Intelligent muslims know how to engage in psychological warfare. That's terrorism, taqiyya, kitman, outright lying, misleading, threatening, a supremist attitude, with a 'take over' agenda. Bush has bought into that apparently, and I dont doubt he may soon announce his conversion to Islam. What I know of his attitude's about Islam, lead's me to believe he is either a complete idiot, or he is a dhimmi, with one foot into conversion, and the other on a bannana peel. Mohammad's idea of 'War is deciet', is right on the money. It's a fine tactic, work's most of the time. Bush is proof...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 29, 2007 10:26 AM

"But Bush's address is just the latest example of the fact that Western leaders are largely ignoring all this, and continuing to make policy based on fictions." Indeed.

And now on CNN, they have trotted out a so-called "expert" -- Bergen on Muslim terrorism (although, of course, the CNN Fatwa is in operation and no mention of the word "Muslim" is to be heard -- rather it's "extremists", it's "car bombers", and so on. Associating Muslims with terrorist acts is Haram at CNN.) Anyway, the "expert" now claims that Muslims blowing up Brits is due to isolation and poverty. "They live in ghettos." What palather, what garbage. But, this is what the world media wants to allege -- all the problems with Muslims in Europe is due to the racist Europeans who isolate the Muslims in ghettos. Oh, please. Then, Bergen goes on to re-assure Americans, that American Muslims (including no doubt the CAIR unindicted co-conspirators for terrorists) are "different." Yeah, sure. As if the Koran is non-available to American Muslims. And non-Muslim Americans can now go back to sleep -- let in more Muslims, no problem! (What a disservice the MSM does for the public).

Posted by: J.S. at June 29, 2007 10:34 AM

But Bush's address is just the latest example of the fact that Western leaders are largely ignoring all this, and continuing to make policy based on fictions.

Unfortunately, this erroneous thinking is not only true of the Western World, it also holds true for non-muslim Eastern leaders as well.

Posted by: Razdan at June 29, 2007 10:46 AM

Thank you, Robert Spencer, for this illuminating essay. If only those in the upper strata of our government would take the time to learn these things, and implement policies that reflect a proper grasp of Islam and history.

Posted by: commonsense at June 29, 2007 10:49 AM

If I understand you rightly, you are suggesting that Majid Khadduri knows more about Islamic doctrine than George Bush. Is that correct? What an absurd idea.

Posted by: Hugh at June 29, 2007 11:01 AM

"The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God's law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world".

Islam is, at its core a rationalization system for Imperialism. Islam is at its core the engine of Arab ("the best people") Imperialism. Every group must rationalize the subduing, conquest, exploitation, even the mass murder of "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples" and religion-ideology is the perfect means to that end. (For example, Pizarro in Peru was a typical Jihad style Imperialist Pig who used religion as a cover for murder, exploitation, etc.)

Islam should be studied as part of a general "Imperialist studies program" at colleges and Universities. Of all the Imperialist rationalization systems (British, Manchu, Spaniard, Arab, Aztec, etc.) Islam is the most shameless and unapologetic re the subduing and exploitation of "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples".

We are the only species that must provide some "reason" for all our actions. The Imperialist rationalization systems (religion-ideologies) provide the reason-permission to the subduing, exploitation and even mass murder (as in India) of "indigenous cultures", "indigenous peoples".

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2007 11:03 AM

"They live in ghettos." What palather, what garbage. But, this is what the world media wants to allege -- all the problems with Muslims in Europe is due to the racist Europeans who isolate the Muslims in ghettos..."

Posted by: J.S.

I grew up in a middle class neighbourhood. It was a beautiful place with 2 parks for the kids and trees lining the roads. The housing society of the area had made around 150 homes there around 50 years back. We bought that house when I was a kid. Just across the road, the government gave a bit of land for a mosque. The area surrounding the mosque was open and everything seemed to be all right. Then the mosque speakers went up. The mullah of the mosque used to give the azan 5 times a day but it was not very loud and did not reach our homes. Slowly, muslims started encroaching on the empty area around the mosque. They started with small shacks and gradually built up. About 3 years ago, some saudi sheikh gave some money to this mosque and they put up a minaret over a hundred feet high. Now the entire area around the mosque is a complex maze of alleys. That area is now a muslim ghetto. The mosque has high decibel speakers that violate all the noise pollution norms but no infidel dares to complain. The azans are so loud that they reach every home of our society. And time to time, a "scholar from mecca" visits the mosque and gives sermons at the top of his voice. I moved to another location because my mother has a heart condition and the azan and the screaming, hysterical sermons was bad for her blood pressure. It woke everyone up at 5 a.m. everyday and the sermons lasted entire days. I loved that house and I clung to it for some time, hoping that maybe I could move back again. Then I realized that that area is turning islamic and I sold my house. Now people tell me that I was wise to do so, since property prices are coming down in the area. Since we moved a year back, more than 10 families quit the area.

Now we are very far away from that place and I still feel bad about my home, but I know that I did the right thing by moving. The trees around my housing society are slowly disappearing since the muslims gangs come at night and cut them up for firewood. The dogs of that area are dying because the muslims run their cabs over them. One cannot leave anything in the garden since things just disappear at night. They even steal light bulbs from the porches.

Point of this long post is, we don't force them to live in ghettos, they themselves create their own slums. They don't like living in housing societies and the mosque is the centre of their existence. They create their ghettos around mosques so that they can answer the azan 5 times a day. And this is how they take over us, bit by bit, house by house, area by area.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 29, 2007 11:05 AM

This is all so typical of the perversion of reality by the liberal-left elites. It's the moslems that are doing virtually all of the actual hating, yet it's their critics that are accused of hate-mongering. Well, actions speak louder than words. Robert (and Hugh, and all the other members and contributors to JW), how many moslems have you killed? How many mosques have you bombed or vandalized? How many moslem school-girls have you killed? How many trains full of moslems have you bombed? How many suicide-bombers have you trained and encouraged? And so on. The answer is none. Zero. Zit. Moslems murder tens of thousands of people each year. Their muftis and imams and ayatollahs preach death for the non-believers. And yet the word "hate" is not associated with them by the media or the PC politicos. But when you quote the moslem holy writ that inspires and approves all this mayhem you're accused of "hate-mongering". It's a total inversion of truth and reality by our leftist leaders.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 29, 2007 11:16 AM

Resurgent Islamic imperialsm, after a breather to infiltrate, wheedle technology and weaponry from the naive infidels who forgot the 1200 years of attacks on the West (and everywhere else) by expansionist Mohammedanism, rises.

George, call your library.

There's a backlog of Muslim history volumes you forgot to pick up.

The open invitation to Mexico can wait.

It's the jihad, el presidente.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 29, 2007 11:17 AM

From previous posting, and one article – Why Is Jihad Resurgent? -- about the three developments that made Jihad, a doctrine that had temporarily fallen into desuetude – not changed, not abandoned -- only because the Muslims felt themselves too week, a welcome reality for Muslims again:

1.
“I t is amusing that among the unintended consequences of those disgusting jizyah-payments by the E.U. and the inveigled Americans is the strengthening of Hamas, which has thereby lessened, rather than increased, the plausibility and hence the appeal(for the outside world), of the camouflage of "Palestinian nationalism" provided to the Lesser Jihad. The dominance of Hamas, the flight of even those local islamochristians who thought that if only they parrotted, and deeply believed, the Muslim Arab hostility toward Israel, that they would be safe (one more vain attempt by Christians within Dar al-Islam to protect themselves), helps to rip the pseudo-nationalist "legitimate-rights--of-the-Palestinian-people" veil right off the dead-to-the-world face of the Jihad beneath. That Jihad, the Lesser Jihad against tiny Israel, did not require much in the way of resources, and began long ago. It began, that is, before the three things happened that permitted the Arabs and Muslims to openly demonstrate their aggressive intent. Those three things were: one, the trillions in unearned, unmerited oil revenues; 2) the foolishly permitted migration of millions of Muslims behind enemy lines (to the Western world, to Infidel lands, to the Bilad al-kufr); third, technological advances made in the West and exploited by Muslims (audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite channels, the Internet) helped make a reality of the permanent dream of a Greater Jihad. [posted on January 25, 2006]

2.
Fitzgerald: Why is the jihad resurgent?
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on an intriguing statement of Dr. Nasser bin Suleiman Al-'Omar:
"The Islamic nation now faces a great phase of Jihad, unlike anything we knew fifty years ago. Fifty years ago, Jihad was attributed only to a few individuals in Palestine, and in some other Muslims areas." -- Saudi cleric Dr. Nasser bin Suleiman Al-'Omar, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on April 19, 2006.
Why are things different now? The doctrine of Jihad wasn't suddenly invented. It's been the same, more or less, for 1350 years. So what happened to make things so very different? Well, some might point to the end of "colonialism." They might note that the French, after forty years in Morocco and Tunisia, withdrew from both by the mid-1950s, and from Algeria in 1962. They might note that the British garrisons in Aden and elsewhere along the Persian Gulf had been withdrawn, largely for financial reasons (Philip Larkin wrote a poem about it with the memorable line about "the Light Horse of LSE"). But that is not the main thing.
No, the main things which permitted the Jihad to be more than a dim and unattainable (because completely impractical) notion, save in the case of the immediate, local, small-scale Lesser Jihad against Israel, were three:
1) The OPEC oil bonanza. Inshallah-fatalism prevents Arab and Muslim countries from economic development. So they managed to acquire gigantic sums in the only way they possibly could -- by accident. That accident of geology has allowed nearly a dozen Arab states to be the recipients of the largest transfer of wealth in human history; OPEC countries have received $10 trillion (in 2006 dollars) in the past one-third of a century. How have they spent it? On wage-slaves, foreigners who come to do all the work. On palaces for the corrupt ruling families and their corrupt courtiers. Play your cards right and you may share the wealth, even if you are not a prince, princeling, or princelette of the Al-Saud family, but a lowly Bin Laden from Yemen, working your way up as a contractor, or a Khashoggi and so many others like him whose "business" began by his being the middleman in arms deals. And there are so many fixers and middlemen in the Arab Gulf states and Saudi Arabia -- for that is how the large fortunes are made. On armaments -- hundreds of billions of dollars in arms, going to the Muslim states, which are the biggest buyer of foreign arms, year after year, in the world. And mosques, in London and Rome and Paris, and all over the Western world (and the Islamic world too). And madrasas. And campaigns of Da'wa, through generous donations. And Stinger missiles, and guns, and all sorts of things for the training camps in Afghanistan for the Taliban (also helped by generous Saudi donations). And armies of Western hirelings bought up directly or indirectly -- public relations experts, former government officials (especially diplomats), journalists, academics. See the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, see the assorted King Abdul Aziz professors and Guardian of the Two Noble Sanctuaries Professors, see the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, see Durham, see Exeter, see Georgetown, see the Edward Said Professorship (Rashid Khalidi, discovered after a "nationwide" search).
2) The millions of Muslims negligently permitted to settle within various countries of Western Europe, deep behind what those Muslims are taught to regard (by Islam itself) as enemy lines: the lines that once defined Dar al-Harb, the House of War or otherwise expressed, the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels. These now tens of millions of Muslims aggressively pursue demands for changes in local laws and mores, in every way -- in dress, in family law, in separation of men and women, in the rights which individuals can possess (freedom of speech, free exercise of conscience). They are prepared to exploit the freedoms, political and civil, created by and for the Infidels. Muslims have shown that while the Infidel political system is antipathetic to them (for it locates political power in the consent of the governed, and not in the will of Allah, expressed in the Qur'an as glossed by the stories in the Hadith), they do not hesitate to exploit it. Nor do they hesitate to exploit the very guarantees of rights that they would, if they came to dominate, do away with.
3) The exploitation of technological advances made by Infidels, but used to spread the full disturbing message of Islamic jihad. Thus the Ayatollah Khomeini's followers used audiocassettes of his speeches, recorded by him in Neauphle-le-chateau. They disseminated throughout Iran while the Shah still ruled. Thus the videocassettes of decapitations of Infidels, and attacks on American soldiers, that have been distributed all over as recruitment tools for the Jihad -- apparently, the gorier the better. Thus the use of satellite channels to disseminate hatred of the Infidels -- chiefly, but by no means only, Israel and the United States; Denmark has come in for its share, and France for banning the hijab in schools. Any Infidel state or people can expect to be the subject of such a campaign at any time if they dare not to yield to Muslim demands for changes in Infidel rights and laws. And finally, the use of the Internet -- a creation of Infidels, exploited by Muslims to wage a war of dominance and subjugation against those very Infidels.
Those are the three new developments.
Jihad itself is not new. It is very old. It is permanent. One cannot end it. One can work to undo the conditions -- the oil wealth, the unchecked Muslim presence in the Infidel lands, and the exploitation of Western technology by Muslims -- that have made the worldwide Jihad (with many local expressions and theatres of conflict) a reality.
Undoing the past thirty or forty or fifty years, so that Muslims may continue to work for Jihad but with much of the menacing wherewithal stripped from them -- that should be the collective goal of all intelligent and informed Infidels.
[Posted by Hugh at May 3, 2006 4:44 PM]

3.
“Her own view, however, is that 'following this man [Muhammad] can lead to only one thing, fascism....'
-- from the article above
Not "Islamofascism." Islam. Islam is naturally totalitairian -- a total belief-system. If, here and there, in the centuries without technological advances, and thus without the ability to spread the full doctrines of Islam throughout both Dar al-islam and Dar al-Harb, Muslims were able to live as Muslims without necessarily being fully aware of, much less always following, at every step, the doctrines of Islam, today is different. It is different because of three things:
1) the trillions in OPEC oil revenues.
2) the millions of Muslims permitted to settle behind what Islam itself teaches are enemy lines.
3) the technological advances of the Infidel world, including audiocassettes, videocassettes, satelllite television, and the Internet, that make the spread of Muslim propaganda, and of the full undiluted message of Islam, now constantly available to those who might once have been ignorant or unobservant Muslims, reminding them that the full teachings of Qur'an and Hadith are a mere click away, and making the same undiluted message available to Infidels suffering from various degrees of disaffection with the modern world, the West, Kapitalism, The System, Amerika, call it what you will, and who, instead of engaging in intelligent criticism of that undeniably disturbing Western world, and becoming intelligent meliorists, instead throwing it all over for the mental security of those who prefer to have a Total Regulation of Life, a Complete Explanation of the Universe, and the model of a seventh-century Arab, who may or may not have existed (that doesn't matter, for Muslims believe he existed), as uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. For the mentally lazy, for the psychically marginal, for those yearning to suppress their own individuality in either a Nuremberg Crowd or the umma al-islamiyaa, well --Islam's the thing. It's the perfect thing, if mental submission, and being Part of a Group, is what appeals to you. Individualists, and all those who like to think and to question rather than to have all the answers handed down from on high, where Allan Knows Best, need not apply.
It's the perfect belief system for all those who are disaffected and whose only idea of a way out is yearning to be free by becoming part of a Collective. And the habit of submission, and of mental submission, is not the only characteristic of Fascism that Islam exhibits.
For more on this, google "Ibn Warraq" and "Fascism" and "Islam" and read of how closely Islam meets the criteria, as once offered by Umberto Eco, that define Fascism.
[Posted by: Hugh at June 4, 2006 12:33 PM]
4,
"the Muslim world was much more secular 100 years ago and fifty years ago than it is now."
-- from Robert's comment on Paul Johnson above
Fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, the Muslim world was obvously weak, without resources, facing an obviously much more powerful and self-condident West. Those who recognized this and wished to do something about it, were the ones who pushed "reform" in the sense of greater constraint on Islam, and the granting of rights closer to what had been granted in the West to individuals. But the extent of that "reforming" impulse has often been exaggerated, and furthermore, it was undertaken by those who wished not to jettison Islam, but to rescue it from what they took was certain decline, and possibly fall, in relation to that West.
The most important such reformer was Ataturk, who as a result of Turkey's loss of the Ottoman Empire and obvious weakness, put in place a series of measures designed to constrain the political and social role of Islam in Turkey. But Ataturk could do this only because Turkey was toppling, and he as a war hero, capable of great ruthlessness, could reasonabl present himself as impelled -- as he was -- by nationalist fervor as well as by doubts about Islam. Kemalism essentially replaced the myths of Islam with a mythological cult of The Turk, who had supposedly always inhabited Anatolia and to whom the credit for everything, practically back to the Hittites, should be given. And even before Ataturk's death in 1938, the cult of Ataturk, which became much greater after that death, was an obvious substitute for the cult of Muhammad as The Perfect Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil. Primitive masses needed a replacement cult, and they were given it. Islam remained, always present, never quite yielding, and of course it has come back in Turkey with a vengeance, to the alarm of the West, and to those genuine secularists in Turkey who did not realize that the only way to keep Islam down was, from time to time, to employ the methods that only the Turkish army could, and used to, employ. "Democracy" in Muslim Turkey will not do it.
Those like Abduh and Rida were not quite in the Ataturk mode, but rather something like those Communists who wanted not to replace Communism, but to permit it to avoid the rigidity, say, of Suslovian apparatchiki, in order not to jettison Communist rule but to preserve it.
But that spirit of mild reform was a result only of perceived Muslim weakness.
Three things have happened to change the perception, by Muslims, of their weakness. They have been dealt with at length here many times before, but perhaps they should again be briefly summarized.
Those three developments are:
1) The oil revenues, the only revenues that could possibly have come to the Muslim states in such amounts, for they required nothing of their beneficiaries, and were simply the result of an accident of geology. Since 1973, the Arab and other Muslim-dominated oil states have received ten trillion dollars. This is the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The Muslims did nothing to deserve this, though many took the oil bonanza as a deliberate sign of Allah's favor. With that money, however, they were saved from their natural poverty, the poverty that, with Infidel Jizyah removed, is the natural state of Muslim countries. They bought hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Western arms, and with those arms, a whole network of middlemen, bribes-givers and bribes-takers, and Western hirelings not only in the arms industries, but also in the business of supplying other goods and services to the suddenly rich oil states. The money became the fabled "wealth" weapon of the Jihad, by which boycotts, and bribery, and the dangling of profitable contracts contributed to creating a vast and loyal constituency among some very influential and meretricious people in the capitals of the West.
2) Almost at the same time as the oil bonanza, the countries of Western Europe allowed millions of Muslim migrants -- Pakistanis in England, Turks in Germany, Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Indonesians in Holland, and then assorted mix-'n-match Muslims from all of these places and others, to enter and to settle and to bring their wives, and to have children, children suddenly taken care of, by the free medical care of the Infidel nations, and the free schooling, and the subsidized or free housing, and the attempts, ever greater, ever more frantic, to somehow "integrate" a population that is almost entirley and incurably hostile, because its belief-system, that suffuses the societies and minds of Muslims wherever they are, had taught them to be hostile to the Infidels, no matter what those Infidels may have provided them, no matter how desperate to win their loyalty those Infidel nation-states may have been, unaware that Muslim loyalty according to the tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, must be given only to fellow Believers, fellow members of the umma al-islamiyya. This was simply not understood, as the older generation of Wesetern scholars of Islam died or retired, and were replaced by new people, people who were very often Muslims themselves, but even where not Muslim, were by their mental formation inclined to favor Islam and the Arabs, not least becuase of a diseased sympathy for all those who might be seen as members of the Third World, which one might have thought would be a difficult trick for plutocrats in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.A.E., Libya, and so on to pull off, but pull it off they did. And those miillions, now tens of millions, of Muslims in the West have made that West fearful, have inhibited the freedom of its governments not only in domestic but in foreign policy -- as one can see from the recent behavior of the French in being so fearful of committing a few thousand troops to Lebanon, where they might be forced to behave in ways that would antagonize the ever-ready-to-riot Muslims within France.
3) Technological advances in the Western world have made it much easier to disseminate the Call to Islam to Infidels, and the full message of Islam to Believers worldwide, and furthermore, to offer propaganda -- often of a kind that Infidels find appalling but that apparently work on Believers (who would have thought that decaptitation videos would be eagerly exploited as recruitment tools for those seeking others willing to actively participate in violent Jihad?).
Without audiocassettes, with his taped sermons urging violence, Khomeini might never have been able to conquer, from Neauphle-le-Chateau in France, so many hundres of thousands of fanatical followers in Iran. Without videocassettes, and then the Internet, and then the satellite televisiion channels, Arab and Islamic propaganda, of the kind seen on Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar, would not have been so powerful. No longer can simple pious Muslims live in villages, completely unaware of their duties save for the five canonical daily prayers -- now the whole of Islam is far more readily available to them, with consequences both for Muslims, and for the Infidels, that are as yet unappreciated.
And those who argue that the existence of such new technology also makes it possible to influence Muslim minds so that some will have their faith weakened, have not been able to show how any Western government has dared to broadcast the kind of information about the connection between the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim societies, and Islam itself. Indeed, one discovers that deep behind enemy lines, Muslims are watching not the regular Western channels, but insisting on getting their news -- in Dearborn as in the East End of London, as in the banlieues of Paris and Lyon and Marseille, from Al-Jazeera: willingly, Arab Muslims limit themselves to Arab Muslim propaganda, for only that is "telling the truth."
These three developments make it impossible for the Arabs and other Muslims to begin to make the connection of their own failures, with Islam itself. Not a single Western government has pointed out --- perhaps not a single Western government realizes -- that the inshallah-fatalism with which Islam is instinct, explains the failure of these rich oil states, after 33 years (and before that there was already enough wealth derived from oil for a generation to have idled through), to create anything like modern economies, surely needs to be said, to Muslims, and to Infidels who might be inclined to believe that they are somehow to be blamed (the usual inapposite invoking of "colonialism" and that "post-colonialism" that has no sell-by date, still can convince some) for the poverty of some Muslm countries. And the continued payment of foreign aid by Infidels to every Muslim country or entity -- Pakistan, Egypt, the "Palestinians" -- is merely a disguised Jizyah, and of course should long ago have been abandoned, and the responsibility for helping fellow members of the umma have fallen to the fabulously rich Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other rich Arabs.
What can the Western world do? It cannot assume the kind of blithe optimisim -- that incautious, and dangerous optimisim, of someone such as Paul Johnson, who though he recognizes what Islam is all about, is perhaps simply too tired to want to figure out how to deal with the problem, for that would require all kinds of mental effort, and prefers to think, with a wave of his hand, that somehow Muslims -- despite all the evidence to the contrary, despite the fantastic hold Islam has over so many people no matter what is done by Muslims, prompted by Islamic teachings -- will "collapse into secularism."
Johnson has no evidence for this. All he has is a hope. The kind of hope that used to be called, and should still be called, a forlorn hope.
Those who wish to survive as Infidels, who wish that the most primitive adherents of primitive and fossilized belief-systems not be permitted to overwhelm other, superior peoples and civilizations, those who think they have some kind of duty to preserve their own civilizational legacy, will not be comforted by Johnson's attitude but rather, given his reputation for political steadfastness and sense, feel a certain alarm. Et tu, Johnson -- or possibly something a little less banal.

[Posted by: Hugh at August 24, 2006 11:04 PM]

Posted by: Hugh at June 29, 2007 11:20 AM

arjun.sevak-

Interesting but depressing account of events in your old neighborhood. Reality is often painful. What is required to stop what happened in your old neighborhood is an unpleasant reality that people are beginning to face. I think deportation is down the road, and not as far down the road as we might think.

I hope your mother's blood pressure is well. Getting away from that will help.

Posted by: Frank at June 29, 2007 11:25 AM

Thanks Frank. She is fine now. At that time, even the doctors could not figure out what was wrong with her. I guessed that the reason was this, and I sound - proofed the house but she said that she did not want the "canned air" and so kept the windows open. Hence the condition. In our new house we are miles away from any mosque and she was off medication within a week of moving. And she still sleeps with the windows open.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 29, 2007 11:40 AM

arun.sevak,

Horrific. (I think I'm seeing the early signs of a similar phenomenon here in Canada -- these are the "occupied areas," majority Muslims...natives chased out.) At least if they had something to offer -- other than their hatreds/violence (against women, indigenous non-Muslims, women, dogs, etc.) -- but, no. So many seem intent on bringing violence, hatreds, Koranic caterwauling, ignorance and backwardness into formerly civilized areas. I really don't want to have to look back and fondly reminisce about a "golden era" prior to the coming of Islam...yet, if Canada continues down its current path, that may well be our future.

(I am glad to hear your mother is better.)

Posted by: J.S. at June 29, 2007 12:04 PM

Arjun,
What about your local leaders? Did your town have no zoning laws or building codes? Or were they applied only to you and your neighbors and not to the newcomers?
What is the likelihood that you'll face the same situation further down the road?

Posted by: PMK at June 29, 2007 12:59 PM

Greetings:

Arjun Sevak's experience made me recollect my experience back in the the late 60s and 70s when large parts of the Bronx were being ghetto-ized and subsequently destroyed.

Obviously, at that time the actors weren't Muslims but the similarity of the process and results made me wonder about the effect of sociological impulses such as ghetto-ization and the "tipping point" when earlier people/groups feel the need to relocate.

I am beginning to think that the jihadis have more than their fanaticism working for them.

Posted by: 11B40 at June 29, 2007 1:10 PM

"the Muslim world was much more secular 100 years ago and fifty years ago than it is now."
-- from Robert's comment on Paul Johnson above

One hundred years ago the Europeans ruled the roost and fifty years ago we were into the Cold War. Our foe, the USSR, was both totalitarian and hostile to religion. It had many Muslim republics and you never heard a peep from them in the Western press. Turkey was ruled for much of the time by a military government which likewise kept a lid on the would-be Islamists. Egypt, Syria and many others aligned with the Soviets had secular rulers who kept the religious people down.

How much did the end of the Cold War speed up the jihad? The oil bonanza started two decades earlier. It would seem that jihad was practiced on a local level against Israel and spread out only after the USSR broke up. The World Trade Center was bombed a few years later but the perpetrators were treated as "criminals". The Soviets left Afghanistan which had built up a network of terrorism (resistance) training sites and had a reservoir of anti-Western feelings, courtesy of its conquest by Russia.

And why is it that most countries still ruled by "tribes" or plagued by "tribal warfare" happen to be Muslim countries?

Posted by: PMK at June 29, 2007 1:11 PM

And if Islam is a fundamentally peaceful belief-system, then why do its believers not loudly condemn all acts of terrorism done in its name and why aren't they pointing to the people who are planning the bombings? Why do they support "charities" that have a terrorist wing?
Why would any organization with a violent wing even be allowed to register as a charity?

Posted by: PMK at June 29, 2007 1:15 PM

"Bush's address is just the latest example of the fact that Western leaders are largely ignoring all this, and continuing to make policy based on fictions."
by Robert

I've heard many times (first from Frank Gaffney and this morning from someone at AEI) that Iraq is in so much trouble today because Saddam destroyed the civil society. They blame everything on the secular leaders who spent the oil money on weapons and not on schools, hospitals, etc. But the "religious" leaders of Saudi Arabia don't do much better.

The theory they present, which seems reasonable, is that people everywhere in the Muslim world are just like you and me. They want to raise their kids, have a comfortable old-age, etc. The big fiction is that Muslims want to live WITH you and me. Why doesn't the press do more to discredit this notion?

As for Turkey, today they are complaining that the US is failing a NATO ally by not doing more to get rid of the PKK in northern Iraq. Where was Turkey when we needed it, before the war?

Posted by: PMK at June 29, 2007 1:27 PM

Robert,
These long and consistent explanations are written with such grounded common sense. Thank you for those briefings and those knowledgeable comments !

You said:
"If we're just dealing with a few crazies, we need not call upon Muslims in the U.S. and elsewhere to perform a searching and honest reevaluation of their beliefs, and decide whether they want to live in a state of conflict with the rest of the international community on an indefinite basis. I suspect that if the question were posed to Muslims worldwide, many would opt for otherwise universally accepted notions of human rights: the freedom of conscience, equality of dignity of women and men, equality of dignity of non-Muslims with Muslims. But we will never know, because Western leaders wouldn't dare pose the question on those terms."

---

If any strategic advisers influencing political leaders have anything they should retain, these words should pretty much summerize it and be included in any strategies we may draw to create a tipping point and change the paradigm of "terrorism" around.

Posted by: LeCitoyen at June 29, 2007 2:18 PM

Here is the POTUS speech,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070627-2.html

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 29, 2007 3:06 PM

arjun.sevak,
Thank you for the personal testimony of life within the reach of islam.
I am sorry you had to give up your house, but surely the quality of life went up for you.

On another (but related) subject, remember how the Jews and I believe it was "Mark Twain" described the land of Israel when they first saw it after the 2000 year diaspora? The description Arjun gives about the destroying of the trees and general destruction of the area sounds like the locust people had done their thing there. When the Jews returned the desert began to blossom again. Is that a coincidence?

P.S. TypeKey is having issues again.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 29, 2007 3:28 PM

"the Muslim world was much more secular 100 years ago and fifty years ago than it is now."

Can't agree.

I travelled in many Islamic countries in the early seventies, and I found everything Churchill described as 'fanatical frenzy as dangerous as hydrophobia in a dog'-

It might be true is that some Islamic countries had more secular leadership/dictatorship, like the Shah in Iran, Suharto in Indonesia and Turkey was also somewhere in between. But whenever you got out of the major cities you could find the true Islam, the fanatical Muslim and everyone with whom I sat down assured me that "hitler was good because he killed the Jooozzz...'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 29, 2007 6:21 PM

The saddest part in all this is that along with Bush most world leaders are just too afraid of calling a spade a spade.....oops, my bad...LOL! The angry elephant is in the living room and Bush, et al says, "Whats that?" Jeez, will someone take away his Kool-aid and hand him a beer? I think, as Bluto from Animal House said, "Its time to start drinking heavily". Alcohol does have "truth-telling" properties and maybe, just maybe with some "Busch" Bush will be able to tell it like he really sees it........or am I just pissing in the wind?

Posted by: OregonJake at June 29, 2007 9:45 PM

Thank you J.S. I don't want to wish what happened to the people of my neighbourhood upon any infidel, but this is what is going to happen to us anywhere there is a muslim population. And this is the beginning.

PMK they built their shacks over a period of 15 years. At first these were temporary structures and the authorities did not bother much with them. Slowly they spread over an area of several acres and now it is a full blown ghetto with 7 mosques. But it all began with a single mosque, the mosque that got the minaret. They never sought permission for any building, and some years back when an enthusiastic official tried to demolish their illegal structures they carried out a protest march. Then the politicians intervened and let them be. This ghetto is a "state within a state", i.e., the law of the land ends where the ghetto begins. Building inspectors don't go in, cleaners don't go in, meter readers don't go in. Some politician gave the order that since these people are "poverty struck" they must get free electricity and so they get free electricity. Their major occupations are - driving cabs, basic iron fabrication, carpentary, auto mechanical works and butchery. There are 3 such ghettos in my city that are built entirely on encroached government land.

Regarding your question that it won't happen to me again, I am not optimistic about that.

interestinconundrum, yes you are right, the quality of life has gone up now that we are far away from muslim population. I miss my home, but that place is not just what it used to be any more.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at June 30, 2007 1:23 AM

CAIR -- You mean, the Council on Arab-Infidel Relations?

Posted by: Goob at June 30, 2007 1:24 AM

Thanks Robert, Hugh and all for the chilling posts.

Would the new Islamic Center be large enough for a temporary capital building? Our old one would have to go in their due time.

Time is on their side and our house divided was a caution from President Abraham Lincoln. That house and the president's home is not full of wisdom these days.

MK

Posted by: Malaria_Kidd at June 30, 2007 6:46 AM

arjun.sevak , thanks for the posts. A terrible situation for your family and I think you really did the only thing that was possible for you.

Kosovo and Bosnia were the same. Illegal immigration from Albania for Kosovo and the muslims in Bosnia just out produced everybody else - with a little help from Mr Hitler who wiped out a huge segment of the Serb population.

And once they're a large minority - forget waiting to be a majority for a muslim majority means "game over chumps" - they'll start demanding , demanding , demanding

Now Kosovo is on course to being a crime- capital-cum-islamic-state-cum-all-round-shit-hole

Bosnia - like a huge oil tanker -is slowly and inevitably going the Islamic route.

The Serbs have been beaten up so badly - Nato bombs vile MSM media - that they seem to have fallen for Stokholm syndrome.

The non stop "Serbs = Evil = Nazi" lies.

In the end the shit sticks.

Posted by: ewha1 at July 1, 2007 6:24 AM

Thanks for the support ewha1. I feel bad about it still. Selling my home, I mean. But I did realize it that I could not hold it forever since my family was in another part of the city. For a year, I went over to that place almost everyday. Walking through the empty rooms and stairways brought back a million memories. Like many of the resistance here, I did not want to give an inch more to them anymore, but I did not have an option. The man I have sold it to owns trucks and will use it as a warehouse. That means 24 * 7 guards. At least the old place will remain the same and will be maintained. Maybe, just maybe, sometime in the future, I can buy it back. Once again, thanks buddy.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 1, 2007 12:14 PM