Didn't history end already? Why then are we still hearing from Francis Fukuyama?
In "Identity and Migration" in Prospect, he says this:
Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question. Since 11th September, a small industry has sprung up trying to show how violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic or historical roots. It is important to remember, however, that at many periods in history Muslim societies have been more tolerant than their Christian counterparts. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Córdoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning; Baghdad for many generations hosted one of the world's largest Jewish communities. It makes no more sense to see today's radical Islamism as an inevitable outgrowth of Islam than to see fascism as the culmination of centuries of European Christianity.
We see thus that it is an open question that he immediately closes. In other words, like Dinesh D'Souza, he proposes that we ignore the testimony of the jihadists themselves, when they make copious use of the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their acts of violence. (See, to take just two examples out of a great many, here and here.) No, the equation of Islam with violence comes not from them but from a "small industry" -- of "Islamophobes," no doubt -- that has sprung up since 9/11. We should also ignore the doctrine of warfare against and subjugation of unbelievers that is taught by every single orthodox Islamic sect and school of jurisprudence. Instead, we should note that dhimmis were able to practice their religions within the Islamic state -- while ignoring also, of course, the institutionalized discrimination under which they labored even in vaunted Muslim Córdoba.
In fact, Muslim Spain was hardly a paradise for non-Muslims. Even Maria Rosa Menocal, in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, admits that at the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus:
The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax — no Muslims paid taxes — and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.
So much for paradise. Also, historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf observes that “much of this new legislation aimed at limiting those aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant position of Islam.” After enumerating a list of laws much like Menocal’s, he adds: “Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply designed to underscore the position of the dimmîs as second-class citizens.” These laws were not uniformly or strictly enforced; Christians were forbidden public funeral processions, but one contemporary account tells of priests merely “pelted with rocks and dung” rather than being arrested while on the way to a cemetery.
If Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together peaceably and productively only with Christians and Jews relegated by law to second-class citizen status, then al-Andalus has absolutely no reason to be lionized in our age. The laws of dhimmitude give all of Menocal’s accounts of Jewish viziers and Christian diplomats the same hollow ring as the stories of prominent American blacks from the slavery and Jim Crow eras: yes, Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington were great men, but their accomplishments not only do not erase or contradict the records of the oppression of their people, but render them all the more poignant and haunting. Whatever the Christians and Jews of al-Andalus accomplished, they were still dhimmis. They enjoyed whatever rights and privileges they had not out of any sense of the dignity of all people before God, or the equality of all before the law, but at the sufferance of their Muslim overlords.
We need a fancy name for this institutional denial. Islamosillya? I mean READ WHAT THEY SAY. Do academics have access to online video? They could spend years watching Muslims saying Islam is all about violence and world conquest.
"And when the forbidden months have ended, slaughter the unbelievers everywhere they are found; besiege them, capture them, torture them, prepare every stratagem of warfare against them; levy the tax upon their conversion to the ways of al-lah, lo al-lah is merciful."----Muhammad, the KURAN.
Now I ask you WHAT IN THE WORLD COULD BE MORE RADICAL THAN SLAUGHTERING EVERYONE IN THE WORLD THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU?????
The above passage is tantamount to teaching first-degree murder; scratch that: it IS teaching murder. Does any OTHER "faith" do this?? (NO--and there is this guy Fukiyama's answer as to the open question of what is "specific" to the Islamic religion that encourages radicalization").
Muslims generally DO believe this passage in the Kuran incidentally and they are forced by their mosques to keep right on believing in it. Thus we can see that Islam is inherently 'radical."
Gadzooks!! How could anyone overlook something like THIS??? It boggles my mind, personally.
Apparently, Fukiyama is one of those political pundits who doesn't bother to research the material he pontificates about. It would behoove him to in the case of Islam, which is altogether too obvious in this case. Maybe one day he'll open a Kuran and stop writing such nonsense about Islam. NOW---
As for Islamic history, Fukiyama refers to the case of Spain. Although Spain's historical experience with Islam was not quite the apocalyptic nihtmare that it was elsewhere on the globe, Spain's history is NOT typical of Islam's treatment of non-Muslims elsewhere on the globe. I mean just look at the bloodshed that the Balkan peoples have been subjected to for the past nine centuries, or in the Indian subcontinent or what goes on in places like Lebanon, Egypt with the continuing attacks on the Coptic Christians or the Christians in Sulawesi, Indonesia.....
And by the way, since when does Islam have the right to subjugate other civilizations??? To my knowledge Islam has no such right and it has no right to practice and institutionalize murder as it has been doing for the past 14 or so centuries. Even Islam's claims to moral authority are suspect in the extreme as it is founded on a lie (that "God" appeared to him through a messenger angel "Gabriel" which is impossible as Gabriel works for Yahweh and not the being calling itself 'Al-lah").
No thank you, Mr. Fukiyama. You can keep your interpretation of Islam and its history all to yourself.
Yeah, I go along with that; they should also start using 4 and 5 syllable words. It's stupid to think there was ever any peace and harmony throughout the history of Islam. It just ain't there !
A few months ago I read Joseph F. O'Callaghan's, "A History of Midieval Spain" (c1975 Conell Press, LofC #74-7698) and the picture he paints is not one of a golden age. He mentions one Muslim king, easy going and open minded, who when faced with the invasion of a fundamentlist sect (some wierd non-Arabic sect out of North Africa, the Atlas mountains, I think) burned all the non-Islamic books in his library.
Robert-
You are a good logician and you also hug those facts real tight as you present your arguments. No wonder so many get cold feet re debating you. They snipe from a safe distance-LOL.
An open question? Where do these brilliant intellectuals get their information? They revise history to present a false image of islam's past and they ignore the rhetoric of present day islamic scholars, who all agree that islam must continue its mandated assault on the world until islam reigns supreme.
Why do these people persist in defending a mortal threat to our civilization? I just don't get it. Do they think that their lies will assuage muslim aggression, make friends and allies out of avowed enemies? Or are they simply useful idiots who hope to lull the rest of us into a false sense of security, while islam continues its inexorable jihad?
There is no "open question" about the inherent violence in islam. Violence oozes from islam's canonical texts, the mouths of muslims, and the sermons and fatwahs of the ulema. Islam's barbaric violence is unprecedented in the annals of history.
What kind of 'dialogue' can you have with people for whom lies and deception is a way of life?
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/01/26/the-crying-game-the-whining-whingeing-victim-song-of-the-koranimals/
Someone should write a parody of the Myth of the Golden Age of Andalus, set in the Ante-Bellum North and South, showing how marvelous life was for the American Negroes, and how increasingly militant neo-Confederates are agitating for a return to that Ante-Bellum Paradise -- and how, consequently, it wouldn't be so bad for African-Americans if America should revert to that.
Where do all these idiots come from? They must be Islam's stepchildren-not as violent, but just as warped in their views and more dangerous in that they can influence fence sitters.
"Where do all these idiots come from?"
They grow luxuriantly from the fertile soil of dominant mainstream Western PC.
A fallen neocon falls for Islamic whitewash, or is it eyewash?
Muslims always bring up the glories of Al-Andalus to guilt the rest of us by suggesting that this "paradise" is no more since the Spaniards reconquered their land. That's not the case. It was the Muslims themselves who put an end to the "golden age", as suggested by JaimeZepeda above. The newly converted (and fanatical, in the way of new converts) Berbers (Almohads and Almoravids, I forget in which order) kicked out the Arab Umayyad overlords and put in a fundamentalist Islamic regime.
Strange of Fukuyama to bring up Maimonides. He was among those forced to flee Spain, finding refuge in Egypt where the relatively tolerant Umayyads still held sway.
Found It on p 208
"The sect of the Almoravids had its origin in the preaching of Abd Allah ibn Yasin, who, about fifty years earlier before, attempted to rekindle a new zeal for the faith among the Berber tribes of the Sahara." and, "The men of the 'ribat' (al-murabitun, almorvids) devoted themselves to ascetic prictices while waging war against those who refused accept their interpretation of Islam." and "The contrast between the Almoravids and the petty kings of al-Andalus could not have been greater. The former were barbarian nomads who viewed the latter as effete lovers of luxury who bore their religious obligations lightly. In summoning the Almoravids to their aid the 'reyes de taifas' were running the risk of self-destruction, but they had no other choice. Al-Mutamid of Seville summed up the feelings of his colleages when he remarked that he preferred to herd camels for the Almoravids than to guard the pigsty of 'Alfonso VI.'
History, gotta love it. The answers never change, only the questions.
Fukayama really sounds like he's phoning it in with this tripe. The objections to Fukayma's (well, it's really not original to him) line of thinking are very well stated in the article.
"Fukuyama makes the mistake of thinking Catholicism is Christian."
And you make the mistake of indulging in cranky sectarian divisiveness.
I would like to buy Dinesh and Fracis a couple of T sheets - "Stuck on Stupid" and "I'm With Stupid"
How could Francis write such stupid and easily debunked trash like that? Let me guess..Bernard Lewis!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!
JaimeZepeda,
Thanks for the history lesson. The camels/pigsty quote is another reminder (not that we needed one) that Islam's highest value is unity.
Oh and let me remind Francis - Queen Isabella was a MAJOR ISLAMOPHOBE. She was so mean, she demanded that they leave or convert to Christianity! The horror! Oh and the final decree demanding the Muslims leave was don in.......1492!!
Francis, I respected you in some of your statements. Now you're just another Esposito to me, and that is pretty low. Save yourself Francis!
"the Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Córdoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning; Baghdad for many generations hosted one of the world's largest Jewish communities. It makes no more sense to see today's radical Islamism as an inevitable outgrowth of Islam than to see fascism as the culmination of centuries of European Christianity"
-------
The Jewish philosopher Maimonides- had to run from the muslims, and although he did manage to live in Cairo, and live their as the physician to the court, a great philosopher, and redactor of religion, he wrote about the insanity of Mohammad, quietly and it was his opinion under that enslavement, that he wrote to the peoples so oppressed in arabia that they required his words of comfort to keep them from being destroyed with their despair.
Diverse culture and learning- that andalus was the region where the yellow armband for jews was invented and taken for the same use by the nazi's last century. And Baghdad was a great center of jewish learning and productivity- with none left, due to the great destruction that the muslims brought and used to wipe away and deny freedoms to all others. Only the fools who demand that all tribes living in the west now- must be treated with great pomp and deference- sit back and go numb and stupid when they indirectly show that in such muslim history, it was never ever so just, never ever so filled with freedoms such as the west invented, and brought to these people. The Jews actually invented those freedoms, and we know how much, how very much the muslims feel they must annihilate the jews and dance and sing with blood libels and other pagan rites than define and defy their self deception disorder- but somehow escape the perview of such as Fukuyama- who seems to have ignored the math of the millions slaughtered by islam of each other, let alone all others, on every border- throughout Islam's history.
Having read the entire essay, I can now conclude Fukuyama is simply too smart for his own good.
If by that you mean aggressively expansionst on every front from culture, law, and art, to the battlefield, mayby "deterritorialized" means something. Down here, on Earth, there's only so much land and Islam owns a bigger chunk than it ever has, including great swaths of France, Belgium, Australia, Michigan, Lebanon, and Thailand. But Antarctica is looking rock solid.Don't mean to bore you with my pre-PC history book (found by accident) but this - our newest house of rep from some state other than Cal (Go you Bears) - should know this about 'musalim' and 'muwalladun';
"Many Christrians, perhaps the majority, embraced Islam with the hope of enjoying greater security for themselves and their property. Converts to Islam (musalim) and their children who were born into the faith (muwallladun) were not subject to tribute, but the Muslims did not encourage conversions lest the number of tributaries be diminished. Slaves usually gained their freedom by conversion. For many years the Arabs held the 'muwalladun' in disdain and denied them the opportunity to participate in the higher levels of government. The great rebellions of the ninth century were the fruits of this policy."
Maybe Marx was right about economics being more important in history than religion. Maybe the Muslims should examine their own motivations.
Francis Fukuyama!!!!
Dear lord it is the "Night of the living Neo-Con"!
First Dinesh and now Fukuyama! Ok ladies and genetlemen we need to clean up the conservative wing. We have dim wits running the ship. They make same spaced out type arguments that liberals make. Instead of reading the Quran or trying to understand what Islam is all about they build a giant Christian strawman to distract us just like some foolish liberal. They say: "See the Christians were bad once" and "The Crusades" etc. Sounds like something Dougie over at CAIR would say.
Is it possible that all these people we keep talking about went to Ivy League schools and that could somehow remove them from reality. I don't want to offend any Ivy League folk here now but could it???? Both Dinesh and Fukuyama are good examples. Hell our current President and Kerry both went to Yale and kissed Geronimo's skull.
Btw: Free Geronimo!!!
Fukuyama wants to get in the game, but he doesn't want to do the necessary work. He's given at the office. He's tired. Islam, learning all about Islam and about all the elements of Islam, including the Qur'an and the interpretive doctrine of "naskh" and all the most authoritative Qur'anic commentators and jurisconsults, the Hadith and the isnad-chains and the muhaddithin and the levels of authenticity, the Sira and the significance of Muhammad in Islam, especially as "uswa hasana" and "al-insan al-kamil," would all have to be studied, and re-studied, and thoroughly assimilated. And then there is that 1350-ear history of Islamic Jihad-conquest and all the instruments of Jihad that include, but are hardly exhausted by, military means, and the astonishingly or perhaps predictable similarity of treatment of non-Muslims from Spain to the East Indies -- that's a lot of work. And Fukuyama is used to the grand pronouncements, the illogical leaps, the lack of any felt need to produce the kind of evidence that well-trained historians require of others and demand of themselves -- that, at this point, is all beyond Francis Fukuyama, as it is of all those who, whether they are his admirers for "The End of History" or his former friends, like Charles Krauthammer, are just as lazy or even lazier and more ignorant of Islam than he, but none of that keeps them quiet, or modest in delivering themselves of what, in the end, is an endless series of guesses and unexamined assumptions (the "convivencia" of Islamic-ruled Spain, for example)and vaporings both portentous and often -- "The End of History" -- preposterous.
Fukuyama is merely an academic opportunist. A comfortable coward. in fact you could compare these folks with the "average German" during the Early Years of the Reich.
When it's all over they will say they "saw nothing - heard nothing" Well Mr. Fukuyama is on record now HE SAID SOMETHING!
"Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question"
Where is islam a push to the radical? Is it not islam , and those who truly follow the quran and the faith, itself fun-da-men-tal , and not radical?
Point of view, if islam is itself "radical", then it stands in the light for all to see.
Nothing can encourage a radical with the "facts" of the faith of islam.
"Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question"
-- Francis Fukuyama, quoted above
It's not an "open question" to Ibn Warraq, or Ali Sina, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or Wafa Sultan or Azam Kamguian or Irfan Khawaja or
Walid Shoebat or Anwar Shaikh or tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands of articulate ex-Muslims now living in the West and able to speak and write freely. They know Islam a bit better than Francis Fukuyama. Of course, they would reject not only his use of the phrase "open question" but his larger assumption: that there might be something in what he too easily calls "the Muslim religion" (Islam is a Total System, Islam is a religion and a politics and a social theory and a geopolitics and a scientific explanatio of the universe and much more), something "specific" that "encourages this radicalisation." The way Fukuyama phrases things, it is clear that he thinks Islam alone is not the problem, but only the "radicalisation" of Islam. And both the declared apostates, and those few brave Muslim-for-identificaton-purposes-only Muslims, such as Magdi Allam, could explain how wrong Fukuyama is to make such a misleading distinction between an assumed peaceful, good, unmenacing "Islam" and this dangerous "radicalisation" that, Fukuyama complacently allows himself to believe, is somehow different in its texts and teachings, for regular, mainstream, ordinary Islam. There is no such difference.
Ibn Warraq again: "There are moderate Muslims. Islam itself is not moderate." The knowledge that some Muslims are incomplete or "bad" Muslims is not sufficently comforting to Infidels to allow them not to wish to limit, however they can, the power and presence of Islam in their own, imperilled, Infidel lands.
Francis fukuyama:
"The Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Córdoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning; . . . . "
was born on the eve of Pesach (Passover) in Cordoba, in 4895 (CE 1135). He was born into a very illustrious family which was able to trace its ancestry back to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the compiler of the Mishna, and King David. His father, Rabbi Maimon, the dayan (judge) of Cordoba, gave him a good education in Torah and secular subjects such as mathematics, astronomy, and philosophy. Moshe excelled in all these studies.
When [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon Maimonides--the Ramba'm] was thirteen years old, the Almohades, a Muslim sect that demanded that all the Jews convert to Islam, conquered Cordoba. The Rambam's family fled, and after wandering for some time in Christian Spain, eventually settled in Fez, Morocco in 1160. Despite the troubles of this period, the Ramba'm continued his studies and began his literary work. At the age of twenty-three he wrote two short treatises (one on logic and one on the Jewish calendar) and began work on his Commentary on the Mishnah, one of his major works.
In Fez they encountered many Jews who had been forced to convert to Islam but continued to practice Judaism. Rabbi Maimon was active in encouraging these Jews to maintain their connection to Judaism. He published a letter titled Igeres HaNechama (Letter of Consolation) for these unfortunate people. Some time later a rabbi from outside of Morocco wrote a letter that stated that the Jews who had been forced to profess adherence to Islam were sinners who had lost their connection to Judaism. This rabbi declared that the prayers of these Jews were abominations and their good deeds were worthless. This "decision" had a terribly demoralizing affect on the Jewish community in Morocco. Many felt inclined to abandon Judaism entirely since according to this rabbi all their Jewish observances were worthless anyway and their only remaining option would be to lose their lives at the hands of the Muslim authorities. . . . .
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2006/09/al-andalus-that-happy-time-in-moorish.html
I suppose everything by Fukuyama is as well researched as that. LOL
"Someone should write a parody of the Myth of the Golden Age of Andalus, set in the Ante-Bellum North and South, showing how marvelous life was for the American Negroes, and how increasingly militant neo-Confederates are agitating for a return to that Ante-Bellum Paradise -- and how, consequently, it wouldn't be so bad for African-Americans if America should revert to that.
Posted by: remote_control "
...Well, if they keep voting for Dhimmicrats, it could well happen. Then Again, if they keep voting for Dhimmicrats, it is a good possibility the Muslims will be in charge and then they (and most everyone else is dead)..
Last man standing wins...
This man must be brain-damaged. Of course, Islam is violent and radical! All one has to do is read Mohammed's own words and look at the life he lived to understand that! The trouble with a lot of liberal arts academics like Fukuyama is, unlike science and engineering majors, they are edcuated with a lot of strange relativism. There is no such thing as 2+2=4 or actual physical laws of nature to give them a reference point for practicing their craft. Reality and nature are what they want it to be at the moment. as such, they often wind up spewing a lot of lofty-sounding, meaningless psychobabble.
They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. (from article)
And which of the wonderful Muslim economies that exist today are Americans and European Jews and Christians supposed to be so happy to share in?
In the 21st Century, we are supposed to be happy to live and in share in economies that don't equal some of our largest corporations?
Intellectuals like D'Souza and Fukiyama are to me at least as depressing as Martin Amis finds the middle-aged white Londonistaners parading around with signs saying "We are all Hezbollah now", but then isn't the definition of an intellectual as someone who raise airy-fairy moral relativity arguments to support beliefs that lesser intellects endowed with common sence and moral clarity would rightly dismiss in a moment?
"The Jewish philosopher Maimonides was born in Muslim Córdoba, which was a diverse centre of culture and learning"
What sort of bird noise is that? Yes, he was born in Cordoba and fled for half his life only to end in the dhimmified position as 'court physician' in Egypt. Moses worked endless hours in Egypt treating the heads of Egypt, he spent his free hours on his philosophy and religion. He created a 'golden age' out of genius, focus and hard work, but not to the 'diverse centre' of Cordobo, North Africa or Egypt.
Look, I love America. My country, right or wrong. I believe that. But a good metaphor would be the plight of the American Indian. Was the creation of America and the Westward movement of the settlers, was that a 'diverse centre' for the Indian! Did the American Indian and the settler sit under their fig tree and dwell in the garden exchanging jokes? like the Muslim and Jew? BS.
Fukuyama wants to get in the game, but he doesn't want to do the necessary work. He's given at the office. He's tired. Islam
HUGH
Posted to refer to Hugh's most excellent, intelligent end informed writings. Your thoughts, words and ideas are much appreciated by those of us who are not nearly so well read and informed as you are.
I sometimes feel as though I am in what used to be called an 'audit' of a graduate school course. And that I started at the last two weeks of the course.
All this sucking up is in prface to a request.
My Kingdom or my condo in Florida for a paragraph break.
Biorabbi:
As I recall, Maimonedes also spent a bit of time in one of the four Jewish "holy cities" -- possibly Safed, for a few years after leaving Spain and before settling in Egypt, but of course during those years, the lands were under Muslim control and already well on their way to dismal status.
Francis Fukuyama wrote:
Memo # 1 to Fukayama:
(a) There are no periods in history where Muslim societies and Islamic orthodoxy have rejected the following: death penalty for apostasy for adult males, death penalty for blasphemy, execution of dhimmis who violate the terms of the dhimma, imperialistic violent jihad in the name of spreading Islamic rule.
(b) Even if we were to entertain for one moment the fantasy told here by Fukuyama, and that there were such periods of "tolerance" in Muslim societies, it is obvious that we are not currently in such a period, nor are we likely to experience one in the forseeable future.
Fukuyama also wrote:
(So what?)
Memo # 2 to Fukuyama: Here's what Maimonides himself had to say about that Muslim "tolerance":
"The Arabs have persecuted us severely and passed baneful discriminatory legislation against us....Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they."
-quoted in Andrew Bostom's (2005) The Legacy of Jihad, p. 60; from Bat Ye'or's Dhimmi, p. 351.
Whether there is anything specific to the Muslim religion that encourages this radicalisation is an open question. Since 11th September, a small industry has sprung up trying to show how violence and even suicide bombing have deep Koranic or historical roots.
This clown is back? The first thing I thought of when D'Souza shit his pants was Fukuyama, who created the same public spectacle years ago.
Dinesh and Francis, Ivy League men both, standing side-by-side in their soiled chinos.
610 * 623 * 732 * 1066 * 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
It is important to remember, however, that at many periods in history Muslim societies have been more tolerant than their Christian counterparts.
I don't know this to ever have been the case within a particular historical milieu. Prof. Francis did not, and cannot, cite such a case.
It's yet another case of the Fictive Reality of Islam all creepy in the leafy quadrangles of academia, occluding reality, doctoring history, sanitizing ideology, and imposing false equivalence.
* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *
Later in the day on Sept 11, 2001, Prof. Francis popped into my mind and I thought, "Jesus, what a fool this guy just got made. If everybody laughed at him when published, what'll become of his tomfoolery now?"
He's back, still berated, and now we knkow. The best defense is a good offense, and this worthless fool of a Johns Hopkins University professor is a very offensive little man.
biorabbi,
"Did the American Indian and the settler sit under their fig tree and dwell in the garden exchanging jokes?"
There's a big problem with your analogy: American Indians more often than not brutally resisted and in fact engaged in small and large-scale acts of terrorism against the European (and then after 1776, American) settlers. It can be argued that American Indians, for the most part, stubbornly, and barbarically, resisted becoming assimilated to a superior civilization. Jews never did that with their Muslim conquerors, and Christians may have fought back, but usually not in the egregiously savage way American Indians did.
Fukuyama writes:
This quote is partly the product of Fukuyama's
(a) blatant ignorance of the global extent of violent jihad currently underway in numerous countries outside of the west,
(b) prejudiced view that jihadists themselves are merely passive agents responding mechanically to (alleged or implied) abuses or mistreatment at the hands of the west, rather than active, intelligent (if deluded) players who are motivated by a core set of beliefs and are working systematically and strategically toward specific goals and rewards (i.e., the establishment of Islamic supremacy in the real world, admiration from the approx 30-60% of Muslims who support them, and selfish pursuit of illusory afterlife pleasures), and
(c) lack of awareness of the consistencies and connections between the majority of the world's Muslims who want sharia law implemented to some significant extent and the "fast" jihadists such as Atta et al.