| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
The link given to Jihad Watch by Mr. Derbyshire at The Corner, at the word "separationists," is peculiar. There has never been any advocacy by this website for "bribing" Muslims to leave the United States. He must be thinking of someone or someplace else.
Furthermore, he appears to believe that Jihad Watch offers what it does offer as a "solution" to a "problem." I have never seen an example of Robert Spencer, or I, offering at Jihad Watch a "solution" to the "problem" of Muslims living within the West, receiving money from rich Arabs in order to build mosques and madrasas, conduct public-relations efforts, employ armies of Western hirelings (including lawyers to intimidate), mount carefully-targeted and well-financed campaigns of Da'wa, and in general, to make sure that Muslims may settle untroubledly deep behind what they are taught to regard as the enemy lines, the lines which demarcate Dar al-Harb. Not all Muslims may accept the full teachings of Islam, but even those who do not attend mosques or madrasas and may not accept all of the teachings for whatever reason, have shown a remarkable loyalty to, and defensiveness about, the faith that should be worrisome to Infidels.
No "solution" for Islamic Jihad will be possible as long as these conditions continue to exist, and as long as Muslims around the world continue to teach that a central duty of all Muslims is to participate, whether individually (in some circumstances) or collectively, in the Jihad to spread Islam, and to remove all obstacles to the supremacism and dominance of Islam -- including those of Infidel political and legal and social institutions, so that, as is only proper, as must assuredly be, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.
It sounds fantastic to us, but our imaginations have become, these latter unsaintly days, much too limited.
No "solution" is possible, but there are ways to render the permanent problem more manageable, in the first place through education of Infidels about Islam. This will allow them to arrive at a conclusion that they may then pass on to Muslims, that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failings of Islamic states and societies are directly attributable to the teachings, attitudes and atmospherics of Islam itself. And that is the best way to constrain Islam and Jihad, along with what should be the more obvious measures of exploiting whatever pre-existing fissures (sectarian, ethnic, economic) are to be found within the Camp of Islam.
Finally, Mr. Derbyshire, who just yesterday attacked "the Bill" (about immigration) for the defeatism it embodies, is a proud, even courageous defeatist when it comes to Islam. Because there are native-born Muslims, especially in the "Nation of Islam," which is hardly orthodox, therefore, he tells us, it is futile to keep out other Muslims -- "Palestinians," Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, and so on. Why? Why are we not free to limit the number of Muslims who enter the country, who can possibly better conduct Da'wa among white and Hispanic Americans? Why can we not keep out those who have undeclared in their mental baggage a Total Belief-System that is based on a division of the universe between Believer and Infidel? Why can we not reduce the money available to campaigns of Da'wa, to reduce the potential economic and political power of Muslims in America?
Why, furthermore, does he think that because the Nation of Islam exists, that it too cannot be reduced in size and influence, if more information is disseminated about the long history of the Arab slave trade in Africa -- which continues to this day? (Why, just today, in Dagobert Runes' "Despotism," I ran across a picture of chained black Africans being shipped to Saudi Arabia -- a picture from the 1920s or 1930s.) Information should be spread far and wide about the permanent legitimacy, reaffirmed by Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia within the past few years, of slavery in Islam, and about the unhidden racism to be met with everywhere in the Arab lands. All of that should become better known. And why cannot black ministers be supplied with materials to make that all better known, and be given support of other kinds so that they can conduct their own campaigns of counter-Da'wa?
The Derbyshire passage with its misattribution, followed by its curious defeatism, makes one wonder. Perhaps the sea air on those National Review cruises is not all it is cracked up to be, after all.
Posted by Hugh at May 23, 2007 12:19 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
On the other hand, see the comment about Derbyshire's comment on "The [Immigration] Bill" at www.newenglishreview.org, entitled "The Luther Burbank School of Public Policy."
And while you are at it, you might at the same website scroll down to find a visual piece titled "Only A Thousand Words?" Or you may wish to find it by googling the telling title.
Posted by: Hugh![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at May 23, 2007 12:35 PM
Those who oppose a secular state should be encouraged NOT to come to the U.S.
They are the antithesis of our Experiment in Human Liberty.
And should stay in their Islamic Lands and reform themselves to the point where they understand the meaning of preventing religious control of the state.
Which, historically, tends to Absolute Despotism.
And Absolute Terror.
Europe tried that for 1,000 years.
And finally came out of their bloody Theocratic Nightmare.
We've learned from their mistake and are not going back into an Islamic version of the Inquisition.
Muslims should stay home and work out the homicidal aspects of Islam before they are welcome anywhere else.
Posted by: profitsbeard at May 23, 2007 12:39 PM
Can we not agree that is really time to say flat out that Islam should no longer be a tolerated and protected religion here in the USA?
Islam is declared an Abrahamic religion because Muslims say it is, and for no other reason.
Imagine someone coming down off Mt. Ranier with wild hair saying god talked to him, and he held a book with even half the hate that the Koran has. Imagine that this 'prophet' had done even half of the horrible things that Muhammad had done.
Would we allow this religion to flourish and become protected?
We are under no obligation to accept Islam as anything analogous to Judaism or Christianity, and hence be a part of our society.
Ethelred
Posted by: Ethelred at May 23, 2007 12:59 PM
The premise that no ‘solution’ is possible is defeatist in itself Hugh. The Mafia is illegal and, by the letter of the RICO statutes, so is Islam. A pattern of threats meeting the threshold of felonious behavior. Anybody ‘associated’ with Islam is then guilty. Period.
Add political will (see article above) and it is easy to imagine the day where the two choices are apostaty or a thousand bucks, a case of MREs, and a plane ticket. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment will be the answer.
The West has the airlift capacity to humanely repatriate (or move N.o.I. members to a purer place) those choosing to retain their faith in a week or two.
There is no need for conservative commentators to snip at each other.
Posted by: pez at May 23, 2007 1:38 PM
Hugh:
In other posts you have commented that we need a heavy tax on gasoline and other oil products to discourage consumption and thereby reduce the revenue flowing to the jihad. I submit that we do not need such a tax, for we are morally entitled to take much more direct measures.
What we need is to recognize two things: 1) That we have a moral right to fight just like we did in WWII, using overwhelming force to annihilate regimes that threaten us; and: 2) That we have a moral right to take back that which was stolen from us, specifically we have a right to take back the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran and return them to their rightful owners: the western oil companies that found the oil, developed the technology for extracting the oil and built the fields initially.
Those oil fields were stolen by the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran under the guise of "nationalization" in the 1950s -- and in a disgraceful act of appeasement, we did nothing about it. Today, we are paying the price for letting those savages take such a fantastically valuable resource away from its rightful owner.
The natural resources of a nation are not the automatic, collective property of that nation’s citizens. For example, the coal discovered in America does not “belong to the American people“. It belongs to whoever owns the mineral rights for the property on which the coal is found, or, if no one owns the land, the resources belong to whoever discovers them first. Accordingly, nothing justifies the notion that the government of a nation has the right to seize the assets of private, foreign-owned businesses operating within its borders.
The oil fields in Saudi, Iraq and Iran are the rightful property of various western oil companies. Those oil companies purchased the lands in question in good faith -- put up all the money required for the initial exploration and development -- only to have them seized by the local savages.
The best use of our tremendous military force would be a campaign to reclaim those oil fields. Whatever resistance is offered should be crushed with the same level of overwhelming force that we used against Japan in WWII.
The oil fields can be seized and secured against attack relatively easily -- this is achievable at a relatively low cost. A fixed facility is fairly easy to defend -- note that most of the casualties we are experiencing in Iraq come not from direct attacks on fixed American bases but from attacks on “street patrols”. Retaking the oil fields will put an end to the financing of the global jihad without imposing painful new taxes on Americans.
Without their oil revenues, the nations of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran will collapse into chaos within months, if not sooner. But we need only stay focused on protecting the oil fields and the export facilities. This is a far, far simpler objective than attempting to function as a police force for a foreign nation populated by people hostile to the very notions of freedom and individual rights.
I have more to say about how to transition from our present “policing” strategy to a campaign to retake territory and facilities that are rightfully the property of western oil companies, but I must stop for now.
Posted by: Michael Smith at May 23, 2007 1:48 PM
Hugh, You've not spoken of bribing Muslims to leave (as suggested by the National British Party), but you have spoken forthrightly of the need to limit and if possible reverse Muslim immigration. And while you haven't spoken of a "solution," you have suggested a direction. Is it wholly wrong to characterize that direction as "separation," so that Muslim societies can implode over the next, say, 250 years?
Derbyshire's mostly a good guy. Maybe he had a few.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 3:07 PM
I added some comments to the previous thread. would like to hear a response here or there....
****
I don't really understand why the JihadWatch team is so scandalized by Derbyshire's comments. Separation is the most humane way of dealing with believers for whom the mainstream teaching is constant strife against others.
And Hugh, in particular, has been forthright in prescribing immigration limits and reversals.
There's a lot of activity in making small distinctions. Yes, you say, decent Muslims should find religious arguments against jihad, if such arguments are possible. But... (you suggest...) even the decent are clinging to a tradition that is itself a danger. Further, the JihadWatch team repeatedly mentions the inability to distinguish between moderates and non-moderates, given the tendency to lie and the likelihood of changed attitude, especially by young Muslim males or by Muslims having personal sadnesses.
So... you don't believe in separation?
Somewhere in here is why I still don't really understand men like Susser or the Muslim on the JihadWatch board. Either you see Islam as inherently dangerous or as reformable or as correct in all its supremist splendor.
I have the distinct impression that Robert and Hugh believe that Islam is inherently dangerous, though you write some words about the unlikelihood -- but possibility -- of reform.
You don't believe in separation? I think you do, more or less.
****
The British National Party runs on a platform of giving positive incentives to leave England. Not a new idea. And Hugh has repeatedly mentioned Benes.
Separation is a good idea, not a vile one.
Posted by: StillBreathing at May 23, 2007 3:36 PM
Stillbreathing
I think the idea of enriching Mohammedans in the process of getting them to return home is what's revolting - as it is, they (or at least their religion) is rolling in cash. If it was a question of plain deportation, I doubt that it would be as controversial.
Also, does the BNP believe in expelling native converts to Islam, such as Abu Abdullah or Yvonne Ridley? If they did, they'd be more credible in their claims of being genuinely anti-Muslim.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 23, 2007 4:20 PM
xxx
Posted by: Havoc at May 23, 2007 4:53 PM
Tell them to keep their hands off our Booze and Whores and go Home. Where ever Home used to be. Especially those under the age of 30.
Send 1 of every 4 you find packing.
Stop shipping food to where their home was.
Make them clear Mine Fields and plant Tomatoes.
Better to run our Cars on Corn Mash than Feed our Killers.
Nobody addressed the Idea of forcing the Parents of these "Youts" in America to better supervise what they are doing.
Posted by: flowerknife_us
at May 23, 2007 8:22 PM
Hugh
:)
Thanks for the heads up over at NER. I need to spend a more time over there...
True food for the mind.
Posted by: greatcometof1577 at May 23, 2007 10:30 PM
Derbyshire's writing is so self-regarding it is unbearable to read. The preciousness of his prose makes anything he says secondary. It is no surprise that actual facts don't get in his way.
Posted by: Moonzoo at May 23, 2007 11:40 PM
From the other thread:
Derbyshire: "Solution-wise, none of the policies proposed by "separationists"—for example, bribing foreign Muslims to leave the U.S.A., preventing further Muslim immigration—is relevant. Nation of Islam is here, and has no place to go."
As you point out, this is really idiotic. NOI all by itself is unlikely to expand to significant enough numbers to constitute a direct threat to the Constitution. It is the influx of millions of Muslims from outside the US that has the capability of doing that over time, as we are seeing in Europe.
On the previous thread, Robert writes: "Lately it seems to have become fashionable to attribute to me or to Jihad Watch positions that I don't hold." And also "So Derb, in sum, attributes to us a label we do not use and a position that we do not hold."
OK - fair enough about the actual label, “separationism”. As we know, that is Auster’s label. But who is the "we" and the “us” in that second sentence? I assume that “we” and “us” refers to the staff at JW, including you.
But as others have pointed out, you have written hundreds of posts which together describe a policy of "separationism", whether or not that specific term is actually used. Have you not mentioned the Benes decree numerous times? Have you not pointed out a million times that the lives of infidels become much more difficult, expensive, insecure etc the more they are surrounded by Muslims? Have you not even advocated not patronizing Muslim businesses in the west? Getting ourselves off foreign oil? Ceasing jizya payments? (And what is wrong with paying Muslims to leave the west? That is part of Robert Locke's solution to the Palestinian problem. Paying people to leave voluntarily is actually a very humane solution as part of an overall strategy.) But as to the overall gist of all your actual recommendations - how do they not all add up to advocating a policy of separation?
Quibbling with Derbyshire’s reference to “solution”, in this post, you say : “No "solution" for Islamic Jihad will be possible as long as these conditions continue to exist.” – and what are “these conditions” to which you are referring ? Well, in the previous paragraph, it is evident that key among these conditions you are referring to, is the "problem" of Muslims living within the West”!
So why are you playing games here? Do you or do you not endorse a policy of separation, which would include “preventing further Muslim immigration” into the U.S., as Derbyshire states?
at May 24, 2007 10:43 AM
Ethelred:
"Can we not agree that is really time to say flat out that Islam should no longer be a tolerated and protected religion here in the USA?
[...]
We are under no obligation to accept Islam as anything analogous to Judaism or Christianity, and hence be a part of our society."
First, the way it works in the United States, thanks to the Founding Fathers and what they learned from the failed European experiments with theocracy, is that people have rights to believe as they like. *Not* that there exists a list of pre-approved belief systems which others are obligated to tolerate/ accept/ protect.
This is mostly a good thing. It creates a market in ideas. You can rail about dirty stinking atheists if you like, and Christopher Hitchens can rail about religion, and (importantly!) Spencer and Hugh are (so long as the Founder's principles are still active) able to analyze the belief system of Islam without being forced to shut up out of respect of all the Abrahamic Monotheistic religions.
Second, it is technically possible to fight against Jihad without limiting the right to belief. This can be done with smart immigration policies (reference to belief is legitimately part of immigration policy), and by focus on criminal *actions* and on specific incitements to criminal *actions*.
It might seem like it would be nice to short-cut and just go directly to the belief systems, but that's basically just doing what PC does. Once you sacrifice the Founders' princple on freedom of belief, you open the door to that; to the sort of thing that would be more likely to shut down websites like this. At this point in history, that would hurt us more than help.
at May 25, 2007 6:23 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)