| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald explains why the primary jihad we should be concerned about is not the one that comes to us with guns and bombs:
The main weapons of Jihad, to spread Islam so that it will dominate and Muslims will rule, are not those of military combat (qital), and "terrorism" is not the main or most effective instrument of Jihad.The main or most effective instruments of Jihad are:
1) Demographic conquest.
This can take several forms. One is merely outbreeding the Infidels both in
a) The dar al-Islam (where excess population then finds its inexorable way, or has over the past forty years, into the Lands of the Infidels); as well as
b) Within the Lands of the Infidels. For in Western societies, advanced education, the need or desire or inculcated desire to work, as well as sexual freedom, have all contributed to a decline in the birthrate of the indigenous Infidels. Meanwhile, Muslims exploit to the full the structure of generous state support (free education, free health care, subsidized housing, family allowances) with in some cases polygamous relationships hidden from or silently ignored by Western governments. And women’s function for all too many Muslim households is to breed; they are able to do so by that very exploitation of Infidel taxpayers (just as Muslim states were supported by the Jizyah taxes on Infidels).
Within lands where Muslims dominate, the Dar al-Islam, over time, and even in the last century, the relative and in some cases absolute numbers of non-Muslims has much diminished. Mass murder will do it: the Christian Armenians massacred by Turks and Kurds (with others picked off by Arabs in the Syrian Desert). The Christian Greeks killed at Smyrna or in similar attacks, and whose numbers steadily went down until there are only a few thousand Greek Orthodox left. The Jews, who fled everywhere in the Muslim world, except under the Iran of the Shah, but not that of Khomeini. The Hindus who have steadily declined, from 15% (in 1947) to 1.5% of the population of Pakistan, and Hindus and other non-Muslims who have fled from Bangladesh, where non-Muslims now make up not 35% (in 1947) but 8% of the population. The non-Muslims -- Chinese and Hindus -- of Malaysia, who have seen their relative numbers steadily go down, as the fierce pressure to convert to Islam (not least on the indigenous tribes) has only increased as the new Muslim majority feels the need to exercise its power. Both the law, to the extent that it enforces certain aspects of the Shari'a, and extra-official pressures on non-Muslims are always present in a Muslim-dominated society. And a society can be dominated by Muslims even when they constitute a slim majority, or perhaps not even a majority, depending on their determination and ferocity.2) Da'wa, carefully targeted at the
a) the economically marginal (including prisoners and recent immigrant groups), who are fed a line about "Islam and social justice" (just look at the rulers and ruling classes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, Morocco, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, and then look at the ruled masses). They are led to believe that Islam is the perfect vehicle for the expression of alienation from capitalism or Amerikka. They’re also told, or led to believe, that their criminality, when the targets are Infidels, has religious justification and sanction. Robbing Infidels is simply helping oneself to Jizyah. Raping Infidel women is simply treating them as they deserve, in their lewd abandon, to be treated.b) the psychically marginal. Modern societies, with all that soullessness and anomie (fill in here, with whatever pseudo-Durkheimian observations you wish) throws off all kinds of John Walker Lindhs who are engaged in some goddam Spiritual Search, looking for the Truth, the Way, call it what you will. Some of them are lonely; some of them seek a Total Explanation of the Universe. Some of them cannot stand individualism and yearn for the Collective. All of this was part of the appeal of National Socialism. And these people can be picked off, or picked up, by Islamic missionaries, and usefully exploited.
The appeal of Bolshevism was largely that described in 2(a), and the appeal of National Socialism that described in 2(b). "Social Justice" and the Total Regulation of Life, a man as of no moment except when he subsumes himself under the Collective -- that's the appeal of Islam to marginal Infidels. And there are plenty of them.
3) The "wealth" weapon. Until 1973, when the tripling of oil prices began the largest transfer of wealth in human history, it would have been hard for Muslims bent on Jihad to pay for all those mosques and madrasas and endless propaganda in the Western world. Muslim societies are economic failures, doomed through the kind of inshallah-fatalism that we see everywhere. There are, however, three ways for such societies to enjoy some outwardly impressive economic success:
a) Exploitation by local Muslims of the talents of a large non-Muslim population. That is the case in Malaysia, where Muslims constitute just a bit more than 50% of the population, but through the Bumiputra system manage to exploit the far more entrepreneurial and industrious Chinese and Hindus.
b) The Jizyah of foreign aid from Infidels, which has helped Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, and the essentially unviable local Arabs who carefully redefined themselves as the "Palestinian people."
c) The manna from Heaven, or rather sous-sol manna, of oil and gas revenues. Without such revenues, based on an accident of geology (that oil was discovered, produced, and a use found for it by Infidels, not by the local Muslims), the Jihad would still exist as a central element in Islam, but the wherewithal to conduct that Jihad would not exist.
These are now the main weapons of the Jihad. Outright military conquest, which was not necessary to islamize a great deal of the East Indies (or the Malayan peninsula, which even fifty years ago did not contain a Muslim-majority population) is not the problem it was in, say, 700 or 800 or even 1500 A.D. There may be Muslims at the gates of Vienna again, but they are not besieging it with swords and mangonels. No, they are already inside the gates of Vienna, and inside Madrid, Rome, Paris, London, Marseille, Berlin, Rotterdam, Malmo, Brussels, and hundreds of other cities. And very few of them show signs of abandoning Islam -- how could they? -- or of somehow reinterpreting those immutable texts of Qur'an and settled "authentic" Hadith -- how could they?
This doesn't mean that the occasional assassination (of Pim Fortuyn or Theo van Gogh), the demonstration (against Danish cartoons), or terrorist plots, will not have their effect. But there is no possibility of outright military conquest. But that doesn’t mean there is no threat. It is false to assert that "nowhere has Islam conquered by means other than military."
That is not true. It is not true that the largest Muslim country in the world, Indonesia, became Muslim as a result of military conquest by some Muslim army. This is not the same thing as saying that violence is never used, that there has not, over the past thousand years, been the use of force in the East Indies by local Muslims (Islam being introduced by Hadrami traders, like all good Muslims eager missionaries as well, into Java). But that has not always and everywhere explained how every bit of Dar al-Islam became Muslim.
It is a soothing idea. It is a pollyannish idea. If only it were so -- if only there were no threat from the other instruments of Jihad described above. After all, they can only acquire major weaponry if we allow them to do so, and of course we have allowed them to do so.
I worry not about military conquest, but about all the other instruments of Jihad which, I continue to repeat, has already helped create the large-scale and so far unopposed and unchallenged Muslim presence that helps to spread the power of Muslims, that in every country in Western Europe has created a situation that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous for the indigenous Infidels, than it would otherwise be.
As long as the armies of Islam are not descending on us, and the rockets' red glare from Iran or Pakistan, or perhaps in the future from Egypt or Saudi Arabia (bought-and-paid-for), are not headed toward Dar al-Harb, many seem to think we can all remain sanguine.
I don't.
Posted by Robert at May 24, 2006 3:56 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Great post Hugh, the dawa and jihad rumbles inexorably forward. It is always good to get a reminder now and again.
Posted by: km![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 24, 2006 4:56 PM
I respectfully beg to differ. The priority for any country or individual is physical threat since it removes life (or lives). Whether the threat can actually be calculated becomes a problem, and takes up a lot of resources which are nevertheless necessary to some degree.
Demographic spread can be dealt with by changing (immigration, citizenship, entitlement) laws and regulations and assiduously enforcing them. To some extent this requires a change in attitude(s) on the part of citizens but it can be done.
I suggest that the example of Israel be examined closely by other countries and what is applicable be adopted. Israel is facing all these issues in much more concentrated and immediate form. Its citizens are not ungenerous but they do not want to be pushed around in their own country. Incidentally, work itself is not a barrier to having a number of children. Ask working religious Jewish mothers.
Posted by: HaMalach at May 24, 2006 5:03 PM
"I suggest that the example of Israel be examined closely by other countries and what is applicable be adopted.."
-- from a posting above
Israel is an example of how not to deal with Muslims. It has failed completely to make its overwhelming case adequately. It permitted, as if in a dream of near-criminal negligence, the most outrageous statements to be made routinely about its "occupation." It did nothing to oppose, or expose, the clever campaign to disguise the Jihad against it as merely a matter of "two tiny peoples," their supposedly competing "nationalisms" based on the fiction, created and cultivated carefully after the 1967 war, of the so-called "Palestinian people."
One gets tired of having those who support Israel, with their hearts but not with their heads, point to it as an example of how to behave. Not at all. The repeated efforts at negotiation, and the idiotic way in which Israel has again and again allowed itself to be taken advantage of, and again and again does not understand how to make its overwhelming case, partly reflects the reality of a small, threatened country much of whose population cannot bear to believe that the war against them has no end (though it is perfectly manageable, if they are willing to arrive at that bleak but salutary understanding).
Had Zionist or Israeli leaders understood this, and articulated it, then they might also, back in the 1950s and early 1960s when Israel was still favored by Europeans (those who had lived throught the war, and through Israel's 1948 war as well, and were not fooled by the later "Palestinian people" business, and actually knew a little something about the rights of victors in wars of self-defense), had they begun early on to discuss Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, had begun to make clear that it was silly to rely on negotiations because Muslim states took the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya as the permanent model for all "truce" treaties with Infidels, had all of this happened, not only would it have been better for Israel. But it might also have helped alert Europeans, while there was still time, as to the nature of Islam.
One cannot blame the Israelis. They were busy trying to rescue and integrate vast numbers of refugees, for the survivors of death camps were soon followed by 900,00 refugees from Yemen, Iraq, and other Arab countries. And they were tryiing to find what allies they could among states that were Muslim. With Iran, under the Shah, this was possible (it all came to an end with Khomeini). It seemed, just a few years ago, also possible with Turkey (with Erdogan, and Islam resurgent, it is no longer possible). And it would be churlish of those in Europe who have treated Israel so badly to now blame the Israelis for not warning them about Muslims. After all, the French prided themselves on their long experience in North Africa. Is it not the poseur and poetaster Dominique de Villepin who keeps saying "we know the Arabs"?
Still, when someone holds out Israel, whose citizens endure a daily level of danger with a heroism we can all admire, but certainly do not wish to have to emulate, as an example of how to deal with Islam, one must firmly reject that dangerous and silly notion. Contrary to the popular imagination, the Israelis have never really inflicted great damage -- never allowed themselves to -- on the Muslim enemy. They have never allowed themselves to see that Islam will not permit the permanent acceptance of Israel as an Infidel state. For many it is too painful to contemplate.
Learn from Israel, yes. Learn not to be as trusting as the Israelis, for several decades, have been. Be as intelligently bleak as some Israelis have, at long last, become.
Posted by: Hugh at May 24, 2006 5:40 PM
some of those in Israel and others parts of the world, have the illusion that you can get peace with muslims by giving something in like.. ie land for peace, which in practice does not work. iranians want chaos, well by introducing Western democracy to muslims will give them enough chaos to keep them busy killing each other off. so the one positive point of doing the iraq invasion will keep muslims
busy killing each other faster than what the pc Western governments can ever inflict on islam.
at May 24, 2006 5:58 PM
Islamic nations have no future in the world economically. They will fall when the need for oil falls. In 30-50 years oil will become to expensive to consume. Alternate fuels will be used what will the Arabs and the rest do about that?
Posted by: Skeptic at May 24, 2006 6:07 PM
"In 30-50 years oil will become to expensive to consume. Alternate fuels will be used what will the Arabs and the rest do about that?"
-- from a pollyannish posting above
A lot can happen in 30-50 years. Europe can be irredeemably, hopelessly islamized. And that also means that the weaponry in European armories can be seized by Muslims for Muslim uses. And the museums, universities, monuments of Western civilization all come under Muslim control. It has happened before.
And even without that, the price of oil will continue to skyrocket (it should have been going up steadily, long ago, with steadily rising taxes imposed by the consuming nationsthemselves) and the Muslim oil states will pocket, and use, inevitably (what would you expect good Muslims in Saudi Arabia to do except further the Jihad?), to pay for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, armies of Western hirelings (diplomats, businessmen, journalists, teachers, all over the Western world).
A mere "30-50 years"? In 20 or at most 30 years it will all be over, if the Westen world, if the Infidel world, does not come to its senses.
at May 24, 2006 6:18 PM
Thanks for reminding us of that other 'Jihad' Hugh. Even our 'heads in the sand' politicians here are getting worried about the number of inmates in prisons being converted to Islam.Better still Maoris themselves [disproportionate number of prison inmates are Maori] are noticing this . Doubt if people who love music,pork and alcohol will ever embrace Islam to any great extent but fevered converts as we know may well be used for bombing Jihad. There have been several incidents of explosives including grenades found in a suburban homes-man involved with shoot out with police-he was killed is latest.Not a lot said except his daddy says he never knew son had these things at his house...
As for the mentally deficient and lonely who convert to Islam to either find a cause to belong to or merely to 'get attention',can anyone think of an answer to this problem?
at May 24, 2006 6:25 PM
Hugh,
This is not the first time you have demeaned my comments without addressing specifics. You have not provided any specific response to indicate that you understand the specifics of how the Arabs in Israel are dealt with and in fact how Israel's enemies are dealt with.
I have to conclude that it is your unfamiliarity with Israel, its recent and ancient history, its governmental structure, its economics, its political issues, its religious basis that causes you to make these unfounded statements.
Israelis, at least some of them, have a deep understanding of Arabs that goes back way before there ever was a Muslim entity. It's the infighting that's the problem, not many of the good ideas.
Posted by: HaMalach at May 24, 2006 6:30 PM
Peace can be made with a people that do not want peace. islam believes that it can conquer the world and is endeavoring to do so.
Israel continues to make the same mistake, trying to trade land for peace. How many concessions has Israel made and how many Israelis have died by the hand of islam during this time???
Trading land for peace has never succeeded during recorded history.
You have to utterly defeat an enemy before that enemy can become peaceful. e.g. Germany and Japan
Israel had more peace when Israel occupied all of the territory around Israel.
If Israel does not fight the oppressiveness of islam, Israel will be destroyed.
Israel, fight and live or try to make peace and be exterminated.
The Texican.
at May 24, 2006 6:46 PM
I agree Hugh. Islam has advanced much faster than many believe. Besides the jihadist imperialism, it's a wretched cult. No liquor, no music, no partying, no fun. I find it ironic that our Senate is eagerly passing legislation to accelerate immigration by 300% a year and grant amnesty to 15 million who have entered ILLEGALLY. What world are the politicians living in? Not the one I see everyday.
Posted by: John Sobieski at May 24, 2006 6:51 PM
I would tie together #1 and #2 (Demographics and Dawa). As I've suggested before, the massive Islamic "youth bulge" is attracting converts by making Islam seem "cool" among other young people. People are also attracted to power. As the West declines and Islam rises, it's no wonder some will turn coat to join the winning side, even though this defection usually happens at the subconscious level. Nice people convince themselves that Islam is a religion of peace, love and tolerance because they don't or won't understand why they are drifting into conversion.
We need birth promotion policies in the U.S., such as massive tax cuts for those who bear or adopt children and increases for those who don't. Free health insurance for kids, if not for everyone, would be as essential as free public education. While China has a one-child policy, we should have a four-child policy. I've also suggested before that the U.S. and Europe divert some Latin American immigrants into Spain, Portugal and Italy with the understanding that they'll become citizens, not an underclass. We'll still want some to keep our population growing. Everyone would win, except the Muslims.
As for oil, the feds should immediately raise mileage requirements for all vehicles, no matter the price per barrel. And let's all pray "peak oil" arrives sooner rather than later because Mr. Bush and his friends from Texas and Saudi Arabia aren't going to anything about anything.
Posted by: sceptico at May 24, 2006 6:57 PM
I'd still like to see an articulation of the mechanism by which a Western country, or the entire West, will concede -- apart from military conquest -- to transformation into Islamic rule.
at May 24, 2006 7:06 PM
...our Senate is eagerly passing legislation to accelerate immigration by 300% a year and grant amnesty to 15 million who have entered ILLEGALLY. What world are the politicians living in?"--John Sobieski
Mexicans and other Hispanic immigrants are the reason we have a birthrate of 2 children per woman and are in less danger than Europe of going Muslim. Better the sombrero than the burqa! The GOP wants to arrest and deport 10-15 million people (yeah, sure) or keep them in but down as a technically illegal but ever-present underclass with no rights to a minimum wage or to vote. Any non-Muslim Hispanic willing to learn English (through federally-funded programs if necessary) and become a U.S. citizen ought to be welcomed with open arms. I'm willing to have my federal tax dollars go to the "frontline" states of the Southwest to help with expenses.
Posted by: sceptico at May 24, 2006 7:15 PM
Hugh-
Israel missed their historic moment in June 1967 when they failed to expel their internal fifth column and hold onto war gains unapologetically.
That such a "provocative" move would have "led to terrorism" is merely to say that they would have gotten the same result from their Arab neighbors, and the 'Palestinians', as they now gain from surrendering land and allowing an internal enemy to gain strength, influence, numbers and sympathy from the purblind infidels idiots in Europe.
Anti-semitism worldwide takes advantage of any opportunity to move their diseased agenda, and Europe is still seeded with these lunatics who fuel the suicide of the West for their own short-sighted, genetically-bogus "racial purity" ends.
(As if narrowing the gene pool is anything but an invitation for hare-lips, haemophilia, increased succeptibility to disease, and mental reardation.)
Real resistance to Islamic Imperialism will only begin with the death of many more than 3,000 citizens going to work on a beautiful September morning.
One almost hopes that the class who are best at avoiding reality might be the only victims of the next, more serious attack, since it might clear the decks for a genus of humanity more serious about the survival of a free Civilization.
Until then, the onslaught continues from every angle mentioned, and we are watching the infidel world eroded by the attentions of the jihad as wooden houses in the U.S. South are being gnawed away accidentally-invited-in Formosan termite.
The only difference is that termites have no more ideology than hunger for earthly food.
While Islam lusts for All, both in this world and the next.
Arm yourself in every way.
Spread the warning.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 24, 2006 7:30 PM
SKEPTIC: "Islamic nations have no future in the world economically. They will fall when the need for oil falls. In 30-50 years oil will become to expensive to consume. Alternate fuels will be used what will the Arabs and the rest do about that?"
Beyond financing the obscene life-styles of the House of Saud and the other Royal households of the Gulf Shiekdoms, billions of these oil profits are being invested in Western markets and industries. The fortune will long outlast the oil reserves under the desert.
Posted by: Cornelius at May 24, 2006 7:34 PM
Hugh,
Isn't this basically the problem you are describing?
All these people. Coming here. Getting married. Having babies. Raising up their children to follow their religious traditions.
Oh no! Mr. Goverment-man, make them stop!
If you think that is an unfair characterisation of what you said wait until you here how it would be described during a political campaign.
It's not like we are so successful at stopping jihad thru violence that there is a danger of our resting on our laurels. People are willing to do things to stop the spread of violence that they aren't willing to do to stop the spread of ideas. Jihad is war. Religion is not an alibi to wage war against us.
Posted by: Malta_1565 at May 24, 2006 7:36 PM
From Hugh's post:
" . . .Had Zionist or Israeli leaders understood this, and articulated it, then they might also, back in the 1950s and early 1960s when Israel was still favored by Europeans (those who had lived throught the war, and through Israel's 1948 war as well, and were not fooled by the later "Palestinian people" business, and actually knew a little something about the rights of victors in wars of self-defense), had they begun early on to discuss Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, had begun to make clear that it was silly to rely on negotiations because Muslim states took the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya as the permanent model for all "truce" treaties with Infidels, had all of this happened, not only would it have been better for Israel . . . ."
I would only point out there was deep guilt in the 50's up to '67 about Israel being wiped off the map. Israel was viewed as an underdog. The memories of WWII were strong. All of Europe's good will ended after the six day war. This is the key date. Europe could deal with a struggling Israel, begging for arms, restitution from the Germans, but it all came to an end shortly after 1967. France actually helped Israel develop her nuclear program. When Charles DeGaulle turned on Israel, most of Europe followed, or ran to the Arabs. The early zionists were haunted by the events of world war II and struggled to bring in those hundreds of thousands of dp's and Jews from arab lands. This was the sole focus. There was no false peace . . . like today with Egypt or a peace process. The largest mistake was made by Israel not after '67 but by M. Begin. His withdrawl from the Sinai was a tragic mistake. He believed, or hoped, that Sadat meant peace, and never realized that Sadat was mortal, and what would come next, or did Sadat's peace offer extend past himself and his wife, or was it really genuine. I have the greatest respect for M. Begin. He was honest, could not lie, was an old-school gentleman who always dressed in suit and tie(unlike today's generation everywhere and the casual dress of Israelis.)
I can't explain the Israeli mentality of consessions for nothing. Perhaps somebody will do a psychological study of seige mentality. When your neighbors hate you, kill you, never make peace with you, instead of understanding the religious implications of this, perhaps it is easier to conjure up suicidal self-hate . . . aka what did we do and what will we give the Arabs to make them like us.
Having said this, Israel hates sending their boys into Gaza and the W Bank to lord over millions of Muslims who hate their guts. The problem is so many in Israel and around the world see this hate from the Arabs as due to the 'occupation' and not for the religious derivation. It's ironic that Israel is so shortsighted vis-a-vis Islam. I pray this is not a fatal shortcoming.
Posted by: biorabbi at May 24, 2006 8:45 PM
HaMalach, Why are you so touchy? You accuse Hugh of "demeaning" your comments without including specifics on internal Israeli affairs. First, Hugh merely disagreed with your comments, although at some length. YOU did not include any specifics yourself. Here in the US, changing minds and attitudes about immigration policies will require a heroic effort. Your post seems to dismiss this with a pollyannish assumption that it can be achieved with little effort. What specific policies does Israel employ, that would be practical here, to educate its populous? More importantly, how do you train your politicians?
The very little I know about Israel comes from the numerous bleeding heart progressive Israelis who pass through my University town giving presentation on how terrible Israeli policy is toward Palestinians. Your short comment did little to nothing to counter my opinion of Israeli knowledge about Islam and Jihad.
Posted by: former liberal WF at May 24, 2006 8:52 PM
"Israelis, at least some of them, have a deep understanding of Arabs that goes back way before there ever was a Muslim entity."
-- from a posting by someone who objects to my comments on the failures of successive Israeli governments to comprehend the real promptings of Arab and Muslim refusal to accept Israel's existence
That posting reveals all one needs to know. The statement that the Israelis have a "deep understanding of Arabs that goes back way before there ever was a Muslim entity."
What are we to make of the phrase "way before there was a Muslim entity"? Does the writer mean that prior to 630 A.D., the inhabitants of Israel had a good grasp of the Arabs who may have wandered in from the Arabian peninsula? What, exactly?
He simply cannot bear to have Israel criticized for the failures of successive governments. Of course there are Israelis -- Moshe Sharon, Robert Wistrich, Raphael Israeli, Mordechai Nisan, not to mention certain people in Mossad and Shin Bet and the IDF, who understand perfectly the source of Arab hostility in the tenets and attitudes of Islam, and who also understand that surrender of more territory will merely whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But these people until recently were few, and continue to be politically hemmed in or drowned out by all those who knew little of Islam (what did, what does, Shimon Peres know or understand about Islam? Olmert? or Sharon, who knew that he could not "trust the Arabs" but never gave the slightest sign of understanding, or even attempting to find out about, Islam? Do you think the editors and columnists at Haaretz are any better than those at The New Duranty Times? The original Ma'ariv, owned by a Revisionist, was sound and one can find preserved, in of all places Edward Said's atrocious "The Question of Palestine," a quote from that paper's editor setting out, in the early 1950s, exactly the problem with Islam (Said put it in to hold it up for ridicule, but if you read it today in his book, with what many more of us now know, it is his book that becomes ridiculous and the quoted text that shines with intelligence and relevance).
You think you are immune to criticism because you consider yourself a supporter of Israel. In my view, you don't support it enough.
Posted by: Hugh at May 24, 2006 10:51 PM
I took a brief trip down Memory Lane and pulled up the posting below from September 13, 2004, which contains the complete quote from Shlomo Carlebach, preserved in Said's "The Question of Palestine":
"The relentless Jihad against Israel -- against, rather, any Infidel sovereign state within the Dar al-Islam -- always included imposition of the Shari'a as part of its intended goal. Imposition of the Shari'a was, in fact, demanded as early as 1920 by a group of Arab notables in the former Ottoman territories that were quite properly assigned to Mandatory Palestine (i.e. all of Western Palestine, while Eastern Palestine went to form part of the Emirate of Transjordan).
Nor was there any doubt that this was a Jihad directed at Infidels throughout the Mandatory period; curiously, it was some British officers, rather than the Palestinian Jews, who recognized the Islamic grounds for opposition to the Jews and the restoration of a Jewish Commonwealth. It is also true that a few Israelis, early in the history of the state, had the wit to recognize the problem. One of these was Dr. A. Carlebach, whose analysis published in Ma'ariv (Oct. 7, 1955) would have been lost to history, one suspects, but for the fact that it is reprinted, amusingly and quite uncomprehendingly, in Edward Said's preposterous "The Question of Palestine." Fortunately for us, Said often provides quotes from various European and Zionist sources that are so deadly, so convincing, particularly in the light of all we have learned about Islam over the past few years, that as a work of propaganda it no longer serves its purpose. Here is what Said quoted from Carlebach, what Said obviously thought was self-evidently absurd, but we read it now with quite a different frame of mind and understanding:
"These Arab Islamic countries do not suffer from poverty, or disease, or illiteracy, or exploitation; they only suffer from the worst of all plagues: Islam. Wherever Islamic psychology rules, there is the inevitable rule of despotism and criminal aggression. The danger lies in Islamic psychology, which cnannot integrate itself into the world of efficiency and progress, that lives in a world of illusion, perturbed by attacks of inferiority complexes and megalomania, lost in dreams of the holy sword. The danger stems from the totalitarian conception of the world, the passion for murder deeply rooted in their blood, from the lack of logic, the easily inflamed brains, the boasting, and above all: the blasphemous disregard for all that is sacred to the civilized world...their reactions -- to anything -- have nothing to do with good sense. They are all emotion, unbalanced, instantaneous, senseless. It is always the lunatic that speaks from their throat. You can talk 'business' with everyone, and even with the devil. But not with Allah...This is what every grain in this country shouts. There were many great cultures here, and invaders of all kinds. All of them -- even the Crusaders -- left signs of culture and blossoming. But on the path of Islam, even the flies have died.
"We pile sin upon crime when we distort the picture and reduce the discussion to a conflict of border between Israel and her neighbors. First of all, it is not the truth. The heart of the conflict is not the question of the borders; it is the question of Muslim psychology.....Moreover, to present the problem as a conflict between two similar parts is to provide the Arabs with the weapon of a claim that is not theirs. If the discussion with them is truly a political one, then it can be seen from both sides. Then we appear as those who came to a country that was entirely Arab, and we conquered and implanted ourselves as an alien body among them, and we loaded them with refugees and constitute a military danger for them, etc. etc. ...one can justify this or that side--and such a presentation, sophisticated and political, of the problem is understandable for European minds--at our expense. The Arabs raise claims that make sense to the Western understanding of simple legal dispute But in reality, who knows better than us that such is not the source of their hostile stand? All those political and social concepts are never theirs. Occupation by force of arms, in their own eyes, in the eyes of Islam, is not at all associated with injustice. To the contrary, it constitutes a certificate and demonstration of authentic ownership. The sorrow for the refugees, for the expropriated borthers, has no room in their thinking. Allah expelled, Allah will care. Never has a Muslim politician been moved by such things (unless, indeed, the catastrophe endangered his personal status). If there were no refugees and no conquest, they would oppose us just the same."
Now when Said put this into his little work of propaganda, back in 1979, the invented "Palestinian people" and their "legitimate rights" were in full swing. In 1979, the front of dhimmis, those islamochristians such as Hanan Ashrawi, were already in evidence, on campuses, before church groups, disguising the nature of the Jihad against Israel which cannot be assuaged, cannot be sated, and is not a matter of borders.
But something has changed: other Muslim attacks, in America, in Russia, in Europe, and other Muslim cries agaainst Infidels, and other Muslim behavior, including the demand that European peopoles yield to Muslim demands, have caused many, and should cause many more, to read the words written above, with a new understanding and a new appreciation.
Hoist by his own petard, is Edward Said -- he bothered to quote just a bit too much, and nowadays we do not scorn those he assumed we would scorn, but see the truth of their remarks, and the scorn of the good and intelligent reader is reserved for Said's own text. Quite something."
Posted by: Hugh at September 13, 2004 11:30 AM
at May 24, 2006 11:15 PM
A good reference site for Jihad Watchers
History of Jihad
at May 24, 2006 11:19 PM
We are talking about 20 and 30 years. We do not have even 5 years. pakistan is proliferating merrily. iran already has/will have in a very short while. They all want terrritories. No, we don't even have 5 years.
Posted by: arjun.sevak at May 25, 2006 2:26 AM
Assalamau Laikum all,
Mr Fitzgerald has tried to articulte muslim demographic "occupation", dawa, etc as a threat.
I have been saying pretty much the same thing for 2 years...but do not share his fears ofcourse, indeed I have tried to affer its advantages & freedoms to you.
Muslim expansion, domination, etc is all Allah's will and you must have faith.
Westerners have foolishly lost their faith....for them it is at "boothill". Jesus is a byword for the infedel but is revered in Islam.
The infedel do not think that faith is necessary or important....they mock and sneer at the muslim faith. They keep saying that muslims are poverty ridden , without intellect, and downtrodden.
If this is the case ...then why do you worry so, why do you fear so...the Amriki boast about 180 million public weapons in their country ...but still they fear.
They fear because they have NO FAITH....yes in effect you have cut off your way to salvation. You have cut off your balls so to speak.
Allah will not allow such weakness in his chosen.
So yes, you must fear the poverty ridden , the ones without intellect, the downtrodden...they are coming to your hometowns...with a wing and a prayer called the Sahada.
It is better that you learn the Sahada...then you need not fear...you can join us and help spread the message of Allah ...Allah knows that your leader Dubiya almost has...and Allah knows best.
The mosques will be there for your benefit....but you still need to work...be the doctors, engineers & dentists ...this is to keep the muslim fit & healthy....for they are the ones who pray to Allah....to keep the faith and eventually to help restore the checks and balances on wild slutty womens...bring back order into society.
Over the next couple of decades you will see that democracy has failed...
Please prepare the Whitehouse & the Vatican with minerates & loudspeakers...for only the caliphate will bring back order.
Posted by: Naseem at May 25, 2006 3:30 AM
I'd say that Hugh has shown here, over a period, both that Israel has not made its case and that many over there don't understand the problem.
Even across much of the civilized world, where one might naturally expect almost everyone to have sympathy for it, the case has now gone by default and must be retrieved. There are other factors, of course, not least appalling propaganda from "news" organizations such as the BBC. Here in the UK, much of conservative opinion, which knows what to make of both terrorism and its apologists, is disposed mistrust the BBC, and finds a different view of things in its Telegraph or Times remains sympathetic to Israel, if confusedly so. I'd hope that would be true for Australia and at least some other European countries.
All in all, and other factors taken into account, the fact that Israel has not made its case - and that, astoundingly, many people in Israel still have not properly looked into and do not understand the nature of the threat to them - shows up the anti-Semitic myth of the Jew as a "negative superman", a fiendishly intelligent being bent only on the domination of others, as a really sick joke. To be sure, this is an intelligent people, but it is a people that, on the whole, has preferred to turn its mind to useful matters like medicine and physics. As for dominating others, everyone here knows whose scriptures call for that.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 25, 2006 4:15 AM
Naseem,
Are you sure it's appropriate for a lady to refer to private parts of the male anatomy in an internet posting?
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 25, 2006 4:18 AM
Regarding Naseem's post above, I posted this today on IsraPundit:
I think this quote sums it up nicely:
“Da’wah [conversion] work can never succeed unless Muslims embed themselves within the very marrow of American society.”
Salah Sultan, as quoted in the article Jihad through “Con”version : Exploiting good faith, and the Constitution, to recruit converts to Islam.
See also Hometown Jihad: Blowback for the latest on Sultan and another example of how America is succumbing to a slow death.
Regarding Hugh's comments on Israel, as a Jerusalemite, I couldn't agree more.
Until Israel chucks out everything reeking of Islam, between the Mediteranean to the Jordan, we will continue to self-destruct, rather than to grow and secure ourselves.
Posted by: Shy Guy at May 25, 2006 4:43 AM
"We are talking about 20 and 30 years. We do not have even 5 years. pakistan is proliferating merrily. iran already has/will have in a very short while. They all want terrritories. No, we don't even have 5 years."
You live in India, arjun.sevak, do you? I live in Europe. I agree, WE might not even have 5 years. The Israelis? I am in deep sorrow they might not even have one year. But from an American point of view, I think talking about 20 or 30 years could be quite realistic.
Hugh: you're statements about Israel are the best and most rationally and clear-sightedly written ones I've ever read - and I read a lot about that matter.
Posted by: Eisvogel at May 25, 2006 4:50 AM
Your eager-beaver Moslem world-takeover cultists are multi-facted, and are coming at ya with a multi-pronged submission program.
MO WELFARE MOSLIMAS MO ULULATING CONCERTINAS MO FAST-BREED ULEMAS
You missed a prong: Ideology.
In addition to all the other historical factors coming into confluence so as to bring Islam to metastasis is Marxism.
With or without Islam, Marxism has been on a roll since its market debut in 1867. Its themes dovetail perfectly with those of Islam:
* Perpetual sense of beseigement
* Victimism (sense of exploitation)
* To each according to his need
* Olympian council
* Ritualism
* World takeover
* Nomenklatura
* Prescriptive economics
* Prescriptive culture
* Atheism
* Amorality
* Belief system priority over human life
* Bad fundamental texts; real, real bad texts
* Dastisticks (willful use of fake statistics)
at May 25, 2006 6:32 AM
finds a different view of things in its Telegraph or Times ...
Oh, dear. Just today:
In an attempt to starve a democratically elected government ...
Oh, dear, the Telegraph means the Islamic terrorist organization Hamas. This is blatant and knowing acquiesence in evil: the nature of Hamas is no secret; so it can be nothing else. Who wants this? Is the Telegraph taking orders from the Foreign Office, from the EU? Is it taking money from someone? What is going on? This is a disgrace.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 25, 2006 8:24 AM
Oh dear, oh dear. Things are not as healthy at the Telegraph as I thought, are they?
Look at this review of a book by their Diplomatic Editor, Anton La Guardia.
However, [Anton La Guardia's] wholesale use of questionable revisionist writings to give weight to his work is indicative of the reflective anti-Israel prejudice of many Western commentators on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2001/06/07/boholy7.xml
The only thing one can say is that they did publish that review themselves. But that such as man as La Gaurdia should be on the staff, that they should print apologias for Hamas. It beggars belief. The Telegraph is obviously not what it was.
Posted by: Yojimbo at May 25, 2006 8:32 AM
Wow! Arn't the "real weapons" of jihad, children and the simple minded? Be impressed, be very impressed. S.O.
Posted by: mustang65 at May 25, 2006 8:42 AM
Very vulgar understanding of Marxism.
I have to remind you that Marxism is a politico- economic theory and not a religion. If one wants to compare Marxism with a religion – Christianity would be the first in line. Quite understandable, as Marx had a Jewdeo-Christian background.
Marxism by itself was not a bellicose theory. As a matter of fact it insisted that politico- economic formation can not be changed just because people want it to. Those formations have to comply with socio-economic necessities, otherwise they are doomed to failure.
Lenin took Marxism not “as a dogma, but as a direction to action”, which Marxism was not.
I suppose you are talking about Leninism, rather then Marxism.
Let us try to go point by point:
1. “Perpetual sense of besiegement” – a politically motivated move without much of conviction. US was an enemy number one of SU, yet nobody in The SU took any trouble to develop a strategic plans for attack or defense against The US. The opinion of The General staff was that the war between US and SU was less then unlikely. I am talking about sixties and seventies.
2. “Victimism (sense of exploitation)” – according to the official line, there was no exploitation in SU.
3. “To each according to his needs”- stolen from Paul and has nothing to do with Islam.
4. “Olympian council”- no such reference can be found in Marx, Lenin or Stalin books.
5. “Ritualism”- came to The SU after the WWII and was strongly connected to the cult of Stalin’s personality. Again, most came from Christianity as Stalin himself was in his youth a student of a Christian college and headed to become a priest. He could never leave impressions of his youth behind.
6. “World takeover”- a dream of any dictator. That dream was in all practical purposes abandoned by the mid-sixties. As a matter of fact SU did not want (like Muslims) everyone to become communist. They new that Marxism based economic system could not support the population and that eventually spelled trouble. They dreamed of political not economic domination of Europe. Finland was the model for all Europe.
7. “Nomenklatura”- modern variation of nobility and totally foreign concept for Marxism.
8. “Prescriptive economics”- we see more and more government intervention in economics all over the world. Sometimes it seems we are moving in the same direction.
9. “Prescribed culture”- they did not do too badly. Music, performing arts, education, scientific progress, even literature gave a lot to world culture during the 70 years of SU.
10. “Atheism”- Marx was born a Jew and became Christian, when his father converted. He could not accept Christianity if only because of that conversion. He knew his father converted because of anti-semetism and not because of moral conviction. Lenin also new of Jewish background of his mother and understood that there is no place for Christianity in politics.
11. “Amorality”- I am afraid even to touch the subject. Ethics in Marxism can be matched with the ethics of any religion. I simply refer you to George H. Smith: Atheism, part 4, Ethics, Rationality and Religion.
12. “Belief system priority over human life”- Marxism was too pragmatic for that. Only common good was a priority (the way they understood or misunderstood such common good).
13. “Bad fundamental texts; real, real bad texts”- I actually enjoyed reading Marks and Lenin. I found Marx very convincing writer and what Lenin wrote about government and social structure is relevant even today. English translations are of very poor quality. Try the originals, it might change your opinion. Das Kapital and The State and Revolution should be studied in schools.
14. “Dastisticks (willful use of fake statistics)”- has nothing to do with Marxism, just look what we are doing with our statistics.
Marx and Lenin were very well educated people. In their books one can find quotations from thousands of books including The Bible. None from Koran.
at May 25, 2006 9:44 AM
La Guardia has always been bad on the subject of Israel. He doesn't want to go to the bother of actually studying the history of the area, in the entire relevant context, the demographic and cadastral records, the invention of both "the Arab World" (to describe an area full of people who are not Arabs, or do not wish to be described as Arabs), an ARAMCO-sponsored fiction that began in the 1950s, nor that other fiction, about the "Palestinian people."
In his steady, not always sly, anti-Israel animus, La Guardia is not quite as bad as Anatol Lieven. But that sets the bar very low.
Posted by: Hugh at May 25, 2006 9:46 AM
Naseem,
You don't have the faintest clue about Christian faith here in America.
You assume we have no faith because we do not riot and burn because of the
DaVinci Code. You mistake tolerance for weakness and this is the heart of the
problem.
at May 25, 2006 9:57 AM
No_Mooselimbs
Interesting link.
at May 25, 2006 11:41 AM
I know this sounds a bit grim but I think the only way Europeans will understand the true threat of the Muslim presence here is as a result of more violent attacks such as Madrid and London. In fact, it's interesting that there haven't been more attacks----perhaps the Jihadists understand that the non-violent demographic approach is a much more effective strategy. That's why it's much less bloody than it could be. They already have the wherewithal and will to turn Europe into a bloodbath.
Posted by: johndoe at May 25, 2006 12:19 PM
Re: The main weapons of jihad
Hugh,
One day the "weapons of jihad" will be hated and cursed by Muslims.
Conventional wisdom is rarely accurate. For example, prior to WW2 Hitler called the US as a "mongrel nation" that could not play a major role in stopping Nazi conquests. The Japanese military class also underestimated the US. However, Japan's Admiral Yamamoto warned that a surprise attack at Pearl Harbor would "wake up a sleeping giant", that the US would follow a policy of retaliation that would systematically destroy both Japan and Germany. Yamamoto's unconventional wisdom proved correct. In history there are many such examples of unconventional views that proved to be prophetic.
Islam (especially in the Mid East) is a train without an engineer that is barreling down a track and soon it will reach a sharp curve in the tracks and derail. Al-Qaeda and 911 woke America from its 25 year long dream. The American people have learned that the culture they were told to be "open" to is in fact closed and intolerant-that its views of the non-Muslim world are of a sub-humans (swine and apes)-places where genocide against Infidels is permitted in the name of God.
But the curve in the track is Israel. At some time in the not terribly distant future, within 20 years, a nuclear device will be headed for Israel, someone like Ahmadinejad will see his death-wish come true.
Israel will launch anti-ballistic missiles, most incoming missiles will be stopped and explode over parts of the Mid-East. However, Israel will be hit and suffer horrible casualties.
Israel will launch retaliatory strikes against Iran, Syria, Lybia, and others with neutron bombs and the entire populations of many Mid East countries will be wiped from the face of the earth. Israel will launch neutron bombs that will wipe out the populations of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, but Hydrogen bombs will vaporize Medina and Mecca in one instant flash.
1,300 years of bloodshed by Moslems in the Mid-East will be paid back in a matter of hours and within two weeks much of the Moslem Mid-East will be a graveyard. Those Muslims who survive will curse Islam.
Do I hope this will come true? No. Do I think it will come true? Yes.
at May 25, 2006 6:58 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)