Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Ahoy there, Pilgrim...


There's a text of Islamic law that over the years has become increasingly well known in the Counter-Jihad (and, one hopes, someday outside our beleaguered microcosm), whose title is translated as "Reliance of the Traveler".  A good introduction to it and its significance to the Counter-Jihad can be read in an article posted by Dymphna at the Gates of Vienna blog.  (The problems of its English translation may be gleaned in a couple of comments I posted at the blog, here and here.)

‘Umdat as-Salik wa ‘Uddat an-Nasik is the full Arabic title, at the very least indicating that “Reliance of the Traveler” is an incomplete rendering -- making it sound like some kind of cool spiritual guide from the 60s (and still lugged around in one’s New Age totebag to interfaith comparative religions conferences) in a Penguin paperback one would have alongside Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Alan Watts’ Psychotherapy East and West, Krishnamurti’s Total Freedom: Reflections of the Self, Thomas Merton’s The Seven-Storey Mountain, Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha, J.D. Salinger’s Franny and Zooey, and a dog-eared copy of e.e. cummings).

Sub-titled "A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law" it is an authoritative summary of Sharia law certified by the prestigious Islamic university in Cairo, al-Azhar.

Back to its original Arabic title.  I’m guessing Salik is the word translated as “Traveler”.  I think the term may be more centrally, even officially, relevant to Islamic Jihad -- particularly that one type of Jihad we have come to know all too well, the “Jihad of the Feet” (or Immigration).

Thus, the “Traveler” of that title may well refer to the Muslim migrations, which have been going on for 1,400 years (dramatically, alarmingly spiking this year and showing no signs of abating), migrations joined at the hip with its supremacist expansionism (whether by hook (violence) or by crook (stealth) -- or both, as in our time).

I.e., in Islam, a Muslim be definition is a pilgrim immigrant in the never-ending desideratum to conquer the world -- for there is always more Lebensraum for the Muslim to expand into in order to restore the earth to Allah’s control. This would not be the pilgrimage of the Christian “Pilgrim’s Progress” -- ultimately an interior journey -- but one intimately interlocked with the militant, supremacist expansionism of Islam.

Meanwhile, any Muslims who seem stationary and settled (no longer on the move, seemingly “assimilated”) are such by virtue of having been (or their parents or grandparents having been) part of the broader, grander process of expansion -- an expansion that in former centuries (before the 20th) was kept at a small trickle largely because the West's mainstream hadn’t yet succumbed to that strange mass neurosis which afflicts us in our own time called Politically Correct Multi-Culturalism).

Aren’t all peoples throughout history like this, the reader may ask? Don’t all peoples move around a lot?  I mean, look at American history, from the century before its founding, with all those trans-Atlantic migrations, and after, with all that cross-continental expansion... Sure, all peoples throughout history have been migratory to one degree or another, and all “lands” and “nations” and “states” (and “kingdoms” and “empires” etc.) reflect the relatively stationary settlement in that process, to one degree or another in the long view of history always in flux. However, only Muslims have had an existential blueprint articulating and mandating an entelechy of world conquest in the name and context of a fanatical eschatology which also includes supremacism, hatred of the Other, and a psychopathic cult of violence (criminal, paramilitary, and military) complemented by a strategy of deceit when surrounded by enemies perceived as stronger.


A crucial corollary to my essay here is the historical fact that the Muslim migrations over the centuries prior to the 20th century never involved any significant penetration into the West.  The main reason for this seems to be that for the most part, Islam was openly, honestly inimical to the West, trying to conquer us through frank (not to mention often terrifyingly savage) military and para-military attacks.  This, coupled with the other important fact that the West, prior to the 20th century, was not crippled by a mainstream dominance of a cultural paradigm (PC MC) that renders it myopic to the dangers of Muslims pursuing their Islam, would explain the remarkable lack of Muslim penetration in former times.  (A third fact was the nadir of corruption and dislocation into which the Muslim world had sunk by the 19th century, partially explained by the radical restructuring of their sociopolitical configurations by the various Western colonial powers which had ascended so spectularly into global superiority on all levels -- and also consequent upon the effects of Islam’s inability to parasitically support itself any longer on the backs of dhimmi populations it had conquered in former times since they had long since dwindled in size & cultural health due to a combination conversion to Islam to avoid the hell-on-earth of living under Islamic subjugation; being periodically massacred by Muslims; and the inability to sustain a thriving culture due to the devastating consequences, over time, of the institutional & cultural hatred that governed the relationship of Muslims to them.) 

Further Reading:

Hijra in reverse?

1 comment:

Egghead said...

Conquerors have ALWAYS been brutal, BUT it is the sinful way that Muslims treat each other that differentiates Muslims from other peoples....

It is Islam as enlivened by Muslims that is the problem....