Jihad, according to InterFaith (from now on, 'IF') Muslims, is only carried out for 'a just cause'. The problem is very many things can be counted as a just cause. Many things ARE counted as a just cause by Muslims. So it is not as if a Just Cause Theory of Jihad, as it were, should automatically give rise to calm and optimism on the non-Muslim's part.
For example, this particular IF Muslim lays out his own reasons for acceptable (violent) jihad. He writes:
“The main hot spots that Muslims currently want to see resolved are Kashmir (independence from India), Palestine (a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital), Chechnya (independence from Russia), the Sudan (an end to the foreign-backed southern rebellion), Azerbaijan (an end to the Armenian occupation), and Xinjiang in China (independence or at least meaningful autonomy).”
But this IF Muslim is being modest here. He also knows that many Muslims demand that US troops withdraw from Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on. Not only that. Many Muslims, perhaps also many IF Muslims, also want to reclaim Spain for Islam, as well as southern France, southern Philippines (or all of it), southern Thailand (or all of it), the Central Asian (Russian) republics, states and areas in south-eastern Europe and so on.
What now of the Muslim areas, ghettoes, or 'enclaves' of Europe and other areas? What about Malmo, Sparkbrook in Birmingham, large areas of Paris, Manningham in Bradford, Muslim ghettoes in Holland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and so on?
This IF Muslim himself casts the net of Islam far and wide. He says that
“captive Muslim nations can still be found in parts of Russia, China, the Philippines, Africa, and Europe.”
That's one hell of a list considering that this Muslim has left out many areas - for reasons of interfaith taqiyya and the affectation of controlled/limited demands.
In addition, is it the case that Muslims are automatically or really 'captive' if they live under non-Muslim rule or if they live in a non-Muslim nation? He is clearly speaking here of the 'captive Muslims' in the central Asian (former Soviet) republics. In that case, these Muslims live in states with very sizeable non-Muslim populations, such as the Armenians in Azerbaijan. What about about the African Muslims in Nigeria – they are only around half of the population of that country. The Muslims in the southern Philippines and China are tiny populations in their native countries. Does that mean that in every place that there is a Muslim minority that this minority, being Muslim, must automatically have its own state?
One of the worst examples this IF Muslim gives of Muslim demands – otherwise it's jihad time! - is the Sudan. He said, before the southern state was created recently, that the animists and Christians of that region are indulging in a 'foreign-backed southern rebellion'. This clearly means that as a Muslim supporter of Islamic Sudan, he didn't believe that the southern Sudanese Christians and animists deserved their own state (which they got in 2011), which is precisely what he thinks 'captive Muslims' deserve when they suffer from the same fate as the southern Sudanese Christians and animists under Muslim control. There is clear Muslim bias and hypocrisy here. Or, if not, that must only be because he thinks that Muslims are superior to animists and Christians and thus they, unlike the latter, deserve their own state. Not only that. If you read between the lines of his prose, it is also clear that this IF Muslim is not critical of the obscene and terribly violent actions carried out by the Janjaweed and the Sudanese Islamic state against these Christians and animists. This has been a conflict which had resulted in over two millions deaths (at the IF Muslim's time of writing – 2005) and yet this IF Muslim is only critical of the 'foreign-backed southern rebellion'.
What Muslims Want
The same IF Muslim gives a four-point list of what Muslims are ‘looking for’ which does not mention specific countries or ‘captive Muslims’. Instead these demands – for that’s what they are! – are far more far-reaching, absolute and almost unconscionably demanding. He writes:
“In summary, Muslims are looking for
- Redress for all the wrongs done against [Muslims] by outsiders.
- The right to revive Islamic civilisation without interference from the West.
- The unification of all Muslim territories into one federally organised Islamic caliphate.
- The replacement of antireligious ruling elites with sincere Muslims who will rule according to the Shari’ah.”
This is an unbelievable list. What it demands, in total, quite literally blows the mind! And yet this kind of Freudian slip on an IF Muslim’s part really does let various cats out of the bag when it comes to the demands and desires of even drippy IF Muslims. This IF Muslim wants all ‘wrongs’ against Muslims righted. He wants an ‘Islamic civilisation’. He wants an Islamic caliphate (which other IF Muslims often tell us is only demanded by ‘extreme’ Muslims or Islamists). In the end, he wants Islamic rule over all Muslim lands – he want Sharia law.
So let’s take each demand individually.
The first demand:
“Redress for all the wrongs done against [Muslims] by outsiders.”
Does this mean that during centuries of vast Islamic power and mass Islamic slavery, the only wrongs which were done were done to Muslims? History teaches us otherwise.
In addition, were the ‘outsiders’ always in the wrong (by definition)? What if the outsiders were reacting to the Muslim invasions of their countries during the many Islamic empires? And could wrongs be done to Muslims by non-Muslim insiders too? Of course they could! The very fact that these insiders were dhimmis, or kuffar, or infidels, or unbelievers, guarantees that.
The second demand:
“The right to revive Islamic civilisation without interference from the West.”
Islamic civilisation? The problem is that Islamic civilisation always came along with Islamic empire and Islamic power. And you don’t hear IF Muslims speak that openly about bringing about new Islamic empires do you? Not at interfaith meetings anyway.
What if a revived Islamic civilisation, or empire, by its very nature affects the West in a whole host of negative ways? Is the West still not allowed to ‘interfere’ in the Islamic empire? More to the point. What if this new Islamic ‘civilisation’, or empire, invades a part of the West, as past Islamic empires have often done? Do we still have no right of ‘interference’ when Muslim soldiers, jihadists, occupy our lands?
The third demand:
“The unification of all Muslim territories into one federally organised Islamic caliphate.”
What happens when various ‘territories’, or states, are ‘unified’? They become part of an empire in many cases. Yet this IF Muslim consciously refrains from using the word ‘empire’ and sticks to ‘civilisation’ and ‘federal organisation’ instead. I mean, what would IF Christians and Jews say about all this?
As I said earlier, I thought that only Islamists and ‘extreme Muslims’ propagandised for an ‘Islamic caliphate’ encompassing states spread all over the world. Yet here this IF Muslim lets it all hang out even if he doesn’t use the words ‘Islamic empire’ together. Still, he does talk about a (global?) caliphate. That will do for now but what do his Christian interfaith friends know – or think - about all this?
The fourth and final demand:
“The replacement of antireligious ruling elites with sincere Muslims who will rule according to the Shari’ah.”
You wonder if this IF Muslim also means non-religious elites by anti-religious elites. Do Muslims like this ever make such a distinction?
Why can’t any Muslim elite rule without the imposition of Sharia law anyway? They can, I suppose, but as in Pakistan and elsewhere, this IF Muslim would not be happy with mere Muslim rule. He wants an Islamic state which will enforce Sharia law. Simple as that. Need we ask what will happen to non-Muslims in such a state? Will there still be interfaith meetings between IF Muslims, like this writer, and IF non-Muslims when the Muslims have the power and the demographics and non-Muslims are mere dhimmis (according to Sharia)? Or maybe all along interfaith was simply a means to further Islam and hoodwink the kuffar interfaithers.