| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
"Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad coming soon to a city near you. Doesn't it occur to anyone who reads stories like this that it might not be a good idea to import this problem?" -- from Robert Spencer's comment here
And doesn't it occur to anyone, looking around the world and noticing that in every Infidel land, whether in Europe or in Asia or Africa, or in formerly easygoing Australia, that the presence of large numbers of Muslims has disrupted life for the indigenous Infidels? This presence has caused their lives to be more constrained and unpleasant. It has forced them to defend their own legal and political institutions against constant assault.
It has required them to spend billions upon billions in guarding their own transportation centers (airports and airplanes, train stations, bus stations, ports and ships), schools (Christian and Jewish in Western Europe, Christian and Hindu in parts of Asia), religious institutions (churches, temples), government offices of every kind, skyscrapers that house the offices of American or British or other Western countries, embassies, and so on. And finally, it has led to a feeling of physical insecurity among many Infidels, so that, for example, Jews are warned not to wear outward signs of their faith in most of Paris and in whole cities (Malmo, Rotterdam). Or large parts of cities (see Marseille, see Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London) are declared dangerous for Infidels and for the forces of order. One has to worry, even along the Champs-Elysees, about the attacks of groups of Muslims on Infidels, both native and visitors.
And along with the data suggesting that everywhere, even or perhaps especially in those countries most famously generous, liberal, tolerant, and easygoing -- that is, in Denmark and The Netherlands -- the Muslim population is largely hostile to all the institutions of the infidel nation-state, there is the evidence that that hostility is only natural and right given what Islam inculcates. For Islam exhorts Muslims to be hostile to the Infidels -- what else can all those passages in Qur'an that teach hatred and violence against the Unbelievers, and even carefully insist that Muslims "should not take as friends" any Christians or Jews, possibly mean? And what else does the example of Muhammad, his words and deeds in the Sunnah (i.e., as derived mainly from the Hadith and the Sira) mean? What else could it all possibly mean?
And even in the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims are firmly and totally in control (as Muslims are taught should be the case everywhere), the discrimination and constant harassment of non-Muslims by Muslims, and the physical attacks on them, are seldom punished by the state. This includes attacks on Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or mainly on Christians in Indonesia. The terrorism on Bali, when it destroyed the economy of the local Hindus, hardly caused any Muslims even a day of disquiet. Also going unpunished were the two decades of mass-murder of Christians in southern Sudan, or the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, or on Christians of all kinds, over the years, by Muslims all over the Arab countries. Since the Jews were either massacred or driven out or simply escaped in time, there are almost no Jews, any more, for whom Muslims can make life hell as they did most famously in the Yemen. But everywhere in the Islamic world Jews suffered. If they were not quite as the slaves they were in the Yemen, they were under constant fear of assault by their Muslim neighbors who could do with them what they willed.
Everywhere, in other words, that Muslims either dominate, as in Dar al-Islam, or in Dar al-harb, where Muslims do not yet rule, a state of war exists with the Infidel inhabitants. Where Muslims possess sufficient numbers, they behave with their wonted aggressiveness in demanding here and there and everywhere changes in the Infidel institutions in order to accommodate Muslims. And these are all not as a final "compromise," but as the first in a long series of demands that must be made in order to remove every "barrier" to the dominance of Islam. Every attempt to retain those "barriers" (which are nothing more than the Infidel legal and political and social institutions, that those Infidels for some reason think they have a right to preserve) is regarded as an act of "aggression" by those Infidels against Islam -- and that "aggression" therefore justifies all kinds of violence as a necessary act of "defense."
Is it impossible to take note of what is actually written in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? One wishes to ask those who keep refusing to learn the contents of those texts -- which hundreds of millions of people take as their total guide, as the repository of all they know or need to know -- why they think they have a right to comment on what Islam is all about, or what Muslims think. How can they do this if they do not immerse themselves, at least for a while, in those texts? And one wishes to ask them why they keep avoiding the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims. Why is the treatment and fate of the dhimmi -- that is, the "tolerated" or "protected" (from Muslims themselves) non-Muslims under Muslim rule -- which is so unsurprisingly similar in all the lands conquered by Islam, is not a subject of intense and widespread scrutiny. Instead, the Infidels of this world continue to make policy based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
It is not a good idea to import the Sunni-Shi'a problem into Infidel lands. But it is far more important not to import the Muslim-Infidel problem, the state of permanent war between Believer and Infidel that Islam inculcates, into Infidel lands. Yet we are importing it by continuing, monstrously, and suicidally, to pretend that what is going on in all the other Infidel countries that are now suffering from the large-scale presence of essentially un-integrable Muslims will not happen here. (There are a few exceptions: Bassam Tibi suggests that in Germany there may be a "few thousand" out of several million Muslims who may agree with him and hence be capable of becoming full and earnest citizens of an advanced Western Infidel polity.)
It can happen here.
Posted by Hugh at February 5, 2007 8:53 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
"Is it impossible to take note of what is actually written in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? One wishes to ask those who keep refusing to learn the contents of those texts -- which hundreds of millions of people take as their total guide, as the repository of all they know or need to know -- why they think they have a right to comment on what Islam is all about, or what Muslims think (...) Instead, the Infidels of this world continue to make policy based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance."
I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.
Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 5, 2007 9:02 AM
I can easily imagine some western cities looking like Baghdad later this century perhaps. Ok, maybe it won't be allowed to go that far, but once islam goes underground (if it's banned or restricted) I can't see how the West could totally eliminate the threat. We are stuck with it.
Posted by: savitch at February 5, 2007 9:23 AM
It's a matter of time.
There are sufficient numbers of muslims embedded in western nations now and the fuse will soon be lit.
As we know from recent events, it takes nothing more than a silly cartoon to light that fuse.
The jihadists also have the SILENT support of the "moderates". Be warned, that support won't always remain silent.
Insurgency within all the western nations will ignite the world with hot spots all over, uncontrollable to handle to a point where that's all we do is deal with security issues. There will be no time for fighting jihad in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else and for that the Liberals will be happy.
Are we too late already?
Posted by: sounder at February 5, 2007 9:26 AM
Look at history, read the quran, take a look at your muslim neighborhood.
The article is absolutely right. Islam is a religion
promoting aggression and intolerance.
Mohammed's main occupation was raiding carawans (he was entitled to 20% of the loot), converting and robbing infidels - by the sword whenever he wasn't given what he wanted.
The pope cited the Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus).
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Many Muslims were offended by what was perceived as a denigration of Muhammad. In his book, Manuel II then continues, saying, "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
500 hundred years ago - and nothing changed. Neither the Mohammedan ideology nor the West's ignorant blindness. Instead the west excused itself for the crusades.. which were nothing but an attempt to reconquer territory invaded by the Arabs. Legitimate self defense, one would say.
Yet the west excused itself (sorry we were so bad - we tried to take back what was ours?).
Any excuse from the Arabs for plundering Rome and the Vatican! (846), occupying Sicily, Malta, occupying The Iberian peninsula, destroying the Byzantine empire, invading the Christian territories of today's Egypt, Syria,Algeria, Libya, Tunisia or Marocco? Any excuse for slaughtering approximately 90 million of hindus during their conquest of India? Any excuse for being for centuries the world's greatest slave holders? Nope..
Only history? Go to your local Muslim
quarter and see - history repeats itself..
Why should a faith/ideology that has continued without changing for the last 1400 years suddenly change - because we are in the 21th century? They didn't in the 20th,19th, never. The 21st century is just another date on the muslim calendar to world domination.
at February 5, 2007 9:29 AM
The closet that the USA will come to having a conflict in the sunni-shia area is in the Detroit/Dearborn area of Michegan.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 5, 2007 9:43 AM
If you are a muslim, then you are responsible for approving the vile teachings in the koran and the hadith.
To allow any 'moderate' to claim 'innocense' is both foolish and self defeating.
The claim of ignorance cannot wash anymore as well.
Posted by: dgene at February 5, 2007 9:50 AM
In the USA, because there is a huge amount of gun ownership, it would not suprise me that any Muslims in the USA would think twice before starting any violence like what is seen in over in Europe. Also the small groups of Muslims want the American dream first and formost.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at February 5, 2007 9:58 AM
bigcatgirl13106, which is why they are buying weapons by the truckload, claymore mines and hand grenades and turning their mosques into fortresses and training with paintball.
Posted by: Daffersd at February 5, 2007 10:13 AM
Hey. Question.
Did any of you folks happen to notice that when they were announcing the lineup of the Chicago Bears players before the game, that when they announced that Muhammed guy, the croud booed loudly?
Is there a reason for this....other than the fact that people are waking up to the horrible intent of Islam in this country?
at February 5, 2007 12:39 PM
"Can we put a wall around Dearbornistan?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan"
Give them 10 years and they'll be claiming that they are the rightful heirs of dearborn....backed up by the ignorant lefty-media of course.
They'll call themselves 'dearbornstinians' and build mosques over top of all the other religious sites.
Then they'll start sending rockets and homicide bombers to Detroit.
Posted by: The Goobs at February 5, 2007 12:44 PM
Try telling all this to the likes of John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or Ted Kennedy.
WE ALL KNOW you're right. BUT---
US decision-makers don't appear to know it.
The people know. BUT---
The question remains: Who will tell the politicians??? And, can they get an ear???
Muslims should NOT be living in America. Islam, which teaches first degree murder, should NOT be legal in America as first degree murder is not legal here, either.
No Islam. No jihad. That is the solution!
Posted by: pythagoras at February 5, 2007 1:20 PM
Nothing will be done about it .... all you can do is arm yourself, have kids and wait I guess.
Posted by: Ameriki at February 5, 2007 1:38 PM
The Goobs asked:
"Did any of you folks happen to notice that when they were announcing the lineup of the Chicago Bears players before the game, that when they announced that Muhammed guy, the croud booed loudly?"
Those were not "boos" but rather chants of his nickname "Moose" (as in Muhammed MUHSin)
The same thing happens if the players name is Bruce.
If you were a well-known athelete I suppose the "GOOBS" chant would sound like boos as well.
-XRDC
Posted by: XRDC at February 5, 2007 1:40 PM
The left wing liberals are with the muslims and our governments are the most cowardly leaders we have ever had.
All you can do is prepare for a big fight.
It may not come in our life time but down the line there is going to be trouble,the muslims while they are a minority will tell people what they want to hear and once they increase there numbers it will be a different story.
Posted by: stevenz at February 5, 2007 1:50 PM
Is there a reason for this....other than the fact that people are waking up to the horrible intent of Islam in this country?
Posted by: The Goobs at February 5, 2007 12:39 PM
Everyone is waking up, that is, except for the crazy, suicidal liberal nutjobs who continue to blame all the problems caused by the muslims on everybody but the muslims.
Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at February 5, 2007 2:20 PM
-from lgf today:
A video on YouTube about the Mega Mosque planned for London.
I usually try to keep my wits about me and not get overly emotional -you know feel the rage, use it to take appropriate action but don't express it outwardly, but today the gloves are off.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT ALLOW ANY MORE ISLAMIC BULLSH*T TO BE SPREAD AROUND ON AMERICAN SOIL.
Here's a link to the awful video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKqjuNBUZKw&eurl=
at February 5, 2007 2:58 PM
Did anyone see "Good Morning America" today (ABC) and Diane Sawyer's 100% PC report from Damascus, Syria? It was sickening. One Syrian male she interviewed said, "Tell the Americans I hope they find the truth for they have been misled." !!! And simpering PC DS did not challenge this statement at all! If the Muslim had said "And we make jihad against USA," simpering PC goody-goody namby-pamby Diane would have replied, "Oh, how nice!"
On a tour of a mosque of course she can't let one hair show underneath her required headscarf, but does she ask her male Muslim guide why men can let their hair show? Of course not! That wouldn't be PC or respectful of their barbarian, woman-hating (misogynist) "culture"!
And then the "Fulla" doll - fulla ****.
Posted by: darcy at February 5, 2007 3:10 PM
“…people are waking up to the horrible intent of Islam in this country?”
Not when it comes to sports.
The ability of a fan to overlook an offense is powerful. We just watched a Superbowl where one player was allowed to participate in spite of unlicensed firearm charges (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-bears-johnson&prov=ap&type=lgns )
Ray Lewis (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/rlewismug1.html ) is another shining example of the power of fame to overshadow an offense.
When it comes to radical Islam, Hakeem Olajuwon is first to come to mind with his statements here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005139.php and here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004991.php . Yet what basketball fan is going to shun him or would turn down an autograph?
Others may include Cassius Clay (Muhammed Ali) and Lew Alcindor (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) both not know to be radical but who would join the NOI for peaceful reasons?
And let’s not forget the up-and-comers: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2006/08/all-american_te.html
It is always important to note where the loyalties lie for influential people.
-XRDC
at February 5, 2007 4:06 PM
Did anyone see "Good Morning America" today (ABC) and Diane Sawyer's 100% PC report from Damascus, Syria? It was sickening....posted by Darcy
Yes. It WAS sickening. Note, she didn't even mention that the muslim Jesus is a different Jesus, being that the muslims said his parents name and it wasn't Mary & Joseph!
Makes me wonder what the AGENCA of the media is regarding Syria. Perhaps they are protecting Syria for what they think might be an upcoming war with Israel? I won't be at all surprised.
Posted by: The Goobs at February 5, 2007 4:10 PM
P.S. I kept waiting for a homicide bomber to walk up in the background.
Posted by: The Goobs at February 5, 2007 4:10 PM
Everything the Muslims do lets us know that our ways are not their ways and they are bringing their ways to us and we can like it or lump it.
Read "Islamic Imperialism: A History".
Do we care enough about our culture, which goes back centuries before Muhammad walked the earth, to save it or not?
Separation is the only answer and the Muslims can like it or lump it.
Too bad it will never happen.
What was the old maxim for travelers: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Multiculturalism means that doesn't apply. How DARE we expect others who come to our shores to conform with our norms? How parochial!
Western civilization. It was nice while it lasted. I wonder if there will be any histories of it five centuries from now or if instead the US Capitol rotunda will have been turned into a giant mosque. Imagine the minarets on the marble.
Posted by: PMK at February 5, 2007 5:16 PM
On a tour of a mosque of course she can't let one hair show underneath her required headscarf, but does she ask her male Muslim guide why men can let their hair show? Of course not! That wouldn't be PC or respectful of their barbarian, woman-hating (misogynist) "culture"!
Darcy:
Forty to fifty years ago Catholic women were still expected to wear hats or veils when entering a church and men were required to REMOVE theirs. When nothing else was available, some girls wore tissue paper on their heads to comply with the requirement that hair be covered while in the church. Vatican II changed all that.
We're not THAT far ahead of Muslim protocols. Our church had one children's Mass every Sunday and girls and boys were seated on opposite sides of the church. Girls on the left, boys on the right.
at February 5, 2007 5:29 PM
Hats or veils? Excuse me, but hair can still show with those and Catholic men wouldn't attack girls/women whose hair showed! Which does happen to Muslim women. There is a world of difference! In addition, you use the word "expected" whereas Muslim women are FORCED to comply with the men's dictates.
And not only when entering a place of worship - DAILY. It's sartorial subjugation.
Muslim males and females cannot even be in the same room. Females are forbidden to enter a mosque. There is a world of difference. Females can be honor killed just for looking at a male who is not a relative. I don't think any Catholic men murdered their daughters for that!
Yes, we are FAR AHEAD of the Muslim Islamic tyranny, esp. concerning girls/women.
Posted by: darcy at February 5, 2007 5:42 PM
"Or large parts of cities (see Marseille, see Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London) are declared dangerous for Infidels and for the forces of order. One has to worry, even along the Champs-Elysees, about the attacks of groups of Muslims on Infidels, both native and visitors."
Take away the religious element and what you have here are two urban GANGS (Sunni and Shiite) warring with one another and with the rest of the population. Left unchecked they will commit acts of violence and extortion on the entire population. We will be reduced to paying protection money. Oh, that's right. It's called the jizya.
American police have had extensive experience dealing with urban gang warfare. Why shouldn't lessons learned be applied in any city where Muslims threaten others? If it DOES happen here, I expect the same laws used against the Crips and the Bloods to apply to the Sunni and the Shiites. How did Rudy Giuliani handle NYC?
Posted by: PMK at February 5, 2007 5:43 PM
To The Goobs: If a homicide (suicide) bomber had appeared, Diane would have invited him to tea and with furrowed brow asked him about his feelings!
She is such a simpering PC dolt.
Posted by: darcy at February 5, 2007 5:50 PM
Darcy,
You brought up veils in the mosque. All I was pointing out was the different behaviors that were expected of even American women in religious institutions in my lifetime. I lived it. Women were not allowed around the school or the church if they were wearing shorts or slacks. A lot has changed in forty years.
I see tv reporters with hair showing from under the hijab.
I know the Muslims don't separate church and state but that's not the point. It's why I draw a line between veils in the mosque and what is done the rest of the day. We wore hats in church but no one said anything when we pulled them off immediately upon exiting.
You can call the report PC, but it also showed you exactly what the reporter had to go through in order to do her job. As you said, they were in Syria. When in Rome... It's good to see what the standards are. We need to see it.
Our problem is that we are not expecting them to conform to our standards when they enter OUR country.
There is no better example of that than the woman who wanted a photo drivers license showing only her eyes. That she was not laughed out of every newsroom and public official's office is our problem.
at February 5, 2007 5:58 PM
And eventually that Muslim woman probably WILL be allowed a driver's license with only the slit for her eyes showing. Because God Forbid we not "respect their values!" But do they have to respect ours? In a word - No. The West, for some reason I can't understand, has become dhimmified and suicidal.
I just don't get it.
Posted by: darcy at February 5, 2007 6:52 PM
In order to weaken your opponant don't you have to drain him physically and financially ? Remember, they only have dynamite, we have A-bombs and money. I can see the mentality of determined waste and costs ?
Posted by: Jeff at February 5, 2007 8:26 PM
"We need to pay off our 18 trillion dollar debt, this means cut foreign aid and cut entitlement programs that draw in illegal immigrants we can't afford, literally." Catawhumpus
Perfectly expressed.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at February 6, 2007 10:24 AM
(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.)