Serge Trifkovic gave frontpagemag an interview on his upcoming book Defeating Jihad. The general idea is that the west's zeal for self destruction and political correctness can only lead one direction, strait to the defeat of the west and the eventual submission to Islam. Serge says our current efforts to win the GWOT are inadequate and hampered by politically correct thought. He starts with the general persecution of Christians throughout the Islamic world and moves to the domestic “spying” issue and on to expose the foundations and downright evil of Islam and the “prophet” Muhammad. Serge fears the PC definition of the Jihadist brand of Islam is a mistake!

Serge Trifkovic via Frontpagemag :We need a comprehensive strategy of defense not merely against a small jihadist elite but against an inherently aggressive, demographically vibrant, and ideologically rigid Islamic movement - and please, no more "Islamist" red herrings! - a movement that has global proportions and world-historical significance. As an ideology and a blueprint for radical political action, it is a phenomenon that cannot be compared in dynamism, energy, and potential consequences with any other creed or idea in today's world. It demands a sustained, bold response that has failed to materialize so far. We are losing the war because our elite class does not allow the enemy to be defined. The squeamishness of European and American bien-pensants alike in naming the enemy is but one sign of a shared malaise that hampers a coherent effort.

Within America, glossing over the surveillance targets' identity has two objectives. First of all, it presented President Bush as an out-of-control autocrat-in-the-making whose hoods may be eavesdropping on any one of us at any time. Secondly, it also implied that a Muslim who has become a naturalized American citizen is so thoroughly and irrevocably "American," that no hyphenated designation or qualifier is called for.

Abroad, concealing the rioters' identity fits in with the liberal world view that reject the notion that importing Muslim immigrants may be in any way disadvantageous for the host country. Having reduced religion, politics and art to "narratives" and "metaphors" which merely reflect prejudices based on the distribution of power, the elite class saw the rioters' shout of "Allahu akbar!" as a mere idiosyncrasy that would be cured if the French state gave those "youths" more jobs, more dark-skinned TV anchors, and, of course, lots of "affirmative action" in employment and education.

The citizenship of any naturalized American who preaches jihad, inequality of "infidels" and women, the establishment of the Shari'a law etc., should be revoked, and that person promptly deported to the country of origin.

A person's Islamic faith and outlook is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government. For as long as practicing Muslims are able to get security clearances, terrorist organizations will continue trying to insinuate their supporters into the hiring pools of American security agencies. Any presence of practicing Muslims in any such institution presents an inherent risk to its integrity and undermines its morale.

New immigration legislation is badly needed. Islamic activism should be treated as the grounds for the exclusion or deportation of any alien, regardless of his status or ties in the United States. Useful precedents exist. Keeping out and facilitating the expulsion of politically undesirable foreigners has been at the heart of this country's immigration legislation since 1903 when Congress barred the admission of anarchists in response to President McKinley's assassination. "Ideological" grounds for deportation were on the statute books until 1990, when they were unwisely repealed by Congress. After the Russian revolution foreign communists were singled out for deportation. One night alone in January of 1920, more than 2,500 "alien radicals" were seized in thirty-three cities across the country and deported to their countries of origin. Those who preach Jihad and Sharia can and should be treated in exactly the same manner.

Glazov: Many Muslims I talk to often tell me that their Prophet was a man of "peace." As you demonstrate once again in your new book, he so clearly was not. Tell us briefly how he wasn't. And do the Muslims that I speak with not read the Koran? Or do they have a different concept of "peace"?

Trifkovic: Those Muslims you talk to seem to have adopted the dialectical forma mentis of Stalin's apologists who'd have told you that his winter war against Finland was "defensive" and the Gulag was justified, or exaggerated, or both. Yes, the problem is that Muhammad remains, to all true Muslims, the inviolable paragon of goodness, and imitatio Muhammadi is reflected in the prevalence of his name throughout the Muslim world. Understanding him is the key to the Muslim world outlook.

Akkari, spokesman of the Muslim organizations in Denmark, said that Muslims all over the world want the "truth" about their prophet known to the rest of the world. OK, fine: let us look at Muhammad as "he really was in history," relying solely on orthodox Islamic sources, the Kuran and the hadithÂ… Â…It tells us that he violated the sacred pagan month of Rajab, when no Arab was permitted to raise arms in battle by staging pirate raids on caravans from Mecca. In 624, at Badr, he killed forty Meccans in battle and executed prisoners, with Allah's approval: "instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." (8:12) After Badr, to quote Ayatollah Khomeini, "Islam grew with blood."

Muhammad used the prospect of booty and ransom to recruit followers. This motive was so important that it merited a whole sura in the Kuran; but one fifth of everything was Muhammad's! Once the loot was divided it was time to relax: "Now enjoy what ye have won as lawful and good." As for the fallen, a tangible, X-rated paradise filled with virgins "untouched by man" and "fresh" pre-pubescent boys awaited the "martyrs" immediately. The simple preacher eventually morphed into a vengeful warlord, who jubilantly exclaimed that the spectacle of severed enemy heads pleased him better than "the choicest camel in Arabia." Killing prisoners was divinely condoned by Allah. (8:6 Fresh revelations described the unbelievers as "the worst animals" (8:55) and "the vilest of creatures" (98:6) undeserving of mercy. The enemies' heads were to be cut off. (47:4) Killing, enslaving and robbing them was divinely sanctioned and mandated.

When Muhammad returned from Badr to Medina in triumph, he proceeded to settle scores with his detractors - and resorted to murder. He killed Abu Afak, an elderly Jew who dared question Muhammad's methods, and Asma bint Marwan, a poetess who had mocked him in verse, followed by another poet, Kab Ashraf. They were guilty of verbal insults, providing the Islamic view of the freedom of speech that is valid to this day.

Muhammad next told his followers to "kill any Jew you can lay your hands on." When six of his henchmen murdered an elderly Jew by the name of Abu Rafi in his sleep, they argued whose weapon had actually ended the victim's life. The prophet decided that the owner of the sword that still had traces of food on it was entitled to the credit: Abu Rafi had just eaten his dinner before falling asleep, and the fatal slash went through his stomach. The "Prophet's" attack against the Jewish tribe of Banu-'l-Mustaliq came next. His followers kidnapped 500 of their women, and the night after the battle they staged an orgy of rape. His pogroms culminated in the attack the last Jewish tribe in Medina, Banu Qurayzah. Up to 900 men were decapitated in a ditch, in front of their women and children. Allah praised Muhammad for the way "he struck terror into their hearts." (33:25) The women were subsequently raped. Muhammad chose as his concubine one Raihana Bint Amr, whose father and husband were both slaughtered before her eyes only hours earlier.

Allah's messages concerning "the infidel" subsequently grew ever harsher: "Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire." (69:30-37) They "will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off." (5:33-34) In this world, for the captured infidel "We have prepared chains, yokes and a blazing fire." (76:4) In the hereafter things get even worse: "garments of fire will be cut out for them, boiling fluid will be poured down their heads. Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted. And for them are hooked rods of iron." (22:19-22) One single Kuranic verse, "the Verse of the Sword," (9:5) Islamic scholars agree, abrogates 124 earlier verses - the ones that are quoted most regularly by Islam's apologists to prove its tolerance and benevolence.

Glazov: You discuss how Muhammad married Aisha when she was seven and still playing with dolls and that he had sex with her when she was nine. Can you kindly explain to me what Muslims think about this in their thinking of their Prophet? Every time I try to raise this issue with devout Muslims there is a lot of double-talk and a lot of anger directed at me. I never get anywhere on this issue. Can you give us your wisdom on this?

Trifkovic: There is no "wisdom," there is common decency and natural morality. Yes, Muslims need to be pressed on the rape of Aisha, and on the murders, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. On the whole, many commands of the Kuran and Muhammad's actions and words recorded in the Traditions are morally abhorrent and criminal not only by the standards of our time, but even in the context of 7th century Arabia! They were often considered repugnant by Muhammad's contemporaries. He had to resort to "revelations" as a means of justifying his actions and suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own society. Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one's kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion's share of the booty, murdering people without provocation, violating treaties, and indulging one's sensual passions, was also at odds with the moral standards of his Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it, and Allah duly obliged him.

On its own admission Islam stands or falls with the person of Muhammad, a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Old and New Testaments, both of which he acknowledged as divine revelation; and even by the new law, of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian. The problem of Islam, and the problem of the rest of the world with Islam, is not the remarkable career of Muhammad per se, undoubtedly a "great man" in terms of his impact on human history. It is the religion's claim that the words and acts of its prophet provide the universally valid standard of morality as such, for all time and all men. Our judgment on Muhammad rests on evidence of his followers and faithful admirers. Even on such evidence, the verdict of the civilized world goes against the "prophet."

Posted by: Howie at 04:28 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 2073 words, total size 13 kb.