The word 'islam' means submission to the will of allah, and a 'muslim' is someone who has submitted. A "dhimmi" is an inferior Non-muslim coerced to submit.Mohammad divided the world into two parts, those who have submitted and those yet to submit. He called these two parts the House of islam and the House of War, pronounced in Arabic "dar al-islam" and "dar al-harb."
Within 100 years of mohammad's death in A.D. 632, fundamental islamic caliphs, with cavalry armed with scimitar swords, subjugated vast areas of the world: Arabia, Persia, the Holy Land, North Africa, Spain, Southern France, Sicily, Central Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. In the next 1,000 years, muslims subdued Indonesia, Java, Borneo, Sumatra, the Byzantine Empire, the Balkans, Armenia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Moldova, Serbia and regions of China, Tibet, Bengal, Mongolia, India, Russia, Hungary and Poland. In 1529 and 1683, over 100,000 Turkish muslims attacked Vienna, Austria.
'World peace' in the West means peaceful coexistence, 'world peace' in islam means the world submitting to the will of allah and since there is no one theological body governing all of islam, faithful muslims have developed conflicting views. Hence the on going bloodshed in the muslim world.
Fundamental violent muslims think the rest of the world is submitting to allah now and feel it is islam's 'manifest destiny' to make it happen. They would just as soon fight moderate muslims, considering them backsliding from following the example of mohammad and the caliphs. Moderate muslims are hesitant to speak out against fundamental violent muslims, as occasionally one does and they are threatened, intimidated, forced to change their names for protection, have fatwas put on them and even killed.
So there could, in a sense, be three groups of muslims: a minority of fundamental violent ones, a majority of moderate ones who are afraid of the fundamental violent ones, and the courageous dead ones who were not afraid of the fundamental violent ones.
The West may be inadvertently fueling the problem by not understanding that fundamental muslims interpret their 'politeness' as weakness or even submission.
Saudi Arabia was pressured to revise its fundamental textbooks supplied to muslim schools around the world, including the U.S., because they contained intolerance. The Washington Post, May 21, 2006, published excerpts of these textbooks in an article "This is a Saudi textbook (after the intolerance was removed)":
4TH GRADE: "True belief means ... that you hate the polytheists and infidels."
5TH GRADE: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in Allah and His Prophet."
8TH GRADE: "The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus."
9TH GRADE: "It is part of Allah's wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the Hour [of Judgment]."
11TH GRADE: "Do not yield to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect."
One may have to read that last line again:
"DO NOT YIELD to Christians and Jews on a narrow road out of honor and respect." In other words, when a Christian or Jew thinks they are being polite by letting a muslim go first, the fundamental student is taught that they are simply acknowledging islam's superiority.
Thus the dhimmi dilemma:
If the West naively promotes tolerance of a belief system that does not promote tolerance, it is effectively promoting intolerance. If the West refuses to promote an intolerant belief system, it is accused of being intolerant.
So the question is: What goes through the mind of a moderate muslim, who thinks the world will submit to allah in the distant future, when he sees predominately Judeo-Christian nations going to great lengths to tolerate islam now?
As our actions are done in hopes that tolerance of islam will result in muslims being more tolerant of Non-muslims, an unintended consequence is emerging, namely, that these actions are actually radicalizing some moderate muslims by providing proof that the world is submitting to allah – not in the distant future – but right now before their eyes!
They become persuaded that their long-awaited desire of the Non-muslim world "dar al-harb" (House of War) becoming "dar al-islam" (House of Islam) is imminent.
islamic excitement can be understood in the context of honor or pride.
In a football analogy, if a team is dishonored by many seasons of poor performance, fans are humiliated, embarrassed and become passive. But if the team suddenly has a winning streak and is headed toward the playoffs, fans are filled with pride. They come out of the woodwork, put on the team's jerseys, fill stadiums, paint their bodies, mascots are lifted high, and when the opposing team fumbles, the cheering mob roars with enthusiasm. They become fanatics and radicalized.
In nature, when a fleeing antelope becomes exhausted, the pursuing lion charges harder.
Could it be the more the West exhibits hyper-tolerance, the more it turns some moderate muslims, who believe the world will submit to allah in the distant future, into fundamental violent muslims, who view this tolerance as evidence the world is submitting to allah now?
"Personal" tolerance in the West is rooted in Judeo-Christian concepts like "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek," but Franklin D. Roosevelt warned regarding "national" tolerance in a Fireside Chat, Dec. 29, 1940:
"No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it."
