what comes next?

Good main point about our current dilemma:

"You can sit here and talk about jihad from here to doomsday, what will it do? Suppose you prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Islam is constitutionally violent, where do you go from there?"

[...]

The fact is, the West does not have the political paradigms or language to justify an offensive against an ideological foe in religious garb.

from Raymond Ibrahim: Caliphate, Jihad, Sharia: Now What?
.

two faces of justice

Elsewhere, I have touched on how Islam sees truth. Here, I find a reference to how it sees justice.

Depending on whether Islamists address Americans or fellow Muslims, the same exact words they use often relay diametrically opposed meanings. One example: when Americans hear Muslims evoke "justice," the former envision Western-style justice, whereas Muslims naturally have Sharia law justice in mind.

Islamists obviously use this to their advantage: when addressing the West, Osama bin Laden bemoans the "justice of our causes, particularly Palestine"; yet, when addressing Muslims, his notion of justice far transcends territorial disputes and becomes unintelligible from a Western perspective: "Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion [i.e., Islam] as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who's understanding is right—our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs?" (Al Qaeda Reader, p. 43).

Raymond Ibrahim
The Two Faces of the Ground Zero Mosque