The Islamic State declared a New Caliphate: How This Affects Every Muslim in the World

To us, Westerners, it does not seem like a particularly big deal that ISIS/ISIL had pronounced the terrirories it now controls as a Capilhate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (whatever  previous names he may have been know by) as a Caliph.

All right, let’s analyze  this, one bit at a time…

Al-Baghdadi simply means ‘from Baghdad’.

So, what does Abu Bakr mean?

It is obviously not the man’s birth name but rather a name he adopted in order to fit/further/support/explain the role he perceives himself (and others perceive him) to play.  Or, if you wish, the ‘mantle’ he had assumed.

Who was the original Abu Bakr?

The ‘original’ Abu Bakhr was the very first person outside of Muhammad’s family to become a Muslim – and he was the father of Muhammad’s child bride, Aisha.

To a person who is familiar with the history of early Islam, the above sentence is chock filled with meaning – so much so that a single little article may not do it justice…but, I will try!

The Early history of Islam is imbued with much meaning and allusions to it will convey many layers of meaning to those cognisant of it.  In order to even scratch the surface, I will need to ‘back up’ to the time of Muhammad himself.

Muhammad was born to a pre-eminent Meccan family.  His paternal grandfather was in control of the temple now know as the Kaaba.  It is now the most sacred site in Islam – the direction in which every Muslim prays.  Back then before Muhammad’s ministry, the Kaaba was a temple dedicated to many, many deities worshiped by the pagan Arabs – including the Moon God, Allah.

As the patriarch of the clan, Muhammad’s grandfather controlled access to the Kaaba temple – and much (if not all) of his income was generated from the fees paid by pilgrims who wished to visit the Kaaba.

Muhammad’s father was the son of this ‘gatekeeper’ of the Kaaba.

As a matter of fact, when Muhammad’s grandfather went to purchase Muhammad’s wife for his son, he saw another lovely woman in that family and purchased her for a wife for himself.  Therefore, Muhammed’s father married Muhamed’s mother in the same ceremony as his father married her kinswoman….and it is from this tradition that the tales of Muhammad’s unnaturally long gestation period come from…

Whatever the truth of the story, Muhammad was born long after his mother’s husband’s death – so long, in fact, that some people have questioned his parentage.  It seems that the worry about Muhmmed’s parentage was shared by Muhamed’s paternal grandfather….who refused to acknowledge Muhammed as being of his kin, prompting the teenage Muhammed’s excommunication from Mecca.  It was not until Muhammed’s paternal uncle officially adopted him that Muhammed was permitted to return to Mecca.

Once in Mecca, Muhammed caught the eye of his uncle’s employer, a wealthy widow named Khadija – who eventually married Muhammed.  

Prior to meeting Muhammed, Khadijah was in love with her cousin whom he believed to be the messenger from the one and only God.  Once she saw the young and handsome cattle-boy Muhammed, Khadija realized she was totally wrong and, afer she married Muhammad, she realized that it was really Muhammed who was the true prophet of the one and only God.

It took a few years of persuasion, but, eventually, the young Muhammed believed his wife (the first convert to Islam) that he was, indeed, special and chosen by God to be his Messenger!

Abu Bakhr, a wealthy merchant, was the first person outside the family to believe this and to embrace Muhammed as the prophet of the one and only God – thus becoming the first person outside the family to convert to Islam.  

When Muhammed told him that, in a dream, he was told that he is to marry Abu Bakhr’s six year-old daughter, Abu Bakhr first argued that she is too young, but, submitting to the will of God’s messenger, he eventually agreed.  

Unfortunately, at about the time of the betrothal, Abu Bakhr’s daughter, Aisha, fell ill and all her hair fell out.  So, Muhammed waited until she recovered and her hair grew back in before bedding her.

Aisha remained Muhammed’s favourite wife till his death.

Which is where the traditions ‘break path’, so to say.

BOTH traditions agree that Muhammed was ill, then felt better, lead Friday prayers, went to spent time with Aisha and then died.

According to Sunni Muslims, Muhammed had been poisoned by a Jewish woman who had served him a meal of poisoned mutton right after he had slaughtered her entire family and clan.  The Sunni believe she did this to test if he was just another King (who could be poisoned) or a true prophet (who could not – by the grace of God).  While he survived the immediate attack, the Sunnis believe Muhammed died as an after-effect of this poison.

The Shi’a Muslims, however, believe that being a true prophet of the one and only God, the poison given him by the Jewess as a test did not harm Muhammed at all. Rather, they believe that while Muhammed’s nephew and bodyguard was out of town, sent on a mission by Muhammed, Aisha killed him on the orders of her father, Abu Bakhr, so that he could assume the command of all the Muslims.

Indeed, there were many stories at about this time about faithful men in line to replace Muhammed as the leader of the Muslims being assassinated, one at a time, by the brothers of Aisha, so that her father could assume the reins of power and reign as the next Caliph.

Indeed, the very first war between the Muslims was about Abu Bakhr’s succession of Muhammed as Caliph…

Th Sunnis believe that Abu Bakhr was the rightful heir to Muhammed’s rule.

The Shi’as belive that Abu Bakhr was an usurper who had no right to power, but attempted to assassinate Muhammed’s rightful heirs in order to seize power for himself.

Whatever the truth may have been so many centuries ago is less relevant to today’s events than the traditions of these events, as told by both Shi’a and Sunni Muslims.

Today, considering the legends (and, perhaps, believing them to be true), adopting the name ‘Abu Bakr’ signals to Muslims that this person believes he is the rightful ruler of all of Islam (the Sunni bits, at least) who considers himself to he a true successor of Muhammed, with all that that implies.

Sure, it means death to all Shi’a Muslims as heretics – as well as all other non-orthodox Sunni followers of Islam.  According to this ‘Abu Bakhr tradition’ – anyone who did not acknowledge Abu Bakhr as the rightful successor of Muhammed and all followers of the forms of Islam that sprung from this must be exterminated as heretics, even ore dangerous than outright infidels…

Which means war in the middle east…

So – why is this important to the people outside the middle east?!?!?

It has to do with the very concept of ‘Caliph’.

A ‘Caliph’ is not just the ruler of a particular geographic area.

A ‘Caliph’ is the spiritual and political ruler of every Muslim in the world!

That is agreed upon by all the schools of Sharia – Islamic jurisprudence.

Thus, a Caliph erases the differences between different forms of Islam – regardless of Shi’a, Sunni, Ahmadi or anything else, once there is a proclaimed Caliph, all Muslims owe HIM and ONLY HIM their allegiance and obedience.

Regardless where on Earth they live, what local jurisdictions they are living under:  once there is a Caliph, Sharia dictates all Muslims must obey the Caliph before the laws of the land they happen to be living in.

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may only control a small geographic area.  But, by having had himself declared a Caliph, he now commands the loyalty and obedience of all Sharia-adherent Muslims everywhere on this Earth.

THIS is why we, in the West, must draw a very pragmatic distinction between the Muslims who are immigrants to our lands, hoping to escape Sharia (and whom we must protect from their co-religionists) and the settlers/invaders who came here to try to enact Sharia law in our lands and thus make us conquered by Islam.

Make no mistake:  by having declared a Caliphate and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the new Caliph, militant Muslims have, in one move, turned Sharia-adherent Muslims in Western countries into enemy agents, whether they want to be or not!!!


Walker takes a second look at the Individual Rights Party of British Columbia

In the environment of ever-increasing encroachment on civil liberties from many, many directions, is it surprising that I get excited to hear (read) about any pro-individual movement/party/thought ‘out there’?

It seems I am not alone.

Walker, over at The Blog of Walker, has just done a lengthy piece taking a second look at their message.  It consists of a number of questions Walker posed to the founders of the nascent party, their replies – and, perhaps most critically, Walker supplies the logistics of how it all ‘fits together’.  Interesting.

When Walker took a first look at the party, he got some comments from ‘anonymous’, which were critical of the Individual Rights Party Of British Columbia’s (IRPBC’s) official policy on Islam (which acknowledges the political aspect and considers it to be more defining of the doctrine than its ‘spiritual’ or ‘religious’ aspects).  Walker and I both responded to the comments only to encounter trollish responses from ‘anonymous’.

Trolls may be annoying, but they can also be amusing – and, at times, useful.

The ‘second look’ attracted the same troll back.  I don’t know if he is trolling because of the subject matter or if he is Walker’s pet troll, but I took care not to feed him this time around.  However, Frank Hilliard of the IRPBC, took the time to defend his party’s position on Islam – and had done this so eloquently that (with permission), I would like to reproduce his comment in full (F.H’s response to ‘anonymous’ has been bolded by me):

“Anonymous said…

So you didn’t ask about the Muslim thing, eh? Can’t say I’m surprised.

So when someone in Canada starts an Islamist Party of Canada, and part of their platform is to remove the constitutional protection to peaceful religion practice from Jews and only Jews, I assume that when you interview them the question will be restricted to asking who the treasurer is, right?”

Nice bit of sarcasm Anonymous, but you’ve dodged around the issue if Islam’s political ambitions. Most other religions have moral rules, but Islam has Sharia law which defines not just personal morality but every aspect of private and public life. As such, it conflicts on multiple levels with Canadian civil, criminal and parliamentary law. The Individual Rights Party of BC simply says that if Islamic communities want to change Canadian law, they should accept the obligations and responsibilities of political organization and run candidates in elections.

We don’t have any problem with Islam as a religion but we totally reject Sharia law weather imposed by incrementalism or by force. I’m pretty sure you would too if you realized your right to comment on this issue would be denied if Sharia were already in effect.

Thought provoking, is it not?


VictimlessCriminal: “Religion is the Great Hijacker Part 16 – Females”

Wired for Religion: guest post by CodeSlinger

It has long been argued that man is an inherently religious creature – that he cannot exist without worshipping something.  And indeed, it seems that many people who eschew religion end up equally fanatical about something else, whether it be the dictatorship of the proletariat, or women’s issues, or global warming, or white guilt.  Or something.

Almost any belief system can give rise to slavish devotion, bloody persecutions and holy wars, as long as it is packaged in a way that resonates in the right parts of the human psyche.

You see, for something to be a religion, it must give rise to religious feelings – that tantalizing combination of epiphany, reverence, and ecstasy that people call a religious experience.  Interestingly, I can recall several women comparing it to orgasm, but I have yet to hear a man make this comparison.  Even so, sexual frustration is more easily turned into religious fanaticism than anything else, as any Jihadi recruiter of suicide bombers can tell you.

But there is more to it than that.  The religious experience is centred in the amygdala and the insula – the same organs which mediate emotional affinity, dominance and submission, sexual desire and fear.  Which is why no self-respecting horror movie is complete without some luscious female, dragged off, naked and screaming, to be punished unspeakably for her hypersexual ways by some vile denizen of hell… and why the media incites a prurient fascination with lurid sex crimes while clamouring for even more lurid psycho-punitive treatments to be applied by a merciless totalitarian state.

These are two modern examples of how such feelings are used to separate people from their money and to deprive them of their freedom.  Motivating belief systems isn’t the only thing these feelings can be used for, but it is the most dangerous.

If these feelings are not triggered – in exactly the right combination – the experience is just not emotionally compelling.  In which case the belief system will go nowhere, and all the sophisticated logic in the world will not help it.  But if the feelings are properly triggered, the experience is addictive, and the formal logical structure simply doesn’t matter.

All the high-level abstractions are just there to keep the neocortex busy and get it out of the way, so the paleocortex can have a party with the limbic system and the mesencephalic dopamine system.  (The former is the so-called reptilian brain, including the brain stem, the basal ganglia, and the hippocampus, which together mediate the instincts, basic drives and urges, and ritual/repetitive behaviours; the latter, including the cingulate and insular cortices, mediate emotion, motivation, learning and perceptions of self/other).

Now, many of these structures, together with the corpus callosum, exhibit intense, synchronized rhythmic activity during epileptic seizures – and, to a somewhat lesser degree, during ritual chanting and dance.  And orgasm.  So it is no accident that epileptic seizures are often associated with spontaneous orgasm and religious experiences – or that ritual chanting and dance are commonly used to induce similar states, especially in conjunction with substances that stimulate the dopamine receptors.

And, since these areas are more densely interconnected in females than males, it is no accident that these states are observed more often in females than in males.  And, in turn, it is no accident that charismatic religious leaders are mostly men who know how to induce these feelings, while their devout followers are mostly women who are addicted to them.

This is one of the fundamental pillars of male power – related to, but deeper than the mere fact that males are bigger and stronger and more aggressive.  But that line of thought takes us in a different direction, leading ultimately to why women derive deep satisfaction from submitting to powerful men, and why the success of feminism leads inescapably to the emotional barrenness of modern women.

As civilization progresses and the frontal cortex gets more involved in daily life, people require ever more sophisticated rationalizations and justifications for exhibiting behaviours and seeking cognitive states which have not changed appreciably since long before we were even human.  So it wasn’t long before manipulative individuals realized that control over when and where and how these drives, urges and feelings are expressed leads to control over people.  And that was bad enough.

But somewhere along the line, someone learned that these drives, urges and feelings are far more susceptible to manipulation when they are repressed than when they are expressed.  And so the ancient polytheistic fertility cults, with their debauched orgies and their blood sacrifices, were replaced by modern monotheistic cults of chastity, with their sterile piety and their neurotic self-mortification.  But they are still obsessed with sex and death.  Only the polarity of the obsession has changed.

Mother, father, reward and punishment fit into this picture at every level in many ways – not all of which are consistent with what the political correctness thought police would have you believe.  The archetypes of mother and father are layered on the same neurophysiological substrates that form the religious experience, in much the same way.

Gods and goddesses are not merely layered on father and mother, they are inextricably entangled with them.  But my point is that there is also a direct connection from our highest religious constructs to our basest drives, urges, feelings and instincts.  Of course, you can’t take mother and father out of the equation, but if you did, you would find that we are still hard-wired for religion.

And this is a root cause of all the trouble we are in today.

You see, by destroying the family, the secular feminist totalitarian state does exactly that: it takes mother and father out of the equation.  But we just saw that you can’t eliminate the archetypes.  So the removal (or even worse, the emotional distancing) of the real mother and father leaves a huge, gaping, undefended hole that penetrates to the core of the psyche. And this takes the full power of all that deep psychological structure, and puts it right in the hands of the state.  And/or the church.  And/or the corporation.

In the past, the family – meaning a man, his wife, and their children – was the last and best line of defence, limiting the oppressor’s access to people’s subconscious minds, just by existing.  It is much harder for church and state to manipulate the archetypes of father, mother, god and goddess when real flesh-and-blood mothers and fathers are standing in the way.  But now that this last line of defence has been breached, people are left very exposed and vulnerable to manipulation.

Thunder, fire, sun and moon have been robbed of their mystical power by modern science.  But the ancient and unbreakable connection between sex, magic and death is absolutely fundamental, just as Freud and Jung told us. The dynamics of the Id – the structure and function of the collective unconscious – are directly determined by the neurophysiological structure and function of the central nervous system.  Only its expression can be modulated by the environment – and of course this modulation can be very dramatic, to the extent of completely inverting the natural way of being and resulting in an unrecognizably crippled psyche.

And this is what we see in modern Western civilization.

Music and dance have been decoupled from spirituality in a way that renders the induced trance state meaningless.  And everything about the way we live distances us from the true cycles of life and death.  Most of us never see anyone die or be born, nor do we grow or kill our own food.  And those who do loose the ability to connect with the main stream – or, rather, they lose the ability not to go where most others cannot follow.

This is especially true in the cities.  All true paths to gnosis and wisdom have thus been closed, and people are reduced to blank slates, upon which the state may write whatever it wants.  And what it wants is chattel, hopelessly enslaved by their own obsessive-compulsive efforts to satisfy needs they do not understand and whose nature they cannot admit to themselves.

As Nietzsche put it, “destroyers are they who lay snares for the many, and call it a state: they hang a sword and a hundred cravings over them.”

The church, the state, and the corporation are locked together in a worldwide dance of cooperation and competition to create this state of unguarded access to the deep structure of the human psyche, and to exploit it for power and profit by seizing control of people’s deepest needs and fears with a scientific precision that has never been seen before.

And the traps they set come in all colours and flavours.  The existing religions are assimilated under the banner of multiculturalism, but it moulds them all in accordance with the goals of cultural Marxism.  And those who think they have broken free of the old traps are lead right back into psychological slavery by collectivist moral relativism and feminist secular edenism.

People are taught that there is no right and wrong, only appropriate and inappropriate – which gives people a way to excuse themselves when they betray each other – and which gives the state a way to justify telling people, do as we say and not as we do.

Nonetheless, the idea of original sin is too useful to give up, so it remains, only now it is called white guilt: if you are white, you deserve to be punished, not for anything you have done, but for what you are.

Women are taught that their husbands are their worst enemies, and they cannot be complete or fulfilled unless they withdraw their devotion from husband and family, and give it instead to an employer.

So the modern white male is angry, and the modern white female is frustrated.

He wants his power back and she wants her sanctuary back, but they are forbidden to admit it.  Most of them have no idea that they want what they want, because they have been taught to fear and avoid every thought that might lead to understanding.

They have been taught that such thoughts are evil.

And into this explosive mixture, multiculturalism introduces neo-fundamentalist Islam – an atavistic religion which resembles nothing more than Judaism in a state of arrested development, frozen in time in its most dogmatic and intolerant form.  But it does have clearly defined roles for men and women, which satisfy instincts they have been deliberately disconnected from by cultural Marxism.

Feminist secular edenism first renders men and women incompatible, and then feeds off their resulting anger and frustration.  And this is what makes Islam so threatening on an ideological level.

Islam promises that, by submitting to Allah, men and women can escape the treadmill of mutual destruction on which the cultural Marxists have trapped them.  As Western culture decays and the war of the sexes becomes increasingly intolerable, the pressure to embrace Islam mounts until they lose sight of the fact that they will only be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

This threat is driving many people back into the fold of Christianity, hoping to escape the trap.  But it is a neo-fundamentalist Christianity which is hardening into its own form of dogmatic intolerance in order to push back against the incursion of Islam.  In doing so, it is shedding the Christian charity and forbearance which were its main redeeming features. And thus it, too, becomes a trap.

Those who think politically correct progressivism will save them are no better off, because political correctness is itself becoming very dogmatic and intolerant.  It is extremely harsh in its condemnation of everyone who is not tolerant of just the right things, in just the right ways.  This is no different from any other neo-fundamentalist belief system, whether it is formally called a religion or not.

And so the clash of ideologies gets more intense every day, grinding Western culture to dust like giant mill stones, and showing us the bitter answer to the question asked by Joseph de Maistre:

“Until now nations were killed by conquest, that is by invasion: But here an important question arises; can a nation not die on its own soil, without resettlement or invasion, by allowing the flies of decomposition to corrupt to the very core those original and constituent principles which make it what it is.”

Sultan Knish: “The Perfect Government”

A well thought out, well written article – definitely worth reading the full piece.

The problem with setting out to create the perfect government is that it demands perfect people, among both government and the governed. You can turn government into a machine, but you can’t turn the people who run it or the people who live under it into machines. Most governments, even the bad ones, recognize this. A tyrant knows his limits, a progressive does not. His goal passes beyond the relative power of a tyrant, to the absolute power of a god. The tyrant seeks to dominate men. The progressive wants to recreate them.

The basic structure of government is a set of rules governing the behavior of those under its purview. For governments, the predictable is also the ideal. If you can convince most people to behave the same way, then the task of governing them is made much easier. With this shift in attitude, the predictable becomes the lawful, and the unpredictable becomes criminal. Laws no longer exist to prevent harm to others, but as sheep fences to keep everyone moving in the same direction. This marks the shift from the representative to the bureaucratic– from self-government to comprehensive government.

It is easier to oppress in the name of an idea, than in the name of a man, because there is no accompanying recognition of cruelty. Once the idea has been defined as the absolute good of mankind, then no act however cruel and merciless will appear so. Thus a private insurance company denying insurance coverage to a dying patient is perceived as behaving monstrously, while a government health insurance system doing the same thing is acting for the good of all. This is collectivist morality, the belief that the morality or immorality of an act is defined by whether its placement on the sliding scale of the collective good or the selfish individual. And collectivist morality is the moral principle of progressive government. To compromise the rights of individuals, for the needs of the many.


The only thing I would add is that everything he says about ‘progressives’ and ‘progressive governments’ is also true of ‘theocrats’ and ‘theocratic governments’.

Sure, the progressive uses social ideology for a dogma while the theocrat’s dogma is religious.  Still, both strive for their ideals with equal zeal, both try to perfect man to fit these ideals, both are collectivistic and oppressive in nature.

And both feel righteous while committing attrocities!

Pat Condell: “The faith of idiots”

On a related note

I admit freely, I simply do not understand it:  with so much opportunity for factual learning, why do so many people insist on submitting their minds to dogma – whether secular or religious?

Spirituality is one thing.  But imprisoning one’s spirituality (and/or intelligence) within the cage of any dogma – that is not just shameful, it is immoral.