By Jaime Ortega.
Muslim prayer in the middle of Parisian street.
Muslims are accountable for not containing radical Islam in the Middle East and Europe. The notion in western countries is that even though moderate Muslims condemn terrorist attacks conducted by radical jihadist like the recent massacre in Paris and Mali, they don’t necessarily go out their way to tackle the problem.
Little by little with each terrorist act Islam has started to mount defiance in Europe crumbling in popularity and sprouting hate among fellow European progressives who once advocated for Muslim tolerance in western lands.
Paradoxically, the few Muslims that openly denounce terrorist attacks in small scale street demonstrations holding peace banners in the name of Islam are not the ones protesting against foreign occupation, leaving behind visible gaps of political infirmity and division that peril Islam in Europe and the US.
It’s no mystery that over the past two decades western foreign intervention in the Middle East has stirred up negativity between secular Muslims, Arab nationalist and religious Muslims residing in European lands and abroad; in the Muslim world, Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel lead the stage of controversial occupations; on the other hand, Arabs who are non religious or might represent a different creed tend to have different views that don’t represent the global outlook of most Muslims toward democracy and western interventionism.
All together Yarizis, Alowites, Zoroastrians, Manicheans, Sabadeans, Orthodox Christians, Coptics, Catholics and other Middle Eastern religious minorities have historically adopted a defensive stance against an overwhelming Muslim majority to secure their cultural survival; therefore, they’re more forthcoming when other western cultures directly intervene on Arab affairs.
Muslims wholeheartedly believe Palestinian occupation by Israel is the direct result of western imperialism, in particular US oppression on Muslim lands; whereas, the Palestinian Christians that precede Islamism in history, who mostly migrated to the US during the Arab-Israeli war, view Israel not the problem in Palestine but the root cause for westernization, democracy and progress on Arab lands.
Hence, how Muslims denote the Middle East as “Muslim lands”, while other religious Arabs that precede Islam by many centuries prefer to name it “Arab lands.” This problem and never ending conflict is unlikely to change anytime soon between radical Hamas and Israel for the reason that it’s a religious struggle rather than a political discrepancy.
But in contrast what is Muslim extremism as a whole trying to achieve in Europe and all over the world? To impose Sharia-Law in western governments and use democracy as the precursor to gateway ideological radicalism into the system and further political advantage that favors the implementation of Islamic dogmas. For most radical Muslims the ultimate dream would be to Islamisize Europe and the world to obtain a caliphate.
This advantageous usage of democracy became apparent during the democratic elections in Egypt and Libya after the turbulent Arab Spring that general Kalifa Hafta and Al-Sisi successfully thwarted by overseen the smoldering of the Islamic Brotherhood over seculars in both countries.
Even close ties with radical Islamic groups can present challenges. In Pakistan, the government once allied with Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban through ISI (Pakistani intelligence) to defend its interest in Afghanistan from India’s territorial expansion, is now using the police to fight the TTP after the school bombings in Peshawar that killed 128 infants.
Turkey under Erdogan, once supporting ISIL and Al-Nusra to fight Iraqi and Syrian Kurds has also fallen prey to fray between radical jihadists after the bombing of a peaceful political demonstration in the border with Iraq that caused 30 fatalities.
First it is apparent that the intentions of tolerant Muslims in the Middle East to reform government via political diplomacy are in disguise with reality. Secondly, moderate Muslims cannot domestically curtail the advancement of Islamic extremism within the framework of their national struggle to peacefully coexist without sectarian violence.
In other words, secular and moderate Muslims are completely apprehensive to radical Islamism; they have proven to have no firm grasp in containing religious groups that sponsor Jihad which constantly menace national security in Europe.
The Muslim Student Association even though it does not openly sponsor radical extremism is notoriously known for not condemning and cutting ties with radical fundamentalist groups that fund its initiative. These Muslim secular-moderates ultimately fare off as incompetent, weak and bias toward the permeation of radical Islam worldwide. Only hardcore liberals believe these groups don’t present a challenge for national security.
Secular Muslim emancipation in the Arab Spring led to Islamic radicalism which ramified into dictatorships and sectarian divisions. Moderate Muslims that reside in European countries have to rise against Muslim extremism before events worsen and lead to the expulsion and even persecution of Muslims in Europe observed during the 15th century Inquisition.
While Islam is losing popularity among Europeans, persecution in the long run can be avoided only if secular and moderate Muslims start to cut ties with religious extremist groups alongside individuals that fund jihadist propaganda. It is Muslims, not Europeans who have to fight back against religious lunatics because ultimately it is their religion that has caused widespread of hate amid western civilization.
Should liberal activist defend Islam?
Many liberal progressives in the western world try to protect the religious rights of Muslims in Europe and the US by pushing laws that prevent discrimination. They advocate for laws which determine tolerance under the banner of political correctness, thus why, most retail stores inside of Malls instead of saying “Merry Christmas” put signs that read “Happy Holliday’s” not to hurt other religious groups.
Given the status of Middle Eastern sectarian politics and the bigotry reflected in opposing basic western freedoms which include mistreatment of secular activist; it is astounding how liberal progressives could simply ignore the role Islamic religion plays in the Middle East, neglecting, persecuting and even beheading people opposed to their religious view.
Liberals project social liberties supported by organizations that protect basic individual freedoms. These freedoms include protecting the rights of homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, atheist, animals, the environment and many other civil liberties. Islam would not only eradicate western civil rights under Sharia-law, but would put to death those that advocate or practice such laws because in Islam it is forbidden.
The irony is that Muslim activist, like Mohammed Morsi’s 2012 ‘Freedom and Justice Party’ used secular Egyptian liberals to access power democratically. Once he won the elections, Morsi and FJP started to abuse constitutional reforms and started to win seats in congress in order to create a state based upon Islamic laws that undermined all liberal reforms sponsored by seculars who trusted in his party.
Liberals who back Muslim rights must understand that under Islamic Law, the same Muslim activist that seem to project justice and liberties, would condemn homosexuals, transgender, atheist and lesbians to death. The hypocrisy couldn’t be any more apparent.
Terrorism and the Bible excuse
Browsing through the internet I came across videos of Muslim clerics condemning ISIL by pointing that the bible sponsors the same behavior as the Quran, trying to reciprocate blame on Europeans for the intervention of western troops in Arab lands.
Who is the terrorist?
Before I get into the Bible, I want to denote the real significance of the term ‘terrorism’ that for most Muslims has a different connotation than what the typical liberal progressive generally accepts as an act of solidarity for condemning attacks in the western world.
The term ‘terrorism’ for many religious Muslims means western occupation on Arab lands and the killing of Muslims thereof. Generally, religious Muslims mostly condemn the killing of other innocent Muslims when jihadist extremist launch attacks that target Muslims and non-Muslims; In other words, dead Muslims are the true innocent people during a terrorist attack, but what about non-Muslims?
If Jews, Atheist, Buddhist, Hindus, Christians, agnostics, Zoroastrians, Shinto’s, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics die inside a terrorist attack, will the moderate Muslim openly defend their cause against extremist? Will they unify to protest the innocent death of non-Muslims? Will moderate Muslims go to their neighborhoods and help eradicate extremism?
They also believe the US, the EU alongside Israel are terrorist states oppressing innocent Muslims worldwide; whereas, Hamas, ISIL and Al-Qaeda are the opposing forces battling the anti-Islamic invaders in the name of jihad. Even though, Muslims might not openly express these views in public, they share these beliefs with other Muslims.
The Islamic Brotherhood represents the ‘moderate’ side of Islamism openly sponsoring peace, education, tolerance and unity among Muslims; however, it secretly funds Jihadist cells like Ansar Al-Sharia in Tunisia and Libya with AQ affiliation in Yemen. For the IB, western occupation, democracy and authoritarian governments represent the devil himself. It is important for Islam to overcome the apostate world that fights against Islamic tenets.
The Islamic Brotherhood, the General National Council and Hamas are three political parties that show the Middle East to always revolve in the same ultra-Islamic scheme restricting fully fledged secular amalgamation in Politics. Considering this happens in Arab lands and these political groups represent moderate Muslims; it is only rational to assume an Islamic state would be created in Europe if Muslim moderates were given authority to wield political rights.
The Bible myth
Time and time again Imams and sheiks all over the Muslim world defend jihadist propaganda pointing to past events in the Bible to excuse the behavior of radical extremist in Europe. But the real question is what century are these religious fanatics currently living on?
Ironically, the time of the crusades evanesced hundreds of centuries ago forgotten in the dusty shelves of European libraries and cathedrals that only few old devoted people attend. European baby boomers are almost entirely now atheist, agnostics or believe there is a god but don’t convict or claim any faith. The typical millennial is even more anti-church than his parents.
Very few Europeans are actually Lutheran “Christians” that follow the bible; professed Catholics are also a dying breed and proselyte to different dogmas that include conversion to Islam, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormonism and mostly atheism. No European country fights wars in the name of the Pope of Rome since the 17th century.
The last religious war between faiths in Europe comprised of the Church of England battling the Holly Roman Catholic church in a cultural event that divided Europe and killed millions of people during the transition of power. The war left a significant scar in European history and weakened the Church of Rome in its ultimate quest to wield more political power.
After the French Revolution, the 18th century European Enlightenment challenged the view of catholic Rome and religious practices started to dramatically decline from what was once Europe’s main cultural lifestyle. Romanticism, conservatism, nationalism and liberalism emerged from the ashes of the social revolution with philosophy and arts leading the movement.
The European social revolution after the Industrial Revolution only resumed the downfall of religious creeds with new political movements that portrayed a world free of faith without god like that promoted by anarchism, communism, Marxism, minarchism, capitalism and socialism.
The goal was for social organizations (government) to control and organize the balance of natural resources to help create a world free of oppression and injustice without the presence of religious involvement; it was successful.
For centuries peasants in Europe suffered oppression from monarchs, elitist and land owners co-sponsored by catholic support. These finally dampened all religious tolerance before War World I, which lead to social revolts in Europe including civil-wars that transformed the working class and elites into liberal progressives, partly thanks to the nascent rise of Darwinian theology (modern day evolution).
They were a few exceptions, Spain’s Franco reminiscent of Catholic tradition was one of them; although, after his death, Spain’s democratic transition changed the post-religious structure to be in equilibrium with the rest of 20th century constitutional Europe.
This liberal transformation is presently rising in the US that unlike the 50’s no longer tolerates religion in government affairs, education, military and social integration; thus why, thanks to technocrats evolutionary theory has successfully thrived and taken control of political affairs in America and Europe excluding religious tolerance in many universities nationwide. Most of the US media is anti-conservative and does not advocate in favor of religion; Fox news the errant exception.
Veneration of saints continues to be part of Mediterranean festivities, but those fallowing these rituals represent the older generations born in 1940’s, which are mostly casual traditionalist unlike the new generation of Europeans who won’t heed to any religious practices.
Even the most devout catholic priests have never publically expressed consternation for Rome’s expansion or decline to a growing number of conversions; unlike the Imams in London and Paris who want to impose Sharia-law on all of Western Europe openly conveying the propagation of Islamic tenants to non-Muslims worldwide.
Bible belt states mostly from the South have survived the demise of Christianity in the US. That number will continue to steadily decline as liberal dogmas continue to infiltrate religious groups in both house and senate.
The ebbing of Christianity and Catholicism in most European governments occurred in the 18th century. Wars are no longer conducted on the premise of religion, but only based on the violation of international law among national interests, which explains the creation of The UN and NATO. If Europe was Catholic or Protestant it would bow to the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church, and not to outside organizations to make international resolutions.
Christian conversions are currently the highest in Asia including China, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Laos and Taiwan. Muslim radicals should be declaring war on Asian countries if Christianity is really the core problem of Arab interventionism.
So all Muslim clerics who deliberately mention bible verses to excuse jihadist terrorism trying to verse Europeans in Christianity are either naively stupid or have absolutely no idea what they are talking about — still living in the memories of the crusades, assuming Europeans care about what the bible teaches — If anything, now days people believe religion is ‘primitive thinking’ and an imaginary god is part of the larger quandary destroying civilization. God is more or less an imaginary figure in the modern western world.
Do Muslim clerics read history?
Another problem in the Islamic world is the staggering historical misconception of Muslim clerics to not differentiate between Catholics and Christians. Crusaders where Catholics; Catholics are not Christian; Christians separated from Rome approximately in the second ecumenical council of Nicaea in 787 AC, because of iconoclasm which is the veneration of idols.
Iconoclasm is prohibited in Christianity because it’s regarded as idol worshiping. The Coptic Church, the Ethiopian, the Assyrian, the Arab and other Middle Eastern Churches separated in accordance to this doctrine and Christians dwelled independently in North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe where the Eastern Orthodox Church remained the epicenter of Christianity. The west was Catholic, whereas the east was Christian.
Initially Popes did not condone iconoclasm, especially during the first ecumenical councils. But after the 7th century the pope was viewed as the successor of Christ among the Catholic world to wield the same power as god himself, even as to overwrite scripture which was blasphemous to Christian doctrine. The Catholic movement became independent from Christianity. Some emperors in Constantinople were also following this practice which stirred rage among Christians in Byzantium.
The crusades were initiated in 1095 AC, sanctioned by the Catholic Church, after the Turks threatened to attack Constantinople the center of Orthodox Christianity which had already separated from Rome. Byzantine emperor Alexios I, urged pope Urban II to aid him with military assistance. Ironically it was the Seljuk Empire a Muslim based Sultanate that started the war against Byzantium, something modern day Muslims don’t talk about.
According to history, Muslims started the war against the Eastern Orthodox Church; the Roman Catholic Church assisted with help, the goal of the Pope was to reunite the east with the west again. Prior to Islam the Sassanid Empire in 602 AC under emperor Chosroes II invaded the Eastern Orthodox Empire capturing Egypt, Palestine and Syria threatening Constantinople itself.
So not only Muslims, but prior to their existence, the Arabs were already trying to aggressively conquer Constantinople. Emperor Heraclius turned back the tide and crushed the Sassanid’s, but at that point it was too late. Islam emerged in Arabia, and absorbed the Sassanid’s and much of the eastern Roman Empire.
Rome had become independent and Catholicism, not Christianity was now enforced in Europe. A weak Eastern Orthodox Church succumbed to the powerful Ottoman Empire. The Eastern Orthodox Church was the last foothold and epicenter of Christianity.
The Muslims had already conquered the Christian centers of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria by the sword and with Constantinople out of the picture, Christianity no longer had a central city. It was an easy defeat, but Rome wasn’t easy; the Crusades started when the Roman Catholic Church and Islam clashed in the name of their gods waging fierce campaigns.
The Catholic Church after centuries of hegemony indisputably dominated Western Europe administrating orders from the pope himself to all nations in Europe with monarchical consent. The new ‘crusades’ targeted not only Muslims, but also Jews and Christian evangelic movements in southern France. Crusaders killed thousands of Christians who like the Eastern Orthodox Church did not agree with Catholicism; the only difference was that during Byzantium, the Roman Catholic Church did not dominate all Europe because Barbarians (Visigoths and Vandals) controlled most of it.
Eventually Christianity reemerged in the 16th century when Martin Luther, condemned the Catholic Church which had banned the bible for centuries during the Dark Ages of Europe sanctioning literacy and writing. The protestant reformation gave Christianity a new voice against the despotic Catholic Church, and not without struggle Europe was finally reformed and the new Church of England finally won the battle against Roman Catholicism but the death toll was very high.
Something Muslims don’t understand is that Erasmus, Wycliffe, Luther, Tyndale, Calvin and many others who set the counter-reformation, condemned the Crusades because it also targeted Christians who didn’t vow to the Church of Rome. Muslims are also responsible for the forced conversions and atrocities committed against Christians in the Middle East.
Muslims in general are not well learned in western history. For a Muslim to say Catholics and Christians are the same religion would be equal to state that Muslims and Jews are the same religion with different names. If this were to be true, then surely Muslims shouldn’t get mad when someone calls them a Jew considering some of the similarities they share with Old Testament laws which are not practiced in Islam.
On the same token, just because Muslims believe in Jesus and the prophets it does not make them Christian. So just because the Roman Catholic Church believes in Jesus, and even the trinity it doesn’t make them Christian either, considering they follow their own rituals, cannons and tradition of saints. Sadly many Radical Muslims ignore history to fit their hate of Christianity.
Muslim rioters caused the Syrian crisis
The Syrian refugee crisis has spilled over into Europe, and no one wants to accommodate waves of Muslim immigrants who can’t proof background checks because there is no intelligence to recollect information from Syria. If you picked up a homeless man from the street, you might consider checking his criminal record before inviting him to stay; never mind 2 million Muslim immigrants.
EU and the US are not responsible for the problems of Syria. The Arab Spring was equally sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim countries that advocated for democracy. Historically, dictatorships have proven to stabilize Arab sectarian violence with more efficacy than democracy.
Yet Muslims rebelled against Assad’s regime seeking western support; whereas, the west did not force Syrians to start revolts but indeed approved a social revolution. Syrians willingly felt entangled with Libya, Yemen, Egypt and Tunisia’s revolution and tried to retake control of the country under the umbrella of a unified civil war.
It was a risk initiated by the people of Syria, but sponsored by Muslim and non-Muslim actors. The experiment utterly came as disastrous and resulted in sectarian violence, not only giving Ben-Assad’s regime support from Russia, China, Egypt and Iran, but ultimately helped jihadist groups expand territory in Syria proving once again that liberal democracy is nothing but wishful thinking in the Middle East.
The EU and the US don’t have any obligation or entitlement to accept Syrian refugees, especially after the Paris and Mali bombing attacks set by ISIL and Al-Qaeda. Assad has said in multiple occasions that he is “willingly happy to grant concessions to unite the nation again and end the nonsensical civil-war in Syria.”
The FSA and SAA have lost control of the country and splinter territory to Al-Nusra and ISIL that have another more sinister agenda that would further hamper Syria’s future into an Islamic sinkhole. At least half of the Syrian refugees that helped start the civil war are responsible for unifying the country and should resolve what they initiated instead of simply fleeing into neighboring nations.
Assad offered coalescence in Syria, and the FSA are now deserting to Al-Nusra and ISIL? What a contradiction — if indeed these are peaceful Muslims defending Arab nationalism without religious dogmas in mind.
Jihadist will obtain nuclear bombs
Eventually Al-Qaeda, or ISIL will obtain a dirty nuclear devise and detonate it somewhere in the US or Europe. It’s not just about obtaining uranium or plutonium, it is about finding the right scientist who will accept a generous bribe and help guideline the fission of atoms to manufacture a bomb.
Former KGB, ISI, MSS or RAW intelligence scientist could be easily tracked down by terrorist networks and generously paid to collaborate in the making of a nuclear arsenal. The other possibility would be to hack a government nuclear server and steal instructional information on how to develop a bomb.
Once the resources are found to develop a nuclear bomb, manufacturing would be simple; transportation and access to target cities in the EU and US present even an easier task.
The US-Mexican border offers plenty of hidden tunnels used by Cartels to smuggle trucks that camouflage drugs crossing the fence. There is not enough security in the world or human resources to stop the infiltration of weapons from coming inside the US border.
ISIL and Al-Qaeda could easily buyoff Mexican drug lords from Cartels like El Golfo, lease swaths to train Islamic foreign militants and smuggle weapons free of US surveillance on a country run by a weak and corrupt central government.
In fact, the manufacturing of a nuclear device inside Mexico would be the perfect scenario to conduct a successful plot on American soil without worrying about intercepts from US counter-intelligence operatives.
Unlike what some counter intelligence experts believe, NYC would not be the target of choice and cities on the East Coast constantly remain in high alert making them a difficult objective; However, Las Vegas, Beverly Hills, Phoenix and San Francisco are tantalizing targets for Muslim extremist given the lack of security and vastness of land separating these states.
Las Vegas offers America’s favorite fortune playground and represents a major headstone for capitalism. Beverly Hills is America’s theater of choice attracting great influence worldwide. Phoenix is America’s western conservative model and San Francisco represent America’s pillar for equal rights, where homosexuality is forbidden under Islamic Law. Not a farfetched scenario considering the proximity with the Mexican border.
The consequences
If a nuclear bomb detonates inside the US or Europe, foreign diplomacy would automatically go out the window replaced by extermination strategies that would control most situation rooms in western countries without any possibility of turning back.
There is no reason why to head into that direction, genocide is always the last resort, but nonetheless the most effective measure to control unwanted pests. This can be prevented only if moderate Muslims in Europe and the Middle East start to fight against extremist who use their religion as an excuse for igniting terror.
One billion Muslims can surely contain a small growing percentage of radical jihadists from misrepresenting their religion, if indeed they are against extremism. But if peaceful Muslims (if they exist) cannot contain their own religious extremism from flourishing, I am afraid no one can control Islamic terrorism and other strategies must be adopted that will eventually guarantee security in western lands –extermination the most effective measure thereof.
Don’t provoke an old ghost
It is not wise for Islamic militants to undermine Europe’s military might. As history ineffably shows, the worst conflicts in human history have evolved in Europe along with the Middle East. Luckily after War World II, Europe has not suffered any significant turmoil outside of Serbia trying to seize Bosnia and Kosovo which ended with UN intervention.
Spain, Rome, France, Portugal, Holland, England and Germany became world powers at one point in history and flashed the grandeur of great empires nullifying the past glory of any Middle Eastern pre or post-Islamic empire. The Muslim extremist should churn not the military capability and the history of these countries to react in times of conflict.
Despite the present lax nature of most European countries, the lack of military enrolment and the decline of religious values since the 18th century, Europe still remains a powerful force to reckon with.
A revengeful joint attack from Europeans and the US would be no match for Muslim countries to absorb; bacteriological, chemical and nuclear radiation would finally find a porpoise, alongside extermination squads desecrating life.
Moderate Muslims worldwide, in the western world and especially in the Middle East must be more proactive to help exterminate, dissolve and not fund terrorist organizations. The other side of the spectrum ends with extermination from the west. The Mongols in 1258 raided Bagdad in an act of revenge after Muslims tortured Tartars, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Kazaks and Mongols in central Asia that ended with extermination and gave peace to the region for 200 years; Europe won’t hesitate either under the right circumstances.
