Fitzgerald: Why don’t Muslims integrate into Western societies?

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the vexing problem of Muslim integration in Western countries:

Islam itself is entirely responsible for the failure of Muslims in Infidel lands to integrate.

And here is why:

1) Islam itself teaches Muslims to be suspicious of, to hate, to refuse to trust, to offer only feigned friendship to, all non-Muslims. There are passages all over the Qur'an and Hadith about this. "Take not the Christians and Jews for friends, for they are friends only with each other." "Smite the Unbelievers wherever you find them." Not much room for nuance there. The stories in the Hadith about the triumph over, and the killing of, and the seizure of women and property from, non-Muslims whom Muhammad believed he and his men were entitled to attack (even if those in question had done nothing to them) further encourages such an attitude.

Then there are all the stories about Muhammad himself. What does it mean to someone to learn that Muhammad watched with satisfaction as 600-800 members of the Banu Qurayza, bound and helpless, were decapitated one by one? Does that encourage peaceful co-existence, or that famous "convivencia" that supposedly was such a heart-warming feature of Islamic Spain -- which for some has become the model of what they apparently see as an inevitably-islamized Europe? If so, they should read a little more deeply into the history of Islamic Spain (hint: do not believe a word from that sentimentalist Maria Rosa Menocal, "Director of the Whitney Center for the Humanities" at Yale University -- ca en dit long about the state of American education).

It may be quite hard to work for Infidel employers, or to get along well with Infidel fellow-workers, if one is constantly offering only ill-concealed -- or at times well-concealed -- hostility. Nor does the Muslim sense of Muslim entitlement make it easy for Muslims to endure, or to endure with good grace, such an arrangement: Islam by right should dominate, Muslims should rule, it is contra naturam, against all that is right and just, for Muslims to have to accommodate themselves to non-Muslim customs and laws and ways of behaving. If they must, they should only do so temporarily -- until Muslims are sufficiently powerful, which can happen long before they are an absolute majority. Just look at all the demands made constantly, so that Infidels begin to behave, even when they need not, as dhimmis: willing to placate, to make excuses for, to bend over backwards for, Muslim outrages in deed or in word or in attitude – outrages that may be obvious to all those who have kept their wits about them.

2) Inshallah-fatalism. The deep belief in the will of Allah, of Allah ta'ala (Allah Knows Best), of references in every greeting, paragraph, sentence,

3) The habit of submission -- of mental submission -- does not encourage skepticism, liveliness, "thinking outside the silly box" and so on. The habit of mental submission encourages -- the habit of mental submission. This can limit entrepreneurial activity, just as the sullen dislike of one's status, of the status of Muslims who do not lord it over non-Muslims but must adjust, can help to explain the difficulty of employing Muslims in a non-Muslim workplace.

4) Why should Infidels wish to employ Muslims? Why should they wish to create an unpleasant work environment for themselves? Fetish-worshippers of diversity may wish to do so: a newspaper, say, that thinks the "best way" to cover Muslims is to hire a Muslim (which is, in fact, probably the worst way, if it amounts to the usual apologetics and misinformation). Sometimes, of course, one is dealing with those who either hide very well, or may in fact not feel -- as "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims -- the hostility toward non-Muslims that Islam inculcates. But even those who never go to a mosque may at times engage in a sudden flaring-up, a sudden note of hysteria, when the subject of Islam is even tangentially raised -- as if it is simply a subject completely off-limits for Infidels. And nowadays, how can one discuss anything in the world's news without discussing Islam? One sees this reaction even in some of the seemingly most Westernized, most sophisticated, and suavest of Muslims -- a sudden rage, a sudden rush of furious defensiveness that overcomes the truth, that makes even someone who a minute ago was so calm, so rational, so seemingly part of the smae moral and intellectual universe -- and who a minute before might have been attacking aspects of Islam himself -- will, if an Infidel agrees with the attack, or dares to add his own two-cents' worth to the discussion, will withdraw into a circling-the-wagons mode.

5) Muslims through time and space lived in the lands they conquered through the loot acquired from non-Muslims, and they continued to exploit those non-Muslims thorugh the jizyah, and in other ways. As historians of India well know, the Hindus were initially subject to mass execution and mass enslavement. Some of those enslaved converted. Others did not wait to be enslaved, but converted after witnessing the realities of life under Muslim rule. But the Mughal -- and even the earliest Muslim rulers from the initial conquests -- realized that if the only possible choices open to Hindus -- as non-People of the Book (ahl al-kitab), they were not permitted to live and practice openly their religion -- were death or conversion, then there would ultimately be no non-Muslims left to be exploited economically for the purposes of the Muslim state. This could end the fabled Mughal luxury, the famed Mughal magnificence that so entrances certain writers (as the upscale, and more scholarly, Barbara Cartland of Mughal India, William Dalrymple). Hindus were accorded "honorary" status as dhimmis, not because of Muslim mercy, but because by so doing, the ruling Muslims could economically exploit them through the jizyah (which the tolerant, syncretistic Akbar managed to temporarily suspend -- one more reason why Akbar is remembered fondly by Hindus, and despised by Muslims).

Another way of finding loot, or slaves to exploit, were the constant series of slaving raids. Islam created slave societies -- slaves on horseback, slaves in the harem, slaves to build the palace of Moulay Hasan or the Taj Mahal. Everywhere, slaves from non-Muslim lands -- from black Africa by the tens of millions, slaves from the Slavic lands and Georgia and Circassia, by the many millions, and slaves taken over centuries by raiding parties that landed, destroyed villages, and seized villagers up and down the coasts of Western Europe. This too was a source of wealth, and in fact the corsairs that left ports in North Africa, especially Algiers, continued to raid Christian shipping until two things -- the American military response to the Barbary Pirates, and then the seizure, by the exasperated French, of Algiers in 1830, which put an end to the corsairs and their officially-sanctioned raids on Christian cargoes and enslavement of Infidel sailors.

The corsair-piracy has stopped, or found new means of expression, but the jizyah, in disguised forms, has continued. Arab and Muslim states have economies that depend heavily on one of two things:

1. The oil and gas-rich Muslim states depend on this manna from Allah -- which is exactly how they see it. They do not regard this accident of geology as an accident of geology, but as a sign of Allah's favor -- why else should so much of the oil lie under the lands of dar al-Islam?

2. The Arab and Muslim states that do not possess oil wealth, instead of having the oil-rich Muslim states share that wealth, have managed to get on the Infidel list of countries deserving of foreign aid. Suddenly that supposed loyalty of the umma al-islamiyya seems to disappear when it comes to oil money, save for the sums given to reward suicide bombers among the "Palestinians," and of course for any significant arms projects. No matter how corrupt, how full of anti-Americanism and antisemitism these societies may be, Western money keeps pouring in: to Egypt ($60 billion from America alone), to Pakistan, to Jordan, and to the shock troops of the Jihad against Israel, the local Arabs who after 1967 were carefully renamed as the "Palestinian people" so as to disguise the essential nature, and ultimate aims (not exactly concealed, by the way) of the Arab war on Israel, an Infidel sovereign state in the midst of dar al-Islam that must, in Arab and Muslim eyes, go -- sooner or later. It is a matter of pride. It is a matter of self-esteem. It is a matter of how the Arabs and the Muslims see themselves. What else could possibly matter?

The $9 billion pledged by the G-8 at Gleneagles to keep afloat a non-viable state, or a state that will only be viable at the expense of tiny Israel, because for some reason everyone has ignored the real history of that area, the demographics, the nature of land ownership, and as well has decided to apply rules about territory either captured from an aggressor, or if not captured directly, assigned to one of the winning members in a coalition -- rules that have been applied after every war. For how else did Italy acquire the Alto Adige, which when it was handed over had a population that was 97% German-speaking and ethnically part of Deutschtum? Yet who among us thinks Italy was not entitled to, and should return to Austria, the Sudtirol it possesses? And what of all the changes in borders after World War II, and the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia (3 million Sudeteners), from Poland, and elsewhere, not to mention land taken (Kaliningrad was once Kant's Koenigsberg)?

Yet the Americans and Europeans pay the jizyah to the "Palestinians" and are fearful of stopping, just as they continue to pay Pakistan, the supporter and promoter of the Taliban, the supporter and promoter of Dr. A. Q. Khan (without whom North Korea would not be the problem it is today). We continue to engage in bribery instead of reading Pakistan the riot-act, threatening to destroy not only its military (withholding all parts, all future deliveries) but also its economy (no one has to buy the child-labor textiles and rugs of Pakistan, and while that economy -- that is, while its zamindars -- are prospering, that can be ended in a minute).

Within Europe, the Muslims have the same attitude. The property and women of the Infidels belongs to them. There is nothing wrong with taking Infidel property. There is nothing wrong with raping Infidel women. It is not an accident that 70% of the prison population in France is Muslim; that 70% of the rapes of women in Scandinavia are by Muslims; that the drug traffickers in Holland, and the spacciatori di droga in Italy, are Muslims -- no, this should not surprise.

What does surprise is the failure of the non-Musli world to understand that this all fits into, and can be explained by, a coherent ideology that makes it virtually impossible for Muslims -- to the extent that they remain full believers, or turn into full believers -- to ever comfortably fit into, or ever accept, Western or other non-Muslim societies, mores, manners, laws, or ever to accept the idea of living in a society where the Infidel ways, the Infidel understandings, are to be permanent. This rankles Muslims. This is not right. The world belongs in the end to Allah, and to his people. It is to them that the property and women of others belongs. Not every Believer feels this, but in the canonical texts, and the tenets logically derived from them, and in the attitudes and atmospherics to which those tenets and the whole system of Islam gives rise, these views are not strange but natural and familiar.

And then there is another problem: the problem of the "moderate" Muslim -- which is to say, the relaxed, or unobservant Muslim, the Muslim who may not act according to the tenets of Islam today, but may suddenly acquire a deep psychic need to return to Islam, for whatever reasons. When one is in mental disarray, and happens to be a Muslim, provided with a Total Explanation of the Universe, and a Complete Regulation of existence, one can quite easily come to view the universe through the prism of islam.

And it need be nothing political -- nothing in the newspapers -- that sets one off. A death in the family, the loss of a job, the failure to get into a certain school, the perception that others do not share one's worldview and see no reason to accommodate themselves, and of course the depression that can come upon so many of us, Muslim and non-Muslim, at any time -- are all cause for alarm. But non-Muslims provide their own answers, their own home remedies, as they can, and those answers, and their affixing of blame for their problems, can be as various as their parents, their spouses, their children, their siblings, their employer, The System, the stars, Fate, their cholesterol level, their serotonin level, even -- at times -- themselves. Muslims have only to look to the one thing that always presents itself to be blamed: the Infidels. Their wiles, their whisperings of Shaytan, their decadence, their indifference, their whateveritis of which Infidels are guilty. And once a non-Muslim Muslim, a "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, begins to redsicover Islam, to return to Islam, he can turn into that other thing -- a Muslim Muslim. And that is the problem, the permanent problem for Infidels, who have done nothing to deserve this ever-ready, this omnipresent blame.

There is no solution. Reducing Muslim numbers, and Muslim power, and ensuring that the Infidel lands do not engage in some kind of attempt to win Muslims by changing their own laws and customs, but remain implacably themselves, or perhaps deliberately Islam-hostile rather than Islam-friendly, so that those who now claim that they are "thinking of leaving" really do leave -- would anyone wish to stop them -- should be the goal of Infidels, engaged only in defending themselves against the carriers of Jihad, all over the world.

| 15 Comments
Print | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us |

15 Comments

Great read Hugh. Isn't it the height of ignorance to belive that the West can bring Muslims into the idea of personal rights and freedoms to stop terror. We are only battling against over 10 centuries of history and Koran in our attempt, but if we just show them how lovely our Western society is, they will moderate.

Every time a terrorist attack happens and a world leader stands up and says these people don't represent a "religion of peace", we simply display our ignorance and our weakness. Whether we like it or not, every time a bomb goes off Islam makes the front page and Imams get air time on every news network. To Muslims, this represents Islam gaining momentum and convinces even the moderate Muslim that Islam grows closer to its Caliphate. Even though they say they don't approve of the bombings, they sure enjoy the results...

Islam gains momentum in the same fashion it always has, with a boom or a slice. It is just very convenient that most Muslims get to say they don't approve of how it is happening and we are foolish enough to fall for it.

Moose

Another must read from you, Mr. Fitzgerald.

By the way, have you considered to edit a book, or in someway --added to the Internet-- publish, a gathering your best wrintings posted here at JW/DW?

a gathering *of* your best writings

Ewanew,

Doesn't "Infidel", as used by moslems, refers to someone who doesn't believe in the fable of Kukuran, rejects allah and despises its profet muahammad? If so, I am not offended at all...

Well, English is not my mother tongue, so I may not be right here and, of course, would humbly accept a correction if deserved...

Why would they want to integrate in a place they want to take over? As for being an infidel, I wear their contempt like a badge of honor. The same goes for kafir, Great Satan, and any other title they use.

Very good, Hugh! Especially on Muslim parasitism and welfare bum mentality, the theft from non Muslims known as the Jizya.

Joel,

I started collecting them, but became overwhelmed by my 'real' work demands, so I am months and months behind. If you want to help, let me know.

You can find them at my site:

Challenging Islam

Ethelred- questioningIslam@yahoo.com

"Kafir" (infidel) means "one who conceals" (the 'truth' of Islam). Or one who "denies" (the Muslim creed).

Either by 'self-deception'... because, if you hear this great 'truth' and do not 'buy into it', you must be either delusional, according to their 'logic', or a liar -by 'the active concealing of the truth' to others. (AKA 'the willful deception of others', which is even more heinous an Islamic crime.)

All non-Muslims are thereby "concealers", and "deniers", thus "deceivers", and "liars".

And what do the majority of kafirs say of Muslims?

That they follow a "religion of peace".

That they are "misunderstood".

That they are an "Abrahamic people".

What's wrong with this comparison?

"1) Islam itself teaches Muslims to be suspicious of, to hate, to refuse to trust, to offer only feigned friendship to, all non-Muslims."

What a weak article. Unrealistic, silly generalisations and just plain weak.

1) Islam itself teaches Muslims to be suspicious of, to hate, to refuse to trust, to offer only feigned friendship to, all non-Muslims."

What a weak article. Unrealistic, silly generalisations and just plain weak.

Posted by: ia786 at August 4, 2005 03:38 PM

I found it quite specific, credible, and accurate.
In fact, your critique is sorely lacking in specificity; could you point out just one example of unrealistic, silly generalization, and weakness? Just one will suffice.

It's a nobrainer why muslims don't integrate except to left-wing multiculturalists, useful idiots, and the Bush and Blair administrations. The multicultis don't want them to integrate; both the multicultis and the useful idiots defend Islam because they hate Western civilization; the Bush and Blair administrations either don't get it or elect to ignore reality, or maybe a combination of both.

Anyone who understands Islam knows why muslims don't integrate into Western societies. Muslims come to the West for two or three reasons. They come to avail themselves of economic opportunities that do not exist in their homelands; to join relatives already here; or as paid infiltrators, members of the Fifth Column. Many of the opportunists eventually join the Fifth Column although that was not their primary motive for immigrating.

"In fact, your critique is sorely lacking in specificity; could you point out just one example of unrealistic, silly generalization, and weakness? Just one will suffice."

If I was to criticise the article I would be here all night. This article is similar to the rest found on JW, generalisations and just irrational thinking.

Okay, let me tell you something. Not all Muslims are religious, have you ever met a British Muslim??? I doubt you have, I am a British Muslim, I have met many. These posters seem to think Muslims follow their version of 'Islam' to the letter, that is not the case, it is plain silly and ridiculous. How do you expect people to take you seriously, then again if you were to be realistic and rational you're anti-Islam bias would vanish. Your views are irrational and just wrong.

"both the multicultis and the useful idiots defend Islam because they hate Western civilization"

Silly

"Muslims come to the West for two or three reasons. They come to avail themselves of economic opportunities that do not exist in their homelands"

Right.

"to join relatives already here"

Right.

"or as paid infiltrators, members of the Fifth Column. Many of the opportunists eventually join the Fifth Column although that was not their primary motive for immigrating."

...............?!?!?!

yeh right..............

Hello all, new here and love this site. One question, although not an easy one to answer.

I'm sure this has been discussed at some time, but what to do? What do you believe the solution is? The "winning of hearts and minds" isn't going to work for the most part.

Just fishing for opinions, not trolling... I'd like to get into some intelligent conversations here so please, give me some of your opinions...

Thanks

ia786,

5:51 "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

Can you explain how this does not mean what it says? It reads to me that Muslims should not be friends with non-Muslims. And yet lots of Muslims have non-Muslim friends. Is there some alternative interpretation of this?

There are two answers to the question posed immediately above.

One is that Muslims are permitted to feign friendship, and indeed to violate all sorts of commands that would otherwise have to be fulfilled, if the doctrine of necessity, or "darura," can justifiably be invoked.

The second answer is that some Muslims are bad Muslims. They are unobservant, in whole or in part, and do not choose to follow the path laid out in the Qur'an, the Hadith, and the example of Muhammad in the Sira.

So -- it is possible to ignore such teachings. But why should we Infidels choose to entrust our safety to the continued non-observance of Islam by some Muslims, when we have no way of knowing what prompts such non-observance, nor whether it will continue indefinitely, or change suddenly. We should not have to rely on the assurances of others; we need not endure this. The most intelligent solution is to minimize in every way all contact with Muslims, to attempt to minimize their presence within Infidel lands -- and this can be accomplished through many mutually reinforcing means, not one of which has yet been tried. There is no need to try to bring "democracy" to Iraq; the American forces should let the civil war between Sunni and Shi'a to proceed, and they will eithe arrive, after some fighting, at a modus vivendi, or they will not -- but it will no longer be American soldiers dying, no longer American equipmenbt being rapidly degraded, no longer American money being thrown about like confetti, no longer be American attention focussed on one single, and actually not very significant -- unless we choose to endow it with significance -- part of the world-wide Jihad that, at the moment, is most tellingly dangerous in the continued islamization of Europe, which is being accomplished through peaceful, under-the-radar means and must not only be brought to a complete halt, but reversed. And it can be.

Good column, Hugh. One point I saw is the mention of the G8 giving a huge sum of money to the Palestinians.

With their proven track record, wouldn't it be smarter to supply them with what they need, ie an legitimate infrastructure and whatever else it would take to get them up and running instead of handing money over to them?

It would at least in my view make more sense to not give them funding that could end up being used for weaponry against Israel.