Freedom, Liberty and Jihadism

By Noel Gibeson
March 23, 2007

Oftentimes in life we are confronted with difficult choices; choices between good and evil, or between evil and greater evil. However, the choice between evil and greater evil may be the time when we may be most challenged, most tried.

In confronting the evil of Jihadism, we are confronted by evil at its worst. To believe otherwise would be naïve. But there are those who would say just that; that we are more evil than the Jihadists. Those are the 'appeasers' and they are scary and dangerous people. In western democracies they can be found on the Left.

These photographs were taken at the 'Religion of Peace' (or Islamic) demonstration on February 6, 2006 outside the Danish Embassy in London, England. The word 'islam' derives from the Arabic root, sin-lam-mim, which carries the basic meaning of safety and peace. This demonstration was the result of a Danish newspaper publishing a cartoon of Mohammed that Muslims found offensive. During this period Muslims murdered a number of people in different parts of the world because of the cartoon, including a Catholic priest.



In the United States and elsewhere in the Western world, we value our freedom, including the right of free speech. We realize that sometimes, perhaps even oftentimes, someone's right to free speech may trample on values that another person holds dear. For example, in the U.S. sometimes protesters will burn an American flag as part of their protest. Other people find this offensive; I know I certainly do as a former career U.S. Marine Corps officer.

However, I would fight to protect their right of free expression.

I would never support any legislation or restriction on those protestors' right to freely express themselves. Though I may not like them burning an American flag, I will fight for their right to do just that. Their right to free expression should not be impeded. People from other cultures may find this curious. That is because they do not understand freedom and the lengths that many will go to ensure that freedom is protected.



While some cultures are more tolerant than others; other cultures enforce strict conformity. The Jihadist mindset is that the world is corrupt and that it is up to them to fix it; to restore it to its past glory and ensure the domination of Islam over all other religions and cultures. There is no room for negotiation.



Mohammed (570–632 A.D.) was not the founder of a new religion, but rather was one of a line of prophets. However, he is highly revered in Islam because he restored that religion to its original glory by destroying non-purists and other apostates. The Jihadists have this same belief; that Islam has become corrupt and that they, the Jihadists, have been chosen to restore Islam to its past glory. Thus, the historic caliphates that ended with the Ottoman caliphate in 1924 must be replaced by a newer, better one. The new caliphate will first dominate the Middle East, then the entire world. Non-believers will either be converted to Islam or beheaded, there is no middle ground. Osama bin Laden wants this caliphate headquartered in Baghdad. Other Jihadis have other locations in mind.



We, in the West have been relatively tolerant of those from other religions and cultures. For the most part, they have been welcomed as long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others in a western democracy. Overall, this has worked fairly well, if not perfectly.



However, what western democracies are finding more and more these days is that the welcome and freedoms extended to Muslim immigrants are met, instead, with hostility and derision. Although they may come from a culture with no freedom, they come to western democracy and want to change that new culture to reflect their values instead of adapting and changing to embrace their new country and its culture.

They also use our rights against us by claiming that they are being discriminated against to advance their own agenda of promoting Islam.

At this point it is time for my normal disclaimer: this does not apply to all Muslims, many of whom are fine individuals. I am only speaking about the Jihadists or Islamists that comprise perhaps five percent or less of all Muslims. Mainstream Muslims comprise at least the other 95%.

However, what has been sorely lacking in the dialog to date by mainstream Muslims living in the West has been their lack of condemnation for the violent acts of Jihadists. That only makes them suspect. If they are to be accepted as regular members of society (non-Jihadists) then they must speak up and condemn the violent acts of the extremists.



Our tolerance of the religious freedom of others must not be construed as tolerance at any cost, to include relinquishing our own freedom. It must not be all one-way either; there has to be some give–and-take with new immigrants, not surrender to them. They must adapt to us, not the other way around. Surrender is to be avoided at all costs. They are welcome to join us in freedom and liberty.

Otherwise they can go back home to where they came from.

Oh, one more thing. Did anyone see these photographs in the U.S. mainstream media (MSM)? I thought not. Why not? It makes you wonder doesn't it?