| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the Saudi hate literature being distributed from American mosques, and the energetic Saudi madrasa-building in Asia:
Saudi Arabia needs to understand that it has to stop this. No more hate tracts in American mosques. No more funding of madrasas world-wide. Otherwise, the royal family may find that all the information that has been collected about its decadent doings will find its way to the Internet, for the delectation of Saudis who, of course, in deploring their rulers, will first identify them as Infidels. And it can't be much fun to be a member of the Al-Saud family once those palaces start being attacked, and even those villas, and country estates, in Western Europe. Even Bandar's Plantagenet hunting lodge in England, or that house in Aspen where he had the mountain removed so as to get a better view -- all of that can be most unpleasant.And then of course there are the oilfields of Al-Haza, not to mention the recent explorations by -- was it Elf or Total Fina that signed the contracts -- in the Rub al-Khali. The former are right on the Persian Gulf, and unlike Iraq, there are not long distances for the oil to travel or to be sabotaged. And as for the natural gas in the Rub al-Khali -- the natural point of exit is Oman, and for the right cut Sultan Qaboos, who doesn't much are for Saudi Arabia anyway (remember the Dhofar rebellion, aided and abetted by Saudi Arabia?), might strike a deal. Oh, there is a good deal that can be done to Saudi Arabia. And that will be, if it doesn't stop that funding.
What's that, you say? Saudi Arabia has always been a "staunch ally"? How, exactly? Tell us how, tell us what Saudi Arabia has done by way of curbing the threat posed by its very own ideology to the entire Infidel world?
We can't appeal to the wisdom or goodness of Saudis. We can only threaten them, either the ruling family itself -- in other words, instead of protecting them, throwing them to the wolves, and seizing all of their overseas assets for they, in this war, are enemy aliens and their property can be seized (go back and see what happened to German-owned property during World War II). There are so many ways to make Saudi Arabia behave, if only we stopped pretending.
A Jihad Watch reader calling himself “William James” has assured us that "poverty" is one of the reasons for the bad behavior of some Muslims. Really? All the detailed studies, which analyze one by one the actual participants in terrorist activities, rather than rely on airy generalizations -- i.e, that emulate Sir Lewis Namier's prosopographic studies -- show that on the whole they are much better off, and much better educated, than the run of Muslims. It is, precisely, the completely illiterate villagers in remote places in, say, Afghanistan, or Indonesia, who have not yet been exposed to, for example, audiocassettes and videocassettes, who have no access to madrasas, Saudi-funded or otherwise, who do not even possess, perhaps, much in the way of a mosque, who are least susceptible to the siren-song of the Jihad. Last I looked, it was the richest Muslim country of all, Saudi Arabia, that was a mortal threat, given its bankrolling of mosques, madrasas, and all sorts of louche undertakings, including bribing C.I.A. officials, Western diplomats, and journalists, as previously it had employed ARAMCO as its exclusive public relations agent, to present itself as a "staunch ally" of the Western world when it is in fact a permanent enemy -- with or without its completely corrupt ruling family -- not only of the West, but of the entire non-Muslim world.In taking the name of one of America's most distinguished thinkers, William James, who could never have emerged from a Muslim society, and would not have lasted a minute in such a society (see Jacques Barzun's tribute-cum-study, A Walk with William James, or the beautiful short obituary by John Jay Chapman, in which he described James has having "so unexpectedly and incredibly died”) the blogger then makes a second point. It is the usual Tu-Quoque thing, about how all religions have their problems, and Christianity managed to have its “reformation” and now Islam is having “its reformation.” What reformation? The return to purity of practice, including the purity of the unadulterated application of the Sharia, is called “Wahhabism.” There is no reform of Islam. There are those who speak about “reform.” When Islam was seen, much more clearly, as weak, in the period 1900-1930, many more “Muslim reformers” were in evidence. They got nowhere. How could they? What texts could they have changed? Could they change the facts of Muhammad’s life? Could they change the Hadith deemed “authentic”? Could they have touched one hair on the head of the Qur’an? How, pray tell?
Anyone who speaks blithely of Muslim reformation has got to tell us what he means. What texts, precisely, will be changed, and by whom? And with what authority? If these questions cannot even begin to receive a plausible answer, then that itself is telling.
Finally, the blogger above assures us that we should join “interfaith groups” and reach out, blah blah blah. Nonsense. Those “interfaith groups” are invariably the tool of Muslims, who use them for the purposes of presenting more wool over more Infidel eyes, of engaging in outwardly sympathetic, and inwardly deeply deceptive and hostile, acts toward Infidels, who are being placated only in order to keep everyone from studying too closely what Islam is all about, and to maintain those conditions in which Muslims can establish themselves, or to use the power of inveigled Infidels (including an appeal to a phony “Arab-American” identity, a transparent attempt by Muslim Arabs to exploit the larger numbers, and far greater acceptance in American society, of the descendants of the Christians of the Middle East, especially Maronites and Copts, whose own ancestors came here precisely in order to flee the persecution by Muslims) to their own malevolent ends
No, there is no more need to play the fool. If it is shown that large numbers of Infidels have managed to educate themselves about the nature of Islam, and above all in its immutable attitude grounded in Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira toward Infidels, the Muslims themselves will have to change their strategy. And it may be too late for them to do so. An aroused Western or even non-Muslim world will not permit the criminal negligence of the past, and will demand much greater resistance and counter-pressure, not because the West is conducting “a war on Islam” but because Islam has been conducting a war, not on the West but on the entire non-Muslim world, for 1350 years. What has changed is that, after the Cold War when Islam was seen as a “bulwark” against Communism, and after the farce of the decolonization period when fabulously rich Arabs presented themselves as among the world’s “victims” (save for Algeria, there was no colonial presence anywhere in the Arab world that lasted for even a half-century), after the terrorist attacks, we have begun to see what was there to see all along. But which we did not see, until after millions of Muslims had been allowed into our countries and the Saudis had energetically put up mosques all over. That presence has created a situation that makes life for the indigenous Infidels more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would have been had such immigration and mosque-building been stopped before it began.
Posted by Robert at January 31, 2005 11:07 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
'SAUDI PUBLICATION ON HATE IDEOLOGY FILL AMERICAN MOSQUES'
Excellent monograph [95 pages] just released by
The Center for Religious Freedom
details the lethal cancer that eats away at America. The Saudi cancer must extirpated.......
freedomhouse org/religion
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 31, 2005 1:32 PM
Saudi Arabia must stop this huh?
Why should they when they are family friends and Business partners of your beloved President.
Talk to the man you adore.
When your terrorist creating... err fighing, President finally has enough of Islamism, severes his relationships and ties to the Saudis, and kicks the mad mullahs out of the US there might be some resolution of this problem. And not till then.
But he never will, he has financial, and vested interests in the relationship with the Saudis and he knows that you (his base) will support him and forgive him his sins, even if he was caught in bed with a young boy.
We have wasted our national treasure and the blood of our youth, to invade Iraq, depose a despot whom the Jihadis hated and had issued a fatwa against, and "saved"Iraq, by creating an (undemocratic) Iraqi Islamic Republic, siamese twin to the Iranian Islamic Republic next door.
But you guys still don't get it.
Posted by: Giaour at January 31, 2005 2:12 PM
Giaour is absolutely correct. The Soddies are behaving as ALL MOSLEMS MUST, according to sharia.
Da wah is one of the main tasks for moslems living in dar al Harb..
It is our governemnt that should be doing something about this.
Can't we sue the Soddies and Mosques for encitement to murder?
sedition?
Posted by: ploome at January 31, 2005 2:42 PM
Giaour-
It's you who doesn't get it.
Unlike your adored Dhimmicratic presidents, at least Bush has done something concrete to counterbalance to Saudi-Wahhabi influence in the region.
at January 31, 2005 2:49 PM
Back on topic - the Freedom House report.
Having read the report, one has to wonder if the Saudis or the institutions disseminating this material can be held legally responsible for promoting hate speech. Some of the language in these materials is a flagrant violation of Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Something tells me there are laws on American books prohibiting such material, but I'll have to research it to find out.
Obviously the Saudis have to be lambasted and punished for this outrage. I've made it a point of sending it to my representatives in Congress, the ACLU and various human rights organizations. I encourage you all to do the same.
PS. The report is 95 pages, but a considerable portion of that involves introductions, notes, bibliography, etc., so it's more like 70 pages of reading to wade through.
at January 31, 2005 2:56 PM
HATE CRIMES IN THE U.S.:
Definitions, information, ethics, and legislation
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat1.htm
I'll forward more info as I Google it...
Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2005 3:00 PM
Bad news - I believe this is all protected under the First Amendment.
Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2005 3:05 PM
It may be legal in the US, yet these materials constitute human rights violations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which the US is a state party):
Article 20
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
at January 31, 2005 3:12 PM
The First Amendment is not absolute. Incitement which leads to an imminent threat of violence -- the test from Brandenburg v. Ohio -- has replaced Holmes's "clear and present danger," or is, rather, its latest incarnation.
The threat of mass terrorism, which was not foreseen at the time of Brandenburg, in which an audience of Muslims, already raised on a steady diet of inculcated hatred, are simply whipped up to commit crimes against Infidels, may not in every case meet the test of "imminent." But the relation between Muslim whipping-up and attacks, whehter or not the time between the whipping-up -- which may be constant -- and the resultant act, should no longer have to be "imminent."
Time to revisit Brandenburg, and rather than past concertos, pay heed to the music of what happens now.
Posted by: Hugh at January 31, 2005 3:59 PM
Thanks, Hugh.
Time to look into that...
at January 31, 2005 4:30 PM
Brandenberg v. Ohio
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/brandenburg.html
I wonder, given that the 9/11 attacks followed the publication of many of these materials (ex. Bin Baz had been dead for 2 years), that the test concerning imminence has already been established in fact.
Anyone's thoughts on this?
Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2005 4:37 PM
Here's one analysis of Brandenberg:
http://www.eff.org/Censorship/Academic_edu/CAF/law/brandenburg-v-ohio
Excerpt:
In the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court struck down the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan member under a criminal syndicalism law and established a new standard: Speech may not be suppressed or punished unless it is intended to produce 'imminent lawless action' and it is 'likely to produce such action.' Otherwise, the First Amendment protects even speech that advocates violence. The Brandenburg test is the law today.
at January 31, 2005 4:56 PM
"Prior Restraints: National security"
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c05p02.html
at January 31, 2005 4:59 PM
Here's what the Permanent Committee for Scientific Research and the Issuing of Fatwas, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has to say about "interfaith dialogue" - remember this next time Taqiyya Tour 2005 rolls into town:
"...the effects of this sinful call is that it erases the differences between Islam and disbelief, between truth and falsehood, good and bad, and it breaks the wall of resentment between the Muslims and the unbelievers, so that there is no more loyalty and enmity, no more jihad and fighting to raise Allah’s word on earth..."
So much for outreach...
Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2005 5:09 PM
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/brandenburg.html
Another instance was Schaefer v. United States, 251 U.S. 466, in which Mr. Justice Brandeis, joined by Mr. Justice Holmes, dissented. A third was Pierce v. United States, 252 U.S. 239, in which, again, Mr. Justice Brandeis, joined by Mr. Justice Holmes, dissented.
Those, then, were the World War I cases that put the gloss of "clear and present danger" on the First Amendment. Whether the war power--the greatest leveler of them all--is adequate to sustain that doctrine is debatable. [452] The dissents in Abrams, Schaefer, and Pierce show how easily "clear and present danger" is manipulated to crush what Brandeis called "[t]he fundamental right of free men to strive for better conditions through new legislation and new institutions" by argument and discourse (Pierce v. United States, supra, at 273) even in time of war. Though I doubt if the "clear and present danger" test is congenial to the First Amendment in time of a declared war, I am certain it is not reconcilable with the First Amendment in days of peace.
I WOULD SAY WE ARE AT WAR!!
Mr. Justice Holmes, though never formally abandoning the "clear and present danger" test, moved closer to the First Amendment ideal when he said in dissent in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 673:
Every idea is an incitement. It offers itself for belief, and, if believed, it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth. The only difference between the expression of an opinion and an incitement in the narrower sense is the speaker's enthusiasm for the result. Eloquence may set fire to reason. But whatever may be thought of the redundant discourse before us, it had no chance of starting a present conflagration. If, in the long run, the beliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only meaning of free speech is that they should be given their chance and have their way.
We have never been faithful to the philosophy of that dissent. [453]
I WOULD SAY THAT IS ISLAM IN A NUT SHELL!!!
http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/c05p02.html
The "clear and present danger" test subsequently evolved in Brandenburg v. Ohio.7 In that case, the Supreme Court held that the advocacy of force or criminal activity may not be penalized unless such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
I WOULD SAY TEACHING THAT TO GO KILL CHRISTIANS AND OTHER NON MULSUMS WOULD BE STILL LAWLESSNESS IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM OPEN THE WORLDS EYES TO THEIR THREAT AND GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL AMEN
at January 31, 2005 5:36 PM
The Saudis are 'behaving as Muslims must ..' huh.
True. I've never seen a Muslim behave like a civilised human being.
Let us behave the way the enemies of fanatics should behave.
A large bomb dropped on that rock in Mecca that they worship may not be a bad start.
Posted by: DianaC at January 31, 2005 10:44 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)