Saturday, 5 March 2011

The Fall of the House of Saud

An excellent piece by Gildas on Anna Racoon's blog identifies the real conflict to come. As news comes on the radio this morning of Saudi Arabia having mobilised the army for internal action the prospect of the Fall of the House of Saud comes a little closer. Such an event wouldn't end the evil of primitive Wahhabism, of course - but it would end Wahhabism being viewed as 'respectable' and allow us to be honest in identifying not Islam but this despotic and horrid perversion of Islam as our true enemy. 

5 comments:

Edward Spalton said...

A Professor Jansen was a defence witness at the Geert Wilders trial. He is a leading European Arabic scholar. The judge, who insisted on Wilders' prosecution ( against the advice of the prosecutors), met Jansen at a private dinner party a few days before he was to testify and tried to influence his testimony. The trial was temporarily abandoned but the testimony was read into the record.

The testimony was to the effect that there is no such thing as moderate Islam although there are moderate Muslims.

The Koran and associated, accepted writings are unalterable - the final word of Allah to man this side of time. They command a specific code of law, perpetual Jihad everywhere until all unbelievers submit and dissimulation (Taqiyya) to unbelievers about the doctrines and aims of Islam. Muslims are forbidden from ever making friends with unbelievers although they may make contracts and truces with them for limited periods. This is why (for instance) no Muslim religious authority could ever say it was no longer a requirement of Islam to kill all apostates. The best they can say is "Don't do it now, chaps".

Having seen a number of video clips of Muslim spokesmen talking to Western media (all very reasonable-seeming and hurt by "Islamophobia") and the same speakers addressing the faithful, there is not much doubt of the truth of Jansen's evidence.

Gordo said...

Well put Mr. Spalton

DP111 said...

When Muhammad first started out, jihad was prohibited. When they had a small force, only defensive jihad was allowed. When they became powerful, offensive jihad was mandated. Muhammad's last command was to conquer the world in the name of Islam, and today's map is the reflection of the success of that.

So this explains why you can find verses supporting all 3 views in the Quran. The doctrine of abrogation means the offensive jihad verses supercede the earlier verses, but at the same time, the doctrines of dualism and progressive revelation means that all the verses are true at the same time, and the Muslims can use the verses which are appropriate for the situation.

So, in the US, the stage 1 prohibition of jihad is in effect, and we see talk of a religion of peace. In countries where Muslims are stronger, but not dominant, we see defensive jihad. Nevertheless, the preferred doctrine, by abrogation, is offensive jihad.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11368628&postID=365678786668042236&isPopup=true

At its core, Islam is a dual faced religion.

Anonymous said...

Are not all religeons jihadist when they are powerful and meek when they are not

Anonymous said...

Are not all religeons jihadist when they are powerful and meek when they are not