Jihad: When Elections Fail


Pages: 1 2

The Obama administration supports “democracy” and “self determination” in the Middle East—two euphemisms that, in the real world, refer to “mob-rule” and “Islamic radicalization,” respectively.  Yet, as Jimmy Carter recently put it: “I don’t have any problem with that [an “Islamist victory” in Egypt], and the U.S. government doesn’t have any problem with that either. We want the will of the Egyptian people to be expressed.”

Sounds fair enough.  The problem, however, is that Muslim clerics openly and unequivocally characterize democracy and elections as tools to be discarded once they empower Sharia law.  Thus Dr. Talat Zahran holds that it is “obligatory to cheat at elections—a beautiful thing”; and Sheikh Abdel Shahat insists that democracy is not merely forbidden in Islam, but kufr—a great and terrible sin—this even as he competed in Egypt’s elections.

The Obama administration can overlook such election-exploitation because the majority of Muslims are either indifferent or willing to go along with the gag—with only a minority (secularists, Copts, etc.) in Egypt actually objecting to how elections are being used to empower Sharia-enforcing Muslims.

But what if Muslims do not win elections? What if there are equal amounts of non-Muslims voting—and an “infidel” wins? What then?  Then we get situations like Nigeria.

While many are aware that Boko Haram and other Islamic elements are waging jihad against the government of Nigeria, specificallytargeting Christians, often overlooked is that the jihad was provoked into full-blown activity because a Christian won fair elections (Nigeria is about evenly split between Christians and Muslims).

According to Peter Run, writing back in April 2011

The current wave of riots was triggered by the Independent National Election Commission’s (INEC) announcement on Monday [April 18, 2011] that the incumbent President, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, won in the initial round of ballot counts. That there were riots in the largely Muslim inhabited northern states where the defeat of the Muslim candidate Muhammadu Buhari was intolerable, [but] was unsurprising.  Northerners [Muslims] felt they were entitled to the presidency for the declared winner, President Jonathan, [who] assumed leadership after the Muslim president, Umaru Yar’Adua died in office last year and radical groups in the north [Boko Haram] had seen his ascent [Christian president] as a temporary matter to be corrected at this year’s election. Now they are angry despite experts and observers concurring that this is the fairest and most independent election in recent Nigerian history.

Note some key words: Muslims felt “entitled” to the presidency and seek to “correct” the fact that a Christian won elections—which they assumed “a temporary matter.”

Pages: 1 2

  • PhillipGaley

    As saddled with Islam, I for one, see no scenario in which the world of Man can move forward in evolving standards of decency, nor also, into the great achievements which appear before us.

    Also—as is to be seen in the honor killing trial in Canada—if but for preservation of innocent life and much needed reduction in barbarism, simple conquest might well be employed to the greatest beneficial effect, . . .

  • ObamaYoMoma

    “Islamic radicalization,”

    The existence of “Islamic radicalization” is a false PC multicultural myth of the kind that led to the two largest strategic blunders ever in American history in Iraq and Afghanistan. It implies that the normal state of affairs in Islam is moderate, when the reality is MAINSTREAM ORTHODOX ISLAM or the normal state of affairs in Islam, is Islam is at war with all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world and is currently waging a covert global jihad to bring all non-Muslim unbelievers in the world under the suzerainty of Sharia, as that is the fundamental sole mission and main goal of Islam.

    Yet the same jihadi intent would be there, only dormant. Like Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—whose ultimate goal is “mastership of the world”—they would not need to expose themselves via jihad, would be biding their time and consolidating their strength.

    I disagree, they would not need to expose themselves via overt violent jihad and would revert back to their normal state of covert non-violent jihad. As a matter of fact, covert non-violent jihad relative to overt violent jihad is employed by the Islamic world against the un-Islamic world astronomically far more prevalently relative to violent jihad and therefore exponentially constitutes a far greater threat to the continued peace, prosperity, freedom, and security of the un-Islamic world.

    Indeed, non-violent jihad – such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to eventually make Islam supreme – relative to violent jihad – such as the 9/11 jihad attacks – represents a far greater existential threat to the un-Islamic world simply because it manifest today throughout the un-Islamic world completely below the radar and totally unopposed. As Muslims never ever migrate to the West or anywhere else for that matter to assimilate and integrate, but instead to eventually subjugate and dominate via the eventual imposition of Sharia for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme.

    In fact, there is not one single example of a success story anywhere in the world where mass Muslim immigration is occurring and where the vast overwhelming majority of the Muslim immigrants successfully assimilated and integrated in order to matriculate into becoming contributing and productive citizens of their newly adaptive un-Islamic countries.

    As a matter of fact, the longer mass Muslim immigration has been occurring in any given country, the more Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia as fifth columns acting as independent statelets within states there is. As mass Muslim immigration to the West with all of its excess baggage in reality is covert non-violent jihad, i.e., mass Muslim immigration for the purpose of stealth demographic conquest to make Islam supreme. Indeed, if it were not covert non-violent jihad, then we could point to numerous success stories around the world where mass Muslim immigration was a success instead of a fiasco.

    Of course, that will not be necessary: unlike Nigeria, most of Egypt is Muslim; one way or another, “elections” will realize the Islamist agenda.

    Actually, it is the Islamic agenda as opposed to the Islamist agenda. Islamists are scholars that specialize in the study of Islam. However, the word Islamist was hijacked and usurped by leftwing political correct journalists to deny reality and to use to imply that Muslims that are overt about the true agenda of Islam are radicals as opposed to moderates, when the reality is the existence of radicals, extremists, Islamists, and moderates are all non-existent false PC multicultural myths

    The truth is there is only mainstream orthodox Islam and mainstream orthodox Muslims, and all of the many other Western false PC multicultural constructs are idiotic attempts to avoid reality in order to hide and deny the truth. Indeed, it is a collective Western psychosis.

    Furthermore, the context in which the word Islamist is used by political correct journalists implies it is the radical's agenda as opposed to the moderate's agenda, when the reality is both those classifications – radicals and moderates – are false PC multicultural constructs that are used to deny and conceal reality and at the same time prevent people from understanding the true nature of mainstream orthodox Islam, which per the dictates of PC multiculturalism must be avoided at all cost like the plague.

  • AntiSharia

    One man, one vote- once.

  • RoguePatriot6

    The Spoiled Kid and Early Stages of Evil

    Often times, we mistaken peace or lack of violence for victory or positive progression without seeing the underlying fear of what happens when you confront evil. We could use the analogy of a spoiled brat. He's/She's perfectly well behaved until you cross him/her or say "no you can't do this", and then you see them throw a big temper tantrum. The problem with our situation is that we have developed an unspoken fear of it. No one will speak their mind publicly about Islam because they fear retribution from it. Organized crime in it's early stages had a very violent disposition to all who confronted it or informed on the Mafia's activities. Yet, in time, as the Mafia became accepted and part of the system through intimidation and corrupting officials, you started to see a drastic decline in the violence. There was no need for them to use it. They were legitmized by the system and we let it happen. (cont'd)

  • RoguePatriot6

    The same can be said about the clerics and the Islamist leaders. As long as they have their way, they will be civil however if things don't go their way they will launch terror on those who don't want to submitt to Islam. The KKK used the same tactics to intimidate those who didn't vote for officials that promoted their racist agenda.
    In the early stages of a developing insurgency you always have a surge or spike in violence to force their will upon the people and once they have established that then their is no need to do it anymore because you have all the opposition living in fear, a shameful and humiliating path that we have found ourselves traveling in.