Fort Hood Atrocity and the End of Multiculturalism
by D.L. Adams
In the aftermath of the jihad mass murder at Fort Hood it does seem that we prefer a world that matches our concepts of how the world ought to be rather than accepting the reality of a world that is far less attractive than our fantasies of it.
If 9/11, the recent aborted terror attacks of 9/25, and now the horror at Fort Hood are direct results of obligations and commands found in Islamic doctrine, then our multicultural desires about the world are destroyed.
Multicultural fantasies in which everyone can get along if everyone tries are deeply attractive to Europeans and Americans and even Israelis tired of war.
The unspoken foundation of multiculturalism is that everyone wants wants to get along. It is upon this discredited concept that the denial of the reality of jihad war against us and the supremacist and hostile ideology from which it comes resides.
If everyone does not want to get along, if Islam is a supremacist ideology that commands its adherents to fight against the unbeliever forever until the world is under Islam and Sharia law – multiculturalism is a failed concept and must be discarded.
If multiculturalism is discarded because it is now shown, through study of Islamic doctrine and observation of the actions of the adherents of this doctrine at home and abroad, the world (for many) is suddenly a very profoundly negative place.
The denial of the truth of the threat of Islam and its adherents, even after 9/11 and the Fort Hood atrocities, is founded upon the almost desperate reluctance to let the foundational concepts of multiculturalism go. We are addicted to a bright and upbeat conception of humanity, possibilities, and essential human goodness. This addiction is like an over-sugared drink or halucinagenic to many of us, we have to have it we simply do not want to let it go.
Every event of Islamic jihad is described by the perpetrator in an Islamic doctrinal context, yet we continue the facade (and entirely discredited idea) that there is no linkage between acts of violence by the followers of the so-called “religion of peace” and its doctrine. Many Americans suggest that jihadists “misunderstand” their doctrine while failing to acknowledge that jihad is on obligation for every Muslim. Jihad is the central concept of Koran.
“Fighting in Allah’s cause” (jihad) is mentioned almost 150 times in Koran.
The importance to Islam of fighting against the unbeliever (jihad) is reflected in Sharia law where killing of non-Muslims by a Muslim does not result in “retaliation” from the Islamic state. In addition, there is also “no retaliation” when an adherent of the “religion of peace” kills his own children, or his children’s children.
We saw this most recently in Phoenix when a father ran over his own daughter and her friend for being “too western”. The daughter died two weeks later. The father is now in custody. The ties of Islam and an adherent’s obligation to the “umma” (the worldwide Islamic “community”) override family associations, loyalty to any legal system or country other than Islam, and friendships.
Why is an ideology that negates the parent/child relationship considered a “good” or “tolerant” ideology by any westerner? The killing of children by parents, allowed and excused in Sharia law, is reprehensible and evil and cannot be supported by people anywhere who love humanity and justice.
Multiculturalists embrace the idea of cultural equivalence; all cultures are inherently equal and any differences are essentially local and the business of that culture alone. This is actually a legitimized
form of moral relativism in which nothing is better than anything else and the
idea of right/wrong is nullified; ethical and moral concepts are equivalent and merely culturally-driven differences of opinion.
When everything is equivalent, nothing has greater value or meaning than anything else. This means that there is no inherent essential value, truth, goodness or foundation upon which right/wrong (good/bad, better/worse) can be constructed. This de-valuation of value itself is nihilism. Multiculturalism is nihilism. Few in our culture would actively support a nihilistic view of the world, but so many embrace multiculturalism (perhaps without knowing what it truly means).
Our national embrace of multiculturalism means that we have abandoned our moral or ethical standards because (in the multiculturalist conception of the world) all standards are equivalent. This is a national failure.
Our national foundational concepts are fundamentally about standards that all Americans are supposed to agree upon. These standards are delineated clearly in our founding documents: Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence. It had, until recently, been assumed that all immigrants to our shores would embrace these standards upon arrival here and that affection for these standards were the reason that new-comers come here in the first place – to live in a society founded upon standards of freedom, tolerance, equality, and justice.
The Islamic calendar does not begin with Mohammed’s “revelations” from Allah via the “Angel Gabriel” rather it
begins when Mohammed immigrates to Medina from Mecca. This was 13 years after Mohammed’s unsuccessful career as a preacher in Mecca.
From Medina, Mohammed became a warlord, conquering Medina itself then spreading Islam by the sword across Arabia then further. The Islamic calendar begins not with religion (revelations from Allah) but politics; Islam is a political ideology hostile to western civilization.
Allah and Mohammed are clear in the doctrine of Islam;
Islam does not arrive in non-Islamic countries to assimilate but conquer. This is jihad.
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. Koran, 4:76
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah ’s Apostle said, ” I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ and whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah,’ his life and property will be saved by me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah, (either to punish him or to forgive him.)” Bukhari, Hadith, 4:52:196
O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. Koran, 5:51
“What is to be done” is the call heard across the country in the aftermath of 9/11 and Fort Hood. There are several things that must be done, we must educated the people, our leaders, and our legislators about the doctrine of Islam. We must put these and all jihad attacks in a doctrinal context just as the jihadists do. We must accept that we are at war, though we hate war and prefer peace. We must ban Sharia law and all of its components.
Then, we must re-embrace our standards. We must get to a point quickly where we can state definitively as a country that hostile ideologies and those who adhere to them will not be welcome here.
We must return to our foundational documents and the concepts of freedom and liberty that they espouse; these documents have always been our guide but we have forgotten this. It is time to reembrace our heritage.
Our Constitution is the law of the land, and no other law can supercede it (Article 6:2). As Sharia law states that it must be the law of the land and its details are in direct opposition to those of the Constitution it must be banned.
Our founders built into the Constitution mechanisms by which we can defend the country; all the tools are available to us to defend ourselves; we simply fail to acknowledge the threat.
After 9/11 and now Fort Hood we are beginning, as a society, to accept that we are a society under threat. We will soon come to a point at which we can say, like Sir Charles Napier did in India when he came upon a “sati” in India, that certain things and certain concepts are simply – wrong.
“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
“Sati” is the now illegal Hindu tradition in India that widows must throw
themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre. Napier responded correctly and his quote is now fundamentally important in understanding the rejection of relativism and the acceptance of a world in which good and evil are active, and in which right and wrong can be identified.
Napier was no cultural relativist, nor was he a multiculturalist.
We can no longer afford multiculturalism’s essential lies and false intellectually empty concepts about humanity and the world in which we live. Multiculturalism is destroyed, we just haven’t acknowledged the fact.
Read with links and pictures here:
http://sioanetwork.com/?p=498
Linear Mode
