lands. During World War I and at the end of World War I, “The West” celebrated the return of the “Holy Land” to it’s rightful Christian hands by virtue of it’s capture after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire encompassed most of what we now speak of as the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Palestine, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and a few others were https://i2.wp.com/www.iranian.com/main/files/blogimages/Middle%20East%20-%20Map400.bmpall part of the now defunct Ottoman Empire. This was considered the Muslim World or the Lands of the Mohamadens (Saracens) and spoken and written about as such by Christian or “Western” writers and historians.  That some in our era do not understand the concept of Muslim lands is fairly meaningless. The Great Tides of History are against their ignorance. It’s simply that they are ignorant of the history of the region. Not their fault.  Our schools are more interested in Political Correct thought processes than learning.  If one truly desires to rail against this concept and this ideology, though, one should at least be aware of this history.  Me, I don’t care what history says about Muslim lands. Prior to the Muslims, these lands were all Western (Roman) and/or Christian.  Not that Christians ruled them justly either.

History also shows us that the most violent and war like culture wins out in the end. The winners determine the future and control history.  Except in our current era, where idiotic pacifists, socialist, multi-culturalists and self defeatists in the West want to write history based strictly upon their feelings of guilt and ignorance of history.  They remind me of mini-Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung pretenders.  The greatest threat to the West (Christendom) is not the Muslims or even Communist China. It is the 5th Column of corrupt leftists and extreme liberals within our own borders. In order to finally defeat the Islamic threat, we will need to defeat this 5th Column by making them irrelevant.

http://izenjero.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/muslim-world-under-seige.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/www.crescentsofbrisbane.org/00%20Files%20&%20Images/CCN257/Muslim%20world%20map.jpg

https://i1.wp.com/photos.upi.com/story/w/65c11197a81bb96ab91064f9c964aefd/Hajj_season_brings_good_news_hope_to_Middle_East.jpg

https://i2.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/_2-oDfgGpQKg/RqvlTq5gpHI/AAAAAAAAAmE/m8CCkQW7N40/s400/Declining+Confidence+in+bin+Laden.jpg

Naval Clash 1988 US Navy vs Iran Naval Coast Guard

02814_olivier_rebbot_reporter.jpg

A HISTORY LESSON STILL UNLEARNED
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
April 18, 2007

With war drums beating louder, senior military commanders in Tehran miss few opportunities to warn the government against plunging the country into an unequal fight with the United States and its allies.

One such warning came last month from the Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard (IRCG) General Rahim Safavi.

In an unusually frank assessment of the situation, he told an audience of guardsmen that the country lacked the necessary means to defend its extensive land and sea borders. He insisted that everything be done to avoid an “unhappy episode”.

In Tehran’s military circles, the phrase “unhappy episode” is a codeword for the only direct military clash that has so far taken place between the Islamic Republic and the United States.

The clash came on April 18, 1988, exactly 19 years ago today.

At the time, the Islamic Republic censored all news of the event so that most Iranians do not even know that it happened at all. For their part, the Americans also “managed” the flow of information about the clash to prevent its strategic importance from becoming apparent at the time.

Nevertheless, the clash between the navy of the Islamic Republic and a US naval task force led by the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, was subsequently classed as one of the five naval battles of historic importance that established American sup-remacy at sea.

Clash

The background to the clash was rather complicated.

At the time, the Islamic Republic was at war against Iraq under Saddam Hussain, rejecting United Nations pleas for a ceasefire.

Towards the end of 1987, the Islamic Republic started firing on Kuwaiti oil tankers passing through the Gulf on the grounds that Arab oil money fuelled Saddam’s war machine. Weeks of efforts by the UN, the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), and the nonaligned bloc to persuade Tehran to stop attacking Kuwaiti tankers produced no results.

It was then that President Ronald Reagan decided to put the Kuwaiti tankers under the US flag and escort them through the waterway.

The Islamic Republic retaliated by mining some of the shipping lanes in the waterway. On April 14, 1988, the USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine and was seriously damaged. It was towed to Dubai where it arrived two days later.

The following day experts established that the mine had been made in Iran and placed by the IRCG.

Within hours, President Ronald Reagan ordered the US task force to retaliate. The IRCG responded by firing missiles at US vessels without inflicting any harm.

The US task force seized the opportunity to unleash its superior firepower to virtually break the Iranian navy.

The Americans lost two men, the crew of a helicopter that came down in an accident far from the battle.

The IRCG lost 87 men and over 300 wounded. Later, the Islamic Republic filed a suit against the US at the International Court at The Hague claiming losses amounting to several billion dollars. (The court rejected Tehran’s suit in November 2003.)

The battle’s effect in Tehran was immediate.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then the leader of the Islamic Republic, was initially inclined to retaliate by ordering Hezbollah to carry out suicide attacks against American and other Western interests.

However, he was persuaded by Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the ayatollah’s closest aide, to take a deep breath and maintain a low profile. There was to be no retaliation. The remaining vessels of the Iranian navy were ordered to clear their movements with the US task force in advance to avoid any misunderstanding.

The battle

The battle, nicknamed by the US “Operation Praying Mantis”, was followed in July by a tragic accident when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air jetliner by mistake, killing all 290 passengers and crew.

Khomeini interpreted the accident as a deliberate escalation by the US and feared that his regime was in danger. Rafsanjani and other advisers used that fear to persuade the ayatollah to end the war with Iraq, something he had adamantly refused for eight years.

A broken Khomeini appeared on TV to announce that he was “drinking the chalice of poison” by accepting a UN-ordered ceasefire. He was no longer going to Karbala on his way to Jerusalem.

In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.

The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.

Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. “This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes,” he said.

Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.

Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.

Amir Taheri is an Iranian writer based in Europe

___________________________________________________________________________

I was not aware that this had occurred. Interesting to note. If we were to retaliate against Iran in the near future, I think this is the way to go. Get in. Destroy the regime. Leave it behind. Let the Iranian people pick up the pieces on their own.

Lastly, leave a promise in the air. Act well or We Shall Return.

gfon127l.jpg

This is the only kind of deal you are likely to get from the Iranian Government.   Yet, Barack Obama wants “dialogue.”

Dec 2011 ~  Iran playing games again in the Straits of Hormuz.  Will there be a repeat?

Obama has failed in every endeavor as regards Iran.