A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

ISIS explains why they hate us, crushes liberal fantasies……. August 2, 2016

…….but mostly crushes liberal fantasies regarding the “religion of peace.”

ISIS has a slick and glossy magazine called Dabik or something.  It’s basically a propaganda piece.  It does contain a number of semi-scholarly articles on subjects related to islam – how many white Christian slaves a jihadist is entitled to, the do’s and don’ts of raping the promised virgins of paradise, how to sell slaves in a buyer’s market, that kind of thing. Mostly, though, it argues for the islamist’s vision of islam, and justifies jihad as the quintessential muslim act.

The latest issue has very harsh words for Western liberals committed, by dogma, to seeing islam as a “religion of peace” in spite of mountains of historical evidence to the contrary, and the testimony of our own lyin’ eyes.  It’s an interesting analysis of the pathologies of Western culture from an outsider’s perspective, even noting the profoundly political nature of Western elite’s refusal to recognize the reality of islam.  That is to say, Western leaders – including those within the Church – refuse to see the violence endemic to islam as a political act, because they believe recognizing the truth about islam would be highly inconvenient to their true religion political program:

The 15th issue of Dabiq, published on July 31, is titled “Break The Cross” and appears to be primarily directed at those that ISIS considers its enemies, particularly Christians. One section is devoted to the words and actions of Pope Francis and is headlined “In The Words Of Our Enemies.” An editorial titled “Why We Hate You and Why We Fight You” takes aim at Westerners and “apostate ‘Imams’ in the West” who refuse to define ISIS’ motivation as being Islamic. ISIS calls this rhetoric purely political. [Yes, Christ told us to be kind to our enemies, but that is on a personal basis.  When we have responsibilities for the safety and faith of others, we also have a responsibility to oppose, even to the level of physical violence, those who would threaten both in those too weak to defend themselves.]

“Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool,” the article says. “The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle.”

The argument echoes a current debate in the U.S. between some on the right who have been vocal about challenging high-ranking left-leaning politicians to specifically label the ISIS threat as “radical Islamic terror.” President Obama has said on multiple occasions that he has refused to use the term in an effort to avoid lending religious legitimacy to the terror group.

The ISIS author of the “Why We Hate You” piece aims to settle the argument, and “clarify” in “unequivocal terms” that ISIS is Islamic. The author says that those on the “social fringe” who identify Islam with ISIS are correct.

While it is perhaps arguable that ISIS represents “true islam,” what cannot be argued is the evidence from history and modern-day sociology: the more involved, committed a muslim, the more they tend to embrace the notion of violent conquest and the subjugation of islam’s enemies.  There are exceptions, of course, there always are, but what is even more troubling concerning islam is the tendency of the more “moderate,” less convicted members of this false man-made religion to give the jihadist a free hand, to almost never rise up in opposition to them, and, more importantly, to secretly agree with many of their goals: the imposition of sharia, the expansion of the ummah, and the right of islam to be imposed on unwilling peoples.

So, even to the extent that islam has a large, non-combatant element, it is immaterial, as this large cohort almost always defers to the demands of the most convicted, when push comes to shove.  The most convicted are able to paint themselves as the “best muslims,” and there are few within islam who are willing to strenuously argue against this.

In the end, then, it makes no difference whether the jihadists are the “true muslims” or not.  Again, the testimony of both history and current events is irrefutable: Western attempts to appease and “dialogue” with islam are doomed to failure.  There is nothing in the modern West that can provide sufficient motivation to resist the steady encroachments of islam outside of Catholicism, which has been roundly rejected by almost all Westerners, even those who claim the name of Catholic for themselves.  We also have to bear in mind at all times taqqiyah, islam’s “holy lying,” wherein it is not only permissible, but even expected, to lie to the infidel in order to advance the spread of islam.  Thus, “moderate” muslim leaders claiming to seek dialogue on an equal footing – and there are very few of those! – have precious little credibility, as they could simply be seeking to serve islam’s expansionist interests in a different manner.

Thus all attempts at appeasing islam by Christian and especially Catholic leaders are not only foolish and fruitless, they are actually damnable in that they only demonstrate to islam the West’s weakness and lack of belief and its readiness for conquest.  That is to say, they only encourage the violent elements within islam, while undermining the morale of the few Westerners still possessed of enough determination to stand in opposition to islam.  There is essentially zero practical up-side to dialogue with islam, and the downside grows more hideous every day.  But the aforementioned is based on having a Catholic outlook; those belonging to different religions, such as sexular paganism, will likely draw very different conclusions.