Multiculturalism: an ally of the Islamic terrorists
If we analyse the results of this struggle after several years of great efforts, we can come to the following conclusion: Osama bin Laden, the cause of all these efforts, is still alive, well and secure and continues to threaten the West and, worse yet, to carry out his threats. The military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq have not so far given desired results nor, all things considered, are likely to do so in the future. The number of American casualties keeps growing. If things continue in this way, the American system of recruiting new soldiers will be in jeopardy. Because no one would volunteer to join the army when odds against remaining alive are growing with every day. The authority of the US is waning while the apetites of those who would challenge its strategic importance are waxing.
This can be illustrated by many examples, e.g. the persistence of Iran in fearlessly going on with its efforts to produce a nuclear bomb. In spite of Europe’s efforts to present itself as a quasi independent part of the western coalition, terrorism has appeared on its territory. The murderous action in Madrid did not only cost lives of a large number of people, but it showed itself as an efficient tool in breaking up the unity of the West. A few dozen men, no more than a few dozen men, have shown that they can affect Spanish politics more strongly than all interests that country has in common with the US. Spain withdrew her forces from Iraq as was demanded by the terrorists. The greatest defeat was the one suffered by Great Britain. Those who were harbored and fed and whose very lives were in many instances saved by Great Britain have now, as respected citizens of the Kingdom enjoying full rights and privileges which this citizenship confers, returned the favor with planting bombs in London subways. The most important part of all this is that the leaders of the Muslim community in Great Britain have admitted that the number of their followers who are ready to repeat these attacks is very great.
The fundamental question is how could it have happened and why is it permitted to continue?
The answer is clear and simple. The reason for all this is political correctness. Contemporary western civilization was born from the truth which could be easily expressed in the words of John Stuart Mill, one of the gurus of classical liberalism. “We can never be sure that the opinion we strive to suppress is wrong, so that even when we are completely convinced, it would be wrong to suppres it.”
The matter is really quite simple: while western civilization functioned in accordance with this principle, it was successful in all areas of social life. When it moved on to the neo-liberal concept which, while formally invoking liberalism, great ideas of freedom of thought, speech and self-determination makes them actually impossible, the situation changed.
Negative results began to surface in all areas, slowly gaining strength until finally they will create conditions in which the West will inevitably be confronted with a catastrophe. This catastrophy could take a form not only of a momentary defeat but of the permanent extinction of the western culture and civilization.
The first results of this process of decadence can be seen in the decrease of birthrates. There is a chronic lack of labor force in the West. The lack was first felt among unqualified workers and has now become evident in all areas, from medicine, to engineering, to informatics. All this is trifling in comparison with the struggle against terrorism. Here we see the defeat of defeats from which there is no recovery. The loss of labor force, caused because of decereasing birthrates, can be compensated for by bringing in workers from areas where it is plentiful. On condition that this labor force could, through cultural adaptation, approximate the wetsern model, which was the case of Afroamericans. But the defeat in the struggle against terrorism cannot be compensated for because it shows that the West is weak, weak moreover in those areas in which everybody believed it to be dominant. This fact fills those who have inflicted this defeat with contempt and a conviction that they are on the right road and that they should stay the course. And, what is even more important, it changes the mood of neutral Muslims who are constantly see al Qaida as is the only victor in the conflict with the USA and NATO. Al Qaida is more successful than all Islamic governmentsf, their military, economic, political, ideological and other infrastructures notwithstanding.
We must ask ourselves why is the reason for this state of affairs political correctness and not something else? The answer is simple. Political correctness is indeed the reason because it forbids precisely that which is the basis of any serious analysis, namely the truth. Our starting point was the human need not to permit others to be insulted, to respect dignity of others, to instill tolerance as the guarantee of peace. Our destination turned out to be the opposite extreme. The normal conviction that it is impermissible to insult others has gradually changed into fear to tell the truth, to tell it even to those who do not wish to hear it, regradless of whether that truth is palatable or not. So the fear that an honest man might be accused of theft became so strong that it is now impossible to call a thief a thief. This phenomenon has become so widespread that in the most serious analyses we find that it snows in July and that the temperature in London in January is 30º C.
This phenomenon did not appear suddenly. It took a longtime to develop and it reached its most pronunced form in the distant 1948 when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted. It is particularly evident in Article 26 (2) which deals with education: “Education shall be directed to the full development of the human pesonality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.” It is simply unbelievable that no one should have seen this text for what it was. The text concerns education. Educational institutions, schools, have existed for as long as civilized humankind has existed, and their function, as everyone knows, has always been propagation of knowleldge. A great many other things were part of schooling but were secondary in importance. Here, however, knowledge is not mentioned at all. One might think that the reason for this absence is that the propagation of knowledge needs not be mentioned because it is there by implication. But anyone who knows what knowledge is and that all science is based on knowledge, knows also that it cannot be so implied and that the provision of Article 26 (2) of the Universal Declaration on Human rights is intended to invalidate knowledge as the primary function of schools for the sake of achieving specific political goals.
That this is so can be seen in a simple and universally verifiable fact. Science is: “the exact and argued knowledge of specific things.” And the exact knowledge, strengthened by irrefutable arguments, of most important social questions very frequently not only does not instill tolerance but inspires passionate hatred. Take the following example: Is there anyone who needs to be told how vital for the history of the USA and its inter-racial relations was Thomas Jefferson? And is there any Afro-American who would be pleased to hear the stories of Jefferson sleeping with his female slaves, having children with them and keeping his own children as slaves? In order not to spread hatred such stories are avoided, omitted or downright forbidden. One gets a clear impression that the provision of the Universal Declaration mentioned above was introduced specifically to falsify thruths as these.
In order to right the wrong done to Afro-Americans, which was extremely necessary and important, things were taken to the opposite extreme, thereby setting aside the basis of all science and all universally accepted educational criteria. Let us take the teaching of literature as an example. From the beginning the basic and only criterion for the selection of books to be taught were esthetic considerations. Whether the author was white, black or Asiatic was not a consideration; the work chosen had to be of the required quality of writing. However, many American schools deviated from this rule. The race criterion became more important than the actual literary merit of the work in question. As an example we shall cite the proposal of educational authorities in San Francisco to delete from the curriculum many white writers only because they were white. The reason given was that at that particular moment only 11.8% of the total number of students were white. It was therefore decided that 70% of literary works to be studied must be written by non-whites. Racism has now gone to the other extreme. Racial discrimination is now directed towards the white writers, but no one dares mention this because it would be politicallly incorrect. Some prohibitions are desirable and necessary, this one, however, is not. Nor can it give good results because truth cannot be hidden and, which is more important, it is diametrically opposed to the myth of the sanctity of freedom of scientific research in the USA. The situation is such that all those who are guided by “the love of truth” will sooner or later be confronted with sanctions and will then, fearing for their bread and butter, start avoiding disturbing conclusions, then gradually start spreading untruths, which disturb no one, until they become lulled in their comfortable conviction that all is right with the world. The net result of all this are daily reports of new American casualties in Iraq.
The next example will best illustrate what this looks like in real life. But first we must define the problem. The US Department of State states: “The United States recognizes no such thing as Islamic terrorism. The members of Al Qaeda are simply terrorists and criminals, nothing more. They cynically seek to exploit Islam to disguise their murderous agenda, which is nothing less than an attack on the values of civilization and humanity itself.” If Muhammed Atta, who piloted a plane which hit one of the Twin Towers did not do this in the name of Islam but because he wanted to attack civilization in general, why did he not destroy one of the greatest edifices in the world and the ornament of the Muslim Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia? Why did he not kill the Muslims who are employed there? It is pointless even to answer these questions because even the author of the above quoted statement of the State Department does not believe it. But the laughable thing is that neither the author of the statement nor the official who ordered such statement to be written is aware that no one will be fooled by it. Certainly no Muslim believes it. No Muslim, that is to say no Muslim faithful, not just Muslim in name only, can accept the American model. The source of sin is unacceptable, all the more so as this sin is being exported into the Islamic world. The American model is made even more unacceptable to a Muslim because its policy supports the existence of Israel. In accordance with the most liberal and most moderate Islamic theological thinking, the existence of Israel is not acceptable. It is another matter altogether that many Muslim take recourse to the concept of taqiyah (the right not to speak truth in order to attain a just objective) will not say so openly. Secondly, can one really believe that 19 people would have given their lives because they were urged to do so by criminals? What criminal undertakes an action in order to die rather than to profit?
There is no Muslim who has not grieved over the defeats in wars which Israel has conducted against its Arab neighbors. In 1967, after one such war, El Aksa mosque, the third most holy place for the Islamic world, was wrenched from the Jordanian faithful and placed under the sovereignty of Israel. It is a widely known fact that this Arab defeat was the result of American military aid given to Israel, and there is no Muslim in the world who does not wish for America to be punished for it. Thus far, the only punishment, palpable and painful to the White House and the whole of America, is what happened on September 11, 2001.
So it is clear to all that the motives of the perpetrators of September 11 were very deep seated. Moreover they are now acknowledged as such. Therefore the only true and scientifically correct conclusion would be that everybody should admit that there is a group of people who consider such actions as those perpetrated on September eleven justified in the eyes of Islam. If we wished to defend oneself from the charge of being politically incorrect, which is imperative, then we should clearly state that we are dealing with a minority with which a huge number of Muslims do not agree. But this in no way means that one is permitted to deny the fact that there is a group of people, moreover Muslim people (this also should be clearly stated), who find the inspiration for their actions in the Koran.
All this comes as one of the consequences of the provision contained in Article 26 (2) of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It asks, let us remember, that education be used for the propagation of toleranace and understanding. In addition, the freedom of religion is also guaranteed. This automatically gives rise to problems as religions differ in all matters which are of vital importance in the lives of ordinary people. The bonds which religions have with one another are on a different level; they have to do with eschatology, i.e. with life after death. Instead of taking as their starting point something which is important for everyday life, the creators of public opinion— Western countries—simply ignored everyday life and insisted on these common bonds which are less important for everyday human relations. They are less important because the ways which lead us to our ultimate destination differ so profoundly from religion to religion that the ultimate destination is bereft of all meaning for our everyday actuality. It has become a common place to say, for instance, that all religions are the same, that God is one, that all religions seak peace etc. These are axioms which are now taught in all schools although they are proof that “science can triumph over common sense.” How is it possible to prove by logic that God is one in the face of the simultaneous existence of monotheistic and politheistic religions? Or perhaps those who utter these common places do not regard politheistic beliefs as religions?
And monotheistic religions themselves differ so sharply as regards their various concepts of God that it is quite clear that when the followers of one monotheistic religion talk frankly, concealing nothing of their beliefs, they absolutely deny the possibility that the followers of other monotheistic religions believe in one true God. For them, followers of other monotheistic religions clearly believe in false gods. It is universally known that for Christians God is tripersonal and that Jesus Christ is God. Islam explicitly states that Christians and Jews are inifidels. “The Jews call Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Koran, sura IX, ayat 30. Translated by Abdullah Yusufali) Christian theologians, when they are consistent in the interpretation of the New Testament, say the same thing. For instance, Vasilije Sakas says: “Therefore it is not true that we have the same God as the non-Christians. God the Father can reveal Himself only in the Son. That is why our Lord says Who has seen me has seen the Father… No one can come to the Father except through me.” Therefore it is wrong to say that all religions are the same. It is true that they strive towards similar goals, but even there differences are enormous. The Hindu moksha or the Buddhist nirvana is something quite different from either the Christian or the Muslim paradise. These two concepts of paradise themselves are very different indeed. On the other hand, the ways which lead to that which constitutes eschatology are frequently diametrically opposed to each other. And this fact is what causes conflicts in our every day life. The avoidance of stating this fact
clearly and unequivocally creates an illusion of peace which will in time evolve into bloody conflicts. This brings us to the central point, namely to religion and peace. On all sides we hear that all religions stand for peace. This is true, but unless we add that peace can be achieved only under conditions without which there will be no peace, we will come to a wrong conclusion. And yet that is precisely what we are doing. The truth is quite different; the truth is that religions do stand for peace if conditions permit it. It is also true that all great religions unquestionably tolerate even wars if without wars they cannot achieve goals which for them are sacred. As conditions in which peace is possible have always been scarcer than conditions conducive to wars, relations between the followers of different religions have unfortunately been characaterized by wars rather than peace over a long period of time. Today, as has been the case throughout history, some religions have more reasons than others to be dissatisfied with their positions. This is why their war capabilities have been given greater expression. And because one finds it difficult to say that some people are more warlike than others, lest one offend the former, one seeks refuge behind political correctness. And one does it out of self interest although one claims to do it because of universal equality. The result is that instead of proclaiming the truth, we are spreading falsehoods. The one that says the truth is labeled a hate monger without any critical argumentation because arguments are on the side whom they accuse.
The roles of various religions differ today as they have differed throughout history. So in the pre-Islamic era, the Persians occupied Jerusalem and took away the Holy Cross. Then Byzantium started the first crusade to recover the Cross. Then in the name of jihad the Muslims conquered Bysantium, Spain, Hungary and Serbia. The western Crusaders retaliated with new crusades. And so forth. But those were the times when political correctness did not exist. Now that it does exist, no one dares say that jihad exists so as not to offend the Muslims. If a jihad is ever mentioned, then it must at all cost be mentioned in conjunction with a crusade. Claims must be made that there is a crusade even when no crusade exists because all must be equally responsible or irresponsible. A most rudimentary analysis of religious texts and practices will show that various religions take absolutely opposite positions on the question of secularism, democracy, war etc. There is virtually nothing about violence, let alone war, in the New Testament which is the fundamental source of Christianity. In the Old Testament the situation is similar to that in the Koran. Therefore it is not true that all religions have the same capacity for war. This capacity can be great, less pronounced or totally absent depending on the religion. This is a fact which is forbidden to talk about by political correctness lest it be found offensive by some. Political correctness forbids us to say that democracy is more of a reality in Christian countries than in Islamic countries or in Israel. An analysis of these political systems will show that it is true in practise but it cannot be mentioned because it is politically incorrect. That is why it was possible to invade Iraq in the name of democracy which is theologically unacceptable from the Islamic point of view.
In Islam, the example to be followed is Mohammed just as Jesus is in Christianity. Jesus lived in the most organized state of that time—the Roman Empire—and he was indifferent to it. He called on his disciples to follow his example and do the same. For this reason, Christians can be indifferent to the political system and to accept any form of it. In contrast to them, Mohammed acted within a tribal community. He acted as prophet a high priest. He organized his community as a state and was its head. At the same time he was the supreme judge and the commander-in-chief of its armies. And this state became the model after which the Islamic community must be organized. This is the way which leads to salvation after death. If one does not follow it, one will burn in hell. This is the reason why a devout Muslim cannot accept democracy. This is a fact which Americans do not wish to see. The result can be either abandoning the idea of imposing democracy and human rights as seen in the western model, or war to the end, to mutual extermination.
The effects of political correctness are particularly evident in the question or relations between religion and nation. Confronted with the growing apostasy among the Christians, agnosticism, new religious movements and the immigration of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus etc., western theoreticians, in dealing with this new ethnic profile of hitherto monoethnic and monoconfessional society, are now spinning tales in which there is no relation between religions and nations, in which citizens of various ethnic backgrounds relate in the same manner to social values established as such by law. As proof of this they point out that modern nations are secular in character. And that is true. But they forget the most important point. Even when they were created within the framework of a secular value system, we have in mind nations which were formed by old ethnic groups, they came into being imbued with religious values of one specific faith. Either the new nation created in this way was a mono-religious nation, or among its religions there was one which was so dominant as to make all other religions to a greater or lesser degree insignificant. The only exception in this process among old ethnic groups were the Germans and the Dutch. But in the middle ages, at the time when both these nations came into being as nations, they were one-confessional, i.e. Roman-Catholic. So that at the time when the division between the Protestants and the Catholics occurred, both these nations had a clearly defined ethnic profile of peoples, although not of nations in the modern sense of the word.
The most recent example of disastrous effects of political correctness on the survival of the West can be seen in the riots in Australia. The riots began on a Sydney beach on December 11, 2005. All reports say that the riots began with a conflict between Arabs, in the ethnic sense, and, as reports put it, the white youth. Newspaper headlines suggest that the riots were racially motivated. Whether it is true or not can be judged by the following facts. It is true that as a rule Arabs have darker complexion than the whites. But it is also true that there are some very light-complexioned Arabs—so light that they cannot be differentiated from, say the French. Particularly large number of light-complexioned Arabs are to be found among the Lebanese who were among those who started the riots. So it cannot be said that the riots were purely racially motivated. If that were the case, we might ask, why were the Lebanese not joined by the truly black Aborigines? Besides reports themselves say that the riots were the result of an escalation of tensions “caused by anti-Muslim feelings which had festered for years ever since September 11, 2001 and aggravated by the fatal bombings of the Indonesian island of Bali in October 2002, when 202 people were killed, including 82 Australians.” The report ends: “The riots are reminiscent of those which began three weeks earlier, on October 27 in some suburbs of Paris … in communities with large immigrant and Muslim populations”.
It was very clear from the reports that the riots were caused by a conflict of Muslims with non-Muslims. Whereas journalists, politicians and so-called scientists spoke about racial conflicts. No one dared mention religion because it would have been politically incorrect; because it might have offended Muslims or their antagonists of whatever faith. And the reason for all this is to avoid at any price the charge that by simply speaking about religion one is guilty of attacking human rights of which one of the most sacred is freedom of religion. If the official position is, as indeed it is, that all religions are the same, equally peace-loving and promoting good relations among human beings, how could one now accuse any religion of not being as it was officially described? So for the sake of political correctness white skinned Arabs are described as belonging to another race so that these riots could be classified as racial.
The effects of political correctness are particularly evident in the case of Yugoslavia. A model was constructed here designed to show that in additions to Muslim terrorists, such as al Qaeda, there are also Christian terrorists, such as the Serbs. The explanations is quite simple: all religions are the same, but good and bad guys are to be found in each one of them. Al Qaeda consists of bad guys in contrast to the vast majority of good Muslims who favor the liberal value system. Similarly, the majority of Christians are good in conttrast to the Serbs who are bad. That is why we, the West, who support equality in all relations and always fight on the side of the angels, shall support good Muslims such as the governments in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Taliban and Al Zarqawi’s followers. And in the Balkans we shall support good Muslims of Bosnia & Herzegovina and good Muslim Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija against Christian Serbs who are bad. Our goal in all this is to get rid of bad Muslims and bad Christians and establish an empire of religious fraternity and unity—an empire of good Muslims and good Christians.
From the standpoint of western interests there can be no greater delusion than this one. The West is already paying for it with the lives of its soldiers, and worse is yet to come. Europe and the USA are beginning to realize that what they had preached hitherto is wrong but, confronted with what seems a hopeless situation, they continue on the path to certain defeat. On one hand, in spite of stories about unemployment western countries are anxious to procure labor. They badly need Muslims, not as Muslims but as a population with excess labor force which can be exported. If the western countries recognize the fact that religious freedom means also religious freedom for Muslims, and since Muslims must follow the precepts of Mohammed which do not permit democracy, it follows that the West must accept the fact that when the Muslim population reaches a critical voting mass it will do away with the existing order and introduce theocracy. This is why the West is desperately deluding itself into believing that there can be Islamic countries without theocracy and is looking for a model of Islam which would prove this. The only model of this sort available to them is the Balkan model. This is partially true. The Balkan Muslims are the most secular of all Muslims. This is not because they are endowed with a greater capacity to be secular but because the Christian environment did not allow them to remain truly Muslim after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The question is not of a different Islam but of an insufficient presence of the Koranic Islam, which is the only true Islam possible. There can be no Islam without, or outside of, the Koran.
However, instead of encouraging secular tendencies, which exist only among Christians, the West encourages Islamic tendencies which lead inevitably to fundamentalism—inevitably because the only true form of any religion is fundamentalism. Those who do not respect the fundamentals of their religion are not truly religious. For them religion has simply folkloric appeal. Because if one believes in the resurrection of a dead man, whose brain had been deprived of blood for three days, one believes in the basic fundamental of Christian religion, and one is a Christian fundamentalist. If one does not believe that dead Christ rose again, one does not believe that Christ is God, as only God can rise from the dead, and one is not a Christian at all!
This is exactly what the West does. It helps to strengthen those who find their inspiration in Mecca and Medina, those who sincerely believe that Mohammed had flown to heaven on his winged horse in order to experience God and, consequently, those who cannot be for democracy. Besides, that is what their leader, Reis ul Ulema Mustafa Cerić, meant when he said that Muslims are against democracy, and when the soldiers of Bosnia & Herzegovina’s army fought in 1992–1995 they waged a jihad, that is to say not a secular but a religious war. And jihad is never a war of liberation. The time will come when its target will be Washington. Let us see what the most eminent theologians of Bosnia and Herzegovina say about that: “Islam strives for the destruction of all states and their governments wherever they may be if they are opposed to the ideology and the program of Islam regardless of what nation may be in power in them. The objective of Islam is to establish a state founded on Islamic ideology and program regardless of which nation is the exponent of Islam in such state and regardless of which nation is to be destroyed in the process of the founding of such Islamic state. Islam wants the Earth, not just a part of it, but the entire planet…” For the sake of clarity we should explain that Takvim is an annual publication and its articles are prepared in the period between one issue and the next. So that the texts quoted here were being prepared after the end of 1990. It means that Takvim announced ante factum that the Islamic Community of Bosnia & Herzegovina was getting ready to declare war The objective of this war was not just the destruction of the secular state of Bosnia & Herzegovina but of the entire non-Islamic world. This means also the destruction of the USA as well.
The question we ask is the following: What is the difference between this ideology and the ideology of al Qaeda? We can conclude, therefore, that the Islamic Community of Bosnia & Herzegovina is the only religious organization on the territory of former Yugoslavia which has officially, since Takvim is its official gazette, declared and launched an aggressive war. Such a declration cannot be found in the documents of the Roman Catholic or the Orthodox Churches. Another important thing here is the fact that this quotation from Takvim was taken from the writings of Abu al-Ala al Mavdudi dating back to 1939. So this was not a statement made in a moment of rage; it was a text which had been known to, and approved of by, the Islamic Community for over 50 years. The Islamic Community just waited for the right moment to publish it. When the prohibitions of the communist era were no longer in place, the Islamic Community lost no time in showing its intentions. It is also important to note that Mavdudi is the ideological father of all Islamic extremist organizations which came into life in the second half of the twentieth century. Sejjid Kutb, whom Nasser—another Muslim—had condemned to death by hanging for his Islamic extremism, pointed out himself that his theoretical works, which created the Egyptian Jihad, were inspired by Mavdudi’s thinking. So there are no differences between the “ideologues” of that organization and the present theologians of Bosnia & Herzegovina. And yet the West would like to present the latter as a model of secular muslims and to offer their political concepts to the Muslims of Pakistan and India, Mavdudi’s fatherland.
The Islamic Community of Bosnia & Herzegovina, which the West is recommending to the world as a model of co-existence of Muslims and non-Muslims, shows us in Takvim what this co-existence would look like in practice. “No party which believes in the value and the validity of its ideology can live in accordance with its concepts under the rule of a system which differs from its own… Also, for a Muslim living under the rule of a non-Islamic system of authority it is impossible to succeed in his intention to implement the Islamic way of life. All laws which a Muslim considers unjust, all taxation which he considers illegitimate, all acts which he consdiers evil, civilization and the way of life which in his view are evil, the education system which he regards as fatal, all this will irretrievably be dumped on him, on his home, on his children to the point where his very existence would become intolerable. Therefore, persons or groups are obliged by their faith’s inner demands to fight for the overturn of the opposing ideology and for the establishment of the rule of authority which will follow the program and policy of the faith… Should these people (MJ: Muslims) consciously neglect their duty to rise against this, it would be a clear proof that they are hypocrites and liars in the eyes of their faith.”
So this is how Muslims, when they find themselves in a minority in Serbia, Russia, Paris, London, New York, must behave. Can there be any doubt that herein lie the reasons for the attacks on New York, London and Madrid? Is there any doubt that this offers explanations for the recent riots in Paris? Has anyone fogotten that all reports published in France spoke of the important role played in these riots by a large number of bearded members of the “Muslim Brethren” and others of their ilk? Has anyone fogotten that they intentionally wore long white robes and characteristic headgear? That their cries of “Allah ekber“(God is bigest) allegedly meant to calm down the youth actually set the tone and determined the intensity of the riots? That they sent a clear message: do you see who alone can control this youth? Mind what you are doing and think how you should answer our demands for new mosques, abrogation of laws banning head scarves etc.
It is of particular interest to note that in spite of all this right from the beginning and right up to the end of the war of 1992-1995 the West together with the government of Alija Izetbegović was spinning the tale of Muslims with a secular orientation striving for democracy and civil society who are being attacked by fascistically inclined and bloodthirsty Serbs. And although this tale of secularism and secular motives behind the war of liberation has been able to sustain lasting support of the West, the administration of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H) has abandoned it and now confirms that the war they fought was, indeed, a jihad. We offer the following as proof. The curricula of all state universities in B&H include military training in all departments of these civil institutions. Lesson plans and programs of this subject are prepared by the Ministry of Education and the Defense Ministry—two most important of all government agencies. These ministries approve textbooks and guarantee that they correctly represent the official position of the Federation of B&H We quote from one such textbook used at the University of Tuzla: “From the religious standpoint what the soldiers of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina did is the highest form of of jihad…” .
And this was written two years after the war which was represented by the West as a war of national liberation. With a view to defending Bosnian Muslims from a possible charge that they were radicals and model fighters for democracy, the very participants in this war, i.e. the state which waged it, now say that this is not true, that the war they waged was a jihad. To avoid all confusion regarding the term “jihad”—as there are many and varied interpretations—we shall take the definition of a Zagreb University professor who, however, is a Muslim. In a book published, moreover, in Sarajevo Nerkez Smailagić says: “Jihad, holy war. Spreading of Islam by means of arms is a religious duty of the Muslims in general.”.
The Islamic Community of B&H stands behind this book proclaiming it the publishing project of the year, thereby giving it Islamic theological legitimacy and confirming that the definition of jihad which it contains is correct. When we add to this the statement supported by two ministries of the Federation of B&H we can conclude that the Bosnian Muslims did not fight in order to liberate themselves from anyone but in order to impose by force of arms Islam on the Roman Catholics and Christian Orthodox, i.e. Croats and Serbs in Bosnia, and later in Serbia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, Austria, Italy etc. All of this is clearly confirmed in Takvim by words “to destroy all, absolutely all states in the world.”
To what extent this model, which the West presents to the world as the exemplar of democracy for the Islamic world, is liberal and acceptable to the modern world can best be seen in the following example. The Islamic Community of the region of Raška, or as the Muslim call it Sandžak, publishes a journal in which it offers the only theologically legitimate version of Islam. The journal has a column entitled “Questions and Answers.” Readers who formally belong to Islam but do not really know its rules can ask questions on how to behave to become proper Muslims. One such question was: “What is the status of a follower of Islam who does not perform daily prayer?” The answer of a sharia expert, professor of Islam Rešad Plojović, was “…the punsishment for such a person is to be put to death for he has become an ubeliever (murted, apostate)” Thus, only because one does not pray five times a day such a person should be put to death. The question we would like to ask is the following: with which liberal principle is this attitude consistent? By and large, such is the model of Islam which the West supports in B&H in the hopes that it will change. However, Islam is the Koran, and nothing can change that fact. The Koran is explicit on this point.
“And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and his Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.” (The Koran, sura XXXIII ayat 36) The only change that could occur is for Muslims to cease to be Muslims. But do we see Islam weakening anywhere today? Bosnia itself is proof that this is not happening. The events we are talking about came to pass after the 1990s, at a time when everybody thought that communists had killed religion. And anyway, the political program for B&H, as conceived by the SDA( „Party of Democratic Action“. Political organisation created by Alija Izetbegovic) and the party of Haris Silajdžić, was Alija Izetbegović’s Islamic Declaration, which is in complete harmony with the program of Osama bin Laden. Alija Izetbegović worked together with him during the Bosnian war. American intelligence agencies have confirmed the fact that at least four participants in the attack on the USA on September 11 had fought in the Bosnian army during that war. Among others who participated in the jihad in B&H were Halid al Midhar and Navaf al Hazmi.
Even the head of this operation, Mohammed Atta had fought in the Bosnian jihad. And the majority of Bosnian Muslims has voted for project of jihad. All this shows how mistaken the West was to pin its hopes on the Bosnian Muslims. It is important to understand that the Bosnian secularists have no choice. Without Islam as their religion, or without the cultural and historical traditions which are inseparable from Islam, they will lose their collective identity and must become either Serbs or Croats. So even the secularists must join the mainstream which in one way or another is led by the Islamic Community. And the Islamic Community is guided by the Koran which negates any individual state and strives for the creation of a single state within which all nations, tongues and races will disappear in the name of muslim religious unity. People might object to this pointing out that many separate Islamic states do exist. True, but it is also true that none of them is a democratic state. It is also true that the modicum of democracy achieved in some of them is constantly under attack from multitudes who demand theocracy. It must also be said that no Islamic states enforces the provisions of the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights, or the Treaties on Civil and Political Rights also introduced by the UN.
An even more typical example is the case of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija (K&M). For one hundred and fifty years some Albanians have striven to transcend religious differences and to eliminate them in the name of secularised nationalism. According to secularized nationalism, “the religion of Albanians is Albanianism.” In its name the almost exclusively Islamic K&M and its political representatives try hard to project an image of political activists with a European orientation. Ibrahim Rugova, although a Muslim kept a photograph of the Pope in his office. In spite of all this, the attitude to religion in K&M is funadamentaly different. According to all polls and according to what one can see with the naked eye, of all inhabitants of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the Albanian Muslim population is the most religious. This fact has been ignored constantly and for various reasons. The attitude to religion of Albanians is best described in the statement made by Sulejman Redžepi, head of the Islamic Community of Macedonia, in the 1990s: “… as regards the road which the Islamic Community will take, there is no doubt that our road and the road of all Albanians will be the way of Allah… Macedonian Albanians are very good believing Muslims, and I do not agree with you that a significant number among them denies Islam. The faith of Allah cannot be denied.” This is the factual situation as described by a religious leader who by definition can never be satisfied with the degree of piety of his flock and always demands more. But at that time even he dared not confirm that the large masses of Albanian Muslims were pious followers of Islam.
This was the situation under communism. No wonder then that the presence of Islam is even greater today. This presence is so great that foreign analysists have noted that even before NATO’s aggression against the Serbs, Rugova’s Democratic Alliance of Kosovo, weakened by Kosovo Liberation Army, was forced to ask for help from the Islamic Community promising to grant it a greater role in the political life of the independent K&M. The same analysists have also noted the rapid growth of Wahhabi Islam, the very foundation of Osama bin Laden’s ideology which is known as Neowahhabism. At the same time, Albanians living in European countries and expecting help from them openly point out that KLA is an Islamic organization . This fact clearly illustrates to what degree these Albanians identify with Islam. In addition, it has been established that Osama bin Laden has visited Albania, while the America´s special envoy to Bosnia, , Robert Gelbard, has stated that KLA is a islamic terrorist organization. It is precisely because of this, as a French analyst puts it: “For the Socialist Party, which is Southern and Orthodox the war in Kosovo is not its war. It is a Muslim war which the Socialist Party does not understand.“ What other reaction could the Socialist Party of Albania have after the assessment of that war given by international Islamic public opinion and the Islamic Community of K&M? An article in Dituria Islame, a journal published by the Islamic Community of K&M, shows that they regard the fighting of KLA as a jihad.
And we have already said that according to the greatest Islamic authorities jihad is: “a holy war and spreading of Islam through the use of arms.” That is to say, forcible spreading of Islam first of all among Albanians who are not Muslim and openly accused of not being Muslim thus creating an atmosphere conducive to lynching. These accusations are made by the most influential theologians of the Islamic Community—not by some extremists who are guilty of falsely interpreting Islam — which is very characateristic. Ismail Bardhi, dean of the School of Islamic Theology of Skoplje, gives this interpretation of the position taken by the Autocephalos Orthodox Church of Albania: “The Church does everything it can to destroy Albanians both from the standpoint of nationalism and the standpoint of religion with a view to provoking future internecine conflicts.” Bardhi uses similar arguments against the Roman Catholic Church in Albania. According to him, the Roman Catholic Church uses the Catholics in Bosnia and Croatia in otder to destroy Islam in K&M.
An even more typical position regarding the question of religious relations among Albanians is that of Olsi Jazexhi in Tirana. He not only denounces Roman Catholics and Christian Orthodox as enemies of the Albanian nation, he goes even further. Olsi negates everything that can make all heterodox Albanians members of one nation. He attacks the hitherto sacrosanct icon of the Albanian history,George Kastriota, known as Skander Beg, by going so far as to say that this greatst of all Albanian heros was not Albanian.
This clearly shows that the idea of “Albianism as Albanian religion” is out of the question. Consequently, the revitalization of religion, i.e. of Islam, must lead to radicalization. Besides, Redžep Boja has taken the Islamic Community of K&M into his hands. As a child he was left in Saudi Arabia. He returned to Kosovo as a grown man with a doctoral degree in Wahhabi Islam and became the head of the Islamic Community. And ever since, he has slowly, gradually and very successfully worked on its “wahhabization.”
This is why K&M is already transformed into a base of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The unassailable evidence of this can be found in the American military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba. We have in mind the Australian David Hicks who had embraced Islam and had fought in the ranks of the KLA in K&M. Later he went to Afghanistan where he fought as a Talibani solider. He was taken prisoner by the soldiers of the Western Alliance who surrendered him to the Americans. They, in turn, took him to Guantanamo.
In addition, after the riots in March 2004, when many Christian churces were destroyed and many Christians from K&M killed in an organized pogrom, the German official television revealed new information on the presence of al Qaeda in this region. It revealed that one of the oranizers and leaders of the pogrom, Sameidin Džezairi, known as Hodža, was linked to al Qaeda and served as the contact between KLA and Osama bin Laden Particularly important is the fact that the recruiting for the jihad of K&M was carried out in the USA itself, and its organizers were indicted in a Miami court. The accused were Adhan Amin Hasun and Mohammed Hesham Jusuf.
The most authoritative case against the USA and Great Britain was made by a labour Member of Parliament and a former minister in the Blair government Michael Meacher,who accused these two countries of actively aiding terrorists in K&M. The BBC reports that:“ Mitcher said … that the United States gave the green light to terrorists organizations, such as the Lebanese Hesbolah, to operate in Bosnia. In that country … and in Kosovo there are tens of thousands of Islamic fighters… It is less well known … that the British Government used a London based organization called Al Muhajirun for recruiting Islamic extremists, with British passports for war against the Serbs in Kosovo“. Americans managed to make far worse mistakes than the British. They engaged a Marine in the capacity of translator and sent him to Somalia. He turned out to be the son of General Aidid, leader of American Somali enemies, whose soldiers were known to drag the bodies murdered Americans through the streets of Mogadishu. This Marine left his American comrades in arms, which for a Muslim was a logical thing to do, and inherited his father’s position at the head of those who butchered the bodies of his former brother Marines. If his superiors did not know who their translator was, then one must wonder about the quality of intelligence information available to the US. And if they did know, this would be one proof more of political correctness at work which made it impossible to make proper use of this information.
In spite of these facts, instead of encouraging secular tendencies, the US is pushing the Albanians to abandon secularism in favor of Islam. They are doing this precisely for the reasons we mentioned earlier. One of the greatest proponents of pro-Albanian policy in the Congress, the US Senator Joseph Biden, said that Kosovo Albanians should be given independence, because, according to him, Priština is one of the rare Islamic capitals where Americans are respected. He gave another and a more important reason, namely that this would be a good example to give the Islamic world as it would demonstrate that the US has helped Kosovo to become a multi-ethnic democracy. Biden has thus sublimated and confirmed everything that we have said above. He is a wonderful example of how one can utter obvious untruths in the name of political correctness. In the first place, what kind of multi-ethnic state can we be talking about when K&M is already almost entirely ethnically pure. Secondly, it is universally known that an independent K&M will be abandoned by all of the few remaining Serbs. Then ethnic and religious purety will be absolute. Thirdly, it is absurd to think that that society will be democratic. How can one bring democracy to the population which is increasingly Wahhabi Islamic.
Saudi Arabian newspapers write with enthusiasm of great numbers of little girls who, covered from head to foot in scarves and floor-length robes, attend religious schools where they are taught how to be the fourth wife to a chosen husband. Others report on “Wahhabites” who are destroying their Islamic heritage because they are not sufficiently Islamic, etc. Is there anyone who believes that women educated in this way will fight for women’s rights, or for rights of homosexuals, or for liberal democracy? It would be logical to conclude that, if Biden knows about such facts and nevertheless supports the Albanian bid for independence, he does it for quite different reasons. These reasons must be that both Biden and the Bush administration believe that the support they give to the Albanian independence would help them improve their image in the Islamic world.
However, they are wrong to believe so. They are also totally ignorant of Islamic psychology. They are ignorant because knowledge of Islamic psychology, does not exist as political correctness has made it impossible to to be developed. It is a paradox but it is true that the greater the US aid given to Muslim Albanians and Bosnian Muslims, the stronger the hostility of the Islamic world towards the USA and the greater the number of al Qaeda recruits. Things are as they are because of our ignorance of Islam. To understand what is happening we must first understand the Islamic theory of cognition. It is expressed in the concept of Ilm from which is derived the word alim in singular and ulema in plural. Alim means “one who knows” and Ulema means “those who know”—the learned one or ones. The learned one in the Islamic context is not, for example, a winner of the Nobel prize for physics. The learned one, the one who knows is first of all the one who knows God and is conscious, or cognizant, of God’s existence. Therefore, the higher the degree of an individual’s education the greater ignoramous that individual is if he does not know that God is one and Mohammed is his apostle.
From that standpoint, the person who knows Islam understands that those Muslims who are not doing everything they can to return the Jerusalem El Aksa mosque to the hands of true believers must burn in hell. And hell is depicted as follows: “… for those who disbelieve for them are cut out garments fire, and boiling water shall be poured over their heads; with it shall be melted what is in their bellies and (their) skin as well. And for them are whips of iron. Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning.” (Koran XXII, 19-22). Therefore no compensation is possible for the loss of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is something for which Muslims are ready to die. They can be given not just K&M but Washington itself, it will not suffice. They must have Jerusalem at all cost. Besides, the organization which unites the Muslims of the entire world—the Organization of Islamic Conferences—was founded for this purpose alone. Its charter states that its seat must be in the liberated Jerusalem. While they are weak, Muslims must suffer Jerusalem to be in the hands of the unbelievers, but everything must be done to prepare for the final battle which will return it to Islamic sovereignty. Therefore, wherever possible Muslims must rid themselves of local problems in order to devote themselves exclusively to Jerusalem together with the Palestinians. If they can get America to help them with local problems, such as in K&M or Bosnia, all the better. Let Muslim forces be spared while Christians slaughter each other. This is how Muslims view American policy in Bosnia and K&M. The remaining but weakened enemy will then be liquidated by the followers of one true faith
The Islamic world knows perfectly well what is going on in Bosnia and K&M. It knows that in these regions Christian culture is all but destroyed while Islam flourishes with the aid of the USA. If the USA does not realize that the growth of Islam is against the US interests—because it will provide the launching pad for the final and this time victorious attack on Washington so that Americans also could be saved by Islam and be given happiness on earth and the bliss of paradise after death—this will simply be seen by true believers that their God is the true God and that Christians believe in a false god. Were it not so, God would not allow Christian forces to be wasted in the service of Islam. And those who have been neutral thus far will see it as a sign that the final battle, a battle to death with the USA, has the support of God. For a Muslim to join this battle would mean to make sure of God’s mercy and earn the entry into paradise. This is why the numbers of those who have not yet joined this battle will begin to fall rapidly. They will start joining the side of Al Zarqawi or his successor in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan etc. The governments in Islamic countries which cooperate with the USA will lose the support of their people; they will fall and will be replaced by the enemies of Washington. This could lead to a clash of civlizations and must be avoided at all cost.