Engaged – Chapter 2

Posted by johnhouk on Aug 28, 2009
 You absolutely need to read Engaged – Chapter 2 at United Against Islamic Supremacism. Your eyes as a Westerner will be enlightened (and perhaps as a Muslim as well).

Gary H. Johnson, Jr. will provide a much needed word study of how Americans perceive toleration as opposed to how the religion founded Mohammed known as Islam (Mohammedanism) is perceived.

Gary advises you should find the definitions to toleration, accommodation and sufferance to embrace an understanding of this exchange of letters between Gary and Chris.

You are welcome to post a comment here at SlantRight but if you really want to send some feed back to “huntingnasrallah,” you should comment at United Against Islamic Supremacism.

Toleration:

NOUN:

    1. Tolerance with respect to the actions and beliefs of others: "Toleration . . . is the greatest gift of the mind" (Helen Keller).

    2. Official recognition of the rights of
    individuals and groups to hold dissenting opinions, especially on religion.



Accommodation:

–noun

    1. the act of accommodating; state or process of being accommodated; adaptation.

    2. adjustment of differences; reconciliation.

    3. Sociology. a process of mutual adaptation between persons or groups, usually achieved by eliminating or reducing hostility, as by compromise or arbitration.

    4. anything that supplies a need, want, favor, convenience, etc.

    5. Usually, accommodations. (This definition is not pertinent.)

    6. readiness to aid or please others; obligingness.

    7. a loan.



Sufferance:

–noun

    1. passive permission resulting from lack of interference; tolerance, esp. of something wrong or illegal (usually prec. by on or by).

    2. capacity to endure pain, hardship, etc.; endurance.

    3. Archaic. suffering; misery.

    4. Archaic. patient endurance



JRH 8/28/09
***********************************
Engaged – Chapter 2

Posted by huntingnasrallah
August 27, 2009
United Against Islamic Supremacism

August 18, 2009

Gary,

Thank you for laying out your understanding of the different terms used to describe our enemy in your response of the 11th. I am interested to see where you would categorize the different Islamic Supremacist groups.

As I currently see it, on one end of the spectrum the Muslim Brotherhood claims to have denounced violence (despite the fact that the Palestinian chapter of the Brotherhood is the terrorist group Hamas). The Brotherhood seems to have enacted a plan of cultural invasion, infiltrating the United States government through academic channels and framing public opinion over their subversive activities through their many NGO front groups like the Council for American Islamic Relations and the Muslim Students Association. On the other end, there are groups like al Qaeda who seek to expand their ideology through violence, and give no quarter for those who do not participate in violent jihad.

Recently, I read in Robert Spencer’s The Truth About Muhammad that Islam’s Prophet was a caravan raider. American History is filled with the exploits of Muslim pirates – from the Barbary Wars of the early 19th Century to today where ships are routinely hijacked in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Considering Muhammad’s raider roots, can modern piracy be seen as a “fundamental” type of jihad in Islam? Is there a connection between the pirates of today and Islamic Supremacy?

-Chris Carter
_____________________

August 26, 2009

Chris,

In his 2008 release, The Confrontation, Walid Phares posited that “The major missing component in the Western War on Terror is undoubtedly: public action and knowledge. The man or woman on the street is strangely absent from the raging debates on the conflict, whether in New York, Paris, or London.” This said, those with knowledge of Islamic Supremacism’s works must teach themselves to act as intuitive bridges between the source of the knowledge and those who would otherwise not have the time, energy, motivation, skill or guidance necessary to properly enter into the wager of our generation as the claimant of aggrieved status. In light of your current perceptions, it is more than tempting to dive right in and bang away at the intricacies of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban(s), Jamaat al Islamiya, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and al Shabaab to determine the threat each poses, in their turn and in their twisted combinations, to Western Civilization. However, in the interests of our audience, in this public intellectual struggle, it must be understood that framing the battle of ideas in terms of a spectrum of violence and non-violence does not skewer the core of the resentment beheld by free men and women, the world over, when facing the ultimatums of Islam’s faithful terrorists.

We are no doubt in agreement that, in the United States of America, the freedom of religion is a sacrosanct right and freedom – inviolable, inalienable. But what happens to that freedom when a religion’s doctrines and tenets and spokesmen command its adherents to wage holy war upon non-believers, demand the capitulation and diplomatic vassal-dom of independent state actors, prohibit individual liberties, enslave women, commit piracy, murder reason, and subject the freedom of thought and inquiry to a predetermined authoritative source of knowledge and truth? What then? Does the freedom of religion, in America’s Constitution, exist (then) as a readymade gateway to supremacist militants, stealth subversives, and suicidal cultists? It is an uncomfortable discussion – particularly as it relates to the religion of Islam – and it is only just beginning.

There are many barriers to a proper engagement on the matter of Islamic Supremacism: none so obvious and visible as language, none so insidious as our own ignorance as to the nature of the cultural divides which shape and often scuttle the discourse.

But make no mistake, my friend, the rejection of Tyranny in all of its forms, the rejection of slavery in its various guises, the rejection of the death of reason inherent in the natural dictatorship of socio-economic totality – these rejections and certainties – will shape the principled character of this discourse and, by virtue of our heritage, will muster and project the full force and power of our natural inalienable rights. The reasoned rejection of those unconscionable bonds, which for far too long have hunted freedom ’round the globe, forge the heavy resentment and stinging grievances in the intellectual case we are set to levy against Islamic Supremacism.

Declaring independence from the tyranny of Allah is no small matter; and, it is a journey which should not be embarked upon lightly. Toppling the supremacist Jihad Pillar, in the end, will be the result of a distinct determination, en masse, the world over, by those souls which proclaim the right to achieve a full measure of reasoned self-esteem in dignity without being terrorized by Theocratic diktat or a supremacist faith’s frenzied fanatics in a timeless, cosmic, perpetual war with reason. The Establishment Clause is absolute – not negotiable. The spears and arrows of Political Islam are no matter when wearing such a worthy armor with integrity. Therefore, let us as American citizens, bound by our Constitution, clearly, reservedly, without malice, seeking justice in our age and for our families and countrymen, resolve to be Free! And let not our generous sense of humility and tolerance be blinded by the deceits of Shariah Law…for in “tolerance” is a demonstrable failing of our current engagement on the matter at hand.

As I stated in our first public exchange, definitions matter. Awareness of the power of language and translation, too, is crucial in this intellectual revolt. For instance, it will come as a surprise to you and to most Americans that the Western use of the word “tolerance” in conjunction with religious freedom is considered a slight on the whole of Islam. Recently, I picked up a book entitled The Crisis of Islamic Civilization by the Princeton visiting fellow Ali A. Allawi, who sheds light on this enormous cultural wall. In Chapter 5, “The Reformation of Islam”, the following passage stopped me in my tracks:

“Mutual tolerance between the varieties of Islamic faith and practice and accommodation of the non-Muslim populations who lived alongside Muslims formed an important element of Islamic civilization. Necessarily, the lead had to come from the majority religious group – the Sunni orthodoxy in most cases – which acknowledged the legitimacy and rights of the minority groups. The operative word in Islam is accommodation, not tolerance. Accommodation is a permanent arrangement which implies the creation of a recognized and legitimate space for other religious and doctrinal groups. Toleration on the other hand assumes the supremacy of one over the other but allows the other to exist on sufferance.”


Read it again. Look up the words “accommodate” and “accommodation” and read it again. Look up the words “tolerance” and “toleration” and read it again. Look up the word “sufferance” and read it again. This is the presentiment of a wall.

The frame of the wall is set in stone as follows: in Islam, when considering mutual tolerance, accommodation is the measure of “respect” since it provides permanent legitimacy through a recognized “space” of worship as a testament to the rights of minority faiths; toleration, on the other hand, arrogantly assumes condescension privileges of supremacy. Now, as disturbing as the cultural invasion of radical jihadists and covert Islamist into America is to me, I find this one passage far more violent in its attempt to overthrow and destabilize reason. Through this lens, Western respect for the freedom of a Muslim to practice his religion as a right is translated and cast as an arrogant presumption. In effect, a Westerner can say, “The United States has granted freedom of Religion to all of its citizens. America is a land of tolerance for all faiths.” And, the Muslim mind reflexively responds, “It is arrogant, indeed, for an infidel Westerner or his limited state government to feel so high and mighty as to give me leave to practice Islam. That right is Allah’s alone to give; and, all limits not originating with Allah’s Mother Book are disorders in Muhammad’s straight path (a jahaliyya), stemming from the age of ignorance before the Koran, the supreme source of both knowledge and authority.” Moreover, in this mis-taken respect, Islam’s adherents pounce on a perceived condescension in tone and immediately claim the authority of Shariah Law’s writ concerning the right of Allah’s dominion over all other faiths in a complete rejection of all internationally recognized laws, limits and borders.

When an offered respect is translated as an insult, and then immediately used as a weapon of control in feigned offense, the prospects of mutual tolerance are dim indeed… Remember, always, Allawi’s words: the operative word in Islam is accommodation, not tolerance. What does accommodation mean? What does toleration mean? This is not the picture of a zero sum engagement. This is a marked case of a negative sum engagement. The framework for engagement, in this case, is an imprisoning submission. Just as Ralph Peters noted that the West is in the unique position of denying that its enemies really know what they themselves are up to, the flipside of the coin must also be noted – Islam is in the unique position of claiming that those non-believers, who deem it a worthy pursuit to be tolerant of the religious rights of Muslims to practice Islam, must be charged with exhibiting blasphemy and arrogantly trespassing on Allah’s Rights.

Indeed, the first grievance which must be levied toward Islam by the free man of reason is the stark certainty that the Islamic notion of accommodation commands, naturally, as an immutable truth, that Allah’s sovereignty extends beyond the mosque. A corollary grievance must follow – Muslims refusing to accept (on good faith) that tolerance is a measure of mutual respect have dismissed an offered peace and judged honorable intentions as having zero intrinsic value when engaging with non-believers. This wall will not stand! The intellectual revolution against Islamic Supremacism, presently kindling in an awakening generation, will take sledgehammers to this wall over and over until it crumbles; before all, Islam’s inclination to delineate the bounds and comforts of accommodation is not a legitimate right, just as assuredly as the accommodation of slavery is not a legitimate right. The right to create a recognized “space” for slaves and the right to extend the protection of dhimmitude are poisonous formulas drawn from the elixir of accommodation.

Allawi, the ex-Iraqi statesman and senior visiting fellow at Princeton, in a simple exposition on the history of Islam, has captured the Crisis of Islam in stunning relief. Accommodation and toleration are at the core of conflict and tension found in the activity and rhetoric of the Muslim Community (the Umma). It must be noted that these trappings of accommodation are moral shortcomings in the arena of peace. For in dealings of mutual tolerance, Islam rejects tolerance. Therefore, in the interests of justice, how can it be possible that Islam is a religion of peace if the grievances laid at Islam’s door on the matter of accommodation are legitimate?

Naturally, reasoned grievances without remedy engender resentment. Is there remedy for Islam’s attitude of accommodation? When tolerance is rejected, war, by design, seems an ever present specter. No remedy currently exists for the establishment of this wall of separation and it is questionable whether one can be had. Moreover, Islamic Accommodation holds doctrinal legitimacy to Muslims from the Koran, itself. The Da’wa, the call of Islam, the invitation to Islam, gave birth to this loaded account. When considering the religion of Allah, infidels have a choice – Convert to Islam, Pay the jizya tax for the right to live as a “protected” second class citizen (classified as a dhimmi) or die by the sword of Islam. Generally read “convert, pay alms or die,” Muslims demand that Westerners understand the full context of the invitation before arrogantly asserting that this jihad injunction is war-like. But upon inspection, can it be said that there is any difference in the form of the call to Islam and the accommodation of Islam? Da’wa is the ethical ground of the morality and mentality of Islamic Accommodation. Peace is not found in an accommodating ultimatum. What man of reason worth his salt would accept the status of a second-class citizen?

Western history texts are wary to accuse Islam’s conquering caliphs and imams through the ages of trespassing on the rights of those peoples which came under the control of Islam’s Empire, asserting that for the most part the conquered peoples were peacefully assimilated. Seen through the prism of accommodation, Jihad is the striving to assert the supremacy of Allah’s Law. And while adherents of Islam can hold that jihad is an internal spiritual struggle, it cannot be dismissed that the coercive threat of force jades the minds and mores of Allah’s slaves. For, to the reasoning mind, in what possible context can the ultimatum “convert to Islam, pay the protection tax, or die by the sword of Islam” ever be considered a peaceful invitation? No peaceful context exists for this grievous advance; rather, since tolerance is rejected, the trap of submission is set to snare. The reason for this wariness on the part of Western scholars is simple: the economic history of Islam has not yet been accurately cast for Western consumption. It is hard to talk about the history of slavery and dhimmitude, when records of the slave trade and dhimmitude are not yet fully accessible to the Western critical eye. It must be reckoned that slaves in America had origins in the Muslim controlled slave trade. It must also be reckoned that piracy in the name of Allah kicked off the Barbary Pirate Wars. Slavery and Piracy have always figured into the economic history of Islam.

Accommodation demonstrates a key problem in the morality of Islam. It generates a mindset and mentality in Individual Muslims which defines peace in terms of dominance rather than mutual tolerance. The replacement of tolerance, in this case is willful dominance. When the operative word in Islam is accommodation, the operative peace is not mutual – it is coerced. When the operative word in Islamic peace is accommodation, the operative goal is dominance. Peace under threat is not peace – it is the seed of war. For what else can the rejection of tolerance guarantee?

Islamic Accommodation is the declaration of Allah’s sovereignty in the crystal clear tones of the Koran’s song. What I refuse to dismiss is the tone of the song. I resent the tone. I object to the servile manner in which the infidel world is currently meeting this offensive and grievous assault on reason. And I reject, categorically, with the full force of my reason, that Allah holds even one solitary mote of dominion over my rights of passage on this planet. The god of the Koran does not hold the right to order my passage, to accommodate me with terms of surrender, not when I have such worthy stewards for my keeping as the framers of the U.S. Constitution. As an American citizen, it is within my natural rights to declare independence from Tyranny. And I declare it now, as a free man! My resentment of the tyranny of Islamic Supremacism holds the selfsame veracity and strength displayed when America’s founding fathers rejected the tyranny of the Crown. What is dhimmitude if not the ultimate in taxation without reasoned representation? I will never submit to the terms of Islamic Accommodation. Allah is not the god of the Torah. Allah is not the god of the Christian Scriptures. Allah, in His display of accommodation, is the god of Tyranny. For when dominance presents a more virtuous path than tolerance, what other ultimate lesson and path is possible save that of punishment to those who would oppose and resist the supremacist push? Why strive to create an uncertain peace when establishing dominance by the threat of the sword guarantees a resolution with advantage? When threatening to swing the sword of Allah offers such rewards, what rewards will swinging it bring?

Islamic Accommodation, if it is accepted as a proper framework for the presentiment of the terms of engagement, is…in a word…a step in the dark.

Suffice it to say, that Islam, as a monolith, has historically advanced by denouncing the validity of tolerance. Therefore, the lesson that must be drawn from Islamic Accommodation must be that our enemy is a discriminating one. The infidel, the kafir is, by Shariah Law, a second-class citizen of Allah’s umma to be afforded protection and space. The Legacy of Dhimmitude is with us to this very day. Slavery, piracy, and terror all hold Koranic justifications which undermine individual and state sovereignty. Therefore, let us, as friends, in light of the material injuries incurred through the ages in the name of Allah, unravel the supremacist ideas of Islam, properly laying forth reasoned grievances, declaring our independence from the Tyranny of Allah’s Law and enumerating our legitimate resentments in a case of concern, that our perceived offenders might answer our heavy challenge without resort to coercion – that they might offer up apology and restitution, admitting our natural rights as men and casting dhimmitude to the Jim Crow bonfires of segregation and racism. And again, let us, as free men, retaining our moral prejudices without constraint, remain dedicated to the sovereignty of our nation, our souls, our reason, and our liberties as we define the threat at hand.

Engaged,

Gary H. Johnson, Jr.
______________________
 At SlantRight "Engaged Chapter 1" is found HERE.

Leave a COMMENT.

powered by [ stevencopley.com ]