Sharia compliant or sharia dominant?

Submitted by Philip (United Kingdom), Jul 18, 2015 at 20:39

$1.8 Trillion is about 1% of global financial assets. Not by itself hugely significant. However it depends how and where that money is invested. Is it invested esp. by Saudi as a 'sleeping weapon' in the Western economies to be utilsed to advantage by Jihadis and/or to be utilised to influence Wstern govts and media? That is one point. Secondly think on this. The US in WW2 had a pop of 130 million out of which it conscripted about 10 million men into the a/f. So about just less than 10% pop were conscripted from 1940-1946. That war cost the US abut $340million then or about $3 Trillion today. So $3 trillion to keep 10 million men fighting for 5-6 years.

The Moslem pop of the world is about 2 billion or 1/4. If say 1% became active Jihadis that would make a potential recruitment pool worldwide of 20 million. If 10% supported them then say 200 million. However, instead of one vast conscription, Jihad fights continuously with say not more than 100,000 combatants at any one time. So if those combatants can be resourced from that $1.8 Trillon Islamic asset pool, the Global Jihad could go on ... indefinitely, or until the Dar Ul Harb becomes or is converted to Dar ul Islam.

Assuming the global Muslim pop continues to grow and so does the fin asset pool, the poor secular de-Christianising West hasn't a chance. Also most Islamic conversion happens in Africa ad Asia, amongst younger populations. They then emigrate to the West. Stealth invasion. Lots of people, a well resourced islamisation. It doesn't matter if sharia compliance and Islamic finabce isn't to coin a phrase 'kosher' (halal?): its turning Dar ul Harb into Darul Islam. For the Global Jihadis, the financiers and imams as well as the fighters, that's all that matters.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".