by Michael Devolin

jihad flag

"Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance." — Efraim Karsh, from Islamic Imperialism, a history

Reading about ISIS in the newspapers every day is, for me, like reading a page—any page, from any time—of Islam's history. Nothing much changes for the better when it comes to Islam. People come and people go—rulers and leaders and citizens (infidels and faithful both)—but Islam, whether the good strain or the bad, remains a constant on the planet Earth. "Tomorrow our nation will sit on the throne of the world. This is not a figment of the imagination but a fact. Tomorrow we will lead the world..." portended Khaled Mash'al, leader of Hamas.

Of course, this has been the dream of many of Islam's would-be kings and Caliphs since the time of the Prophet Mohammed. No revelation there. But what is most surprising to me is that so many of Islam's decriers and defenders actually believe this expansionist dream has ever reposed from existence or become dormant. This dream, this imperial vision, is the very essence of Islam and the sole reason its religious zealots remain a threat to the Western world to date; its carcinogenic hatred of everything and everyone obstructing its movement abroad and beyond its traditional borders is the very same self-sustaining power today insidiously worming pathways into the governments of Western democracies. As Bertold Brecht wrote, "War is like love, it always finds a way."

The bad news is, the Western world, whether we like it or not, is not immune from something so insalubrious and indefinite: Islam is here to stay, and with it the Quran's political imperative of jihad against the "infidel nations." This imperative—this expansionist ideal—makes Islam meaningful and attractive to all those who harbour panoramic visions of kingdom and caliphate. And as Neil J. Kressel warns in his book Mass Hate, "The supporters of Muslim extremism do not constitute a majority of Islamic believers, but neither are they an insignificant number." The fact that those who support Islamic extremism are a minority within the Muslim communities around the world does not mean they are small in number, nor does it mean they are inefficacious.

Islamic jihad is never satisfied with its own, but only with complete possession of the other. They want only the field next to theirs, and once in their possession, Islam and the Muslim world concede nothing. It is meaningless to the Arab Muslim that the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has been a holy site for Jews long before the Prophet Mohammed and even longer before his Muslim hordes invaded ancient Israel. The sensibilities of Christians are of no concern to the Muslim extremist whose religious intolerance has made Nazareth today almost uninhabitable for them. Samuel P. Huntington wrote that, "Islamic culture explains in large part the failure of democracy to emerge in much of the Muslim world."

What has emerged in the Muslim world, again and again, from ancient times until the present day, is Islamic jihad. This is the toothache that won't go away. And now its ugly head has surfaced in the West, most recently in Canada, which goes to prove Ajai Sahni's statement, that "There is no locus of terrorism. The locus of terrorism is wherever the ideologies of terrorism penetrate, wherever they find supporters and sympathizers." Islamic jihad is perpetuated in United States and Canada by all those who actively condone and support the political objectives of Hamas and Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood. But also, and more deceptively, because of the fact that they do not publicly condemn Hamas and Hezbollah outright, by all those who instead excoriate the State of Israel and the defence of its citizens, which is, inevitably, in colligation with the policies and ideals of these extremely anti-Jewish terrorist entities.

Contemporary anti-Zionism, the noisy and aggressive sort espoused on North American campuses by pro-Palestinian supporters, has now become the new face of Islamic jihad: the political aims of the most violent and genocidal terrorist entities are touted on our campuses by these political parvenus as honourable and desirable for society at large. These anti-Israel activists are the next generation of Islamic jihad, not simply because they condemn the State of Israel and its Jewish citizens, but precisely because they consciously betray and trample all good things democratic to do so.


Some of the comments that added useful information.

Theb Nyip

Very good article Michael.

Fellow Commonwealth country, Australia, provides further evidence of the consistency of the JIhad interpretation by self 'radicalised' muslims that it requires attacks on innocent men, women and children.

1/1/2015 is the 100th anniversary of a Jihadi attack by two muslims on several hundred civilians travelling to a town picnic at Broken Hill in outback Australia on 1/1/1915.

These two muslims were following the call to JIhad issued by the Ottoman Caliph in an era before TV, before the internet, before the establishment of Israel, before the Iraq War — before any of the so called 'reasons' for modern day jihadi self 'radicalisation' that are promulgated by western apologists who do not understand or accept the theological basis for jihad that arises from Mohammed's life and actions. These two jihadis, 100 years ago, demonstrated an interpretation of Jihad that required attacks on innocent men, women and children, which is totally consistent with their modern day counterparts.

Given that consistency, perhaps our current crop of political and military leaders would do best to study some history and look for instances in the past when the jihadi threat has been destroyed. Studies could include the US attacks on the Barbary coast pirates, the first Greek war of independence, the Dutch destruction of the Acehnese jihadi movement in the 1890s, or the Russian method of dealing with Islamic kidnappers in Lebanon in the early 1980s. The history for all these and more is easily accessible, the tactics and approaches easily understood — when will we see the emergence of political or military leaders prepared to study, learn and apply those lessons?


Same here, all I've heard my whole life is how evil and warmongering the Catholic/Christian church was and the crusades were basically Christian jihad/conquest, but that's not anywhere near the actual truth. While not all of the crusades were defensive and the Christian church has done some terrible things no doubt, the fact that the crusades was in part a response to Islamic expansion is a fact our white guilt intelligentsia fails to educate us all of. Along with the Islamic taking of Christian slaves, the Arabic slave trade and the sexual slavery of women and children. Ignoring the fact the Christian church and its cultures have grown up while Islam is the petulant child stamping his feet for 1400 years, all we're taught is basically Christianity and Europe bad, everything before it or other than it peaceful and good.


"What has emerged in the Muslim world, again and again, from ancient times until the present day, is Islamic jihad. This is the toothache that won't go away."

Here's a solution: EXTRACTION. The problem is not Jihad, it's not Islam, it's MUHAMMAD. Muhammad's image must be destroyed, and there's only one way to do it: Unveiling the truth about Muhammad the founder of Islam, the so-called "Perfect Man." See here.


First mahommad should not be called a prophet because by any Biblical understanding of the concept of prophet Mahommad is a false prophet, a fake and should always be recognized as such. The word "prophet" coming from Greek means "to speak before or on habalf of", meaning obviously on behalf of God. In Hebrew it is "nabi" and has the same connotation. It is obvious that Mahommad did not speak on behalf of God, rather he made up "messages" as he went along to suit his pathological tendencies.

In order to defeat Islam there shold be an all out campaign at all levels intent on informing the general public on the nature of Islam, Mahommad and showing that the problem is not "radical Islam" as there is no other Islam.

The fact that many muslims are ignorant of what the Qu'ran and Mahommad teach is no reason for lack of vigilance. Many of them may eventually become jihadis or support it indirectly. Since most imans are financed by Saudi Arabia, then it is obvious that many who attend mosques and madrasses will be "radicalized".

Islam should be declared a dangerous totalitarian political ideology and a dangerous religious cult and amly exposed.

Ronald B

Let's say that we could eliminate the violent Muslims from our country. That is, the Muslims remaining, or entering, did not support violent jihad, nor even contributed to terror movements such as Hamas.

The question is, would we be able to keep our freedoms?

The fact is, we would have in our society, a close-knit group, totally devoted to changing the fundamental concepts of our freedoms: the elimination of our right speak freely, the enforcement through legal means, of sharia restrictions, the state support of Muslim institutions, and the steady elimination of the display of atheism or other religions. The peaceful Muslims would exert a constant pressure, using financial contributions to politicians amenable to their cause, political action committees, and constant lobbying to achieve their political objectives, including the actual elimination of constitutional guarantees, or the practical elimination through influence on the selection and approval of Supreme Court justices.

In addition, the peaceful Muslims would be infiltrating local institutions such as school boards, zoning boards, municipal planning, and the police, to present Islamic teaching, promote mosques and Islamic institutions, and ignore laws against sharia practices such as honor killing. Furthermore, the peaceful Muslims would use commercial pressures to eliminate any lingering anti-Islamic information from newspapers, books, or the internet.

In other words, even without violence, we put our culture as we know it in severe danger by importing people with a systematic and ongoing ideological commitment to destroying it, even if they do it without illegal violence. It makes as much sense as allowing Nazis to immigrate wholesale to the United States, and expecting the country to maintain its safety for Jews.

Actually, immigration should be restricted, not only to eliminate Muslims, but to ensure to a reasonable extent, that immigrants not only know the rudiments of American government and freedoms, but that they fundamentally agree with them. It makes no sense to allow people to enter the country who want to change its fundamental character.

By definition, Muslims cannot agree with American freedoms, as Muslims. Even if they are largely peaceful, such as Amadiyyas, they still contribute to the pressures against the nature of our freedoms.

Michael Devolin is a Noahide living in Toronto. He has been a member of JDL Canada since the 1980s, and has served as the personal bodyguard to Meir Weinstein, National Director of JDL Canada, at several high-profile trials, including the Jim Keegstra hate crimes trial and the Imra Finta war crimes trial. This article appeared December 14, 2014 on the Jihad Watch website and is archived at

Return _________________________End of Story___________________________ Return