The Muslim Will vs. the Western Way

^{This article has been slightly edited.}

In the struggle between Islam and the West, one has the will to prevail, but not the means; the other has the means, but not the will.

In the ongoing struggle between Islam and the West, one civilization has the will to triumph, but not the way; the other has the way to triumph, but not the will.

Some who dread Islam do not seem to understand this. They think that Islam is an irresistible force to be reckoned with; they see Muslim migrants as hordes of violent men invading Europe; they call on Western men to make a stand, resist the onslaught, save their women and children.

To be sure, this portrayal is historically valid: for one thousand years, Muslims repeatedly invaded and conquered portions of Europe—terrorizing, massacring, raping and enslaving in the name of Allah—and were only repulsed by force of arms.

Today’s situation is far less dramatic and epic; it’s actually quite pathetic. Muslim terrorists, rapists, and ISIS-sympathizers are not entering the West against its will but because of it. In other words, the West is 100% responsible for this “invasion.”

Consider it by analogy. What if zoos began to maintain that it’s a slanderous stereotype to say that lions by nature prey on zebras? Zoos start introducing lions into zebra enclosures. The inevitable happens: although well fed, some lions continue chasing and mauling zebras. Surely only a great fool would blame such carnage on lions—who, after all, are merely being lions—while ignoring those who insist on placing lions with zebras in the first place.

Similarly, those Western policy makers who continue insisting that Islam is peaceful (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), and that Muslim immigration is fine (despite the overwhelming evidence otherwise), are 100% to blame when Muslims terrorize, rape, and kill non-Muslims in the West.

Still, Western politicians get away with warped policies because the general public—including the average voter—has been bred on warped views. Thus, even as Germans were being overwhelmed by a million Muslim migrants, Dr. Stefanie von Berg, speaking before parliament, loudly proclaimed:

In the end, the relationship between Islam and the West is understood by the dichotomy of the will and the way. The West has the way—including the military and economic might—to utterly neutralize Islam, one way or the other. Yet it doesn’t even have the will to preserve itself. Ban Islam’s presence from the West—which is doable, provided the will is there—and Islamic terrorism on Western soil ceases. It’s that simple.

Conversely, Islam most certainly has the will to eliminate the West, though it currently doesn’t have the way (minus those ways the West gives it). Historically, for over one millennium, whenever Islam had the way, it always went on the offensive.

Back then, when much of the world was limited to fighting with swords and spears, arrows and fire—back when Islam was on an even footing with its neighbors—untold millions of non-Muslims were slaughtered, enslaved, or converted to Islam. This is seen in the historical fact that the overwhelming majority of territory that today constitutes the “Muslim world” was seized from non-Muslims by great violence and bloodshed.

Western military technology eventually progressed to the point that Islam was left in the dust. Its will to dominate went dormant but remained intact.

Put differently, if Islam was the one to develop sophisticated armaments and weapons of mass destruction, while the West was still using swords and spears, there would be no West to speak of today. Faced before Islam’s three choices—conversion, enslavement, or annihilation—the West would’ve gone the way of the dodo, like many civilizations before it.

Yet here is the free and mighty West, refusing to use its powers—even in the name of self-preservation—while empowering an Islam that openly vows to, and will, subjugate the West, once the way to do so becomes available.