The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

Throughout history Muslims (acting as Muslims) have justified and rationalised every single act of Islamic murder and violence as 'defensive'. Indeed Muslims, not long after the death of Muhammad, conquered almost one third of the world 'defensively'. Think here of Hamas blowing up infant schools in Israel 'defensively' because ‘all Israeli children end up in the IDF’ or of the 'defence' that was 9/11. In addition, people must also remember that Hitler invaded both Czechoslovakia and Poland supposedly for defensive reasons. Indeed virtually all acts of aggression in history have been done with the words ‘defence’ coming out of the mouths of the aggressor.

The fits into the general situation in which Muslims use a whole host of words in ways diametrically opposed to .... For example, words like ‘peace’, ‘justice’, ‘truth’, ‘rights’ and so . We should also think in terms of ‘Islamic defence’. And so too with ‘Islamic rights’, ‘Islamic truth’, ‘Islamic peace’, ‘Islamic justice’, etc.
All this has something to do with what Muhammad says in the early parts of the Koran when he was lying about Islamic peace and Islamic interfaith (to use a contemporary word) because he knew that he was weak at the time and therefore he needed to pacify his many stronger enemies. (These ‘peaceful’ passages were all ‘abrogated’ by Muslims anyway; and substituted with more warlike and violent ones.) And  because of Muhammad’s early use of the word ‘defence’ (or the words ‘defensive war’), Muslims , though certainly not all of them, have ever since felt the need to justify their violence and killings in terms of defence. It really is silly and just an example of Muslims going through the motions in their attempt to convince the kuffar that they are not into war for its own sake or, more truthfully and importantly, that they are not attempting to ‘conquer the entire world for Allah’.
There have been well over 30,00 fatal jihadist attacks since 2001 - almost every single one of them will have been classed as 'defensive' by the Muslims who carried them out an also by their many defenders and apologists here in the West. This, again, falls into the pattern in hich Noam Chomsky called 9/11 ‘defensive’ and indeed he does the same about all terrorist outrages both here in the West and even in Muslim countries. In each case, because Muslims are simply children to these racist Leftists, they have no free will or conscience thus each and every time they do something terrible, it’s always a case of the Devil made them do it. That Devil is usually 'capitalism', 'racism', 'Islamophobia', past 'colonialism', present 'imperialism'... anything which takes responsibility away from Muslim children and places it in the laps of white, Western adults.

Even Islamic rape is often deemed to be defensive to many Muslims. Burning down churches is defensive. Confiscating and burning Bibles is defensive. Every act of violence and killing of non-Muslims by Muslims is by Islamic definition defensive to Muslims.

So treat the Islamic word 'defence' semantically (as being without the same meaning in the West - not that Westerners agree on all meanings), just as you should do with Islamic 'peace', 'truth', justice', etc. In all cases, Islamic concepts are often the exact inversion of their Western equivalents. Racist Leftists and Left-Liberals should see this and therefore realise that Muslims-as-Muslims often truly are examples of ‘the Other’ they otherwise wax so lyrically about. They should stop thinking that all Muslims are just like their dinner-party chums in Islington or wherever (who just happen to also have brown skin); that’s when they aren’t treating foreign Muslims as exotics or children.

Tags: 'Defensive, -, By, Jihad', Mean, Murphy, Muslims, Paul, What, by

Views: 113

Replies to This Discussion

The idea of this essay is also illustrated in the The Al Qaeda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim

This book has many essays by Al-Qaeda.  The second part of the book speak of the war with the West in terms of ‘justice’ and foreign policy ‘errors’ by the West; And in terms of ‘defence.’  These essays and press releases are for Western readers in order to frame the argument in terms that they/we would most readily understand and agree with.  These essays portray the attacks by Al-Qaeda as defensive.

The gem of the book is its first half.  These are essays which lay out the existential threat that Al-Qaeda poses to the West and the irreconcilable conflict with the West because of the theology of and teachings of Islam.  These essays are directed to Muslims and are a justification for Al-Qaeda’s activities in terms of Islamic teaching.  They are attempts to recruit Muslims to the war against ALL that is not Islamic and justifies offensive, not just defensive, warfare.

Osama bin Laden: "Battle, animosity, and hatred -- directed from the Muslim to the infidel -- is the foundation of our religion"

Yeh, it' s funny really. It mainly boils down to most - not all - Muslims feeling obliged to by loyal to certain passages in the Koran in which Muhammed talked about 'defensive jihad' (though not necessarily by using those exact words). Because of his early 'peaceful' phase, and in his attempt to justify himself to Christians and Jews, and thereby bringing them on board, he emphasised the defensive nature of his military exploits. All this was before he had the power and Muslim demographics.
And the peaceful stuff was later 'abrogated' anyway. I presume that this is why the Open Jihadists, rather than the Taqiyya Jihadists, don't feel the need to talk about 'defensive jihad' at all. For them, they are open about the necessity of making the entire world Allah's. There in no pretense about defensive jihad. Despite that, even Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden described all their acts in terms of 'defense' against the West, Christians, Jews, Shia, etc. It's the outright Salafists, Wahhabis, etc. who often don't lie about the true nature of jihad.

Kinana said:

 They are attempts to recruit Muslims to the war against ALL that is not Islamic and justifies offensive, not just defensive, warfare.

I think so much depends on who they are speaking to.  And what advantage they think they can glean by the words they use.  But in the Internet age it is hard to stay hidden!  I thought Anjam Choudary was a total honest guy but at the time of the 9-11 attacks he said the terrorists were not acting according to Islamic teachings but latter he called them 'the magnificent 19.'  

oh, who can we believe then?...sigh

See also, how Al Qaeda think, as shown by their own magazine:


Page Monitor

Just fill in the box below on any 4F page to be notified when it changes.

Privacy & Unsubscribe respected

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom from Voter Importation
Immigration is allowed - except where that changes the political demography (this is electoral fraud)
4. SP Freedom from Debt
The Central Bank is allowed to create debt - except where that debt burden can pass across a generation (25 years).

An additional Freedom from Religion is deducible if the law is applied equally to everyone:

  • Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2021   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service