The Three-Pronged Islamic Pitchfork by Baron Bodissey

The Three-Pronged Islamic Pitchfork
by Baron Bodissey

To the extent that Western nations are willing to consider the danger of Islam, their entire preoccupation is with violent jihad. And, when they can bring themselves to discuss it, political leaders and journalists prefer to avoid the words “Islam” or “jihad”, and instead speak of “terrorism”. The T-word itself, however, has fallen out of favor in recent years and been replaced with “violent extremism” or even “man-caused disasters” — Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s classic circumlocution for the Danger That Shall Not Be Named.

Jihad, however, is just a small part of the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy for the conquest of the West. Jihad is a necessary and indispensable component of the subjugation of the infidel, but it is the final action of Islam against the infidels, the last spasm of violence before “they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Koran 9:29).

There are three major components to the Islamic strategy for overcoming the infidel democracies: the Ummah, Dawah, and Jihad. Each is necessary for Islamic success, but Jihad is the final stroke, and consumes far less time, resources, and manpower than the other two.

1. The Ummah

The Ummah is the collective of all Islamic believers, Sunni and Shi’ite, wherever they reside.

Countries which have large enough Muslim populations have banded together to form the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). According to the OIC homepage:


The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is the second largest inter-governmental organization after the United Nations which has membership of 57 states spread over four continents. The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring [sic] to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world. [emphasis added]

In other words, the OIC claims to be the official representative of the entire Ummah.

Up until 1924, when Turkey became a secular state, the Ummah took political form in the Caliphate. The Ottoman sultan was also the Caliph, and thus the ostensible leader of all the world’s Muslims. The abolition of the Caliphate was a grievous blow to devout Muslims, a blasphemous violation of Islamic scripture. Fundamentalist anger at the end of the Caliphate led directly to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928 by the Egyptian radical Hassan al-Banna.

It’s obvious that the OIC conceives of itself as the Caliphate reborn. Not surprisingly, the new would-be Caliph is a Turk, the Secretary General of the OIC, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. In this excerpt from a speech (pdf) given by Professor Ihsanoglu at the 35th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the OIC on June 20, 2008, the Secretary General speaks for the entire Ummah:


In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ummah, as represented by the OIC, obviously wants to act as the Ottomans did during their centuries-long occupation of European territory. It intends to impose the tenets of Islamic law on all those infidels that lie within its reach.

But how can the Muslims of Europe and North America — who are still only a tiny percentage of the population of their host nations — impose their will on the non-believers around them?

That’s where Dawah comes in.

2. Dawah

The term dawah (or da’wa) is variously defined as “proselytizing” or “outreach”, and describes the process by which infidels are induced to convert to Islam by persuasion or indoctrination.
- - - - - - - - -
Its literal meaning is “call”, and the word has a special sense: it refers to the obligatory invitation for the infidel to convert to Islam. A Muslim military leader is required to issue the call prior to ordering a jihad against an enemy. Before the Turks overthrew Constantinople in 1453, they called on the Byzantine emperor to bring himself and his subjects into the Islamic fold. He refused, and as a result the city was attacked, defeated, sacked, and the survivors forcibly enslaved.

In 1683 the process was repeated by Kara Mustafa Pasha at the gates of Vienna: he issued the call; the call was refused, and the Turks laid siege to the city. Only the timely intervention of King Jan III Sobieski of Poland prevented Vienna from being laid waste by the Ottomans, as Constantinople had been 230 years previously.

We have seen the same process unfold in our own time: George W. Bush was called by both Osama bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to accept Islam. Any Muslim who understands Islamic law would recognize this action as a prelude to violent jihad against America.

However, a jihad cannot be declared until Dawah has run its course and been judged successful. If overwhelming military strength cannot be brought to bear — as happened at the sieges of Constantinople and Vienna — then Dawah must proceed over a longer period. The enemy must be softened up for months, years, or even decades by various forms of propaganda and intimidation, until he is like a ripe fruit ready to drop into the hands of the Ummah.

In 1979 the Pakistani Brigadier General S.K. Malik wrote a theory and methodology of Islamic warfare entitled The Quranic Concept of War. The book’s forward was written by General M. Zia ul-Haq, who was then the Chief of Staff of the Pakistani army, and later became the President of Pakistan. Malik’s book can thus be understood as an official state primer on how to conduct war against non-Muslims. On page 58 he says:


So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles’ having already won the ‘war of will’. Only a strategy that aims at striking terror into the hearts of the Enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart’s dream into a reality. [emphasis added]

To win the “war of will” requires a successful period of Dawah before the jihad begins. All necessary means may be used towards this end — argument, persuasion, deceit, subversion, bribery, intimidation, etc. — until the enemy is judged weak enough to be attacked.

In War and Peace in the Law of Islam Majid Khadduri writes:


It follows that the existence of a dar al-Harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-Harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military. (pp. 63-64)

It is against Islamic law to start a jihad that cannot be won, for the simple reason that doing so might cause the infidel to enter the Muslim lands in response, and this would be a crime against Allah himself, because it makes his Ummah vulnerable.

But even when full jihad is not underway, a “continuous process of warfare” is always being waged, psychologically and politically. And as soon as the moment is ripe, the conflict metamorphoses into full jihad, and the violent attacks begin.

This means that when bin Laden’s agents brought down the Twin Towers, the strategists of Al Qaeda believed that America was weak and vulnerable. They assessed that we were so psychologically demoralized that we would be unable to mount an effective counterattack after the 9-11 strikes.

As it turned out, this assessment was a tactical error on the part of Al Qaeda, because the United States military responded by attacking two countries in the heart of the Ummah. The anger of “moderate” Muslims at bin Laden was a response to his making this mistake. What he did was not wrong in their eyes: he had simply attacked the infidel too soon, before the Dawah process had completed its weakening of the enemy.

In the wake of 9-11, the Muslim Brotherhood in America had to make tactical adjustments, but its core strategy remained unchanged. In fact, the terror attacks in New York and Washington D.C. gave its agents an unprecedented opportunity: overnight the United States government and military became sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. In their anxiety not to “profile” anybody, officials went out of their way to consult with the “Muslim community” in hopes of gaining its assistance and co-operation in the War Against That Which Cannot Be Named.

Dawah agents of various Muslim Brotherhood front groups sprang into action when their country called them. Theirs was a job for which they had been well trained — Muslim Brotherhood Dawah manuals instruct their outreach people to be “the friendliest person in the room”. When CAIR or ISNA or MSA sends a contact person into the Pentagon or the FBI, he is so likeable and convincing that no one can doubt his sincerity or intentions without feeling like a mean-spirited curmudgeon.

This is how the lexicon and doctrinal template in the war against Islamic terrorism were subverted. Kind, open-handed, earnest men and women from Islamic community groups explained Islam to the guardians of our national security, and they were taken at their word. Through their efforts insidious memes were inserted into official policy and became unquestionable truths:


Islamic doctrine is inherently peaceful.

Terrorists are renegades who have perverted Muslim doctrines and have nothing in common with “true Islam”.

Only a tiny minority of deranged extremists support or carry out terrorist violence.

Discussing jihad and Islamic law is not only insulting to our Muslim allies, it is counterproductive.

This is because the word “jihad” really means “an inner struggle to live righteously” rather than “holy war”.

Examining sharia and Islamic scripture is pointless unless one is fluent in classical Arabic.

Besides, questioning the religious doctrines of Muslims offends them, and violates their First Amendment rights.

There are many other rules of this nature. All of us know them by heart now, because they have become the steady subliminal drumbeat behind all public discussions of terrorism. Breaking these rules can be a career-ender, so military leaders, public officials, media people, and academics have to be very, very careful whenever they formulate a “narrative discourse” about Islam.

The agents of Islam have convinced Westerners that the jihad warriors represent a strain of Islam that is distinct and separate from the mainstream. Our entire strategy in fighting “terror” is based on the idea of cleaving the extremists from the mainstream. But what happens if those supposedly extremist doctrines lie at the center of Islam?

The entire body of our strategic thinking concerning Islam has been subverted. We have allowed the enemy to control the lexicon and the rules of engagement in his information war against us.

All of this was accomplished without a single act of terrorist violence. This subversion occurs in a completely different theater of the war, and the enemy is winning it hands down. He has been so successful that we scarcely even realize that there is a war on.

This is what Islamic Dawah has done to the national security of the United States of America. All of our tanks and JDAMs and Predator drones are of no use to us. We are completely outgunned.

3. Jihad

In Reliance of the Traveller, which is the most authoritative source in the Shafiite school of Islamic jurisprudence, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri says (o9.0):


Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.

[…]

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus (def: b7) is such Koranic verses as:

(1) “Fighting is prescribed for you” (Koran 2:216);
(2) “Slay them wherever you find them” (Koran 4:89);
(3) “Fight the idolators utterly” (Koran 9:36);

and such hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

“I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah”;

and the hadith reported by Muslim,

“To go forth in the morning or evening to fight in the path of Allah is better than the whole world and everything in it.”

Hmm. Not much of an “inner struggle” in all this. It’s very clear that when the Shafiite school mentions “jihad”, it expects the believer to sharpen his sword and venture forth to slay the infidel.

And who is required perform jihad?


Those called upon (O: to perform jihad when it is a communal obligation) are every able bodied man who has reached puberty and is sane. (o9.1)

And:


Jihad is a communal obligation… When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. (o9.4)

Al-Misri also cites Koran 4:95 concerning exemption from the obligation of jihad:


“He who provides the equipment for a soldier in jihad has himself performed jihad,” and Allah Most High

Those who fulfill the obligation of zakat are acting in accord with the above requirement — one-eighth of their payment is diverted to support jihad, so it is if they had performed jihad themselves.

In our own time it’s easy to find examples of jihad in action. In places like Nigeria, Sudan, India, and Lebanon — places where the number of Muslims has increased to the point where a successful jihad becomes feasible — churches are burned, Christians are slaughtered, non-Muslims are driven out, and sharia is officially imposed.

In Western countries, however, a full-bore jihad is not yet possible. For the time being, the military and police powers of the modern Western state are still sufficient to forestall the mujahideen. Only isolated and very temporary jihadi actions can be launched against Western targets.

Whenever Muslims are not powerful enough to overcome the infidel, Islamic law requires them to wait patiently, marshaling their forces and protecting the Ummah while they engage in Dawah. Then, as soon as they are strong enough to be certain of prevailing, they are obliged to attack the enemy with full force.

If firebrands like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki would only restrain themselves — if they would remember that launching a jihad when the Ummah is less than fully prepared is a violation of Islamic law — Dawah could do its work quietly, unnoticed by those whom it subverts. The agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the help of their eager allies on the postmodern Left, can hollow out infidel institutions until the governments of the West are helpless and enfeebled.

When it arrives, the final, cleansing jihad may be brief and unspectacular. A series of carefully targeted simultaneous assassinations, the conversion of some prominent and pragmatic Western leaders — and then life will continue as usual, because by then most of the population will have become completely accustomed to the new rules.

Women will cover their hair and stay at home. Pork and alcohol will disappear from the markets and restaurants. The call to prayer will resound from the minarets of brand new government-funded mosques. Banks will no longer charge or pay interest. Churches will take down their crosses and cease ringing their bells. Synagogues will disappear entirely.

And no one will ever say a single disrespectful word about Allah or his prophet.

We all know the outlines of what is coming, because much of it is already in place in certain parts of major Western cities. Many well-meaning hollowed-out Westerners are already bending over backwards to follow the dictates of sharia.

Another possible candidate for the final jihad is the Islamic nuclear bomb. A quick fireball in several major targeted cities, followed by a sudden movement by an alliance of the hard Left and Islam to assume control of key public institutions, and then a sharia state is declared in the ashes of what used to be Western Civilization.

After that comes a quick and brutal purge of all “un-Islamic” elements in the new regime — think Khomeini in Tehran, 1979 — and then the survivors begin their new lives in a Yemen writ large.

Whatever form the endgame takes, you can be sure that we will all have been fully prepped by Dawah by the time the denouement arrives.

There are three prongs to the pitchfork of Islamic conquest. First is the Ummah — the community of believers who from the moment of their birth are nurtured and protected by the glories of Islamic law. A secure and cohesive Ummah is necessary before any form of expansion can occur.

From the redoubts of the Ummah the call goes out to infidels just outside the wall. Dawah does its quiet work, persuading, cajoling, threatening, misrepresenting, bribing, suborning, and double-dealing until the infidels are demoralized, atomized, and completely ready for the big change that is coming their way.

The final prong is Jihad, which brings to bear the precise amount of force necessary to effect the conversion to an Islamic state governed by Islamic law.

Up until now the agents of the Ummah have experienced such complete success with their Dawah that they are absolutely confident they will win. They are certain that Allah has granted them the victory, and that the rotten fruit of the Western states will drop easily into their hands when the time comes.

And why shouldn’t they believe that? What reason have the craven and desperate dhimmis that masquerade as our political leaders given them to think otherwise?

The Jihad prong may be the shortest, but it is the sharpest. We’ll know it when we feel it.