A WELL UNDERSTOOD PROBLEM

A must read if you are still having doubts.

http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Islam-West-Razzia.htm
Islam and the West
One Enormous Razia

by Warner MacKenzie
20 Jul, 2007

The recent phenomenon of Islamic terrorism against the west, and certain unwelcome aspects of the increasing Muslim presence in Western countries, seem new to us but, in reality, owe more than just a passing nod of acknowledgement to the Arab Bedouin tradition of the plundering raid (ghazwa or razzia.). The razzia, with its opportunistic seizure of spoils (anfal) was undertaken by a desert people who were unable or unwilling to contribute to the creation of their needs; so the Bedouin, who neither grew nor made anything, simply pillaged what they wanted from others. Likewise, Muslim emigrants keep their “eyes on the prize” when choosing a destination country and seem to find nations that are devoid of generous welfare systems and high standards of living, singularly unappealing.

Migration for financial betterment is neither reprehensible nor new, and has been a primary motivating factor for many former immigrant groups; however, no group in the past has sought to bend the host country to its will, rather than assimilate, as have those of the Islamic faith. Unprecedented concessions have been made to Muslims and will continue to be made as they persistently chip away at the Western edifice. We can expect that any concessions granted will do no more than embolden the petitioners and encourage even more, and greater, demands in the future. If the demands are resisted or denied, and their numbers are sufficient, there will be civil disruption and confrontations as we see regularly in the media. The foreign policies of several European countries have been, or are in the process of being, modified to prevent a Muslim backlash, either physical or electoral.

It’s evident that a two pronged pincer manoeuvre is well under way, with one faction of Islam softening us up by threatening to blast and terrorise us into submission, and the “good-cop” wing, represented by the various national Islamic councils and other Muslim interest groups, who are “grooming” us with assurances that, by dealing with them, we can avoid all the unpleasantness and bloodshed by acquiescing and “going along quietly”. Option “B” is merely option “A” by stealth, with a sugar coating; both lead to an identical outcome; and that is an influence on our way of life disproportionate to their numbers. Our governments have warmed to the sweeter, soft option without realizing it is merely the other side of the jihadi coin. Rather than recognising and confronting this insidious and incremental erosion of our culture, our leaders have decided that it’s easier to retreat a yard than advance an inch.

Recently, a British survey found that : “According to a poll of 1,003 Muslims, 37 per cent of 16- to-24-year-olds said they would prefer to live under Sharia law, the same number of young Muslims said they would prefer to send their children to Islamic state schools while 74 per cent said they preferred Muslim women to wear the hijab headscarf in public and a small overall minority, (7 per cent,) said they "admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West".

The European Union and U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a pathetic and obvious concession to the Muslim community, declared that the words “Islam, Islamic and Muslim” must not, under any circumstances, be used in conjunction with any mention of terrorism.

The familiar modus operandi of strike―withdraw―regroup―pause― strike again, is a feature of the time honoured Middle-Eastern stratagem of deceptive triangulation. Analogous to the story of the “slowly boiled frog”— which is unable to detect the gradual increase in water temperature—the West, in a very short period of time, has been lulled, beguiled and manipulated into a position of passive acceptance. Reports of terrorist acts no longer surprise us and the hypocrisy of “lowered expectations” toward Islam and Muslims forces us to put up with all manner of absurdities and irrationality from them. We’re like rabbits mesmerized in their headlights and all we can offer up is the plaintive whine “why do they hate us”

They hate us because we are their antithesis. Everything about us reminds them of their failings and shortcomings. We are the embodiment of post-enlightenment rationalists; generous, compassionate, the innovative and industrious creators and discoverers of everything the Muslims rely on every minute of their day. Every communication system, all forms of travel and transport, medical devices and procedures, pharmaceuticals and synthetics. Everything, in fact, down to their wristwatch and even the process that prints their Koran; all are a living testament to the infidel’s ability to organise his thought processes, to strive, through co-operative effort, with others in the development and constant improvement of the products of his disciplined, inventive mind. The chaotically fractious, nepotistic, corrupt and violent nature of what passes for a civil society in Islamic countries is, by contrast, their legacy. Like an insect trapped in amber, Muslim countries are museums, little more than a static display of seventh century pre-rational tribalism.

They adore the trappings of modern technology but having a cell phone up to the ear doesn’t mean there’s a twenty first century mind on the other side of the eardrum.

Having concluded that it is impossible for them to catch up to, let alone compete with, the rest of the modern world, they seek to force us back to their benighted state.

In the same manner that we are accepting the “good-cop” alternative, the sedentary rural and artisan communities of Arabia came to accept Bedouin brigandage and rapine as an unavoidable fact of life, for at any time and without warning, a camel mounted raiding horde could swiftly descend on their defenceless settlements and in a frenzy of sword brandishing, blood-curdling ululations and dust, the Bedouins, within a matter of minutes, would have made off with whatever they wanted—valuables, goats, chickens, produce and young women— decamping into the sandy wastes as rapidly as they had appeared. The only way to avoid these raids was to enter into a servile agreement to surrender a percentage of the annual date or grain crop and livestock to the marauders.

Despite being born an Arab in what is present-day Tunisia, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) lived for a number of years in the city of Granada in Muslim Spain. In his master work, al Muqaddimah,(written in 1377) Khaldun describes the nature of the desert Arab in, what to us, would seem to be extremely uncomplimentary terms. Despite this, Arabs, generally speaking, identify strongly and proudly with the uncompromising “black and white” absolutist Bedouin outlook. This hard-line attitude of the desert was spread with the expansion of Islam. An Arabocentric emphasis with its seventh century Arabian values eventually came to be superimposed on the more contemplative religious, and tolerant cultural traditions of Asia.

Khaldun also suggests, and history appears to support him, that an advanced civilisation steadily loses its asabiyya, i.e. its group identity, filiations and cohesion, through leading a soft, sedentary lifestyle. The citizens no longer need to be constantly fending off invaders in order to survive, the over indulgent society, having lost its martial skills, then degenerates to a point where it becomes unable to defend itself from a determined attacker or “Trojan horse” insurgents. Civilisations then tend to become vulnerable, their group-identity becomes diluted and weakened and finally non-existent. The challengers succeed by retaining the wild-animal hunting pack ethos; they still have that most primeval sense of belonging to a common and cohesive identity, their asabiyyah, complete with a single-minded determination to further the self-interests of their tribe, and their tribe only. I would suggest that the Muslim world, despite its manifold schismatic divisions, is far more conscious of its asabiyya than we, in the West, are of ours. With indistinct, blurred, and polarised populations coupled with subversive and seditious fifth columnists, we no longer know what we believe in. Our common heritage and history are no longer taught in schools for fear of offending those late arrivers who do not share that heritage. To what extent are we prepared to abandon and sacrifice those values that made us what we are, on the altar of inimical interlopers? The West will only recover its lost asabiyyah when nations recognise that whilst they can certainly prosper as multi-racial societies, an original core majority culture must be the dominant identifying factor and the divisive policy of multiculturalism will need to be abandoned as a flawed concept and failed experiment based entirely on how some utopian, well-meaning “progressives”, would prefer Western society to be, rather than accept, and more importantly, support and celebrate how it is in reality.

If we read the following excerpts from the Muqaddimah we can see just how well ibn Khaldun’s assessments of Arab cultural propensities have stood the test of time over the last six hundred plus years.

For all intents and purposes, Khaldun’s words could have been written in 2007 rather than 1377. It contains some sobering advice for those who would take our dealings with Arab culture, and its accompanying religious zealotry, lightly.

[“On account of their savage nature, (the Arabs) are people who plunder and cause damage. They plunder whatever they are able to lay their hands on without having to fight or to expose themselves to danger. They then retreat to their pastures in the desert. …Every stronghold or (locality) that seems difficult (to attack); they bypass in favour of some less difficult (enterprise). They do not attack it. Tribes that are protected against (the Arabs) by inaccessible mountains are safe from their mischief and destructiveness. The Arabs would not cross hills or undergo hardship and danger in order to get to them.

Flat territory, on the other hand, falls victim to their looting and prey to their appetite whenever they (have the opportunity of) gaining power over it. Then they raid, plunder, and attack that territory repeatedly, because it is easily (accessible) to them. Eventually, its inhabitants succumb utterly to the Arabs and then they are pushed around by them. Eventually, their civilization is wiped out.”

Places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined.

“The reason for this is that (the Arabs) are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwell­ings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. The very nature of their existence is the negation of building, which is the basis of civilization”

“Furthermore, it is their nature to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people. Whenever their eyes fall upon some property, furnishings, or utensils, they take it. When they acquire superiority and royal authority, they have complete power to plunder (as they please). There no longer exists any political (power) to protect property, and civilization is ruined.”

[“Since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it. The sedentary population disperses, and civilization decays.”

“The Arabs are not concerned with laws. They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further. For this (reason), greater fortitude is found among the savage Arab Bedouins than among people who are subject to laws. [ those who rely on laws and are dominated by them from the very beginning of their education and instruction in the crafts, sciences, and religious matters, are thereby deprived of much of their own fortitude.”

“Under the rule of (the Arabs), the subjects live as in a state of anarchy, without law. Anarchy destroys mankind and ruins civilization,

Furthermore, (every Arab) is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his father, his brother, or the eldest (most important) member of his family…. Civilization, thus, decays and is wiped out.”

“It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the (very) earth there turned into something that was no (longer) earth. The Yemen where (the Arabs) live, is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria.”

“Every Bedouin who is attracted to city life quickly shows himself unable (to compete) and is disgraced.”

Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, found no need to explain or justify his unprovoked looting raids which suggests that the attitude of, “it’s there for the taking” and the lure of “something-for-nothing” was already well established and accepted as normal behaviour. This barbarous and predatory conduct may have, in time, changed—as it did with the Vikings— had it not been for Islam. Muhammad’s divinely sanctioned marauding of booty-laden merchant’s caravans became the imprimatur that entrenched opportunism and predation as, not only legitimate, but in fact exemplary, thereby immutably casting the die for eternity.

With Islam’s belief that all is preordained, where even the most minute detail in day to day life only happens because Allah has previously willed it, (the inshallah mentality), it doesn’t require a great stretch of the imagination to conceive that, in the Muslim mind, Allah has permitted Western society to develop, succeed and prosper so as to present the “faithful” with a ready-made “walk-in-walk-out”, “under new management” takeover, complete with a functioning infrastructure and a populace steadily retreating into an ever increasing degree of subservient “dhimmitude”.

Only an identity ‘reconquista’ can provide us with a defensive moat against this opening ghazwa of the third great jihad.



Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah can be read online at: http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Table_of_Contents.htm ........end

the comments are also well worth reading.
For me , the heading for this blog says it all.