A Jihad Watch reader recently wrote: “You don't want them in the UK. And they don't want you in Iraq, Afghanistan. They don't want your diplomatic double standards over Palestine, Somalia, Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...If you want to be left alone, leave others alone.”
Yes, one can partly agree with this. The West should remove itself from Iraq and from Afghanistan, and never try to engage in such a baseless "bringing freedom to ordinary moms and dads" bit of nonsense again. And it should cease the transfer, from Infidels to Believers, of all that wealth, including more than $60 billion to Egypt from the United States alone, and $27.5 billion, if one includes debt relief, to Pakistan by the United States since 2001 alone. The disguised Jizyah of foreign aid to Muslim states that do not have oil does not change the attitudes and atmospherics of Muslim states, attitudes and atmospherics that flow naturally from the tenets, that are derived naturally from the immutable canonical texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. The fiasco of Tarbaby Iraq, which has cost the United States $880 billion, more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, ever fought by the United States, should be clear.
And it should be clear that the large-scale presence of Muslims in the Bilad al-Kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, has created a situation which, both for the indigenous Infidels, and for non-Muslim immigrants as well, is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale presence. Once that is clearly understood, sensible measures -- beginning with a halt to Muslim migration, and intelligent ways to reverse current trends, can be undertaken. One has only to look around -- for Americans, say, to see what has happened in England or France, or the British to see what has happened in the Netherlands, or the Italians to look at Malmo or Rotterdam, or the Americans, who have the advantage of seeing what has happened and is happening in Western Europe -- to understand this problem.
Finally, there is no way to "reform" Islam through the efforts of Infidels, and possibly not through the efforts of those who are now aware of the problem, but out of filial piety or embarrassment continue to Defend the Faith, and do not join the impressive and articulate defectors from it, such as Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many others. For not only is their the fear of what true Believers will do (death for such defectors can and has been the result in some cases) inhibiting, but complete social ostracism is a powerful inhibitor as well. And it is difficult to see steadily and whole a Total System, that regulates all areas of life, and -- at no extra cost -- explains the universe.
The goals of the Infidels are not to be achieved by sending armies to keep a non-existent "Iraq" united, much less make it a swell place, a Model or Light Unto the Muslim Nations. Its pre-existing fissures, sectarian and ethnic, of which the Bush policymakers were entirely ignorant, or to which they were oblivious, are not to be deplored, but welcomed. Nothing need be done to widen them. The Sunnis will never acquiesce in the hated Shi'a, those "Rafidite dogs," ruling over the Land of the Two Rivers and especially over fabled Baghdad, the madinat al-salaam, for 400 years the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate, and therefore the most important city (save for Mecca and Medina) for history-haunted Sunni Arabs. The Shi'a, in turn, will never surrender their new power. Nor will either side compromise, as assorted American politicians and generals appear to think. They will not, because Islam does not teach compromise with one's enemies. It teaches that one emerges either the Victor or the Vanquished. And even though, in the Islamic texts, the contesting parties are Believers and Infidels, the same attitudes and atmospherics affect the relations of Sunnis to Shi'a, of Shi'a to Sunnis.
Similarly, the Americans should not be preventing but encouraging the Kurds to win a state of their own. For a key to splitting the Camp of Jihad, and diminishing its power (and therefore its menace) is to encourage non-Arab Muslims to do what Anwar Shaikh and Ibn Warraq (both from Pakistan) managed to do: to realize that Islam has always been a vehicle for Arab supremacism. This supremacism manifests itself in the taking of Arab names (something that is great fun for the new convert or "revert"), the five-times-a-day Meccatropical prayer-prostrations, the taking of a seventh-century Arab as the Model of Conduct, uswa hasana, as the Perfect Man, al-insan al-kamil, and in the deep belief that the Arabs have that despite the universalist claims of Islam, Islam truly belongs to the Arabs as the "best of peoples" to whom the Qur'an was given, and in their language.
What better way to raise the whole matter, in the consciousnesses of the 80% of the world's Muslims who are not Arabs, about Islam as the carrier of Arab supremacism, then to have the world's attention focused on the Kurdish attempt to throw off the Arab yoke? What will Berbers, themselves the victims of Arab cultural and linguistic imperialism, do if they see a Kurdish state? What will the Berbers who in the Kabyle, and in France, the association of "maghrebins laics," show the most promise of questioning, or even possibly abandoning, here and there, Islam, think of such a state? And what would such a state mean for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, and, in its ripple effect, what would Iranian efforts to crush unrest in the Kurdish areas of Iran, do to the Baluchis, the Azeris, or the Arabs in oil-bearing Khuzistan? Every effort by the Americans so far has been naively based on the idea of bringing toys and good things to eat to the boys and girls on the other side of the mountain, but this chug-chugging I-Think-I-Can-I-Think-I-Can has not and will not work. Less naiveté, less hopelessness, is called for -- and also called for is a renewed alliance between the United States and Western Europe, for the Muslim threat is shared, and the only difference is that the threat internally is greater for the Europeans than for the Americans, who still have time to protect themselves far more easily.
Finally, if you wished Muslims well, what would you wish them? You would wish them to be able to escape from the mental prison of that faith that stunts mental and moral growth, wouldn't you? But it can't be done from outside. All one can do is demonstrate, implacably, that one is not fooled by taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, that one has read, and reread, the essential texts (Qur'an, Hadith -- a few hundred from al-Bukhari and Muslim will do, and Sira), and that you have already heard all the selective quotation (5.32 without 5.33, "there is no compulsion in religion," and so on) but also know exactly what those texts mean, or what has been carefully omitted, or what Muslims take from the texts of Islam. The weapons of Jihad are many, and qitaal, or combat, or the kind of acts that we call "terrorism" but Muslims regard merely as a justified form of unconventional "qitaal," is only one of them, the only one that the Bush Administration seems capable of recognizing. The Money Weapon, careful campaigns of Da'wa targeted at psychically and economically vulnerable people, the marginal members of Western society, and finally, inexorable demographic conquest, of which Muslims from Boumedienne boasting at the U.N. in 1974, to a simple retired accountant writing his letter to the Pakistani paper "Dawn" on December 5, 2001, about "demography" as the newest and most effective instrument of Jihad in the West -- these are the instruments that matter. As long as Muslim states and peoples are prevented from acquiring the most dangerous weaponry, that famous WMD, or if they have managed (as A. Q. Khan did through theft of Western secrets) to acquire such weaponry, to limit their power to deliver it, little military intervention is necessary. And certainly there should never again be a repeat of the Iraq folly, well-meaning as it was.
Suitably informed, Infidels can demonstrate to Muslims outside, and within their own countries, that they are not susceptible to blague. And they can point out, again and again, that the failures of Muslim states, societies, and peoples, the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of those societies, are a result of Islam itself. And the more that is understood, and the less inhibited Infidels are from expressing that view, the more that Muslims themselves will begin to think and write about such matters, and since the justice of the claim will soon become evident, even obvious, the demoralization of Islam, through disaffection not among the primitives but among the thinking classes, will hasten the disarray and demoralization.
This would be much more effective than silly boots-on-the-ground in Baghdad, or endless amounts of money spent, or surrenders contemplated at the expense of others (as in the throwing-Israel-to-the-wolves strategy, whereby the legal, historic, and moral rights of that country are minimized or simply ignored, and the nature of the Arab and Muslim war against it -- a Lesser Jihad -- is deliberately misinterpreted as a "nationalist" cause by that post-1967 creation the "Palestinian people"). All this is done in order to win "hearts and minds." But both are unwinnable, by Infidels, if those hearts and those minds are Muslim.
How do we know? The Qur'an tells us so. And the Hadith, And the Sira. And 1350 years of Jihad-conquest, and the subsequent subjugation, in the best case, of the surviving non-Muslims, as dhimmis, subject to the onerous conditions that led so many Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and even in India, where Hindus were finally accorded a kind of honorary ahl-al-kitab, or "People of the Book" status, meaning that they would not be killed or immediately converted, but in order to keep that Jizyah flowing, would be allowed to stay alive. Of course, 60-70 million Hindus were, such historians as K. S. Lal have noted, killed during several centuries of Muslim rule, while some were either forcibly converted early on (those Muslim rulers needed some local support, given the size of the population they had to rule over), or later as others , quite understandably, wishing to escape the horrors of their status as dhimmis (subcontinental "zimmis"), a status which was one of deliberate humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity, made the decision to join those who were part of the master class, that of the Muslim overlords. And that explains how islamization has turned vast areas of the conquered-by-Islam globe into places where Muslims now predominate, and continue, even now, to make life as difficult and often as dangerous as it now is, for those tiny remaining populations of non-Muslims in lands now securely under Muslim rule.
you keep saying arab supremacism, but how do you explain muhammads last sermon?
you keep saying arab supremacism, but how do you explain muhammads last sermon?
you keep saying arab supremacism, but how do you explain muhammads last sermon?
sorry about that,
also if the jizya was so bad for hundus, how come many convert to islam still to escape the hindu caste system?
are you saying the jizya is as bad as the caste system?
They won't leave us alone. They can't. They are commanded by their filthy ideology to wage war on unbelievers & Jooozzz until the world is Islamic.
Houari Boumédienne, Algeria’s undisputed ruler until his death in 1978, said it clearly in a 1974 UN speech:
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends.
Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
In a recent survey on Canada it was predicted that with current trends the population of Muslims in Canada would exceed 30 % by 2025
In Australia the trend is like this:
30 years ago, there were about 25.000 Muhammedans in Australia. Today the official figures are said to be 350.000
By 2037 the natives will be under siege. Its demographics stupid!
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/16/update-we-will-conquer-your-country-with-the-bellies-of-our-women/
Bush4eva...now I get it, Jim Sutton must have sent you...
The troll Bush4eva is a muslim jihadi from Kashmir.
arjun.sevak...Thanks...I mistook her/him as another Sutterite...same thing basically.
hahahaha
i am from Kashmir?
strange thats not what my passport says.
still i would like an answer perhaps from some of our hindu friends, how is the jizya worse than the caste system?
Your jizya is worse than anything, because it is a result of invasion. The record of treatment of indigenous populations on muslim-conquered lands is way too long and way too similar everywhere to even discuss it. Last time I checked cast system was not being imposed on people in Western Europe or America. That is at least one way in which cast system is much, much, much better than jizya. We know islam, and we do not want any of it in our lives! Leave us alone or face the consequences...
And we need not explain muhamad's last sermon. It is inapropriate for us, who reject and despise islam to explain anything in it. However, since we are facing an islamic conquest, we have the right, no - the obligation to understand and popularize the ideology that drives this conquest. That is what more than a bilion boneheads will never acknowledge: anti-islam sentiments, islamophobia are based on the perfect match between muslim behaviour and the priciples and ideology of islam - ALL as PRACTICED by muslims or EXPLAINED by islamic scholars. All we do is macth YOUR actions to YOUR words. This actions and words of muslims are the only source of islamophobia, and will be the reason for the complete isolation of islam from the rest of the world. It is up to you to understand the last and all other sermons of muhamed, to decide how to behave with non-muslims and to see if you can reform to the point when the rest of the world will accept you. As it is islam is incompatible with any other social and religious order known to man, and deserves only contempt and complete isolation.
We are not wanted over there, then they should not be wanted over here. Our bible is not welcome over there; then their koran should not be welcome over here. If we cannot build churches, temples or synagogues over there; then they should not build mosques over here. Our women have to cover up over there; then their women should un-cover over here.
This game can go on and on with those simple minded Moslem Arabs. They keep pushing for their mores on us while rejecting the sensibilities of our norms. Since ‘reciprocity’ does not exist in their feeble mental makeup, there is no point of even expecting it from those who, one moment smiling-taqyya, turn bipolar with violent-rage the next. If their ‘best people’ are too immature to be dealt with as adults, then treat them as immature children, some of whom are pathologically dangerous. We do not need them over here, not even their recycled petrodollars. The solution is to severely inhibit, or stop completely, any financing for madrassas and mosques with Arab money - so they cannot spread their malginant world domination theocracy of 7th century, primitive desert caliphs’ imperialism. Stop their flow of funds, because they are not wanted here. Perhaps then we can reverse their idiotic jihad cult. The same applies to their so called charities and other organizations promoting Da’wa of cultural ‘understanding’, including their anti-Constitutional regressive Sharia. Do we really ‘cair’ about their morality of inequality for humanity, where our freedoms are subordinated to their capricious desert god? Do we want their oppressive version of government such as displayed in all those ‘paradise’ Sharia lands? In what do they excel, except taking hostages and extortion? What have they really contributed to our societies of late? Multiple wives, with multiple children? Our welfare roles are already strained by their economic ‘productivity’, especially in ever so generous humanitarian Europe.
Stop Arab funding here, and maybe they will get the message – no Arab imperialism - not here. To reciprocate in kind, we can oblige them by not spending our tax dollars on foreign aid over there. Let them eat cous cous... What will be missed by us with their exit? Cartoon rage riots? Evil stares at our women enjoying the sun at the beach? How about ‘honor’ killings, and mistreatment of women? Or jihad terrorism? Taking off shoes at airport check in? I guess we can manage to do without.
still i would like an answer perhaps from some of our hindu friends, how is the jizya worse than the caste system?
Posted by: Bush4eva "
Muhammad very clearly established that people of other religions have to pay a poll tax, called the jizya, to Muslims. The money not only funds the spread of the Islamic faith (often by military campaign), but it is intended to remind those of other religions that they have been subjugated by Islam and exist in third-class status (behind Muslim women).
But now, all castes are equally treated by the law. Education is free and open to all castes. Discrimination is only done socially.
under the Muslim Jizyah, one who refuses to pay could die, one who never converts to Islam destines himself to a lifetime of payment and torment at the hands of the Muslims......in the Indian caste system, those of lower castes can become educated and advance into a higher lifestyle with being forced to change religions and without having to pay an Islamic slavemaster extortion payments....there are many differences , these are but a few...
Ban Muslim Immigration..
with being forced "....s/b without being forced..
you know nothing of the caste system evidently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1638183.stm
the caste system whilst no government endorced is WIDELY practiced amoung hindus in India.
you know nothing of the caste system evidently.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1638183.stm
the caste system whilst no government endorced is WIDELY practiced amoung hindus in India.
Posted by: Bush4eva
This article refers to Buddhist conversions, not Muslim. There is no tenet of Buddhism that says the whole world must be converted to their beliefs by force, unlike Islam which has such a mandate, under penalty of death or dhimmitude repressions. If a convert to Islam tries to leave, the penalty is death, a fate far worse than lower caste.
Lower caste Hindus were not flocking to Islam. So what’s your point?
caste members can escape their poverty or status with education and job skills
Non Muslims imprisoned under Muslim Jiyzah cannot escape except by death or submission...
...Hindus are smarter and more peaceful than Muslims...as are Buddists and goats...
Bush4eva,
Just like you, taqiyya, insisted on receiving a reply, I now insist on you explaining how the practices in India (cast system) are threat to anybody outside of India (which is Hindus' own country)? You may compare that to sharia, which is a threat to EVERYBODY, EVERYWHERE because of world invasion by muslims!
Bush4ave-
?
The caste system is an insult to the human spirit of anyone born Hindu.
But Islam is a threat to the existence of a free humanity.
One: a localized folly.
The other: a global disaster.
Mohammad's "last sermon" (assuming it wasn't a fabrication) of "peace" doesn't seem to have stopped the terroristic Jihad that began with him, circa 620 A.D., and which has slaughtered its way down the ages to its bloodthirsty present.
Why was Mohammad so grotesquely ineffective? might be the better question.
Or: why are Muslims so terribly unable to follow his one call to decency?
_______________________________________________________________
(Convenient of him to pre-empt any future "prophets" in his final "sermon". Sounds like an anti-heretic weapon added by some later Caliph to me. [Heretic literally meaning "one who thinks for himself".] And a pity Jesus- or one of his disciples- didn't think of it first. Would have prevented a lot of murderous Mohammedan mischief over the millennia.)