What is it? What does Cameron, what does Hammond, what do the heads of MI5 or MI6, or the CIA or the FBI, or the members of the editorial board of The New York Times, or The Times of London, or ten thousand other glasses of mental fashion and molders of mental form, mean when they talk –and talk they do, all the time — about people, that is Muslims, in Western Europe or in North America, being “radicalized”? What does it mean? Why won’t any of them stop to tell us? And why won’t anyone, on any of the networks, discuss the use of this term, and what it might, can, must mean?
“Radicalization” means exactly this: taking what is in the Qur’an and Hadith, and the example of Muhammad, the Perfect Man, in the Sira, completely to heart, and acting upon it. It does not mean to have a false view of Islam, to have misunderstood some part of Islam, but to have a view of Islam, favored by converts (who consist almost entirely of the psychically and socially marginal, which covers both criminals and the dizzy girls who want to find true love with someone conducting Jihad — that is, those who seek to give their wretched lives a Higher Meaning through violence and warfare against a comfortably, because clearly, defined enemy, the Infidel).
Muslims living in some village, 99% of them illiterate, as they did for centuries, knew of course that they lived in Muslim lands, and that there were no Infidels nearby, but if there were, they were of course to be treaed with contumely. But now Muslims are no longer illiterate, though still self-primitivized by Islam, and modern technology — first radio, then television, then audiocassettes, then videocassettes, and now the Internet,Â a non-Muslim invention whose use, however, has not been denied or curtailed for Muslims (what about preventing anything in Arabic or Urdu or Farsi from appearing on the Internet? That would be a start.) but made freely available, and that helps to ensure that Muslims to the manner born or, still more dangerous, the converts or potential converts, can receive the full message of Islam. And Muslims now live among non-Muslims in their own lans, non-Muslims who have been remarkably accommodating but still do not understand that their subservience to Muslims ought to be a matter of law, that by right the whole world belongs to Allah and to the “Best of Peoples.” And while Muslims are willing, indeed past and present masters, of taking advantage of every conceivable benefit offered by generous and naive Western welfare states — free housing, free education, free medical care, family allowances (which support the large Muslim families, as Muslims everywhere in Europe outbreed, and by a lot, the indigenous non-Muslims, and find other ways too — bringing brides from abroad — to keep enlarging their numbers), they still find maddening that they must live among Infidels who do not adopt the appropriate attitude, who continue to believe that man-made, Infidel-made, laws are the law of the land, not Sharia, and who dare to think these laws are to be enforced even when they conflict with Muslim laws, especially in such obvious areas as family law.
“Radicalization” is simply a word that is applied to those Muslims who are not content to conduct the Jihad slowlly, carefully, by ostensibly non-violent means — for all Muslims are required to participate, collectively, in Jihad through whatever instruments are available and deemed effective — but, rather, often being young and vigorous, want to do so at once, participate as individuals and not as a collective, and through immediate violence, not the slow violence of relentless quotidian conquest.
There is not a single thing thatthe members of ISIS (or a hundred other groups, smaller and given less attention) do that does not have deep Qur’anic justification, and justification too, in the recorded behavior, that is the Sunnah, of the earliest Muslims, as recorded in the Hadith and Sira. And intelligent Muslims know this perfectly well, but do not wish that you, the non-Muslims of this world, come to understand this. For if you do, logically you would move heaven and earth to diminish, or to remove, the Muslim presence in the Western midst. For that large-scale presence of Muslims in the West has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, for all non-Muslims, than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence.
I’ve been posting that last line, in a thousand posts, unchanged, for at least the last ten years.
At this point, can anyone of sense disagree?
Can anyone, at this point, possibly disagree?