We’re at a pivotal moment in our civilization. Nations are facing a significant choice: do they want to exist in the 21st century or revert to a mindset reminiscent of the 7th century? That may sound dramatic, but for those observing turmoil in the Middle East, Europe, and even within the U.S., the stakes are clear.
On Thanksgiving Eve in Washington, D.C., two National Guard soldiers were killed by Islamic militants who shouted “Allah Akbar.” Tragically, a young woman from West Virginia did not survive, while her companion is on a long recovery journey. The attack left many Americans questioning how such violence can occur in their capital.
This isn’t simply about choosing peace or war. It’s about confronting a deeply entrenched ideology that challenges our values or allowing it to persist under a guise of tolerance.
Let’s delve into ideology…
Jihadist beliefs categorically divide the world into two realms: Dar al-Islam, the “House of Islam”; and Dar al-Harb, the “House of War.” The former includes lands governed by Islamic law, while the latter encompasses all territories not under Sharia law, such as Israel, much of Europe, and the United States, alongside extensive areas in Africa and Asia.
For radicals, this division is not just theoretical. Their ultimate aim is for the entire world to succumb to Islamic law, employing various strategies such as demographics, immigration, political engagement, and, when deemed necessary, violence, to achieve their ends.
An influential figure in modern Sunni jihadist thought, Said Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood argued that Muslims should shift their strategies based on their societal influence. When outnumbered, the focus should be on persuasion and alliance-building, akin to Muhammad’s early life in Mecca. As strength increases, the goal should shift toward establishing political control.
This approach helps explain the different trajectories of jihadist movements globally. In cities like London, New York, and Dearborn, Michigan, we witness political maneuvering at play, while violent clashes erupt in Israel, Nigeria, and various parts of Europe and the Middle East.
Qutb asserted that the Koran justifies aggression against non-Islamic states, a belief rooted in classical Islamic law. This perspective is upheld by both Sunni and Shia factions.
Groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian-backed entities actively wage wars against Israel. Meanwhile, jihadist violence devastates Christian communities in places like Nigeria. Incidents of terrorism are also rising across Europe and the United States, all driven by a similar ideological foundation.
The core question isn’t whether this ideology exists; it’s how nations will respond to it.
Governments and citizens alike must choose: will they challenge this violent, medieval perspective or let it flourish in the name of harmony and stability? This decision is relevant in international affairs and home front dynamics.
We’ve already seen some governments regress. In Iran, leadership prioritizes hostility towards Israel over the welfare of its citizens, contributing to a harsh water crisis that results from ideological fervor and mismanagement.
In Gaza, support for Hamas continues to grow. Cells of Hamas in Judea and Samaria are reportedly planning new attacks, while Hezbollah seeks to arm itself via Syria. Leaders in Lebanon are faced with tough choices: move towards modernity or remain mired in ongoing conflict.
U.S. policies often convey mixed signals regarding the region. The proposed sale of F-35 jets to Saudi Arabia and its designation as a major non-NATO ally was framed as a diplomatic win. However, real solutions require actions beyond mere assurances. Will Saudi Arabia effectively confront the jihadist threat within its borders? Will it establish relations with Israel, or is it merely offering gestures that tolerate extremism?
Qatar faces even greater challenges. Through media outlets like Al Jazeera, it fuels an anti-Western narrative and supports groups like Hamas, providing them sanctuary and resources. Any approach to tackling jihadist ideologies must confront Qatar’s complicity directly.
President Trump classified some branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist organizations, yet the order notably omitted certain influential organizations based in Qatar and the U.S.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis took further steps by designating CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood as foreign terrorist entities at the state level, signaling a growing awareness that ideological conflicts extend beyond national borders.
Western nations must decide whether to dismantle Muslim Brotherhood networks domestically and expect their allies to do the same. They also need to confront Iran, a central destabilizing force in the region, which continues to jeopardize the interests of Israel, the Gulf states, and the West.
These choices have far-reaching implications. They will shape the world inherited by future generations.
This isn’t simply about peace or war. It’s about confronting an ideology that glorifies dominance and aggression or allowing it to grow unchecked under a banner of pluralism. The way forward necessitates clarity, commitment, and a truthful evaluation of the current reality.
The century we adopt will ultimately define whether the future leans towards modernity and peace or is dictated by ancient grievances and terror.
