Aleksandr Dugin -- dangerous alert

Watch the special report about this Aleksandr Dugin. No one knows him but he might be the most influence guy in the future. It is essential for us to study about him. 

Watch out Fascism in Europe today, Aleksandr Dugin is actually the cantor of all this trend. 

Related report about Aleksandr Dugin...

http://www.glennbeck.com/2015/01/13/the-root-of-the-problem-russia-part-1-2/

Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian philosopher and a professor of Moscow State University (MSU), should be heeded by two reasons: for his prominent role in the Kremlin and for his notorious fascist ideology . Relatively unknown to the public in the west, his evidently zeal on Russian Nationalism has become a driven force that lies behind Vladimir Putin’s belligerent militant action and aggressive foreign policy. 

For example, Mr. Dugin’s strong rhetoric on “defend ethnic Russians” has been served as the base on Putin’s invasion toward Georgia and Ukraine. He publicly revealed his close tie with the Ukraine insurgent group, which affirms his role beyond being a geopolitical advisor for Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, he is not only serving as an advisor in the Kremlin but also conducting a philosophical political program in the MSU. Because of his extreme fascist view, a few political pundits express their concern on whether Mr. Dugin would inject his diabolical doctrine into those intellectual elites and young minds. These grave combinations of his significant attribution to the Kremlin and his extreme fascist belief make him dangerous and horrendous.

Consequences of Net Neutrality

Before reading the essay, I would suggest watching interview of Mark Cuban, a billionaire and owner of Dallas Maverick, by Glenn Beck. He explains net neutrality very very well and help me to wrote this essay. This is a practice of my writing. Not original from myself.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/24/watch-mark-cubans-surgical-takedown-of-net-neutrality-and-why-he-says-everyone-should-hack-themselves/

    Net neutrality, by literal definition, is the internet guiding principle that ensures the right of free and open communication online. According to Wikipedia, more specific definition concerning the subject is a precept that each datum on the internet should be perceived equal and indiscriminate by all means, and thus is the idea that the internet provider and governments have to regard and uphold. Proponents of net neutrality are in the process to procure a bill of legislation in the United States so that they can “secure” the right of freedom on the virtual network. Even though the idea to legislate net neutrality is well intended, little is known to perceive the consequence of legislation of the bill. Possible consequences can be argued in two perspectives: technology and libertarianism.

    From the perspective of technology, this can be grounded from the nature of data. Equally and neutrally treating the flow of each bit of datum on the internet, which advocators of net neutrality have argued, is an oxymoron. Today, the data that is received by the terminal end users can be classified into several type of data, such as pixel data, text data or high definition data. For example, user requests data of high definition TV/Video that will occupy six megabits more times of a bandwidth than any other pixel data during transmission. One way to ensure a smooth flow of circulated data on the internet is prioritization of data transmission. The ultimate decision to prioritizing data receiving is the internet users. Therefore, if internet neutrality sets in, then one very possible scenario would result in fracturing every bit of data from various different sources. Disregarding the needs of the demander from the user end, one effect of fracturing everything on the internet is buffering, which is a common phenomenon of data transmitting during early development of internet. From this very perspective, implementation of net neutrality is very impractical. Furthermore, net neutrality may even cause a backward progress on internet technology.

    The claims of net neutrality about indiscriminate treatment of data contradict the nature of data flow mechanism, and furthermore drag the process of internet technology development. The Free Press, which is a major lobby of net neutrality, claims without it internet service providers “could crave the internet into fast and slow down its competitors’ content or block political opinions it disagreed with…This would destroy the open internet” (save) that seems problematic as well.

    From the perspective of free speech, the internet is a virtually indefinite space that is already free and open; therefore, imposing regulation on the internet seems unnecessary, and even violates the principle of libertarianism. Proponent claims that net neutrality preserves and protects free speech, but on the contrary it might cause a halt of freedom of speech. Since imposing regulation on open space is already an act of anti-neutrality, it could foster bias regulations toward any party that is subject to suspicious discriminating online activity. After all, imposing regulation equates involvement of government authority which is highly vulnerable under influence of bureaucracy. As a result, favoritism from the authority could jeopardize and stifle a truly free internet. This aspect could not be found from the party of net neutrality proponent.

As good as net neutrality might sound, this is inevitably dissonant with the idea of guarantee of liberty on the internet. Preventing favoritism by implementation of regulation on the internet is opening another avenue of conflicts that is against the mechanism of internet technology and principle of liberty. Quite a few arguments about supporting net neutrality can be reasoned because of monopoly of cable industry, which provides the hardware access of the internet. With the evolving development of high tech industry, what cable companies are controlling could be solved by Darwinism of free marketing and technology. Consequently, net neutrality is a redundant act that might cause more harm than benefit.

Let’s go and kill some cartoonists.

 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/07/report-video-shows-alleged-terrorists-shooting-victim-on-paris-streets-before-calmly-driving-away/

The terror attack happens yesterday implicitly imply --‘a religious had claimed there is a god asking them to kill cartoonists?’ If there is a god saying so, would you feel a little bit of skeptical?

Do you able to give an answer with absolute yes or no?

For the freedom of speech, I am actually willing to stand with these cartoonists whose reputation and taste is so bad that I would definitely make sure there is a distance between the cartoon and myself. They go full length on bashing the Islamic funder, their prophet Muhammad which incur death threat from radical Islamic group. And they eventually achieve the threat that resulted a death toll of 12. France claimed this is a terror attack, pace White House insist this is an violence incident. The whole Europe is under the shadow of terror attack because of their falling multiculturalism. I would assert this: Political correctness will be the death for all of us. All the terror attacks, including this one happened in Paris, yell one thing--They want you to shut up (about the prophet Muhammad.)

Before the end of the command, I would like to address my view on the other side of the ‘coin’ about this terror attack. Even though I stand with the newspaper (because of FREEDOM OF SPEECH), I would not join them in what are they doing/drawing. If you Google ‘Charlie Hebdo,’ you would know what I mean. Their cartoon is really offensive and sick. They make almost pornographic and ugly idiosyncrasy about the prophet Muhammad naked in various position. If you are a Muslim, you would be offended. HOWEVER, should the offensiveness worth of 12 lives? No, nothing should go to that length at all. HOWEVER, if they would have done this to Jesus, I would have felt offended as well. Another HOWEVER, I would not conduct the killing. This is just a blank truth. You would not see Jewish group and Christian group conduct such an attack. Somehow this kind of thing is always fall on the hand of those radical Muslims.

So maybe you are ready to ask yourself this question: How many Mormon attacks is there have been in the Broadway Theater performing “The Book of Mormon” every night? 11? Maybe 11 minus 11. This is not civilized. You cannot win any heart at all by conducting such a horror. Unless intimidation is their goal.

Somebody has to do something

Contents that ‘Charlie Hebdo’ has demonstrated part of the sick value today. This is what Hitler had done before: point out the ill of the society. They said the reason society is so sick is because these people are mocking religious, they are amoral, they are not following the precept of god. These legitimate their action to carry out an attack as a mean of ‘We will take care for you.’ At the same time, there is a group of people who does follow the religious but not necessarily agree to kill, but again, turns the blind eyes thinking ‘you know what? They are right. The society is really sick and somebody has to do something.’ And this is the reason terrorists get you every time!

Somebody has to do something. This is what our politician saying all the time: ‘we got do something!’ NO. WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. ‘Somebody has to do something’ is what terrorists are thinking. Therefore, they get in and shoot people.

What you do in a civilize society, you sould say:

This is wrong. This is outrange. This is hurtful to who actually follow the prophet Muhammad. And there is no place for society to doing that!

However, people weight in for Muslim with a very different standard. Do they have any right? Absolutely, they have a right to speak out against the cartoon, boycott against it, think of it is wrong in many ways, but to do so in a way with love and respect. There is a time you might have righteous indignation but that doesn’t grand you any right to kill and shoot people.

I hope I make myself clear and logical enough so you do not assert me in a position of a radical on the opposite side of radical Islam. 

新電影"出埃及(Exodus)"主角說聖經裡的摩西是野蠻的精神分裂患者

http://bcove.me/kvsmxy6s

Image: 20th Century Fox

Christian Bale in 'Exodus: Gods and Kings'

之前的挪亞電影已經讓我對好萊屋拍攝所謂的「聖經故事」有所卻步，今天卻來個更嗆的評論－－主演黑暗騎士等蝙蝠俠系列電影，Christian Bale，說

我想摩西應該是一個精神分裂患者，是我這一輩子看過最野蠻的人其中之一。
（I think the man was likely schizophrenic and was one of the most barbaric individuals that I ever read about in my life.）
新聞來源：
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/christian-bale-calls-moses-barbaric-743874

我希望教會不要看到電影名稱就叫大家帶人去看這部電影，看到Christ Bale的評論，對於這部電影能夠傳達什麼訊息，我沒有信心。另外，這部電影的導演Ridley Scott在Entertainment Weekly訪談裡說到，不是摩西也不是上帝開了紅海，它是因為地震的緣故。
新聞來源：
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/10/23/ridley-scott-red-sea-exodus/

除非有免費的票，我絕對不會去看這部電影。對於Christian Bale對於摩西的評論，我很好奇的想：如果他覺得摩西是個野蠻人，那他對於穆罕默德，這位伊斯蘭信仰的創立者，能夠有什麼樣的看法？

不確定是不是因為為了自己的演藝＂錢＂徒，好萊屋反宗教反信仰的潮流讓他有這樣的理解，這完全是自己猜想的，沒有任何的證據。

休士頓教會遭受市府攻擊--新聞相關內容與教會反應

美國休士頓市長與市檢送傳票到幾間休士頓教會，要求教會交出主日講道稿或錄音檔等內容，要檢視哪些內容在教會有提到市長（休市市長是同性戀者）、關於近期市政法「廁所無性別化立法」以及同性戀等。（如果沒有「美國」這兩個字，我只能想到這事會應該會發生在中國）事情發生的主要原因在於市政府對於市議會回絕撤銷--廁所無性別化立法的上訴；而這件事情後面有教會反對此一決議，因此市政府向這些區域所屬的牧師教會進行法律訴訟，而其中甚至一些沒有加入這法案的上訴牧師都被市檢告訴。

「要求教會交出主日講道稿或錄音檔等內容」這件事情的主要目的竟然是因為市政府不知道到底是哪些教會反對這項法案所做出的決定。　

訝異嗎？對於天賦人權--這件事，我的想法很簡單，言論自由。我希望我有時間可以整理基督徒是如何將生而自由的人權寫入美國憲法的過程，而在歷史上第一個將政教分離寫入憲法的國家，美國，發生這件事情是很讓人驚訝的，因為宗教自由與言論自由等是天賦人權，而休市市政府做這件事情是絕對的違憲也違法的。如果在台灣的我們不能將法治與天賦人權等概念釐清，很難說這種事情不會發生在台灣。

願上帝保守我們，裝備我們，所以我們可以知道如何對這樣的事情做何宜的反應。

新聞內容在此，我不反對同性戀，但是「同意彼此的不同意（Agree with disagree）」應當是兩造相反立場的人該有的態度，妖魔化任何一方，都是我極力反對的。理性思辨與彼此尊重－希望在台灣還是有機會的！

(以下我通通沒有翻譯，因為沒時間，有興趣者請自行閱讀。)

新聞來源：http://abc13.com/news/pastors-sermons-subpoenaed-amid-hero-fight/350929/

Dr. Michael L. Brown，一位彌賽亞猶太人對於此事件的回應。
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/45820-mayor-parker-city-attorney-feldman-you-will-not-put-us-in-the-closet

成為休士頓市府攻擊目標的休士頓教會之一的牧師，Steve Riggle的訪談
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/10/20/listen-glenn-interviews-pastor-being-targeted-by-the-city-of-houston/

休士頓教會對市政府傳票要求下的反應
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/45769-pastors-of-houston-shout-it-from-the-rooftops-this-sunday

Ebola-- what's the difference between hatred-full thought and common sense

Ebola is now unreasonablely spreading in United States right now. I want to cry out where is the common sense to solve the problem? Why not stop the flight between west Africa and to the world? People are still want to put political correctness into the core issue. When I was perplex on how to explain the issue but now, thanks to Michael Moore, he gave me a vital example what's the political correctness at best. Here is his twitter yesterday....

If only the Liberian man w/ Ebola in Texas had told the hospital he wanted an abortion. They would have immediately gone all Pro-Life on him
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 18, 2014

How about this? WOW I don't know if you are Pro-life, you will have better chance to get saved. 'Pro-life' sounds to blasphemously to me from Michael Moore! Dang! Those pro-lifers! Today, his wisecrack strikes again! This is even more classic, I mean, dang, you read on!

If u get sick in Texas, the last person u want treating u is a person educated in a system that says Adam & Eve rode dinosaurs 6,000 yrs ago
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) October 18, 2014

As always, you need to get a closer look to those left wingers to see what they think and see how these folks have had influenced the world so far. Wouldn't their words reflects what they think and what they believe?

了解巴格達迪（Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi）以及伊斯蘭國哈里發（Islamic Caliphate State）現象--翻譯(自MEMRI)

媒體沒有報導出來的真相。
IS伊斯蘭國被呈現出來的是比蓋達組織更殘暴、更激進的伊斯蘭組織；然而，大眾仍然不了解的是伊斯蘭國的目地與其危險性。它對於西方的威脅不只是侷限在伊拉克或中東地區而已，而是世界性的，它與蓋達組織有著一樣的手段卻有不同階段性的目標，是整個伊斯蘭國的重點。本篇文章裡面有２５筆資料的來源，因為我自己時間不多的緣故，我就將原文網址連結展示如下，有興趣的讀者可以自己參閱。

文章原文：Understanding Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi And The Phenomenon of The Islamic Caliphate State（September 14, 2014）
文章作者：
Y. Carmon (President of MEMRI)
Y. Yehoshua (Vice President for Research and Director of MEMRI Israel)
A. Leone (editor at MEMRI)

MEMRI : The Middle East Media Research Institute

簡介

伊斯蘭國（Islamic State，之前被稱為Islamic State in Iraq and Al-Sham--ISIS）近來的持續殘暴殺戮成為大眾的談論焦點，並成功的轉移伊斯蘭國政治運動下的真實目的，以至於對伊斯蘭國IS的看法只是一個比蓋達還邪惡的組織。根據這篇評論，伊斯蘭國IS極度可能會以內部擁有西方護照的外籍軍人，回國後策動恐怖攻擊－因此當下之急因當馬上將IS消滅；甚至，連沙烏地阿拉伯國王阿卜杜拉也提倡這樣的方法，當他說他確定這些聖戰士＂將會在一個月內抵達歐洲，在兩個月內抵達美國。[1]＂

這篇報導完全根據伊斯蘭國IS該組織的官方文件、以及其領導人的演講，來闡明伊斯蘭國IS的教旨；根據調查，不像蓋達組織是以國際的恐怖攻擊為主要目標，伊斯蘭國IS的眼光放在建造並統一伊斯蘭國，並將與西方的衝突延展至更晚的伊斯蘭國IS階段。在目前伊斯蘭國的階段，是為模擬與重演初步的伊斯蘭國模型。

與蓋達組織不同的，其優先順序是為建立伊斯蘭國（Unlike Al-Qaeda, IS Prioritizes State-Building）

Dabiq雜誌第一期 圖片來源:http://www.rp-online.de/

儘管，伊斯蘭國IS與隸屬於蓋達的全球聖戰組織一同有相似的信念，就是為阿拉發動聖戰，並且建立一個施行伊斯蘭律法（Shari’a law）的哈里發（Caliphate）；然而真正分別兩者不同的是在於實現其目標的先後順序；蓋達組織強調展開全球聖戰的順序是在--全穆斯林渴望的伊斯蘭哈里發--之前（可參考賓拉登在1998年2月23日宣告的對十字軍與猶太人的聖戰），但IS的教義的特徵就是將「建造並統一伊斯蘭國」為其立即[2]並最重要的目標。IS的領導人為要實現建立伊斯蘭國的目標 ，將它視為生存與否問題[3]，因此授權可視實際情況允許妥協，最重大的妥協即為將＂面對西方的＂的掙扎延期至較為遙遠的未來；換句話說，在巴格達迪領導下的伊斯蘭國教義已經將與西方的衝突放置於不同的時間上，並將即期的焦點放至於區域上伊斯蘭國的建立[4]。IS出刊的英文雜誌，Dabiq，說到伊斯蘭國是＂一個歷史的奇蹟，為要為未來「歷史的終結日裡，與十字軍的末世之戰（al-Malhamah al-Kubra）」而鋪路[5]。＂

此外，巴格達迪遠景下的伊斯蘭國是根基於古早的伊斯蘭歷史，這樣的遠景並非承襲於沉溺在當前的中東政策與中東掙扎的泥沼中；所以，伊斯蘭國在談論政治議題上，例如巴勒斯坦的掙扎，只是略微提及，一併將此衝突延期至最後的歷史終局中[6]。

在當前的階段，IS的專注於統治在伊拉克與敘利亞被征服的區域，並擴張其統治範圍至全國，以遜尼派多數的區域開始[7]；下一個的目標，將以征服周圍的穆斯林國家[8]。在第二期的Dabiq裡引用可靠的先知聖訓，它確實的定義伊斯蘭國此組織在建立國家上的優先順序－先是沙烏地阿拉伯，然後是伊朗，終極目標則是＂羅馬＂：[9]＂你將會入侵阿拉伯半島，阿拉會幫助你征服她；你將會入侵波斯，阿拉會幫助你征服她；你將會入侵羅馬，阿拉會幫助你征服她。然後，你會與韃渣（Dajjal，伊斯蘭的末日的仇敵，類同基督教裡的敵基督）爭戰，阿拉會幫助你征服他。＂[10]伊斯蘭國IS的發言人，Abu Muhammad Al-‘Adnani宣稱目前IS在巴格達迪--為哈里發的統治範圍將會擴張，＂從阿勒頗（Aleppo，敘利亞第一大城）至迪亞拉（伊拉克）＂開始[11]。

Dabiq雜誌內容, 呼籲穆斯林進行希吉拉到對哈里發宣誓效忠。圖片來源：Medium.com

現階段伊斯蘭國與西方衝突已經被希吉拉（hijra，移民至伊斯蘭哈里發國度）與拜伊阿（bay’ah，宣誓效忠哈里發）取代，希吉拉與拜伊阿皆為建立哈里發（Caliphate）中最重要的關鍵。在哈里發被宣誓建立不久後流出的一個錄音檔中，巴格達迪（al-Baghdadi）向世界包括西方的穆斯林，說：＂在你們當中如果能夠遷移到伊斯蘭國就當遷移，遷移至伊斯蘭之家是穆斯林的義務。＂巴格達迪第一次公開亮相在墨索（Mosul）[13]星期五禮拜的講道中，他談論履行伊斯蘭律法（Shari’a）是宗教義務，並刻意避免任何呼籲國際聖戰（Jihad）或傷害西方的言論。不管是公開宣示哈里發成立的伊斯蘭國發言人--阿德納尼（al-Adnani），或是巴格達迪在墨索的禮拜講道中提及哈里發為＂在數個世代中被遺忘的義務＂--都在在顯示，伊斯蘭國與其它恐怖組織的銳利的反差；舉例，80年代埃及主要聖戰組織運動的理論者Muhammad ‘Abd al-Salam Faraj，卻將＂聖戰（Jihad，相對於建立哈里發）＂列為被遺忘的義務。

巴格達迪在哈里發被宣告之後的演講中，他呈現哈里發的遠景就是在接續而來的希吉拉（hijra）；他說，＂高舉你的頭，你現在擁有了一個國家，一個哈里發來重建你的榮譽、你的力量、你的權力以及你的統治權。這是將阿拉伯人、非阿拉伯人、白人、黑人、東方人和西方人以弟兄情誼連結而形成的國度；哈里發會將高加索人、印度人、中國人、阿富汗人（Shami）、伊拉克人、葉門人、埃及人、北非人、美國人、法國人、德國人、澳洲人…安置在同一個溝渠中，彼此互相防衛、保護彼此並為彼此犧牲；每個人的血融合在一個有目標的旗幟、一個陣營之下…＂[14]

 

Dabiq雜誌中呼籲穆斯林希吉拉，並徵求各類專業人士。圖片來源：Medium.com

當蓋達的英文刊物,例如Inspire雜誌，一個充滿著煽動、施行對西方恐怖攻擊的實際意見以及專業的知識－不管是＂獨行俠＂式的或是以組織為主的攻擊－這些煽動言論都不曾出現於伊斯蘭國（IS）發行的刊物或領導人的言論中。相反的，IS的發言人或代言人不斷的乞求住在西方的穆斯林履行希吉拉（hijra），遷移至一個需要專家以及專業人士（醫生、工程師、軍事專家、聖職人員以及行政人士）的伊斯蘭國，來鞏固強化伊斯蘭國的成功；以此伴隨而來的順序是相當清楚的：希吉拉是聖戰的道路（具體的說，聖戰的目標是要確保哈里發的發展，以及其漸進擴張的領土），以及＂伊斯蘭國將成立先於與十字軍的大戰（al-malhama）＂[16]。Dabiq，一本直接以西方讀者為目標的英文刊物，更進一步說明：＂聖戰的生活是不可能的，除非你打包遷移至哈里發中。[17]＂在同期的另一篇文章更說了”[穆斯林]活在不信者之中是令人心碎的。”[18]

 

Dabiq雜誌內容，其甚至提及照顧孤兒等主題內容。圖片來源：http://www.metronaut.de/

在當期的Dabiq中另外敘述了：＂許多讀者或許已經在問，現在他們要向哈里發付上什麼義務。因此，Dabiq的編輯團隊想要在這個重要的議題上，替伊斯蘭國領導傳達他們的立場。首先的要務，即便為從世界各地進行希吉拉－遷移至伊斯蘭國，從不信者之地（darul-kufr）至伊斯蘭之地（darul-Islam）。急切的遷移，如Musa（願你安息）急切的歸向真主，' 說：我的真主，我的心緊繫在你身上，我望你喜悅。[Taha:84]' 趕緊的與你的雙親、手足、伴侶與孩子們遷移至伊斯蘭國的避蔭之下；這裡有為你與你的家庭供應的房子；你可以成為釋放麥加（Makkah）、麥底那（Madinah）與耶路撒冷（al-Quds）的至要的功獻者。難道，在你的審判日那天，你不希望這些成為你好行為的秤舵嗎？[ 源自伊斯蘭進入天堂在於阿拉對你行為的秤，好行為秤盤是否重於壞行為的一端。]最後，如果因為某些因素，希吉拉對你而言是超乎你能力，阿拉若允許（inshallah），你對伊斯蘭國為世上所有穆斯林的哈里發的意圖與信念，也足夠拯救你脫離聖訓內一切的警告： ' 任何人死於未向哈里發宣誓效忠即為死於不信者的身分。' [19]＂

 

近三其Dabiq雜誌封面。圖片來源：http://www.metronaut.de/

此外，像建立哈里發這樣的掙扎也牽涉到與其它聖戰組織的競爭，這些組織是IS期待要解散並使之效忠於哈里的；這樣的對抗至終會延遲其它階段的對抗。IS發言人，al-‘Adnani在宣告哈里發的成立的同時，像其它聖戰組織喊話：＂現在哈里發已經成立，你們的群體與組織的正統性也已經無效了；你們當中沒有任何一個人可以在任何時刻中同是信仰阿拉，卻不向哈里發宣誓你的效忠。＂這樣的要求意味著未來一連串的血腥衝突，會拉長第一階段哈里發的成立，並延遲第二階段、第三階段的戰爭。Dabiq時常著重於內部的意識形態的掙扎以及敵對團體非法性，這些包括嘲諷敵對團體的領袖，那些IS相信已經偏離正統伊斯蘭的行徑。這樣的蔑視甚至延伸至蓋達組織領導人，艾曼‧扎瓦希里（Ayman al-Zawahiri）以及敘利亞反抗軍領導人Abu-Muhammad al-Joulani。

IS甚至直接面對世界聖戰運動給在西方的穆斯林的建議，為執行恐怖行動而待在西方不動的批評；所以，舉例來說，根據第三期的Dabiq，說任何待在西方的穆斯林都是享受不正當的西方生活，並且拒絕親自加入維護保衛伊斯蘭國，卻只滿足於在網路討論區進行聖戰的偽君子。除此之外，它更聲稱任何人不支持伊斯蘭國，他就是沒有進行聖戰：＂那些沒有加入聖戰就是拒絕伊斯蘭國，他更公開宣告這些人是與十字軍以及背道者加入[面對伊斯蘭國]怪異的敵對競爭之中。[20]＂

模仿穆罕默德的策略—追求建立國家為第一優先，即使要付出妥協的代價(Pursuing A State A First Priority, Even At the Cost of Compromises - Emulating the Strategy of Muhammad)

巴格達迪模仿[伊斯蘭建立者]先知穆罕默德，將建立伊斯蘭國列為高於全面向伊斯蘭敵人宣戰第一優先的方法，是伊斯蘭的終極模式[21]。這位在戰場上顯現殘酷本質的先知－正是IS所效法的－延後與他敵人的戰鬥，加上穆罕默德的政策中綜合著妥協與策略性協議[22]。現在正從敘利亞拉卡城統治的伊斯蘭國IS，也是執行此一策略，一面在統治地施行伊斯蘭律法（shari’a law），同時也藉由黑市向歐洲販賣石油[23]。

伊斯蘭國的國土目標，請注意其國土與土耳曼帝國以及近來阿拉伯之春國土的重疊性。圖片來源：http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.tw/

評估由伊斯蘭國對西方的威脅(Assessing the Threat Posed By the Islamic State to the West)

伊斯蘭國（IS）的意識形態、言語以及行為從而展現它向西方進行恐怖攻擊的階段為其優先順序的底層；然而，這也清楚的顯示，一旦其眼前的敵人完全被打敗，對西方的攻擊即將展開。更有甚者，它允許執行階段性任務，到第三階段，就是向西方宣戰的階段，伊斯蘭國將不會只是指揮幾千個駕駛著卡車的戰士，而是統率一個大規模的現代軍事設備，即可能是軍機，導彈，以及化學武器或某種大規模殺傷性武器；因此，延遲與西方的衝突是對伊斯蘭國有利，而非西方的利益（這也是伊斯蘭開頭就延後與西方衝突的最主要的原因）。[24]

此外，當恐怖攻擊西方的威脅非IS立即行動的議程，然而西方仍然[因石油]在中東的利益，例如在波灣的葉門、約旦，卻是IS具體化在第二階段的威脅，是一個在準備最後歷史的千禧年大戰前很好的預備。

在此需要強調，即便在IS的文稿與行動中，其延遲與西方衝突的教義雖已經牢固的確立，我們仍然不能排除在某階段的發展中，例如使用大規模殺傷性武器的攻擊，可能會改變其組織在階段性衝突上優先順序的排列，以及提前與西方衝突的可能。西方的策略在攻擊剛萌芽的伊斯蘭國可能會引發組織在創立前尚未計畫的反攻擊；然而這使西方陷入困境，如果不行動，長遠來看會危及西方，然而立即的行動所帶出沉重的代價也非巴格達迪在目前階段上的所計畫的。

的確，那些需要反制哈里發，並排除一開始就藉由西方介入的，乃是區域中被伊斯蘭國威脅的穆斯林國家；然而，這些國家卻無力單獨行動，她們需要美國的幫助來組成反伊斯蘭國聯盟，甚至美國與西方國家的協助；但是，在埃及、約旦與土耳其，拒絕加入在地上軍事行動－顯示此一工作的困難度。[25]

---

Endnotes:

[1] 'Okaz (Saudi Arabia), August 30, 2014.

[2] In practice, the foundations for Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi's ideas on the establishment of the Islamic State were laid down by his predecessors, primarily Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, and IS spokesmen have acknowledged this ideological debt. It was Al-Zarqawi who promised "the establishment of an Islamic Emirate" during his lifetime. In an interview he gave, he outlined the stages his organization would follow in this "political enterprise": "First we will eliminate the enemy and establish the Islamic State, then we will burst out of [this state] to conquer the Muslim countries and restore Islam there, and [finally] we will fight the infidels." (Al-hesbah.org, December 7, 2006). The first issue of the IS's English-language magazine Dabiq also stated that Al-Zarqawi had paved the way towards the establishment of the Islamic state.

Under Al-Zarqawi's successors, Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir and Abu 'Omar Al-Baghdadi, the organization announced in October 2006 the establishment of the "Islamic State in Iraq" (ISI). Abu 'Omar was proclaimed "Amir al Muminin" (Commander of the Believers, the title of a sovereign Muslim ruler), and later other senior officials were named "ministers." However, despite calling itself a state and conferring appropriate titles on its leaders, the ISI did not "liberate" territories, nor did it establish government institutions. It functioned as a terror organization acting against the American occupation and later against (the predominantly Shi'ite) Iraqi regime.

Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, who succeeded Abu 'Omar Al-Baghdadi in May 2010, was more charismatic than Abu Hamza and Abu 'Omar, and also took the stage under circumstances that were much more favorable to the organization, as the American forces who had hobbled the organization's activity had either left or were on their way out, leaving behind them a vacuum and instability. This instability was further exacerbated by the Arab Spring, which touched off civil war in Syria. Furthermore, then-Iraqi prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki played into the organization's hands by his discriminatory and repressive policy towards the Sunnis and by his subservience to Iran. Yet another element was the propitiously timed waning of Al-Qaeda, which caused Islamists to expect a new savior.

In sum, the aspirations of the organization's four leaders were identical, but it was Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi who got the chance to realize this joint vision and had the forceful personality and charisma to carry it off.

[3] The second issue of Dabiq, which is called "The Flood," states on page 5: "It's either [establish] the Islamic State or [be wiped out by] the flood."

[4] It should be noted that in the rare cases where Al-Baghdadi refers to America in his speeches and threatens it, he puts it in the form of a reactive threat, that America should cease and desist from attacking Islam. See his January 2014 speech (Twitter.com/wa3tasimo, January 19, 2014) and his July 2012 speech where he said the IS would attack the U.S. "right away" (Shamikh1.info, July 22, 2012). More than two years of inaction have passed since he made that threat.

[5] Dabiq 3, p. 6.

[6] Dabiq 2 states on page 4: "As for the massacres taking place in Gaza against the Muslim men, women and children, the Islamic State will do everything within its means to continue striking down every apostate who stands as an obstacle on its path towards Palestine. It is not the manner of the Islamic State to throw empty, dry and hypocritical words of condemnation and condolences like the Arab tawaghit [tyrants] do in the UN and the Arab League. Rather, its actions speak louder than its words, and it is only a matter of time before it reaches Palestine to fight the barbaric Jews and kill those of them hiding behind the gharqad trees – the trees of the Jews." Note that the magazine emphasized that at this stage, he is fighting the apostates who are keeping him from reaching Palestine (i.e., the Arab regimes, rather than Israel). Moreover, the reference to gharqad trees clearly places the confrontation with the Jews in the era of Judgment Day, according to the well-known hadith that says: "Judgment Day will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and trees will call: O Muslim, o servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him - except for the gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews."

However, at other times the IS refers to Palestine as part of Al-Sham, to be liberated in the near future.

[7] After conquering Mosul in June 2014, the IS threatened that its next target would be Baghdad. However, it did not in fact advance towards the capital, but expanded instead into further Sunni-dominated regions. 

[8] The Islamist State’s slogan is "dawlat al-islam baqiya" ("The State of Islam is Here to Stay"), stressing that it is eternal. This motto was apparently coined in April 17, 2007 by the organization's previous leader, Abu 'Omar Al-Baghdadi, and was adopted by Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi on June 15, 2013. On August 19, 2013 the latter expanded it to “dawlat al-islam baqiya watatamaddad” ("the Islamic State is Here to Stay and Will Expand"),  as a further taunt to the organization's rivals, implying that the IS will spread beyond Iraq and Syria, where it currently operates.

[9] In the seventh century Islamic texts, "Rome" referred to the Christian Byzantine empire. In contemporary Islamist texts, it refers to Christendom in general.

[10] Dabiq 2, p. 44.

[11] Al-I’tisam Twitter account, June 29, 2014. See MEMRI JTTM report, “ISIS Declares Establishment Of Islamic Caliphate, Appoints ISIS Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi As 'Caliph': 'It Is Incumbent Upon All Muslims to Pledge Allegiance To The Caliph... And Support Him'”, June 29, 2014.

[12] Al-I’tisam Twitter account, July 1, 2014. See MEMRI JTTM report, “In New Message Following Being Declared A 'Caliph,' Islamic State Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Promises Support To Oppressed Muslims Everywhere, Tells His Soldiers: 'You Will Conquer Rome [If You Follow My Advice]'”, July 1, 2014.

[13]  Al-I’tisam Twitter account, July 4, 2014. See MEMRI TV Clip No. 4335, “ISIS Leader Al-Baghdadi Calls on Muslims to Wage Jihad, Says: Becoming a Caliph Is a Heavy Responsibility”, July 4, 2014.

[14] Al-I’tisam Twitter account, July 1, 2014.

[15] See Dabiq 3, p. 26.

[16] Dabiq 3, p. 5.

[17] Dabiq 3, p. 31.

[18] Dabiq 3, p. 32.

[19] Dabiq 2, p. 3-4.

[20] Dabiq 3, p. 6.

[21] Al-Baghdadi also claims to share the Prophet's lineage when he calls himself Al-Qurayshi, a member of the Quraysh tribe, to which the Prophet belonged.

[22] This is exemplified by the Al-Medina Constitution of 622, which extended rights to the Jews to ensure their political absorption. These rights were subsequently withdrawn when Muhammad was able to expel them from the city in 628. Another example is the 628 Peace of Hudaibiya with the Meccans, which lasted 18 months, until the Prophet was able to realize his most cherished goal of taking over Mecca and the holy Ka'ba.

[23] Middleeastmonitor.com, September 3, 2014. Another historical example of a similar approach is Josef Stalin's doctrine that prioritized "Socialism in One Country" – as opposed to the vision of World Revolution advocated by Trotsky and Zinoviev. Stalin understood that the more he consolidated the Communist model and realized the principles of Socialism, as he understood them, in the territory under his control, the more influence the Soviet Union would gain. During WWII, in order to win the support of his American and British allies for his territorial demands, Stalin even dissolved the Comintern – the International Communist Movement, and also had Trotsky and Zinoviev, his opponents within the party, assassinated and executed respectively. His struggle against them is reminiscent of the internal war to the death being waged by the IS against its opponents within the global jihad movement.

[24]  Some might object that the organization's brutal actions, such as the beheadings of journalists, cast doubt on the analysis presented here. If the IS wishes to consolidate its rule before taking on the West, why does it engage in brutal behavior against Westerners at the present stage? However, it should be noted that the two journalists who were recently beheaded were held captive by the IS for two years. Their execution was a response to the American bombings and constituted an attempt to achieve rudimentary deterrence. This clearly emerges from the videos released by the organization. As for the atrocities against Yazidis and the Al-Shaitat tribe, and the persecution of Christians, these conform to ancient Islamic doctrines with regards to idolaters, Christians, and apostates to which the Islamic State is committed – the same doctrines that provide the foundation for the postponement of a clash with the West.

[25] There were even those who hoped that Iran would take part in the effort. However, statements by Iranian officials soon dashed this hope. Addressing the International Conference Muslim Clergy, held September 10, 2014 in Tehran, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, chairman of Iran’s Expediency Council, mocked the Sunni states' inability to confront the IS phenomenon, while stressing that Shi'ite Iran must remain uninvolved in this Sunni matter.  IRNA (Iran), September 10, 2014.