Customer Reviews

Islamikaze: Manifestations of Islamic Martyrology

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

In FrontPageMag, Andrew Bostom's review of this book explains the weird title:
"At the end of June 1996, an article which had originally appeared in the London Arabic publication Al-Watan al-Arabi, was translated into English and cited by Ha'aretz, describing a slogan proudly displayed at the main entrance to a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, which became known as the 'Kamikaze Barracks'. The proclamation was: 'Jihad-Istishhad-Paradise-Islamic Kamikaze-Human Bombs', meaning, 'The Holy War of Islam-Death in Martyrdom-The Promised Hereafter-By Means of Muslim Kamikaze-who are Human Bombs'. This banner captures the essential elements embodied by Raphael Israeli's designation, 'Islamikaze'. . . .

To understand why it's important to read this book you just have to know what jihad is. Here is the definition by Robert Spencer, author of Onward Muslim Soldiers:
Jihad is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by radical Muslims today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.
Bostom goes on to say:
"Islamikaze is an uncompromising, and meticulously documented work. The author first traces the development and largely unchallenged proliferation of Islamikaze to two unique Islamic institutions - jihad war, and its corollary institution dhimmitude. He summarizes elegantly the salient features of Bat Ye'or's conception of dhimmitude as, ' ...not only a subservient status...in political, social, economic, and judicial terms, conferred on Jews and Christians...from which they could not disengage unless they converted to Islam, but it also became a state of mind..which dictated caution, surreptitious maneuvering in order to survive and a self-humiliating sycophancy towards the Muslim ruler in the hope of gaining his favor...[amounting] in the final analysis, after many centuries of oppression and contempt by the rule of Islam, to self-diminution of the dhimmis...self-flagellation...and a total distortion of their self-image and the image of their oppressors. So much so that many Christians and Jews, years after being liberated from dhimmitude continued to think and act as dhimmis, namely to hold themselves grateful to their Muslim masters who beat, humiliated and mistreated them. What is more , the spirit of dhimmitude has been adopted, or taken over, by many Western societies today which for reasons hard to understand or explain, pretend not to hear or comprehend Muslim threats, smile and evince `understanding' in the face of those threats, and seem to be marching foolishly towards spiritual and cultural capitulation and enslavement.'"

"Israeli also maintains that a widespread societal dhimmitude renders the West susceptible to wanton acts of terror by Muslim perpetrators, sanctioned by jihad - an institution Islamic societies have never abrogated. And, he notes, it '...remains only a question of practicability whether [jihad] is enforced or postponed to better days.'

"The specific ideology and basic goals of Islamikaze can be gleaned from various Islamist writings presented by the author, including those of the prominent Muslim Brotherhood cleric (and Al-Jazeera 'television personality') Yusuf Qaradawi, and Umar al-Bakri, leader of the Islamic Movement in Britain. In various fatwas, Qaradawi sanctions 'martyrdom operations', murderous Islamikaze attacks, particularly against Israelis, all of whom are considered legitimate targets. Despite the Qur'anic prohibition against 'suicide', Qaradawi argues cogently, that Islamikaze attacks, as acts of 'martyrdom', are sanctioned, and in fact, sacred. . . . "

We need to be aware of where these fundamentalist radicals are coming from and what their intentions are because they seek to affect all our lives in some very deep ways. The Muslim invasions of Europe which were only halted at Vienna in 1643 were a jihad and this "War on Terror" is really a defense against jihad.

Israeli also gives some specific recommendations as to how western civilization should go about defending itself without riding roughshod over other civilizations.

Is terrorism a possible threat to society? Of course. Right now, we're seeing some carefully organized terrorism from Muslim fanatics. Raphael Israeli explains the nature of it and has some recommendations.

I find this topic interesting, given that I feel that there is plenty at stake. The United States and Europe are Western democracies that are relatively free and rich. We have plenty of strength as well as plenty we can lose. The Arabs have a huge amount of land and resources, so they have plenty to lose as well. By the way, Israel is small and has rather little land or resources, so it has less at stake, but it is threatened as well.

The author chooses the term "Islamikaze" rather than "suicide bomber." He explains that suicidal people plan to take their own lives and carry out their own plans to do that. On the contrary, Islamikazes follow the plans of others to kill a perceived enemy. In any case, I see their actions as manifestly counterproductive and therefore I think they merit serious study.

Israeli starts by sampling Muslim reactions to the horrors of 9/11/2001. These reactions are clearly a cause for concern. The author is suspicious of the long-term loyalty of Muslim immigrants to Western nations. While I am not quite so concerned about loyalty of Muslims in general, I do think we need to separate the sheep from the goats here. I take sedition seriously. And the author does demonstrate that there is a serious cultural intent on the part of many Muslims not to cooperate with the West but to wreck it.

Reading this book, I could see from the wild misrepresentations of the West and of Zionism that the Enemy of Islamist fantasies is very different than real-life Westerners and Zionists. That is not a good sign. Now, what about our views of the terrorists? Do they really seek to impose an arbitrary tyranny on everyone? Israeli shows that for the most part, that's exactly their plan.

Israeli shows that just as the Germans used extravagant libels, incitement, and aggression against the Jews to start their attacks on their neighbors, Muslim fanatics are using libels, incitement, and aggression against Jews to start similar attacks on the West. I can see that support for such libels and incitement have become a litmus test of sorts for some terrorist sympathizers. But Israeli turns that litmus test around, quite properly in my opinion. He shows that once we refuse to support the antizionist libels and taunts, we've taken a decisive step towards opposing the Islamikazes.

Well, what is to be done about the Islamikaze attacks on the West? The author recommends truth and reciprocity. His specific recommendations include:

* Forming an alliance of Western and Democratic States (AWADS)
* Having AWADS adopt an iron-clad definition of terror
* Importing books and culture to the West from Muslim nations only to the extent that these nations allow free flow of similar Western assets into their lands
* Forbidding by law the dissemination of hate and acting upon that law
* Accepting support from Saudi Arabia in building mosques in the West only if there is parallel permission from Saudi Arabia to build churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia without incitement or hatred there
* Stopping transfer of military supplies from AWADS nations to non-AWADS nations
* Basing economic aid to non-AWADS states on human rights in those states
* Controlling immigration of anti-Western immigrants to non-AWADS states

Do these ideas sound politically incorrect or extreme? Well, so does a big war! I think these are ideas we need to consider now, when we have a chance to reflect on them somewhat dispassionately.