| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Here is an excellent story by columnist Barrett Kalellis in NewsMax, reflecting upon and giving a summary of my recent talk at the Heritage Foundation:
As an increasingly impatient American public and political class now grasp at anything that might facilitate the extrication of military forces from Iraq (and provide themselves with political cover), it becomes more and more apparent that the situation in Baghdad will go down in history as the U.S. equivalent of Dien Bien Phu — the turning point in a military effort where popular will was lost and the enemy won, if only because their opposition decided to flee the theater of battle.The present sorry state of affairs was predicted as far back as two weeks after 9/11, by myself and some other pundits. Pointing to a woeful lack of intelligence in the Middle East, the vacillating uncertainty about the worthiness of the cause, the religious fervor of the jihadist fanatics, and the general lack of patience and endurance for the long haul by the American public, the war on terror (and in Iraq) seemed likely to fail.
"To prevail in any war," I wrote in December 2003, "you first must know your enemy. Americans must understand that the worldwide network of terrorists is not going away until we stamp it out."
In the current conflict, knowing your enemy means having a thorough understanding of Islam, a subject that, to their detriment, most Americans know nothing about.
There is probably no one in America today that works harder than Robert Spencer, a scholar and writer about Islamic beliefs and traditions, whose mission is to make Americans aware of the true nature of radical Islam, and how this knowledge is indispensable for understanding and combating Islamic global jihad.
Spencer is a director of Jihad Watch, an organization that hosts two Web sites (jihadwatch.org and dhimmiwatch.org) that track radical Islamic news and events, and he has written six books and hundreds of articles on Islam and jihadi terrorism, including the recent best-sellers "The Truth About Muhammad," and "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)."
Spencer gives numerous speeches, participates in academic symposia, and is a frequent guest on radio and TV and in documentaries to raise consciousness about Islamic teachings and to combat widespread lies and distortions made by apologists for radical Islam.
In a powerful presentation to the Heritage Foundation last week in Washington, D.C., Spencer outlined the critical issues the West must be made aware of to face the threat that Islamic jihad poses.
"You can't fix what you won't admit is broken," Spencer said, "and you cannot reform what you say does not need reforming."
Peaceful Muslims have to confront and reform the elements of Islamic teachings and traditions that advocate violence, he noted, if there is to be an end to radicals using these to justify violence.
Spencer detailed several of the most egregious tenets of Islam that need reform, if there is to be any coexistence with the West, with the most fundamental being tolerance of non-Muslims.
The Quran teaches that only Islam is the true religion, and unbelievers have three options: 1) convert to Islam; 2) remain an infidel, and submit to humiliating subordinate status under Islamic law, including paying a hefty poll tax; or 3) wage war with, or be killed by, Muslims.
The rapid spread of Islam throughout formerly Christian lands beginning in the seventh century testifies to the zeal, deception, and savagery that Muslims have demonstrated to achieve their Quran-inspired goal of waging war against non-Muslims and imposing Islamic law first on Muslim states, then on non-Muslim countries.
Spencer pointed out that today, young jihadists are recruited wholesale around the world — even in the U.S. — based on these texts, with the promise to return to Allah's law.
Western analysts and policy-makers who are not aware or who choose to ignore these fundamental motivating principles when dealing with Muslim states, Spencer warns, do so at their peril.
This is especially true when negotiating with Muslim countries that profess to be our allies, yet continue to fund mosques and madrassas that preach hatred of the West, particularly against Jews and Americans, and are not being called to task.
He has harsh words for the fog of multicultural political correctness in which America is mired — a cloud of self-righteous self-deception that blindly believes the feel-good falsehood that Islam is a "peaceful" religion "hijacked" by a few extremists.
This has dangerously strangled serious discussion of the issues that need to be addressed, Spencer claims, if the West is going to be able to deal with the jihadi threat.
Through his yeoman efforts, Spencer's message is beginning to gain some traction in popular opinion, along with that of fellow advocates like Nonie Darwish, Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Bat Ye'or, Andrew Bostom, Steve Emerson, Serge Trifkovic, Daniel Pipes, and others who are speaking out.
For their pains, many have received opprobrium from Muslims that are jihad sympathizers, including death threats. I salute their candor and their courage. In hindsight, if Americans had heard and understood their ideas a few short years ago, we might have made a different and more effective intervention into the intractable Middle East situation.
Posted by Robert at November 21, 2006 2:28 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In the current conflict, knowing your enemy means having a thorough understanding of Islam, a subject that, to their detriment, most Americans know nothing about.
Few people know about the enemy because few people will actually identify the enemy. Thank God for this site and others like it.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 21, 2006 2:44 PM
ISLAMSFORLOSERS said -
"In the current conflict, knowing your enemy means having a thorough understanding of Islam, a subject that, to their detriment, most Americans know nothing about."
I totally agree with you here. I myself feel somewhat informed primarily due to this site and other like faithfreedom and LGF and when I try to tell my friends, the common comeback is:
"I have my own opinion and don't need to go to a website to get someone elses."
It's so damn frustrating trying to get people to listen, to research, to get involved. As Bridgette Gabriel said "Political Correctness is killing us"
Posted by: Supermaxx at November 21, 2006 3:03 PM
http://www.foehammer.net/2006/11/united-states-of-amerabia-media.html
Posted by: Foehammer at November 21, 2006 3:14 PM
This country and Europe better wake up and fast...the same goes for Europe.....That incident in Minnesota on the US Airways jet is a good start....Time to forget about PC BS and hurting one's feelings.....and time to get serious with this ilk......
Posted by: Oiznop at November 21, 2006 3:45 PM
If Islam had been properly understood, then not this idiotic "war on terror" but rather a war of self-defense, a war for human freedom, against the Jihad, would have been properly declared and articulated.
If Iraq had been properly understood, then not this idiotic and messianic and polypragmonic dreamy desire to reshape Iraq and "the whole Middle East" would never have occurred to anyone, much less be obstinately held on to by Bush and Bush loyalists of all kinds, but have been jetsam thrown overboard by a sauve-qui-peut captain of the listing ship of state, the S.S. Narrenschiff, long since.
The author of the piece above appears not to realize quite what a mess Iraq was fated to be. Nor does he give any hint of understanding that, once the regime had been overthrown, everything else that followed -- above all that sectarian fissure between Sunni and Shi'a -- was not "possibly" to follow, not "likely" to follow, but was "inevitably" to follow. It was inevitable, and was described as such, at Jihad Watch, in early 2004, just as soon as it became appallingly clear, by the end of February or at the latest mid-March, that the Administration was serious about all this "bringing democracy" nonsense instead of coolly calculating the benefits of exploiting the natural fissures, sectarian and ethnic, that were now free to widen, and widen.
The Administration was incapable of understanding this. And therefore so were its loyalists. The opposition was similarly incapable of realizing this, and thus of making the most convincing and most appealing case, for prompt American withdrawal. Both sides still are incapable, it seems, of fully grasping this. But some of the returning soldiers and Marines with whom I have recently spoken seem completely willing to listen, and to comprehend, when the whole thing is laid out. After all, they have seen the so-called "brave Iraqis" who supposedly "want freedom" and are willing to shoulder the burden of defending it. They know that "Iraq" does not exist, that the "Iraqi" army and "Iraqi" police do not exist. They may not quite realize why Sunni-Shi'a hostilities within Iraq can only be serve to weaken, by dividing and demoralizing, the camp of Islam, and not only in Iraq. They may not quite fully realize why an independent Kurdistan would weaken not only Syria and Iran (both of which need weakening), even threatening their territorial integrity, but also serve as a model -- Kurdistan the Model, not Iraq the Model -- for other non-Arab Muslims, such as the Berbers of Algeria and Morocco (and even of France). But they seem remarkably willing to listen.
And so now do some others, including some in Congress who are likely, in the future, to have a major say in the formation of policy.
The Old Order passeth. Or possibly goeth. As prideful obstinacy, before a fall. Before the hideously expensive pratfall named "the Bush Administration's policy in Iraq."
Not a moment too soon.
Posted by: Hugh at November 21, 2006 3:53 PM
Yeah, Blair's recent comments about using Syria and Iran to bring stability to the region reveal the extent of the stupidity of some of the strategic planning. Remember that brilliant plan to stabilize Iraq by bringing Al-Sistani and Sadr and the militias into the Iraqi political process? Well, it's been a huge success, but the wonderful stability that delivered can be further enhanced by giving a greater say in Iraq to more anti-american killers such as Iran and Syria...
Again, this whole thing is eeriely reminiscent of neonazis and their holocaust denial fetish.
The following points are easily verifiable and have been documented by Robert and others...
1.Muhammad preached and practiced violence against nonbelievers (documented by the muslims themselves in the Koran and the Hadith)
2. Muslims used his words and example as inspiration to (without provocation) invade non-believer homelands and massacre several million nonbelievers such as the Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Armenians (that's over a million in the early 20th century alone), Bulgarians, Hindus, the indigeneous Egyptians (Copts) over the last 1400 years (easily documented by reading historical texts describing the unprovoked muslim invasion and ensuing atrocities in the muslim occupation of non-believer homelands).
The indigenuous survivors were oppressed for centuries, and often eventually completely killed and ethnically cleansed out. See the fate of the Greeks in the eastern portion of their Mediterranean homeland and their capital Constantinople. Jerusalem and the other cities seized by the Latin crusaders were Byzantine teritories illegally occupied by the muslims in an unprovoked war of aggression against the Byzantine empire, which is why the Byzantine emperor demanded the Latins hold these cities as his vassals (which they refused, on the grounds that since they risked life and limb to liberate these cities from the muslims, they deserve to rule them). Or the fate of the Armenians in their homelands in Asia minor, where hundreds of years of muslim oppression culminated in the early 20th century genocide.
3. Muslims are currently using Muhammad’s words and example as inspiration to kill thousands of nonbelievers in Sudan, Nigeria, and in many locations around the world (easily documented by current Wabhabi texts and even by reading MSM)
So the so called "moderate" muslim who denies the documented truth that the "jihad doctrine" of Islamic teaching as set down and practiced by Muhammad and his followers has been used to instigate homicide on a large scale against non-believers, even while the same is still actively occurring, is as morally repugnant as the communist who denied Stalin's Gulag even as people were dying by the millions.
A true moderate muslim would...
1. Acknowledge and reject the teachings and practices of Muhammad on jihad and dhimmitude that dehumanizes non-believers and that lead to millions of innocent non-believers being killed by the muslims over the centuries, and apologize for those words and acts of Muhammad and muslims to the non-muslim world.
2. Work to dismantle the muslim arms trafficking and the muslim propaganda that makes global jihad possible
3. Work for rights of religious minorities in muslim countries
However, there are very few of these truly moderate muslims, and many muslims who acknowledge the immorality of Muhammad's words and actions as related to jihad become ex-muslims. Any "moderate" muslim that denies the reality of what has happened and is currently happening is just providing cover for the current non-believer killing fields in Sudan and elsewhere.
at November 21, 2006 4:45 PM
... you cannot reform what you say does not need reforming.
Even if one says something needs reforming, it that certain something is beyond reform, is reprobate in its fundamental nature... then you cannot reform it, no matter how much you say it needs to be reformed.
Things like that need to be stamped out or, like a nasty virus, at least quarantined.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 21, 2006 4:49 PM
Every once in a millenia or two, someone over there has something fairly reasonable to say. Too bad this guy's days are now probably numbered:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD136206
November 21, 2006 No.1362
Tunisian Philosopher Mezri Haddad: Islamists 'Have Reduced the Koran to a Nauseating Antisemitic Lampoon'
In a blog entry, Tunisian philosopher Mezri Haddad attacked the Muslim world's tolerant attitude toward the antisemitism of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; stated that there was no such thing as a moderate Islamist; and suggested that Muslims reinterpret potentially anti-Jewish Koranic passages, as the Vatican had done with similar passages in the New Testament.
The following are excerpts from Haddad's blog entry: [1]
"Arab Public Opinion... Has Found, in Antisemitism, the Perfect Catalyst For All Its Narcissistic Wounds and Social, Economic, and Political Frustrations"
"The young Iranian president's deliberately outrageous, mortifying, and extremist [statements] aiming at Holocaust denial have provoked stupor and indignation everywhere in the world, with the quite symptomatic exception of the Islamic countries... This deafening silence cannot be explained solely by the fear of suffering from terrorist attacks, as in the heyday of Khomeinist obscurantism. It is also explained by the necessity of getting along with Arab public opinion, which, after years of galvanization by the most reactionary forms of nationalist casuistry and Islamist dogmatism, has found in antisemitism the perfect catalyst for all its narcissistic wounds and social, economic, and political frustrations.
"It must be admitted that some Koranic verses, intentionally isolated from their historical context, have contributed even more to the anchoring of antisemitic stereotypes in Arab-Muslim mentalities. Incidentally, one could say the same about the New Testament, certain passages of which served, in the distant past and the not-so-distant past, to give a theological patina to the most abominable of anti-Jewish persecutions. The Church had to carry out its own 'aggiornamento'... in order to deprive Christian extremists of any evangelical legitimacy.
"All this is to say that the petrifaction of Arab-Muslim mentalities is not at all irremediable - provided that Islamic thinkers show intellectual audacity. Since they cannot purge the Koran of its potentially antisemitic dross, they must closely examine this corpus with hermeneutical reasoning...
"If the West's indignation [at Ahmadinejad's statements] is perfectly understandable and justified, their stupor shows, on the other hand, a certain credulity in their very conception of the Iranian regime. Those who were surprised by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's heinous stigmatizations are the very same people who - distinguishing between the regime and the people who comprise it, and swallowing the fable that there are 'moderate' Islamists and 'extremist' Islamists - have long believed in the normalization of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and in its ineluctable democratization. As Jesus said [John 20:29], 'Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have believed'...
"It is true that this rehabilitation of the fundamentalist Iranian regime was possible only following the irruption, on September 11, 2001, of a new, mutant form of the most extreme kind of Islamism: Al-Qaeda and its macabre cortege of candidates for martyrdom... Bin Laden's triumph, his true miracle, consists in not only having given a civilized appearance to hideous theocracies, but also in having given a human, or even humanist, face to neo-fascist movements who aspire to power: Hamas in Palestine... Hizbullah in Lebanon, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and their alter egos everywhere in the Arab world...
"Like amnesiacs, no one wanted anymore to remember on what ideological substratum this Shiite theocracy rested... What was forgotten was that Islamism - this theocratic, fundamentally totalitarian, and clearly antisemitic ideology -... is doctrinally inalterable. Following the most unexpected geopolitical paths, giving in to the demands of realpolitik, Islamism can demonstrate a great degree of pragmatism in its relations with Western powers. Nonetheless, it will not renounce its strategic objectives: in domestic policy, an obsolete shari'a on all of its subjects; and in foreign policy, hegemonic expansion, international proselytizing, and the eradication of 'the Zionist tumor.' Semantic changes within ideological continuity - that is the essence of Islamist Machiavellianism..."
"One Cannot Reform A Theocracy; One Must Throw It Back Into The Wastebasket Of History"
"It is because people for so long believed in the illusion of an Islamism one can live with... that they had recourse to every possible and imaginable ratiocination in order to make sense of the Iranian president's fundamentally antisemitic diatribes. In this anatomy of anathema, every analytical tool was employed... [but] one has to go back to the original purity of the Khomeini's doctrine in order to understand the congenital antisemitism of the current Iranian president...
"On August 30, 1979, Khomeini declared at Qom: 'Those who demand democracy want to drag the country into corruption and ruin. They are worse than the Jews. They should be hanged. They are not men...' In his pamphlet 'Political, Philosophical, Social, and Religious Principles,' he reproduced all of the stereotypes propounded by Islamist rhetoric...: 'The Jews, may God lay them low, have manipulated the editions of the Koran... These Jews and their supporters have a project to destroy Islam and to establish a Jewish world government.' Whence this categorical imperative: 'Israel, this cancerous tumor, must disappear, and the Jews must be damned and fought until the end of time.'
"But in the meantime, Ayatollah Khomeini could beg Israel for arms and military assistance in order to resist the Iraqi invasion. We can thus easily guess from whom Rafsanjani, Khatami, and the other emblematic figures of 'enlightened Islamism' derived their cynical pragmatism!
"Therefore one should stop viewing the Iranian regime with naive eyes, as some people perpetuate the myth of an opposition between 'reformists' and 'conservatives,' which, while it expresses a real - but utilitarian -political nuance, does not, however, imply a doctrinal antagonism. One cannot reform a theocracy; one must throw it back into the wastebasket of history, from which it never should have cropped up [in the first place].
"In Iran, and in general in the Muslim world, the line of demarcation does not pass between 'moderate' Islamists and 'extremist' Islamists, but rather between theocrats and democrats, between fundamentalists and secularists, between those who have reduced the Koran to a case of nauseating antisemitism and those who, having seized the spirit and put the letter in perspective, know that Jews, like Christians, are Muslims' brothers in monotheism and in humanity, and that the Muslims' God is much more tolerant than the Islamists' divinity..."
at November 21, 2006 8:10 PM
All I needed to know about Islam, I learned on 9/11 ....and on Jihadwatch.org!
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at November 21, 2006 9:34 PM
Islamonazi CAIR: Relentlessly Undermining Airline Security
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/FN112106.php
FNC video
at November 21, 2006 10:14 PM
I agree that the American public has lost its patience with Iraq, but I disagree with the Idea that this is a Dein Bein Phu (sp) for America. I think Americans are coming to the conclusion that the Muslim world just isn't worht the time nor the effort to " save " with democracy.
With the advent of a process that makes synthetic oil for about $17 a barrel thanks to the Isrealies. The US will have little or no need for the Muslim world. When that happens the Muslim world will enter a very dangerous place. They will have in typical Arab fashion misread the pullout of American troops from Iraq and will seek to continue their " victorius " march forward. At that point they will make a set of mistakes that will so enrage the American people that the backlash will be horrendous.
Posted by: elad at November 21, 2006 10:31 PM
The Quran teaches that only Islam is the true religion, and unbelievers have three options: 1) convert to Islam; 2) remain an infidel, and submit to humiliating subordinate status under Islamic law, including paying a hefty poll tax; or 3) wage war with, or be killed by, Muslims.
its unfortinet the land of fruits and nuts aka california has so manny left wing congass criters and senatesnores that it can send to wa.dc. who dont get this
and that anyone like bush has too kish the egos of this left wing voters pairidice if they want to get into the white house one comfoting thought is most of the peaples republik of berkly will be the first to be killed along with finestine when ca. becomes our first islamic country
at November 21, 2006 10:34 PM
does anyone here know that rich people in power can use a religion to manipulate people into doing what they THINK is right but is actually not??? im sure this has never happened in history before with christianity...only in islam, right? These people are brainwashed by religious leaders who want to make powerful political plays by using them as little throwaway suicide bombing pawns. they are the evil ones, not the religion of islam! also, the US is NOT innocent, as much as we wish we were. They feel the same way about us and probably have a similar website or two (*sarcastic tone*) sharing that sentiment. I love america and am for america, but hate to see a complete rodeo of ignorance such as this blog.
Posted by: someonewithabrain at November 27, 2006 12:39 AM
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.)