Tsarizm
Opinion

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: Sadiq And Usman Khan Are Soldiers In The Same Army – The Army Of Islam

Like all successful national liberation movements, Islam has both political and military wings as the story of the two Khan’s illustrates

Mr. Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London and a soldier for the Ummah
Image by
Shayan Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn

Sadiq Khan is the mayor of London. Usman Khan is a convicted terrorist, who once released on parole, proceeded to attack people in a meeting of paroled prisoners, a meeting to which, being one, he was invited. Usman was a typical Al-Qaeda foot soldier. He and his mates were planning to bomb the London Stock Exchange, a few synagogues, the homes of a few British rabbis, and the home of the the ex-mayor of London, now prime minister, Boris Johnson.

This target list is unsurprising because it represents Islam’s enemy, the West. Since Usman and his buddies are soldiers of Islam, they wished to fight against their enemy. It was and is their job, their raison d’etre, their very reason for existing. The fact that they were discovered and imprisoned simply put their plans on hold, nothing more.

The current mayor of London, Mr. Sadiq Khan and Mr. Usman Khan, recently killed in battle with the London police, share not only their last names, their religion, and their ethnic origin; they share their political allegiance to the Ummah, the nation of Islam and their place of employment: the Ummah’s army.

Every movement of national independence or revival from the American Patriots of late 18th century to the Zionists of the mid-20th century contains within itself several functions. There is the political leadership and there is the military wing. The Islamic revival movement of the late 20th century, which is still very much alive today is no different. It also has political leaders who never take up arms, who conduct their business in suits and ties, as well as the military arm with its own hierarchy. In the tale of the two Khan’s, the differences between them are only ones of rank and the branch of service. Sadiq is one of the leaders of the political wing, while Usman was a simple soldier in the military wing. Sadiq is Ben Franklin while Usman is one of the soldiers who was killed in the Battle of Bunker Hill.

I know the comparison rattles because Franklin and the nameless soldier fought in the cause of freedom while the Khans fight in the cause of oppression, but that is simply our partisan interpretation, nothing more. Speaking of partisanship, all movements require a cause and an enemy to the cause. The Irish wanted independence from Britain and fought against her and the Protestant settlers it had placed on their Island. American Patriots wanted independence from British rule, so they fought against those, including their own brothers, who wanted to uphold it. Zionists wanted an independent Jewish state in the Holy Land, so they fought against those who opposed it: before 1948 the British and the Arabs, later only the Arabs.

The Battle of Gaza 312 BCE

The Islamic national revival movement seeks to reestablish the primacy of the Islamic Nation, the Ummah, also known as the Caliphate, over the lands where it had once ruled, but not only there. Islam is an expansionist movement that constantly seeks to conquer new lands and make new converts. It is simply what it is. Since that is the goal of Islam, it fights those who oppose it. There are several entities that are doing just that. In Asia, Islam is opposed by Israel, Burma (Myanmar), India, and China. In Europe, it is opposed by Russia and Eastern European countries. In Northern Africa it is unopposed and in Sub-Saharan Africa the pickings are slim. South America is now being infiltrated, but it is far from Islam’s natural hunting grounds.

This leaves the so-called West, the United States and Western Europe. The West is a unique target of opportunity because of its unparalleled riches and because its liberal ideology and soft citizenry most of which is unfit to fight present an easy target for conquest. To further clarify this point, consider that not one, but two foot soldiers of Islam were killed in the line of duty yesterday. Usman Khan got all the publicity of course, being shot at point blank range by the armed response team of the London police right on London Bridge, but 16-year old Fahed Al-Astal was right there with him when he was shot and killed by the IDF trying to breach the border fence between Gaza and Israel. 

Usman spoke Urdu and English. Fahed spoke Arabic. They never met and they spent their lives thousands of miles apart, but they fought in the same army and gave their lives to the same cause. The only difference was the enemy they encountered. The British welcomed Usman (or his parents) into their country and even when he was proven to be an enemy combatant they did not eliminate him. Rather, they released him on parole after he served only half of his sentence. Israelis shot Fahed on sight as soon as he approached the Israeli border. 

The Chinese and the Burmese see their own Muslim minorities as enemy combatants and they treat them as such. The Hindu Indians, exactly like the Jewish Israelis, know that their very sizable Muslim minority only behaves itself because it full well knows what the alternative would be. The Japanese simply do not allow Muslims in their country. 

Hand to hand fighting between British sailors and Algerian pirates

The West does the opposite. In America and in Western Europe the armies of Islam, especially their political wings are made to feel at home, are elected to the highest echelons of elected office, and are given preferential treatment for hiring into the civil service. 

The libertine, liberal ideology of the West has been successful beyond any other because its arms, to paraphrase the Quebecois national anthem, carried in them the twin shields of the cross and the sword. The West was successful because it was both fiercely nationalistic and devoutly religious. Western Europe has now put down both the sword and the cross. America yet holds on to the sword, but only just. 

The West is, at its core, a simple idea. It is the idea of a nation that is built from empowered, powerful, and free individuals who are informed by their devotion to a higher Being from Whom they receive spiritual and moral guidance. Acting in accordance with this guidance, they form stable families, which in turn become communities that coalesce into nations. Nationalism, religion, and individual freedom are the three cornerstones of Western civilization and they are all, let’s face it, gone now. This is why the lands of the West are falling prey to Islam. They have betrayed their own founding principles and made themselves as defenseles as babes in arms.

But the West is an idea, not a geography and it has migrated before. From Greece to Italy to the rest of Western Europe and across the Atlantic to North America. Today, the West is finding refuge in parts of Eastern Europe, in Israel, and possibly in parts of the United States. As often happens just before the final collapse, the West appears at the peak of its temporal power, but its ideological bankruptcy is a fait accompli. As churches stand empty, children are considered nothing but a financial drain, and nationality is reduced to a piece of paper, the West as it is today, where it is today, is finished. A new West will arise. Let’s work to give it a proper welcome. 

Related articles

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: The Age of UnReason

Baruch Pletner,PhD,MBA

Bad Responses To Pittsburg Massacre: The Toxic Rhetoric Blaming Israel, US-Israel Relations

Seth Frantzman

The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: Palestinians Are About To Miss Another Opportunity And Israel Must Let Them Do It

1 comment

Avatar
Steven G. December 8, 2019 at 10:33 am

Dear Mr. Pletner, I am supposing you have been to Japan, since you study Japanese on Duolingo. I must disagree with one statement you made in your article. My family and I returned in September from Japan, and there are, indeed, many muslims in Japan, especially in the services industry, and in the restaurant business. Our Hilton bellhop was Bangladeshi, and he directed us to restaurants in the heart of Tokyo the sell kebabs and other M.E. dishes. Of course, we also saw many muslim ‘tourists’ (also assumed) in the usual tourist haunts. Surely they must need, when traveling, what muslims need, and they can find that in Japan. They can’t bring everything with them. So, yes, they do have a foothold, even in homogeneous Japan. I was somewhat shocked to see it myself. Is there a place that globalists and muslims have not attempted to claim?

Reply

Leave a Comment