- A People-Powered Free Press And A Bill of Rights Initiative

Islamic Salafist Is Winning Battles Against Freedom

The West Refuses To Fight An Ideological War


By Bill Collier- The Salafist forces, united on the Shia side around Iran and on the Sunni side by Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia, continue their ongoing war against modern Muslim states and the states in the West, including America and the United Kingdom, with unrelenting fury.  The Islamic Salafist war on freedom is being waged on every continent- it has resulted in numerous (and often misnamed0 acts of terror in the US and elsewhere, and has most recently raised its ugly head in a chocolate shop in Sydney, Asutralia.

Salafism, for those who are not familiar with the term, is a world-conquering pseudo-socialist and authoritarian ideology that utilizes only the earliest writings of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad as the basis for a worldwide revolution, or “Jihad”, against all non-Salafist states. The Salafist the modern Islamic notion of a more moderate and reformed religion in which later writers, or Surahs,  which carry more weight in terms of interpreting Islamic law and doctrine than the earliest writing, This view of an “unfolding revelation” of Islam is the reason why some of the seemingly “bloody” texts of the Koran in its earliest sections are interpreted today by many Muslim scholars as having a more spiritual meaning. For instance, modern “Jihad” is viewed as an inner struggle to become more righteous and pure in the yes of Allah, not as a war against anyone on the outside.

The forces of Salafism, however, are in the ascent, not only in terms of their geopolitical and their propaganda gains, but also among rank and file Muslims, For instance, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hamas and Fatah in the Palestinian territories, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey, and Islamic State (or ISIS) are all Salafist regimes of varuying degrees and of different types.

Among many Muslims around the world, the Salafist version of Islam is in fact gaining in popularity, it is no longer possible to say that “most Muslims do not agree with that” when it comes to Salafist ideology. Even in America, Abu Mujahid Fareed Abdullah of the Islamic Center of Connecticut is a Salafist scholar with a growing following among American Muslims. He was recently hosted at a seminar at The University of Southern California, espousing his Salafist ideology to an Islamist organization on campus that has over 350 members.

As Salafism grows in popularity, there remains no effective ideological response from the West, however Muslim states are beginning to push back and counter with their own ideological response, emphasizing that Salafism is a violation of Muslim teachings and ethics, for instance focusing people to convert or penalizing those who refuse. One Muslim state, the United Arab Emirates is quite vocal in its efforts to present a counter-ideology  and Salafism remains largely unpopular among Muslims who live there.

Salafist gains on the battlefield in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan have humiliated Muslim and Western States, which had portrayed their Salafist foes as on the fringe and on the run. It turns out they are no longer a “fringe” group among most Muslims around the world and they are certainly not “on the run.”

The recent release of a party-line Senate report, pushed by Democrats, attacking the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” and disclosing information some have argued is useful for our enemies and not helpful in any debate regarding these techniques, has provided the Salafists with much propaganda material, especially in view of the fact that the West remains fixated on refusing to deal with Salafism on ideological terms. Some argue that it also provided actionable intelligence for Salafist forces and that it makes foreign governments extremely hesitant to share intelligence with the US in light of these disclosures regarding their prior and top secret collaboration.

During the recent hostage taking in Sydney, Australia, for instance, police refuse to acknowledge the motive of the hostage taker or the terrorist nature of the incident, despite the attacker forcing hostages to display a Salafist flag and demanding an ISIS flag be provided, thus clearly indicating that this was an act of Salafist terrorism.

Even the use of the term “Salafism” and information detailing the clear and undeniable difference between modern Islamic doctrines and Salafism has yet to be presented by most media or governments to the general public. There is no question of waging war on Islam, as such, but the lack of an effort to wage ideological war with Salafism, and the confusion caused by conflating modern Islam and Salafist Islam has caused many to withdraw from even criticizing Salafism for fear of being called “Islamophobic.”

When the American President said that ISIS was not “Islamic” his comments sounded absurd to most observers, after all ISIS calls itself the Islamic State, but his real failure was to not explain WHY one should refrain from calling ISIS “Islamic”: because “Islamic” is a broad term that is used to include both Salafist and non-Salafist Muslims. Not noting thatISIS does have an ideology, Islamic Salafism, obscures the difference between modern Islam and Salafist Islam and it fails to deal with the war against this Salafist aggressor on ideological terms.

Islamic Salafist forces are not united, which is likely a good thing given that, even in their disunited state, they continue to advance militarily, politically, and in their popular appeal to Muslims who are increasingly turning their back on modern Islam and embracing this dangerous ideology. A failure to confront Islamic Salafism head on as an ideology by both undermining its legitimacy claims and presenting a contrary ideology will see the continued advance of this dangerous and violent movement.

The attack in Sydney by an Islamic Salafist is only just the beginning of what is in store for many states, both Muslim and non-Muslim, which refuse to go along with Islamic Salafism but which also refuse to confront it on an ideological level.