| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
In the weeks just after 9.11.2001, the American government still did not understand Islam. It had spent the past fifty years not understanding Islam. It had spent the past fifty years thinking of Islam only as a "bulwark against Communism" and attempting to curry favor with such "staunch allies" as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while taking an indignant stand against its main allies at Suez (when Nasser might have been, and should have been, knocked right down). It constantly pressured Israel after 1967 to give up the Sinai for worthless guarantees. Later, in the post-1967 world, with all that Kissinger "shuttle diplomacy" and then the Rogers Plan, and then a dozen other plans and schemes, not a single thing was done about the menace of OPEC. Nothing, or close to nothing, has been done to diminish these monstrous revenues in the one-third of a century since 1973.
Nothing has been done to prevent, or even to study or wonder about or question aloud, the policy of permitting the mass settlement of Muslims within the Western countries, a policy of criminal negligence toward all Infidel peoples by all Infidel governments. This policy has been based on sheer laziness and sheer unwillingness to learn enough about Islam, or to listen to the diminishing number of real scholars -- as opposed to Muslim and non-Muslim apologists carefully infiltrating and rising in the ranks of academic and government "experts" and "advisers" on Islam: John Esposito was consulted by the Clinton Administration; Gilles Kepel and Olivier Roy by the French government; Tariq Ramadan was appointed to all sorts of E.U. commissions and is even now, in his pseudo-academic post at St. Antony's, "advising" the Blair regime that does not know where to put its feet and hands -- but its opponents promise no better.
Successive Administrations, and therefore the fates of the Americans whom they presume to protect and instruct, relied on all sorts of people of both parties who were equally ignorant of Islam or unwilling to consider the evidence of the their senses or of their minds. (And how many people who have risen to the top of the Washington anthill have the time and the leisure for reading and taking in, and beginning to comprehend, entirely new subjects?) They relied on all those who never understood Islam -- such people as Brzezinski with Carter (not to mention that "Iran" specialist Gary Sick), who masterminded the disaster of abandoning the Shah when he might have been saved. Or they relied on such people as Scowcroft the chocolate soldier and Baker the fixer, or Dennis Ross, merely the most earnestly comical, or comically earnest, of all those in Washington who spent their entire professional lives in the "peace process." What a phrase, what an idea whose time never came, and never could come! With all their absurd and exhausting and frenetic "peace-making," these peacemakers never figured out that the Lesser Jihad against Israel had no solution based on "negotiations" and "treaties."
And of course, the latest avatar of silliness and ignorance is that "two-state solution" that Condoleeza Rice thinks would be a wonderful achievement for the United States, as her remarkable, or rather incredible, speech to some American group "for Palestine" a few weeks ago demonstrated for all who possessed minds that could still be properly horrified. There is still not a hint that anyone in official Washington has ever read a thing about the Law of War and Peace in the Law of Islam. There is no evidence that anyone there has read Majid Khadduri or Robert Spencer or a hundred others who could explain, carefully, the essential role of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya in Islamic law and practice, and why all treaties between Muslims and Infidels are meant on the Muslim side purely as "truces" and never to be permanent "peace treaties" -- because that would go against all of Islam, implying that some parts of the world could forever remain free from Islam, free to remain Infidel. Such an idea goes against everything in Islam, a belief-system that springs from a desire by the already-conquering Arabs to possess their own faith, one that would both justify and promote their conquest of Christians and Jews (and then Zoroastrians, and then still later Buddhists and Hindus) -- non-Muslim peoples far more advanced, wealthy, and settled peoples than the primitive Arabs who by force seized their lands in the Middle East and North Africa. Islamic theology has not changed in this essential division, so obviously reflected in the terms Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
No, one doubts that anyone in Washington has pondered or even heard of the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya, made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D. and broken deliberately by him 18 months later. (His breaking of it, by the way, was later held to be an act of magnificent cleverness by Muslims, as Muhammad -- who said that "war is deception" -- proved a master at defeating, by any means, his enemies.) "Pacta Sunt Servanda" is the basis of Western treaty-making, but not of treaty-making in Islam. Every "peace treaty" signed by Muslims with Infidels is meant only as a "truce treaty." But why should Dennis Ross, or Condoleeza Rice, be expected to know about that, any more than they should be expected to know about the concept and definition of the "dhimmi," much less to have read Antoine Fattal's full treatment of the status of non-Muslims according to the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam? Why take Islam seriously, when Prince Bandar, and now Prince Al-Turki, offer such generous hospitality at their lavish receptions, and speak so well, so "forthrightly"? Why study ancient treaties when, after all, all kinds of Arab and Muslim leaders keep assuring us that all this business of Islam is just so much nonsense? Rice and the rest can look deep into their eyes, grasp their souls the way Bush grasped the soul of Vladimir Putin -- and see that what they say must be true.
Had the American government been properly prepared on 9.11.2001, it would have contained a sufficient number of people well versed in Islam, who therefore would have remained serenely and calmly comprehending of what had past, was passing, and was to come. Had such people been much in evidence on 9.12.2001, then the American government might have been thinking clearly. It might then have reacted not merely with anger, but with anger that had behind it well-prepared minds lucidly planning. These might have made the government of Pakistan an offer it couldn't refuse -- not about helping to find Osama Bin Laden, but rather on handing over those nuclear weapons it managed to acquire through the thefts and ISI funding of A. Q. Khan, lest its entire economy and country be destroyed (and the Americans, together with India, could do that). Instead, about Khan’s nuclear aid to North Korea and Iran, the Pakistani government announced this past week that it is "truly sorry" and it won't happen again, and by the way, why shouldn't Pakistan now get the same nuclear deal as India? I'll tell you why: because Pakistan is a Muslim state, with Muslim people in control. That's why. One might as well ask why we would not object if Australia acquired nuclear weapons but do object when North Korea does, or why it is necessary and proper for Israel to acquire such weaponry, which is the only thing that will ensure its survival and threatens no Infidel state, but on the other hand, neither "our ally" Egypt, nor "our ally" Saudi Arabia, nor any other Muslim state, can be allowed to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Might as well make that clear, if not say it quite so directly to those who complain. They can be given, rather, to understand.
There is, instead of rational analysis, a sensational aspect to the whole Bin Laden business: the caves, the Saudi plutocrat who becomes a kind of J. Worthwington Foulfellow with his sidekick Ayman al-Zawahiri, and all those solemn "terrorism experts" who, like Peter Bergen, still keep far away from the larger and more important questions but apparently can dine out in the American media and even elsewhere on the fact that they "met Bin Laden" or "travelled in Afghanistan" or "have studied Al Qaeda for years." That should be seen as part of the sensational, quasi-yellow press, and the lowering of standards all way round. Suppose someone knew every detail of Bin Laden's life? Or suppose the American government kills Bin Laden? So what? What does this have to do with the menace of islamization in Western Europe? How does this stop the Saudi-financed campaigns of Da'wa everywhere in the world, even among those who are Muslims (as in Niger, where the syncretistic local version of Islam, with its marabouts and unhijabbed women, has with Saudi money and influence been completely transformed, as has the practice of Islam in many sub-Saharan states)? That Da’wa proceeds, of course, also among Infidels who, out of their economic or psychic unsteadiness, have been correctly identified as ready (the readiness is all) for efforts to convert them. All this helps acquire more recruits, deep behind Infidel -- i.e., enemy -- lines, for the Army of Islam.
The "Hunt for Bin Laden" business (and all those books, and book-tours, by those "experts" who once saw Bin Laden plain) involves the perceived need to obtain the cooperation of the government of Pakistan by cancelling billions of dollars in debts and offering new billions in aid of all kinds. It involves not reading Pakistan the riot act about A. Q. Khan (he should be in American custody, subject to American grilling) and in not threatening complete economic destruction unless those nuclear weapons are given to the Americans "for safe-keeping." (The Pakistani government would not have had to announce this; it might have simply pretended that it still had them, to keep the primitive Muslim masses calm, or as calm as they can be.) All this has been a disaster. It has allowed Musharraf to present himself as something he is not, and Pakistan as something it is not. That misrepresentation continues to play on long-established innocences and dreams about "Islam" as essentially okay and unworrisome, if only the "moderates" can keep control.
And thus we have the fiascos we see all around us, including the fiasco of Iraq, where Bush, who once had an idea, and now that idea has him, still will not relent on his foolish squandering of men's lives, of money, of war materiel. He will not exploit, and certainly is incapable of welcoming, the ethnic and sectarian divisions that sooner or later will explode, and for our sake should explode. What's more, these divisions will have consequences for Shi'a-Sunni relations outside of Iraq, and possibly, if the Kurds get their state, for the relations between non-Arab and Arab Muslims (as with the Berbers in Algeria and in France). All this internecine warfare can only weaken the Camp of Islam. It would be useful for Europeans to observe this warfare, and to draw the necessary conclusions from it.
Within the Bilad al-Kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, there are still very few who comprehend the permanent menace of Islam to most forms of art, to the free and skeptical inquiry necessary for the enterprise of science, to individual rights and to mental freedom, and to all the legal and political institutions and social arrangements and understandings and assumptions upon which the advanced West is based. There is no sense of the peril to that which so many in that Western world, over several millennia of thought and effort, managed to achieve, and to all the artifacts they produced. Those who today call themselves "English" or "French" or "Italians" or "Americans" hold these achievements and artifacts merely in trust, as a legacy in which they have but a life estate. They have a duty to learn about them, and then having learned about to appreciate them, to defend them intelligently -- especially now, when it can be done at very little human cost, because the most effective weapons of the Jihad are the "wealth weapon," campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
As has been steadily insisted here for nearly three years, the "wealth weapon" can be countered by taxes on gasoline in the United States that rise in steady increments to far higher, possibly European levels, in taxes on all uses of oil, on subsidies to mass transit, on subsidies and all kinds of encouragement for solar, wind, and other forms of energy, including new ways to burn or to transform coal, and of course nuclear energy -- which should be seen, following the French example, as one of the best ways to diminish reliance on oil. Everything conceivable should be done. Because of the costs involved (and insurance for nuclear plants) governments, including the American government, should participate fully and eagerly. Nonsense about "letting the marketplace" decide will not do. No one said during World War II that the government should not fund the Manhattan Project. The diminishment of the Muslim "oil weapon" is essential. So too is the ending of all the transfers of hundreds of billions of dollars from Infidel peoples (unwillingly) by their governments (all too willing), to Muslim states and groups such as Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the ineffable "Palestinians" -- about whom a veritable cult of aid has developed, not because the "Palestinians" themselves are worthy, but because of an unexpungable animus toward Israel, an animus that has been carefully cultivated by the Islamintern International and its supporters in the world press. It is used to encourage aid for the "Palestinians" and their quite unnecessary, and utterly phony, "plight."
As for campaigns of Da'wa, they can be constrained at every step, beginning with careful monitoring in prisons, aid to Christian missionary efforts, and the segregating of Muslim prisoners in separate buildings (for "security and administrative -- i.e., halal food and other observances -- purposes). Since black prisoners are a special target, why not employ black African refugees such as Sudanese "lost boys" to speak frequently in prisons about their experiences? Why not introduce the subject of the Arab slave trade and the use of Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism (the most successful imperialism in history, as yet not fully comprehended save, so far, by a few)? Why not discuss how the inshallah-fatalism of Islam encourages economic paralysis, and that only the false manna of oil managed to provide any prosperity for Muslims once they no longer had large numbers of non-Muslims within their lands upon which to batten?
As for demographic conquest, that can be halted. As the Infidel peoples wake up, they can not only halt, but reverse the immigration of the past three or four heedless decades, and undo much of what they stupidly permitted to be done. Just as the parents of young children try to "child-proof" their house, by all sorts of measures, so the Lands of the Infidels can be made, not welcoming, but unwelcoming, for the continued practice of Islam and calls for introduction of Sharia provisions in the West. We need not make allowances. We need not yield in the slightest to Muslim demands. We can be quick to detect the campaigns in the press that are designed to render us more susceptible to Islam, to focus only on the most inoffensive of the rituals (i.e., Ramadan) and not on what is written in Qur'an and hadith. Certainly the press has failed completely to deal with the figure of Muhammad and what he did, and what Muslims revere him for -- which is everything he said, and everything he did.
There has as yet been as little action over all this by the American government, paralyzed by Iraq, as there has been in dealing with its false allies -- such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and of course Pakistan.
But it will change. It will change because whatever Bush clings to, in 2008 a new President will have to promise, as Eisenhower promised to "go to Korea" and to end that war, to end promptly the now clearly misguided and wasteful effort in Iraq. It was misguided by March 2004, when the country had been thoroughly scoured for weapons of mass destruction. It is misguided if the goal is to weaken the Camp of Islamic Jihad (i.e., the Camp of Islam). And that should be the goal, whatever vague description of "victory" is in vogue today in Washington. That "victory" has actually never been clearly defined by our confused and confusing President, who cannot allow himself even the possibility of speaking clearly and lucidly on this subject -- for if he did, then his whole edifice built to date would come tumbling down, and in public.
Posted by Hugh at October 27, 2006 8:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Great post, Hugh. As for 'understanding Islam', part of the problem has always been, has it not, that nobody speaks authoritatively for Islam? Hence, I was wondering, does anyone at Jihadwatch have an opinion on the reply of the "38 Muslim Scholars" to Pope Benedict's Regensburg address?
Regards,
I Will Not Submit
Posted by: Darryl Harb![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 27, 2006 8:35 AM
I have lived my whole life in Dearborn, Michigan - capital of Islam USA. The immigrants arriving over the past ten years or so are much more fundamentalist and reluctant to accept Western norms, customs, traditions and even laws.
It all comes down to excessive immigration. The more Muslims you allow into your country, the more Mosques start going up, the more Muslim academies, the more Arabic language shows up and now some Dearborn Muslims are petitioning for Arabic instruction all day long in public schools - not just Arabic language class.
Like illegal aliens from Mexico, "it's the immigration, stupid".
at October 27, 2006 8:57 AM
1)Spencer, Fitzgerald, Fjordman (praise be upon all of them for opening eyes!) and others like them need to be in government in some capacity. At the very least their writings should be required reading. If the Cold War produced Kremlinologists we now need Muslimologists in this struggle.
2)Fitzgerald says in the days after 9/11 Washington didn't understand Islam. Five YEARS later that's still the case.
3)Rather than waste all that money on the world's
Islamic cesspools (the PLO being the stinkiest) we should take all that money to fund that Manhattan Project to get us off oil. Taxing gas would not be necessary to fund such a project (gas is already highly taxed as it is) if we quit funding those maniacs who want to kill us.
4)A counter cultural revolution will be necessary to reverse four decades of mindless leftism that has created "freedom for all, responsibility for none" anarchy, PC, unrestricted immigration and all the other ills that plague us today and allowed Islamania to take root and flourish in our own backyards.
5)The sooner the West's "leaders" realize that Islam is the enemy, rather than a Bin Laden or a Taliban, the better. They didn't create Islam-Islam created them.
at October 27, 2006 9:05 AM
The arrival of Islam was like pouring gasoline on a burning fire, i.e., tribes and peoples that were already burning with rage.
Islam provides it's adherants justification for all of the bad behavior known to man.
Posted by: n.a. palm at October 27, 2006 9:33 AM
Kudos Hugh.
Ever grateful for your valuable insights.
The beltway is blinded by greed for our oil money by way of the arab sheiks.
How did a resolution in 2004 get into the republican platform of a "two state solution" to the palestinean circumstance (subsequently dutifully mouthed by G.W. and Condi) ?
All the Wahington whores have been receiving mostly Saudi largesse, especially just about every president still alive, from Carter to Bush senior to Clinton. And they primp and solicit these funds - like Albright and Dole - whores blinded by their greed.
At some point, as in the Dubai ports deal, the public will react. Mercifully sooner than later.
Posted by: dgene at October 27, 2006 10:02 AM
Speaking of lowered standards, for many years the Middle East Journal --published in a non-academic town like Washington, DC, was only US academic journal focussed on the Middle East. Perhaps because of its financing by the Oil Lobby, it seems to have had great influence in Washington. Now, the MEJ standards, never that high, seem lower than ever. Some of the articles today have a certain childish ring to them, at least to me.
Posted by: Eliyahu at October 27, 2006 10:04 AM
Wow Hugh’s an optimist! Who would have thunk it?
Do you have any clue as to who this visionary on the horizon will be ?
Back tracking Tom Tancredo ?Maybe John Kyle Who said “False claims of bigotry are an insufficient answer to the genocide found in the Quran “ At least I think he said that.I could have been me.
at October 27, 2006 10:08 AM
HUGH: "It constantly pressured Israel after 1967 to give up the Sinai for worthless guarantees."
This is where things get away from you sir. The "Cold Peace" with Egypt has indeed been far from ideal. But one MUST acknowledge the very real benefits to Israel...
1) Israel operates an embassy out of Cairo, where they maintain important contacts with the Egyptian government and needless to say, observe and penetrate Egyptian institutions and society in ways that are undoubtedly beneficial to the Jewish state
2) Unlike the 50s, 60s and the "War of Attrition" (1967-71), since the signing of the Camp David accords no Egyptian suicide commados have infiltrated into Israel to commit murder and mayhem. This cannot be understated; the Egyptians have done what the Palestinians continue to refuse to do, they've stopped murdering Israelis inside the Jewish state
3) Taking Egypt out of the military equation has meant that after fighting four major wars (three of them for its very survival) in its first 25 years of existence, Israel has not had to fight a MAJOR war in 33 years. Again, the importance of this cannot be overstated. The Israels have fought intermittantly in Lebanon and against the Palestinians over the years, but none of these conflicts represented an existential threat to the Jewish State....(though Hezbollah's rocket barrage is does appear to be an ominous barmoter of things to come). The Israelis lost over 2000 of its best and brightest in 1973. As one Israeli General said in the aftermath, "there cannot be another major mid-East war."
And there hasn't been.
In spite of Egypt's refusal to live up to all facets it agreed to at Camp David, the Peace Treaty with between Israel and Egypt has been of unquestionable benefit to the Israelis over the years.
Posted by: Cornelius at October 27, 2006 10:17 AM
The more I read your posts and those of Robert, the more I am convinced that only a fact-truth confrontational approach will prevail in this conflict. So called "moderation" will not do the job.
The current crisis with Islam appears to have two immediate sources: 1) the oil revenues that fund the spread of the belief-system and Jihad and 2) the collapse of the USSR which had delayed a lurking Jihad that for 70 years lay dormant after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. (So it appears to a non-expert like me.)But now unbelievers face a resumed war with Islam that has been in process for 1300 years.
During the 1970's and 1980's there were many who sought to appeal to "moderates" within the Soviet Empire, who urged no confrontation in word and deed with the obvious aggressive and totalitarian nature of the Soviet belief-system. They were in Western "peace movements" that were often funded by the USSR. The people who advised caution and moderation in confronting the Soviets did so for many reasons, but it all boiled down to "don't make them mad", "don't offend them" "they only have different "values".
Yet folks like Solzhenitsyn advised a confrontation that would make the Soviets angry, and noted that in their anger, in their rage, the Soviets would reveal themselves and the nature of their belief-system. Thus the exile of Solzhenitsyn, the attempt to kill Pope John Paul, the attempt to crush Solidarity, the shooting down of the Korean passenger plane by the Soviets in 1983, and other ugly manifestations of Soviet rage, did much to bring down the regime. All of the items you mention are necessary to contain this insane Soviet-like belief system, including factual in-your-face-confrontation with the sick violence and intolerance of Muhammad and his belief-system.
Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Robert Rage, and other rages are just what the doctor ordered to cure this belief-system disease. Confrontation and resulting rage are good. Solzhenitsyn was right about confrontation re the USSR. In-your-face-factual-truthful-confrontation-is the answer with Islam, too.
Posted by: Frank
at October 27, 2006 10:24 AM
Hugh: I just wish the U.S. government had enough respect and integrity to take the likes of you and Mr. Spencer into the cabinets and Congress and thinktanks and do what must be done, and do it RIGHT for once.
The absolute irresponsible hubris with which Washington continues to run itself in this war is testament to how dangerous these times we live in truly are.
My best advice to everyone is simply this: show your displeasure at the voting booth. Vote out the old, vote in the new. Even if it might go against your grain a little to do it, the only way to get these bottom feeders in D.C. to truly understand the anger of the American people is to VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!
Posted by: Foehammer at October 27, 2006 11:07 AM
"I just wish the U.S. government had enough etc......"
-- from a posting above
I don't know about Robert, but I'd prefer to work from home. Never liked company towns.
at October 27, 2006 12:06 PM
The first election since 52 where a sitting Pres. or VP is not in the race. It is going to be wild. Look for the battle to begin the morning after this coming election. Candidates will make huge blunders that will destroy their chances. Others will begin to tell it like it is and their competitors will have to counter. They still don’t get just how much 9-11 changed us. Hang on and enjoy!
Posted by: tgusa at October 27, 2006 12:21 PM
Hugh, "All this internecine warfare can only weaken the Camp of Islam."
I would like to see this point developed even more; exactly how do you think the sectarian warfare would play out over years? What about the arguments that it would lead to a war-hardened Islamic state of one or the other major sects, and thereby become, in a few decades, something like Iran or Afghanistan as it was under the Taliban? Do you think this is unlikely, or merely less bad than wasting billions that could go into serious defence and realistic planning?
"and of course nuclear energy -- which should be seen, following the French example, as one of the best ways to diminish reliance on oil. Everything conceivable should be done. Because of the costs involved (and insurance for nuclear plants) governments, including the American government, should participate fully and eagerly. Nonsense about "letting the marketplace" decide will not do. No one said during World War II that the government should not fund the Manhattan Project."
Does anyone know of a sanely motivated political organization that pushes for this specifically? With a focus on higher, Euro-level oil taxes, and nuclear power? I expect common use of public transport and more efficient cars to follow from high oil taxes - which I am STRONGLY in favor of, not as an environmental concern but as a national security one.
Most environmental organizations are also heavily involved in things like restricting land rights to people whose land is found to have rare insects and whatnot. I'm asking about an org focused on these energy issues, preferable with defense issues as the explicit reason for the org's existence.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at October 27, 2006 12:53 PM
Hugh:
Can you provide one example from anywhere in all of human history in which any nation changed its commitment to its religion because of falling commodity prices?
at October 27, 2006 1:44 PM
ISLAMSFORLOSERS,
"(4)A counter cultural revolution will be necessary to reverse four decades of mindless leftism that has created "freedom for all, responsibility for none" anarchy, PC, unrestricted immigration and all the other ills that plague us today and allowed Islamania to take root and flourish in our own backyards."
Hm. I think we've already had something like the start of a counter-cultural revolution in the success of _South Park_ and its mockery of PC leftists; most of my generation doesn't take PC seriously, and I think the arts and truth are primary instruments in that.
Still, we need some sort of recognition of our core values, that we agree on despite often different religious and philosophical basis for them. Christians like Spencer, and Jews like David Horowitz, principled atheists like Oriana, and etc. etc. etc., are on the same side in this.
We are for a socicty which allows people to be free living actors, creative and independent-thinking, and which is serious about maintaining the government framework for that, including, necessarily, serious punishment of crimes. We understand that this is the root of the arts and the sciences which bring us prosperity and joy and which enable us to fulfill our potential. We understand that a social network in which the various members can argue and think, is most likely to approach truth and good.
We understand that that the above positive traits require a certain level of personal responsibility to maintain, and we are dedicated to voluntarily maintaining it. This means we reject the aimless hedonism and nihilism and all the lunacy they bring, not out of anything like blind following of orders, but out of choice for something we know is better.
We understand that there are some boundaries in life, such that the cost of crossing them is just not worth the benefit. Limits on who can enter such a society are necessary to ensure that it can persist, as a good example and as a place where at least some of the world's people can have that responsible freedom and its fruits. Destroying it by letting in too fast too many people, especially those who don't understand what is necessary to keep it going, does NOT help the society or those people attempting to enter it, or the people in the nations they are leaving, in the long term. Better low and careful immigration, and efforts to (non-militarily) help those who want what what we have to bring it to their own nations.
We understand that human rights are not a suicide pact. This applies most obvious to terrorists not obeying any treaty conventions on attacks on civilian populations. It also applies the the fact that our rights in our personal matters, which should be serious and genuine nd respected, do NOT negate value judgments about whether we strive for functional families. Functional as in non-abusive, capable of providing basic needs, and capable of raising children with both the moral and intellectual skills necessary to maintain a free society and a modern economy. We understand that if human rights were such a suicide pact, every society which respected them would be wiped out quickly, ensuring that most humanity live stifled and crushed under the boot of dictators for all the future.
Something roughly along those lines, many people in the West agree with, is a good basis for a counter revolution.
I think a lot of the people who sort of fall into modern liberalism passively because they aren't religious could recognize their values in this too. Which is to say, I think that if we were clear about this, and if it got enough circulation, most of the people in the ranks of the Modern Liberals who lean more toward Classical Liberalism than Marxism/PC Leftism, would see they are really on our side.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at October 27, 2006 1:54 PM
"Can you provide one example from anywhere in all of human history in which any nation changed its commitment to its religion because of falling commodity prices?"
-- from a posting above
This question confuses me, but I can only assume it is meant to call into question a point which I never made: that there might be a connection between falling OPEC revenues, and a lessening of the hold of Islam on the Muslims in oil-producing states.
I want OPEC revenues diminished so that Saudi and other Arab support for the building of mosques and madrasas, and the buying up of armies of Western hirelings, and the vast propaganda campaigns carried on on behalf of Islam, will not be quite as easily funded. I want the Muslim states to lack the wherewithal to buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms, and to purchase the materiel and brains necessary for the production of nuclear weaponry.
I neither said nor implied anything about how the diminishment of OPEC revenues would cause a lessening of a Muslim commitment to Islam. That's not what I care about. I care about the ability of Muslims to wage war, through all the instruments of Jihad, on Infidels. If, as a bonus, they are forced to realize that the oil wealth is not a permanent or ever-growing source of great wealth, and then further make the connection between inshallah-fatalism and their economic underdevelopment despite the ten trillion dollars (so far since 1973) they have recieved from the sale of oil and gas, that is a bonus. But it is not what I wrote about.
at October 27, 2006 2:13 PM
"Can you provide one example from anywhere in all of human history in which any nation changed its commitment to its religion because of falling commodity prices?"
-- from a posting above
This question confuses me, but I can only assume it is meant to call into question a point which I never made: that there might be a connection between falling OPEC revenues, and a lessening of the hold of Islam on the Muslims in oil-producing states.
I want OPEC revenues diminished so that Saudi and other Arab support for the building of mosques and madrasas, and the buying up of armies of Western hirelings, and the vast propaganda campaigns carried on on behalf of Islam, will not be quite as easily funded. I want the Muslim states to lack the wherewithal to buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of arms, and to purchase the materiel and brains necessary for the production of nuclear weaponry.
I neither said nor implied anything about how the diminishment of OPEC revenues would cause a lessening of a Muslim commitment to Islam. That's not what I care about. I care about the ability of Muslims to wage war, through all the instruments of Jihad, on Infidels. If, as a bonus, they are forced to realize that the oil wealth is not a permanent or ever-growing source of great wealth, and then further make the connection between inshallah-fatalism and their economic underdevelopment despite the ten trillion dollars (so far since 1973) they have recieved from the sale of oil and gas, that is a bonus. But it is not what I wrote about.
at October 27, 2006 2:14 PM
If anything shows what an uphill task we have in getting people to understand Islam, this thread is it(read the responses):
http://greatworlddebate.net/gwdsmf/index.php?topic=8520.0
Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at October 27, 2006 2:29 PM
Phximan: "At the same time the old hatreds of sunni vs shia will thin out the herd. Yes they breed like rabbits, Mo told them to, but they are very good at killing their own. A few decades of us leaving them alone and no more problems. They will themselves."
--Ya I think the threat is overrated too. Islamegalomaniacs have always suffered from delusions of grandeur. Call their bluff, and they go poufff in the air. Like Gen. Yahya Khan, military dictator of Pakistan, told Mrs. Indira Gandhi to "Shut up, Woman," n'th hour before losing the entire E. Pakistan! Now Musharraf goes through strange contortions to show how Pakistan gained from the Kargil misadventure it lost so spectacularly! And its not just the Shias and Sunnis! The history of the opium-fumigated power-crazed Moghuls in north India was brother kill brother, father kill son and son kill father! Cult of death indeed! It will cannibalise its own long before the end of this war.
Posted by: pagandkapitat at October 27, 2006 2:29 PM
Cornelius makes a good argument in favor of the peace treaty that required Israel to transfer the Sinai to Egypt. He says, in closing, that, "In spite of Egypt's refusal to live up to all facets it agreed to at Camp David, the Peace Treaty with between Israel and Egypt has been of unquestionable benefit to the Israelis over the years."
There are two factors that Cornelius doesn't mention that should be included in our assessment of the treaty's outcome. First: During Israel's presence in the Sinai, it had developed oil wells that had supplied its needs. When it turned over the peninsula to Egypt, the investment was lost and Israel became dependent on imported oil, to the detriment of its economy, which was (and is) already strained by defense needs.
Second, the transfer entailed the destruction of many Jewish homes in the Sinai. This outrage created the precedent for Sharon's destruction of Jewish homes when he, betraying his own promises, decided to end Israeli sovereignty in Gaza. The Muslim world perceived Israel's own uprooting of entire Israeli towns and relinquishment of claims to that land as a sign of weakness, to be exploited in the future.
I believe that we should consider these facts when we note the undoubted benefits of the treaty with Egypt.
Posted by: Frieda at October 27, 2006 2:58 PM
Hugh:
RE: reducing OPEC revenues.
My question was meant to highlight the relatively inelastic relationship between oil prices and spending on jihad and dawa.
What would you expect to happen if crude oil prices fell to $10/barrell? This is what happened in the mid Eighties. During the Eighties the Saudis/Kuwaitis etc. where funding the Afghan/Soviet war and engaged in a major ramp up of overseas spending on dawa (mosque/madrassa building etc.). The trigger for their increased dawa spending was in part to fend off the Shia resurgence from Khomeini in Iran.
To the extent that we can reduce the oil money going to Muslims that is a good thing. However U.S. based evangelical Christians have lots of money. How many Baptist churches have opened in the Arabian Penisula lately? None! Is it because of the bad stock market? Why can't we put the same restrictions on them? Because if they stop pumping oil the whole economy goes down the tube! Our goal should be to reduce our vulnerablity to oil supply blackmail. If we phased in a $1.50/gal. tax on gasoline and used the proceeds to add to the strategic petroleum reserve we would have enough of a supply cushion that our government would not be so worried about what they might do.
It is getting to be a cliche to invoke the Manhattan project when arguing that getting us off of oil is just a matter of more government spending. The Manhattan Project was a government program the succeeded in rendering two cities uninhabitable. Big deal. Rent control almost did the same thing for New York a few years ago. Building a new energy economy by government fiat is a different propostion. Hoping for the technology-silver-bullet-that-is-going-to-kill-Islam is betting on a long shot.
Posted by: Malta_1565 at October 27, 2006 4:15 PM
"If anything shows what an uphill task we have in getting people to understand Islam, this thread is it(read the responses)"
They're essentially identical to Nazi apologists. Were they in that era, they'd fail to recognize that murderous ideology for what it was, and make excuses for its mounting horrors as just being non-representative fringe accidents.
We let evil have a wonderful little hiding place by insisting that any ideology whatsoever with the word "religion" on it is good and pure and light. It neuters our ability to address new threats on the scale of the Nazis.
In the end, we either face the truth, and deal with the new Nazism as we dealt with the old one--by addressing its threats and refusing to cave in--or we become the well-trodden subjects of a life-crushing, culture-eliminating totalitarian regime.
Most of the people posting on that thread are typical products of PC fluff education, and the way to stop pumping them out is by reform of the West's educational system, and by introducing K-12 school choice and competition in particular.
Out of ignorance, many people fail utterly to understand that each belief system involves, perhaps among other things, a set of ideas motivating action. Sometimes the actions a given belief system motives are neutral or good in some mix other than that of another given belief system. However, sometimes a given belief system has an ideology whose content and structure motivate very evil actions. We have a great many examples of the latter doing a great deal of damage to people in the last 100 years: Nazism, Marxism, and so on.
The ignorant see belief systems as mere ethnic identifiers, and therefore see critical notice of them--even when that focus in on content and ethical issues--as "hate". This simplistic and false understanding of the facts of the world is dangerous. With this foundation of falsehood, the ignorant can't begin to fathom that someone might criticize a given religious ideology on the basis of the actions its inherent ideas motivate.
Possibly some of them could be slowly encouraged to take up thinking about these issues, by having it pointed out that sometimes even a mainstream ideology can involve ideas that support actions as bad as those sometimes done out of simple hate alone (cartoonishly, the only cause of evil they see in the world), and that, therefore, sometimes it is important to genuinely reform even mainstream ideologies, and that, therefore, sometimes refusing to look at the actual content of a mainstream ideology isn't a good thing.
Posted by: mrsmomomoto at October 27, 2006 4:51 PM
"I want OPEC revenues diminished so that Saudi and other Arab support for the building of mosques and madrasas, and the buying up of armies of Western hirelings, and the vast propaganda campaigns carried on on behalf of Islam, will not be quite as easily funded. " Posted by Hugh
Hugh:
The fastest way to this is to tap the U.S. oil, everything we have and can access. Taxes on oil will not be popular, how could you see it being offered to our citizens?
Also, France is mostly nuclear, I do think that is a good reason for NOT having nuclear power by looking at their current situation.
I know how you feel on Iraq, I still feel it can be salvaged. You call for a withdraw, I do understand, but can you see anything that could be done to win with us there? A brainstorm if you will, how would you stay and win?
You call to make islam engage itself is ,at best, temporary, (IMO).
But still, all options should be offered for workover, and discussion.
A fine post, Hugh.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1
at October 27, 2006 6:53 PM
Cornelius, you point out that there has been no major war between Israel and Egypt since 1973 --six years before signing of the Camp David treaty. However, that is no guarantee for the future. Egypt is building up its military forces, including unconventional weapons, doing research on ABC weapons, etc. One of the Arab mistakes in the past was to be too Islamic, that is, to fight their war against Israel according to old Islamic rules. For example, as soon as arafat got himself established in Gaza and Jericho in 1994, he started increasing terrorism and and actually created a "military-popular" confrontation with Israel in July 1994 [I think it was July, maybe June or August]. This event led to the killing of several Israeli soldiers and to the burning of several hundred Israeli buses that brought Gaza workers to places of employment in Green Line Israel. These buses were worth millions of dollars. The incident is now forgotten, in order to protect the reputation of the peacemongers. In contrast to arafat's starting the war as soon as he took over, Mubarak is taking a more reasonable strategy, which is more dangerous for Israel in the long run. He constantly prepares his population for war with Israel through hate propaganda in the schools, press, electronic media, mosques, etc. Moreover, Egypt has allowed terrorists to smuggle weapons into the Gaza STrip from Egypt through tunnels under the Gaza-Egypt border, by sea, etc. Recently, after 12 years of terrorist smuggling of weapons, it has been reported that Egypt has begun to take steps to curtail this weapons smuggling. I doubt that these alleged attempts will make much of a difference in the long run.
I don't want to go into the several incidents of mass murder of Israeli tourists in Egypt. Israelis have been deliberately killed as Israelis/Jews. However, terrorists have also murdered tourists of other origins, including fellow Egyptians, etc. Once, a busload of Greek tourists was murdered because they were thought to be Jews. As you know, killings of Coptic Egyptians are fairly commonplace too.
We don't know when Mubarak will feel that his military forces are fit and the international situation is propitious for another attack on Israel, this time using more intelligently the weapons that have been accumulated in Egypt and that his army has been trained to use.
Posted by: Eliyahu at October 28, 2006 4:28 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)