Published in Hudson New York

"You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?"

Such was Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi's response to my assertion that Islamists seek to resurrect the caliphate and wage offensive jihad to bring the world under Islamic rule (during a 2008 debate titled "Clash of Civilizations").

Today, as onetime arcane words—caliphate, jihad, sharia—become common place in the media, evoked by politicians, and comprehended by Americans, Dabashi's question returns.

You see, ever since Egypt became a hot topic in the media, there has been no shortage of pundits warning against the Muslim Brotherhood; warning that an Islamist takeover in Egypt may have a domino effect in the region; warning that the ultimate goal of Islamists around the world is the resurrection of an imperialistic and expansionist caliphate (see Andrew McCarthy's recent article). Similarly, the controversy caused by the Ground Zero mosque brought Arabic-Islamic concepts that were formerly the domain of academics, such as sharia, into the fore.

Yet, as the West begins to understand the unique nature of its enemy—caliphate, jihad, and sharia all pose a perpetual, transcendent threat—it must also understand that a unique response is required. The clean, hygienic way the West likes to deal with socio-political conflicts will simply not do this time, especially in the long run.

Consider the caliphate: its very existence would usher in a state of constant hostility. Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate's function is to wage jihad, whenever and wherever possible, to bring the infidel world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia. In fact, most of what is today called the "Muslim world"—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate that began in Arabia in 632.

A jihad-waging, sharia-enforcing caliphate represents a permanent, existentialist enemy—not a temporal foe that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions. Such a caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

In this context, what, exactly, is the Western world prepared to do about it—now, before the caliphate becomes a reality? Would it be willing to launch a preemptive offensive—politically, legally, educationally, and, if necessary, militarily—to prevent its resurrection? Could the West ever go on the offensive, openly and confidently—now, when it has the upper-hand—to incapacitate its enemies?

One may argue in the affirmative, pointing to the preemptive Iraq war. Yet there are subtle and important differences. The rationale behind the Iraq war was physical and practical: it was limited to the elimination of suspected WMDs and against a specific government, Iraq's Saddam regime. War to prevent the creation of a caliphate, on the other hand, is metaphysical and impractical: it is not limited to eliminating material weapons, nor confined to one government or person.

The fact is, the West does not have the political paradigms or language to justify an offensive against an ideological foe in religious garb. After all, the same international culture that saw to it that an autocrat like Egypt's Mubarak stepped down—simply because he was handicapped from responding to the protestors in the name of human rights—certainly cannot approve a preemptive offensive by the West articulated in terms of a "religious" threat.

What if an important nation like Egypt does go Islamist, a big domino in the quest of a caliphate? It is a distinct possibility. Can we also say that it is distinct possibility that the West would do everything in its power to prevent this from happening? Of course not: all the Muslim Brotherhood has to do is continue pretending to be "moderate"—recently by removing its by-laws from the Web, as shown by Steven Emerson, including its intention of creating an "Islamic state" presaging the caliphate.

Indeed, the Obama administration has already made it clear that it is willing to engage the Brotherhood, differentiating them from "radicals" like al-Qaeda—even as the Brotherhood's motto is "Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah our highest hope." Likewise, a theocratic, eschatologically-driven Iran is on its way to possessing nuclear weapons—all while the international community stands by.

In short, as it becomes clear that violence and intolerance are inextricably linked to concepts like caliphate, jihad, and sharia, so too should it become clear that the threat they pose is here to stay: the caliphate, jihad, and sharia have a 1400-year legacy, prompting Dabashi's observation: "Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?"

by Adrian Morgan
Family Security Matters

On New Year's Eve in the city of Alexandria in Egypt, Coptic Christians were celebrating New Year Mass at the al-Qiddissin (Saints) Church. As the service drew to a close, a bomb outside went off in the street outside. A video of the reaction of church congregants can be seen here. The priest tried to calm those inside, with little success. 21 people were killed, and 43 people were injured. Initially it was assumed that the blast was produced by a car bomb, though Egypt's Interior ministry later claimed that it was the work of a suicide bomber.

The Muslim Brotherhood condemned the crime and President Obama also condemned the attack, though the president erroneously suggested that Muslims had been killed in the blast (some were injured).

When Obama made his famous speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009, where he praised the tolerance of Islam, he made only a fleeting mention of Copts. Before the speech at Cairo University, American Copts had urged him to mention the plight of the Copts in Egypt. Obama devoted only half a sentence to their situation, concentrating instead on painting Islam in terms that were designed to please a Muslim audience. He stated:

"The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt."

Perhaps he should have been more forceful in stressing that need for diversity. Copts are make up about 10 percent of Egypt's population of 80 million, but they were denied basic rights under the regime of Hosni Mubarak (an ally of America). If the Muslim Brotherhood gains power in Egypt, Muslims cannot expect to see much improvement in their situation.

Sobhi Saleh is a Muslim Brotherhood lawyer from Alexandria. The New York Times recently described himas "immediately engaging, the kind of person you shake hands with at a conference then find yourself telling people, "He's such a nice guy," without really knowing why."

Saleh was on the eight-man constitutional reform panel, which was convened to ensure that the formerly banned Muslim Brotherhood had rights to partake in elections. Last week, Saleh told the BBC (at 6.25 of the video here) that he does not want a Christian or a woman to run Egypt. He said:

"They should not occupy the highest post – the presidency… We are the majority. We represent 95 percent of the population."

Muslim Brotherhood members had been invited to attend President Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech. The Copts were obviously not high on the agenda of the U.S. administration's advisers. In November 2009, Obama was petitioned by an Egyptian father and his 15-year old daughter who had been living under extreme persecution. 57-year-old Maher el-Gowhary had converted to Christianity more than three decades earlier, but continued to receive threats. Egyptian authorities refused the pair permission to leave Egypt. Dina el-Gowahry wrote:

"Mr. President Obama, we are a minority in Egypt. We are treated very badly. You said that the Muslim minority in America are treated very well, so why are we not treated here likewise? We are imprisoned in our own home because Muslim clerics called for the murder of my father, and now the Government has set for us a new prison; we are imprisoned in our own country… I am 15 years old but I still have hope that my message will reach President Obama."

Dina and Maher el-Gowahry wanted to emigrate to the United States, but the administration failed to help them, perhaps fearful of enraging the Muslims they were trying to appease through "outreach" work. The Obama administration's refusal to consider the human rights of Christians in Egypt had catastrophic results for the father and daughter. In April 2010, Dina el-Gowrahy was subjected to an acid attack, and on July 5, 2010, Maher el-Gowrahy was stabbed in the neck.

Despite wallowing in money from America, Mubarak had made no attempt to improve the plight of Egypt's Christians. As noted by Raymond Ibrahim, in November 2010, Egyptian security forces opened fire upon Christians who had not followed discriminatory building regulations. The Copts had constructed the St. Mary and St. Michael churches in the district of Giza. Three unarmed Christians died from gunfire, and a small girl was suffocated by tear gas. Wounded demonstrators were handcuffed to hospital beds before being sent to detention camps.

A "confidential" American diplomatic document, sent to Wikileaks, described one incident of Muslim against Christian violence. The report stated that on January 7, 2010, gunmen with automatic weapons opened fire on Copts leaving church after celebrating Christmas Mass at Nag Hammadi. The place where the attack took place is famous as the place where Christian scriptures were discovered, almost 1700 years after they had been written. Six Copts were killed in the attack, along with a Muslim policeman who was guarding the church. Muslims then attacked Christian homes, and one 70-year old Christian woman died when her house was set on fire. The report stated:

The attack on Coptic church-goers in Naga Hamadi is the worst incident of sectarian violence since January 2000, when attacks on Coptic homes and farms near Kosheh, another small city in Upper Egypt, resulted in the deaths of 20 Copts and one Muslim. Egypt's MoI and some local commentators described the Naga Hamadi attack as criminal in nature, attempted to link it to the November rape of a Muslim girl by a Copt, and emphasized Upper Egypt's culture of revenge and vendetta. Despite this characterization, an attack on church-goers on one of the most significant days on the Coptic calendar is clearly sectarian. Copts have complained bitterly in recent years about the GoE's failure to use the criminal justice system to deal with sectarian attacks – including the Kosheh incident, which resulted in no convictions...

by Roland Shirk
Jihad Watch

Raymond Ibrahim has a characteristically thoughtful essay over at Hudson New York, the blog of the Hudson Institute. In it, Ibrahim takes note of and comments on an extremely encouraging trend—one for which the long-time writers for this site and its allied movements can take some of the credit: the fact that Islam itself is for the first time in a generation or more becoming the object of critical comment. Not anti-Zionism, Arab nationalism, Third-World anti-Westernism, anti-colonialism, Islamism or even that unfortunate hybrid term Islamo-Fascism (which torments the historically-minded among us, since it refers to a real phenomenon, yet sounds eerily similar to the old canard "Judaeo-Bolshevism").

Nor are we, thanks be to a merciful God, still talking about a war on "evil," "hatred," "intolerance" or "terrorism." The notion of a war on "terrorism" always struck me, to be honest, as every bit as silly as a "war on poison gas" or a "war on landmines." The bloviations of the Bush administration during the run-up to the futile, counterproductive war in Iraq, may have been largely generated by aging Cold Warriors eager to find a new niche. But the rhetoric, strategy and tactics these people produced were much less reminiscent of the hard-headed moral realism that won the global struggle against Communism than they were of the efforts made by the war-weary appeasers who staffed the League of Nations to "ban" aggression and "outlaw war."

No, we have moved the ball many yards down the field, and it's worth taking a moment to celebrate the fact, and see what it means. We're far from the end zone, but we are approaching at last midfield, and of late we keep making our first downs—to the point that the other side is becoming hysterical. However compromised by political correctness they may be, we are at least having hearings in Congress about Islamic extremism. No, it isn't a standing body like the House Committee on Un-American Activities—whose equivalent we could surely use today. (Started by FDR Democrats, that committee did yeoman's work exposing pro-Nazis in 1940-41, and moved quite naturally to examine those who supported the other partner in the Hitler/Stalin alliance.) But it is something. German cabinet ministers and the French President are questioning Islam's compatibility with their republics, while the British Prime Minister is renouncing multiculturalism; I can't promise that any of these men can (or will even try to) accomplish very much in turning back the Islamic tide, but at the very least they are smashing taboos, dismantling the Siegfried Line that Western elites have carefully built to block the honest examination of Islam.

Ibrahim raises the crucial point that has begun to creep across unwilling Western lips:

"Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?" This question was asked from the floor by Columbia professor Hamid Dabashi during a 2008 debate titled "Clash of Civilizations".... It came in response to an assertion that Islamists seek to resurrect the caliphate, and, according to the doctrine of offensive jihad, wage war—when and wherever expedient—to bring the world under Islamic rule.

After that provocative introduction, Ibrahim proceeds to a lucid and well-informed discussion of the institution of the Caliphate, which Glenn Beck introduced to millions of U.S. viewers, thanks to the careful prep-work Robert Spencer did with his producers in advance. He notes some facts which I'll confess I did not know before:

The very existence of a caliphate would usher a state of constant hostility: Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate is obligated to wage jihad, at least annually, to bring the "disbelieving" world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia law. Most of what is today called the "Muslim world"—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate begun in Arabia in 632.A caliphate represents a permanent, ideological enemy, not a temporal enemy that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions — economic or otherwise. Short of agreeing either to convert to Islam or live as second-class citizens, or "dhimmis" — who, among other indignities, must practice their religions quietly; pay a higher tax [jizyah]; give way to Muslims on the street; wear clothing that distinguishes them from Muslims, the start of the yellow star of David required for the Jews by the Nazis during World War II; have their testimony be worth half of a Muslim's; and never retaliate against Muslim abuses—the jihad continues. A caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish — before people realize what it represents and try to prevent it. Without active, preemptive measures, it is only a matter of time before they succeed.

It's critical that we recognize and disseminate such facts, forcing our countrymen to recognize that the pipe-dream of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 20s may well become real—and that if it does, it will function much as the Comintern did in the 1920s and 30s, a central force directing totalitarian activism in our home countries.

Yet we hit immense resistance, and once we strip away all the self-delusion, anti-Semitism, cowardice and multiculturalist anti-Westernism, we face one real source of reluctance to face the truth—the chilling question Prof. Dabashi raised, "[W]here do you go from there?" He did so, it seems, almost as a kind of taunt—as if to say, "The implications of the position you propose are too awful and ugly to contemplate; therefore it behooves you to pretend it isn't true."

Such a tactic is popular among those suffering from terminal cancer, advanced cirrhosis, and heroin addiction, and it has a name: Denial. It hinges on fear and sloth, and gives enormous force to otherwise weak arguments, by granting us psychological license to soothe our nerves and live by lies.

Instead, we owe it to ourselves and our descendants to face it squarely: If we do realize that Islam is intrinsically, irreformably aggressive and intolerant—by our current standards, simply evil—where do we go from there? The blackmail contained in all the warnings against "Islamophobia" depends on our rightful disgust at the last ideology that pegged a single identifiable cultural group as tainted with evil: the eliminationist anti-Semitism of the German voelkish Right between the Wars. We are warned in subtle or not so subtle ways that if we identify Islam itself (and not some exotic variant) as evil, we will begin to treat individual Muslims as sub-human, to brand them as bacilli, the way Adolf Hitler branded the Jews.

Of course, the chances that this will actually happen are almost nil. Most of the opponents of Islamic aggression possess impeccable credentials as defenders of real religious tolerance and humanistic values. No major anti-jihadist has to my knowledge, even in private, advocated inhumane treatment for peaceful Muslims, or the suspension of their legal rights. But the Left and its Muslim shock-troops can grab control of the debate if they perversely cast us as the force that threatens religious freedom and equality, and so far they have succeeded. Indeed, anyone who opposes special rights, outrageous tolerance, and fawning servility towards the Muslim bullies in our midst, is liable to find himself lumped in with historical monsters like Heinrich Himmler. How bitterly ironic it is that the fiercest Jew-haters in Europe have so far preserved their perks by summoning the ghosts of Europe's murdered Jews.

The truth is radically different, of course. We opponents of jihad seek treatment for Muslims that roughly equals that faced by Christian believers in post-war Europe—after the secularization of states had revoked most historical privileges even from long-established churches. We demand only that legal Muslim residents be held to the same standards of patriotism and tolerance as everyone else, while urging that states exercise their absolute right to accept or reject future migrants according to their citizens' perception of what serves their national interests. To equate such a policy with the appalling treatment of religious and ethnic minorities by totalitarian regimes of the "Right" or Left is frankly dishonest. We must refute it energetically and cheerfully with the truth. If Islam cannot withstand equal treatment with other religions, that tells us all we need to know.