Jihad, the struggle against Infidels who put up resistance to the spread and dominance of Islam, is a central and permanent duty imposed on Believers by the texts and tenets of Islam. Sometimes it can be fulfilled as a collective duty, where some participate actively and the rest merely lend support. Some circumstances require a Believer to participate individually and directly, and not merely to support, in any number of ways, others who might participate.
Jihad does not employ terrorism alone, or even mainly. Qitaal, or military combat, was always the traditional and most obvious way that Islam was spread. And what we correctly identify as "terrorism" is what most Muslims would describe as a form of qitaal. As for the other instruments of Jihad, they have proven in modern circumstances far more effective than qitaal.
And besides, the Infidels have superior military technology, which is one of the things that Muslims from Al-Qaradawi to Mohamed Mahathir keep deploring before Muslim audiences. These instruments include the clever deployment of the money weapon (a weapon only made possible in recent decades through the sudden, quite unmerited, oil revenues); the campaigns of Da'wa that can now be conducted because large numbers of Muslims were permitted, in an act of criminal negligence by Western elites, to settle deep within Infidel lands, behind what Muslims themselves have always been taught to regard as enemy lines, the lines that delineate Dar al-Harb; and the demographic conquest which can be seen all over Western Europe, and which is not leading to a widespread acceptance by Muslims of the legitimacy of the Infidel nation-state, or of its laws and political institutions and social arrangements. But those laws and political institutions are being exploited and manipulated in an attempt to insure that Islam sets down permanent roots and is able to keep up steady, growing pressure on the Infidel nation-state, whose existence and laws and customs flatly contradict, and are contradicted by, the tenets of Islam.
The "schadenfreude" of the Arabs will quickly evanesce when the Americans withdraw from Iraq, allowing the Camp of Islam to be forced to endure its own fissures, without the spectacle of expensive, depleting, vain American attempts to hold things in check. It can be diminished by other actions that can and must be undertaken by sensible leaders, who unlike Bush will have to have familiarized themselves with Islam's texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics, and from that familiarity construct unsentimental policies. No more "ordinary moms and dads" who want "freedom"; no more nonsense about reaching out to help make a better world for Muslims, no more nonsensical payments of tens of billions to Muslim states and societies by Infidels, no more naive faith in the basic goodness of Islam which has been mysteriously "hijacked" by "extremists," no more ignorance of one's own past that allows a leader to claim that Iraq is just like the young American Republic, no more of any of this utter crap that we have had at such great cost, to endure because our current President, and some of his loyalists, far from being tough on Islam, are not nearly tough, or far-seeing, or comprehending, enough.
Let us find ways to experience that schadenfreude the Arabs and other Muslims are now experiencing at the spectacle of America stuck to Tarbaby Iraq. Let's get quickly unstuck, and forget about any of those who tell us "we owe the Iraqis" this or "we owe the Sunni regimes" that. We owe none of them anything.
Long past time to replace the obstinately stupid with the imaginative, intelligent, and relentless people necessary for the task, without end, at hand -- the task of constraining the forces of those who participate in, or support, or defend, or potentially could participate in, or support, or defend, the Jihad directed at Infidels everywhere in the world, from southern Thailand to southern Sudan to southern Nigeria to southern France and southern England, and all the way to North America, where only the Atlantic moat has managed to limit the flow, and therefore the local size, of the worldwide problem that comes from the texts and tenets of Islam.
Such people already exist. Others can be so fashioned. Find them. Make use of them.
The Atlantic moat has not prevented Canada from undertaking the same Islamification we see in Europe.
In India, we see a disproproportinately high Muslim birthrate which, combined with the Hindu and Sikh tendency to abort female fetuses, does not bode well for that country's future.
Likewise in Africa, must of the fastest growing countries and regions within countries are Muslim. Only a few, such as Uganda, evidence the high fertility rates seen in Muslim countries such as Somalia and Mali.
Long-term, demographic trends certainly portend a Muslim-dominated world.
What does the use of a German word add to the content of the essay except to allow the author the opportunity to show us how smart he is.
What is wrong with "malicious glee" instead of "schadenfreude." Samia Hosny used it in the first article and Hugh must have thought he would use it to so that we can realize just how smart he is also. I studied German for three years in high school and have spent the last forty trying to forget it.
The Atlantic moat has not prevented Canada from undertaking the same type of Islamification we see in Europe.
In India, we see a disproproportinately high Muslim birthrate which, combined with the Hindu and Sikh tendency to abort female fetuses, does not bode well for that country's future.
Likewise in Africa, most of the fastest growing countries and regions within countries are Muslim. Only a few, such as Uganda, evidence the high fertility rates seen in Muslim countries such as Somalia and Mali.
Long-term, demographic trends certainly portend a Muslim-dominated world. I don't think it really matters what we in the US do or do not do. The future will be Islamic.
I remember when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (or someone in his building) announced that the US government was going to start a disinformation service to mislead the enemy and whoever needed misleading. The left sent up the predictable shrieks of outrage, then, in a moment of what I thought was unmatched hilarity, Rumsfeld announced the next day that, ok, we won't do it.
Get it? Get it? Don't you think that this is hilarious too?
Rummy: "We're going to start a Ministry of Misinformation."
NYT: "You better not!"
Rummy: "Ok then, we won't."
Ok, I'll spell it out for you: after announcing that we are going to send false signals, we then announce that we won't, which might be the first false signal. Anyway, I though it was the funniest thing I ever heard some out of the US government, I mean funny in a ha ha way, not just oddball funny.
So, I ask, is it at all possible that all the "religion of peace" talk is really coming from the Ministry of Misinformation? Could it be by any stretch of the imagination true that we really know what jihad is all about at the highest levels of government operations, and just want to appear clueless?
The focus should be simple:
(1) Cut off economic ties with the Islamic world.
(2) Stop immigration (invasion) of Muslims into the West.
If we can accomplish those two things then half of the battle will be won or at least we can't lose.
To accomplish these objectives:
(1) We need to use alternative energy sources in the West.
(2) We must convince the majority that Islam is not just a religion but also a governmental system (like communism) that is hostile to our way of life.
I fervently wish that the stated policy of our nation and its leaders will soon be to wage--not counter-terrorism--antijihad instead.
I fervently hope that this policy is stated emphatically and carried out purposefully, no matter what the anticipated criticisms may be.
To wage antijihad means to defend, by every means, pluralistic democracy, universal human rights, and the rule of law to secure these.
"What does the use of a German word add to the content of the essay except to allow the author the opportunity to show us how smart he is.
What is wrong with "malicious glee" instead of "schadenfreude." Samia Hosny used it in the first article and Hugh must have thought he would use it to so that we can realize just how smart he is also."
-- from a poster above
The poster who describes my use of "Schadenfreude" as merely an act of verbal swagger and swank, and therefore, in his view, to be deplored, is wrong, for three reasons.
Reason #1: the article above began life earlier today as a posting written in reply to an article in which the word "Schadenfreude" was used not once, but several times. It would have been silly for me, intent on grabbing that word from its original user, and the idea that word expresses ("the Arabs are experiencing Schadenfreude at the sight of the Americans in Iraq etc.") to have sought to avoid the very word I deliberately sought to appropriate for the use, and enjoyment, of Infidels, for if we arrange matters right, it is we who will be running down the field, carrying that same word-ball seized from the Arabs and Muslims as described in the original Egyptian article that provoked my post -- but going in the opposite direction.
Reason #2: "Schadenfreude" is one of those German words for which there is not an exact one-word equivalent in English. Like some other German words, such as Weltanshauung, "Schadenfreude" has entered the English dictionaries and English usage, while retaining its German spelling and pronunciation.
Reason #3: If you desired to demonstrate what you regard as my annoying habit of not limiting my lexicon to words that cats and dogs or you can understand, you picked the wrong word to use as your example. If you wish to find fault with the verbal plenitude of those who already know, or take the trouble to find out, the right or exact word, you would have done better to attack my use of "zumbooruk" or "shahbanou" or "widdershins" or the freshly-minted-for-English "polypragmonic." To pick on the widely-used and widely-understood "Schadenfreude," when so many other, far more suitable, candidates for your withering criticism have been made available in such abundance is -- franchement, mon vieux -- ludicrous.
It goes without saying, I don't give a damn what prickly, fragile Muslim sensibilities might be injured by stating the truth, that "jihad," in its primary sense and ultimate intent, is not spiritual or strictly defensive. Rather, it is war waged on humanity by a failed theocratic ideology, a false world order; inherently contradictory, irrational, and dehumanizing.
A clinical, comprehensive and accurate riposte from Hugh!
Who are you?
My Two Cents' Worth:
I enjoy your writing style, Hugh, for its uniqueness, dry humor, magisterial tone, and insight; I like your prodigious use of words and volume of writings. If you are, as hostile rumor has it, really Robert Spencer's alter ego, then the two(one) of you comprise a truly multifaceted individual.
um, like dude, um Hugh is really, really smart.
I think, um, like that I felt some shadenfruede for you after I, um, read Hugh's response.
Gee whiz wow, Hugh, chill already. Man, sheesh.
The guy wasn't sayin nothin, he was just sayin.
"Sometimes it can be fulfilled as a collective duty, where some participate actively and the 'rest merely lend support'."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent speech in Syria comes to mind.
Yes, Hugh does indeed enjoy using words that he knows full well that few reading his bloviations will understand. Which, as an essayist, is, at best, counterproductive. At worst, it is proof of his pomposity, especially when he refers to cats and dogs and "you" as all equals. Nobody talks down to his audience as Hugh Fitzgerald. One can even argue he has as much contempt for his readership on this blog as he does for the islam he warns us about. I'd say it's about even.
However, having said that, schadenfreude is a common expression, that is known amongst even children. Well, some children. Using German expressions in dealing with psychological concepts has been trendy since that German, Freud, and his racket, came to prominence. In law you use Latin. In politics, you use French. In psychology, you use German to impress your audience. Saying schadenfreude is no more verbally supercilious than saying Bon Appetite.
Although, the first Englishman to ever utter that French phrase in the company of other diners, was no doubt, as pretentious then, as Hugh is today.
"Hugh does indeed enjoy using words that he knows full well that few reading his bloviations will understand. Which, as an essayist, is, at best, counterproductive. At worst, it is proof of his pomposity, especially when he refers to cats and dogs and "you" as all equals. Nobody talks down to his audience as Hugh Fitzgerald."
-- from a poster above
No, you have it exactly wrong.
I never talk down to this or to any audience. I don't simplify. I don't limit the lexicon used to the eighth-grade level which -- as a matter of policy, striclty enforced -- American newspapers for some time have insisted upon, and will promptly excise from an outside contributor's piece any word they think anyone will have to look up.
I'm not like that. I respect my audience. I respect the intelligence of those who know, or who are perfectly willing, ready, and able to find out. Nowadays everyone has a virtual library at his fingertips and if he can come to JW, he can look up any word that he does not know that appears at JW. I am always grateful to learn a new word, a word that has been used, that I did not know, and now must look up. I assume many others feel the same way.
It's a question of accuracy of expression-- sometimes the best word is not the shortest. Sometimes it's even in German (which almost guarantees it won't be a short word).
Connoisseurs of the not-immediately-obvious will perhaps share my suspicion that the poster who calls himself "jihadwatcher" above has previously appeared here as "Norseman," and subjected me to the same kinds of criticism, in virtually the same words. For example, here is what he wrote, complete with that tell-tale word “bloviation” that he is so fond of, on September 22, 2006:
“The other day, I took some abuse for mentioning the "bloviations of the insufferable windbag Hugh Fitzgerald." What an injustice!
Is is possible that we are looking here at a new record? Mr. Fitzgerald, may I suggest that you buy a few periods (full stops)? May I also note that it is not good to begin a sentence with a conjunction?
You, sir, are indeed a semiliterate, bloviating, insufferable windbag. I rest my case.”
[Posted by: Norseman at September 22, 2006 10:17 AM]
The same poster – whether he calls himself “Norseman” or “jihadwatcher,” also seems to have unusual views for someone who visits this site. For example, he was ecstatic when the news was posted here that two men, neither of them Muslim, were arrested for the murder of the Armanious family [Egyptian-American Copts], because he thought it would undo this site and its principals.
Here is how he put it:
“Surely you people realize that you, Robert Spencer, and Jihad Watch have now been completely discredited by your hateful and prejudiced actions. Will you not now at least do the decent thing, appologize to the Muslim ummah, and abandon your opposition to Islam?"
[Posted by: Norseman at March 5, 2005 10:02 AM]
Another poster promptly provided additional information about "Norseman":
"I remember Norseman from AOL's MidEast forum. He's pro IslamofFacist and a rabid Jew hater."
[Posted by: Kemaste at March 5, 2005 12:06 PM]
So perhaps there is a bit more going on than an attempt at literary criticism. Perhaps Norseman/jihadwatcher doesn’t like the way I put things for other reasons.
pelayo walked right into that one under his own volition. It was certainly not a slight initiated by Hugh, who at times can come across as a a bit of a "curmudgeon".
There, that's my contribution to the lexicon for today.
Hugh,
I immediately though of a poster named, ironically enough, Edmund Fitzgerald. His actual post at the end was deleted, but his descroption in my post as a response is quite similar.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015842.php
Taking Hugh's great post and running with it.
The "schadenfreude" of the Arabs(Americans) will quickly evanesce(bloom) when the Americans withdraw from Iraq, allowing the Camp of Islam to be forced to endure its own fissures, without the spectacle of expensive, depleting, vain American attempts to hold things in check.
The fires have been lit and stoked in the oven that is Iraq. All America need do now is step back to a safe distance and watch the conflagration. The devastation will be beyond anything experienced in the Middle East. As in the World Wars, no one in the Muslim world will be free of the violence, free to stand back and not participate. There will be no refugees, as there will be nowhere safe to hide. No borders will be sacred, no Royalty immune. Muslims the world over will flock in droves as their families and homelands are decimated, a cursory and feeble attempt to defend their honor. The world will watch aghast, at the butchery and inhumanity that these peoples are capable of. They will wonder if they can do that to one another, what are they capable of doing to us. When there is no more fuel for the fire and the world has seen enough, the great military powers - America, Russia, and China will have no choice, for the sake of humanity and world order, but to divide the responsibility for what is left of the Middle East and restore some sense of order from the chaos. In the same manner in which Germany and Japan were rebuilt after WWII - in our own image, new nations will emerge. The survivors, like those in Germany, will forsake, nay, even outlaw supremist ideals and dreams of world conquest. Like Japan, they will forsake their God, for it was their belief in Him that brought upon them this near annihilation.
Far-fetched dream, maybe. But as long as we delude ourselves that "staying the course" will or could ever succeed, we may never know.
Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,… every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
"Nowadays everyone has a virtual library at his fingertips and if he can come to JW, he can look up any word that he does not know that appears at JW. I am always grateful to learn a new word, a word that has been used, that I did not know, and now must look up. I assume many others feel the same way."
And I would be one of the many. Assumption correct, Mr. Fitzgerald. Please to ignore those that are not.
Any predictions on the Norseman's next name?
Christianrepublic is on the right track. I would posit that the 1st step to defeating the Islamists is to rid ourselves of the Leftists among us. And I do mean RID.
I find it of interest that most "Arabs" have no memory of what their ethnicities were before they became Arab. The Middle East, of course, comprised many nationalities. Occasionally, someone from Algeria will tell me he is a Berber. I recently asked a Tunisian and he strained to remember something about who Tunisians were before the Arab onslaught. Islam has brought Arabism to the entire Mideast and beyond, to the extent that peoples have lost their old identities and changed their national psychology to the Arab model through the inculcations of Islam, a carefully constructed system of "submission", but submission to whom --Allah or Arabism, or is it one and the same?
"Christianrepublic is on the right track. I would posit that the 1st step to defeating the Islamists is to rid ourselves of the Leftists among us. And I do mean RID."
I didn't say that on JW, Chockfullonuts. Have I said it elsewhere? I have wished aloud that we would shut down the mosques and end the importation of Muslims, much as we did Communists in the 50's, but what you allege is that I advocated liberalcide, which actually I do not recommend, though I have better things to do than try to stop it. There are only so many hours in a day.
That kind of remark -- "...rid ourselves of the Leftists among us. And I do mean RID" -- by "chockfullonuts" above, is distinctly disturbing, and certainly unhelpful to this site (but most helpful to its enemies, who will seize on it with joy), and it remains so even when coming from someone bearing the name of that heavenly coffee (better coffee millionaire's money can't buy); it might have been written by an agent provocateur. The further posting of such sentiments will lead to prompt and permanent banning.
You really tick me off, those of you who come here and poke Hugh with your dull, petty, little sticks. It makes me want to punch you in your smartass mouth. But then he doesn’t need me to stand up for him. I’m just saying.
When I first came to JW and encountered Hugh I was overwhelmed by his posts. I’ve spent hours, days even, researching his words and references, even translating French and other languages to English. I’ve learned and stumbled across many things I needed to know, so many things I couldn’t count. His intellect and range of knowledge is awe inspiring. Even today I feel like a child who tugs at the coat of the Master, “Sir, may I ask a question?”
Your sneers at my Friend will not go unforgotten. Punks.