| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"We are fortunate that radicalization seems to have less appeal in the U.S. than in other parts of the world," he said, "but we do not believe that America is immune to homegrown terrorism."-- from this article
This statement, variants of which are made so often with such self-assurance, needs to be examined. We are often told that "Muslims in America are different" or "the situation in America is different from that in Western Europe." (At least this concedes that there is a "problem" with Muslims in Western Europe.) Why? Oh, because Muslims in America are so very "different" because they are so well-off: so many engineers, so many computer programmers, that sort of thing. In other words, something about the American Dream, defined entirely in terms of economic wellbeing, but having nothing to do with the legal and political institutions of the United States that help to explain not only that economic wellbeing, but all the other things, far more important than mere bank accounts, that make America America.
Implicit in this view -- "radicalization has less appeal in America " -- is the by-now thoroughly discredited notion, which keeps coming in by the rhetorical back door, that "poverty" causes what is demurely called "radicalization." But that is not so. "Mike" Hawash was an Intel engineer, with an American wife, and Little-League playing children, and a salary of $360,000 a year. Yet he was prepared, having rediscovered and deepened his faith in Islam, to go off -- after 9/11 -- to Afghanistan to kill Americans.
The word "radicalization" does not tell us anything, but attempts rather to hide the truth from us. What is "radicalization"? It is the state in which an individual Muslim, or a group of Muslims, decide to be very good Muslims indeed, and to do all that is demanded of Muslims, including the duty of participating in Jihad to remove all obstacles, everywhere, to the final triumph of Islam. Some Muslims choose not to participate directly. Some choose to avert their minds from that duty, to pretend that it does not exist. Some out of filial piety, and the apparent need to have an "identity," to continue to call themselves "cultural Muslims," meaning that they are no longer believers at all, but don't really want to make that leap into the dangerous unknown -- the leap made by Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and no doubt tens or hundreds of thousands of others around the world, who out of fear do so not quite so openly and noisily follow them.
But those who are "radicalized" -- and these are a great many -- have not embraced a doctrine that has nothing to do with Islam, but rather has everything to do with it. The texts they read are the same. But they read the full texts. They know the duty of Muslims. They choose, however, as their instrument of Jihad not only such things as campaigns of Da'wa, and the careful Tu-Quoque-and-Taqiyya efforts designed to prevent Infidels from finding out just a little too much about Islam, mainly by keeping those tiny Infidel minds busy with "the three abrahamic faiths" and "we revere Jesus and Moses" and of course the five canonical prayers, and the giving of zakat -- for fellow Muslims -- and the observance of Ramadan and the inspirational delights of the hajj, but also violence. And that is what "radicalization" means -- not some different, weird, unrelated set of beliefs, but merely the set of beliefs that arise naturally out of, indeed are inculcated by, Islamic texts read and understood as Muslims have read and understood those immutable texts for 1300 -- or possibly 1200 -- years (for it is unclear when the Qur'anic text was fixed in amber).
But the texts are the same, the same ones read by Muslims in France as in the United States. The same texts as are read by Muslims in Iran, or the Sudan, or Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan. The refusal of American authorities, or writers on the subject of Islam in America, to recognize that there is no great difference between the Islam in America and Islam elsewhere, is inexcusable. The only difference that for now inhibits Muslim demands and behavior is the fact that Muslims constitute 1% of the total population, that that population is far less likely, for a number of reasons, to appease or acquiesce as so many in Western Europe have done, and that they cannot act quite as openly, quite as aggressively (though many Muslim groups are doing, in fact, their blatant damnedest) as they do in Western Europe.
"Radicalization" simply means an intensification of Islamic faith, and a willingness to participate oneself directly in Jihad, rather than simply support the effort as part of a community obligation, and finally, the willingness to use violence ("terrorism") as an instrument of Jihad. And that is all.
Posted by Hugh at August 30, 2007 11:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Mosques are symbols of conquest and must never fall back into the hands of the infidels of the Darr-ul Harb:
Link in German:
Posted by: sheik yer'mami![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 30, 2007 11:44 AM
Europe has a greater "radicalization" problem simply because most of its immigrants are muslims. European countries are often bordered by Islamic countries, or are situated across the mediterranian. If mexico was an Islamic country, we would have a greater problem than Europe.
Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at August 30, 2007 11:47 AM
If an American Muslim does not want to replace the United States Constitution with Islamic religious law (sharia), then he is not a good Muslim. If he does want such a swap, then he is not a good American. And I don't feel all comfortable like hoping American Muslims will remain lousy Muslims. Much better that they ceased being Muslims at all. Why can't most everyone get this? It ain't rocket science.
Posted by: Wellington at August 30, 2007 11:48 AM
It seems to me very simple: In order to be a citizen of the United States, one must honor the Constitution of the United States as the highest law of the land. Anyone who openly gathers in twos and threes to defame the Constitution and incite others to uphold another system of law (Sharia)are, in my mind, guilty of sedition. Is there any other way to see it? Does the First Amendment actually protect someone who would abolish it? Islamic people must honor the Constitution of the United States above all other laws, or they must go. Or we must make them go. Islam is by its own definition incapable of living within a democracy. Actually, it acts as a cancer within a democracy, using our Republic as its host and then killing us.
Posted by: JohnAdams at August 30, 2007 11:58 AM
The USA and the rest of the West should seriously attempt to stop at least immigration of Islamicists. This has been already called for in Quebec :
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/419
IMO we should all ask our political leaders (who aren't already clearly lowlife sellouts) to call for the same.
Posted by: FM at August 30, 2007 12:03 PM
JohnAdams: I'm in agreement with you with all that you wrote above. Islam and the United States Constitution are mutually exclusive, just as Marxism and fascism can never be reconciled with what the Founding Fathers (each one of whom was wiser than Mohammed) established during that hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787. And the Bill of Rights just helps to further confirm the irreconcilability of Islam with American democracy. Islam is indeed, as you averred, a cancer in the body politic of this and every Western nation.
Posted by: Wellington at August 30, 2007 12:28 PM
If an American Muslim does not want to replace the United States Constitution with Islamic religious law (sharia), then he is not a good Muslim. If he does want such a swap, then he is not a good American. And I don't feel all comfortable like hoping American Muslims will remain lousy Muslims. Much better that they ceased being Muslims at all. Why can't most everyone get this? It ain't rocket science.
Posted by: Wellington
My thoughts are as to why people don't get it cover two main concepts. One, they don't understand the core teachings of Islam. That is what Robert is all about. Two, because of 20-30 years of PC inclusiveness and thinking in a relativistic way that everyone is like us. The west has been put to sleep to the threat.
I just had an argument/talk with a fellow worker. He first did not believe me when I told him what the Koran teaches. Then he said "We are not going to be able to defeat Islam." I think he was thinking because it is a religion. You see religion is sacrosanct. If I don't put down you beliefs you will like me. I have no bases for knowing what is right or wrong. I just want you to like me.
I realize these may seem simplistic and that the nut of the problem is a little more complex. I would agree but I also think that what I have said has a lot of truth to it. I am open to any ideas or ways to convince our fellow citizens of the problem this country and the non-Muslim world is facing. One tactic I use is to quote Bible scripture as a counter to Koranic and PC rhetoric.
Isa 29:13
And so the Lord says, "These people say they are mine. They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away. And their worship is a farce, for they merely teach human commands and teachings
عيسى 29:13
وهكذا يقول الرب : "الناس يقولون ان هذه الالغام. وهي شرف لي مع الشفاه ، ولكن قلوبهم بعيدة. والعبادة هي مهزله ، لانها مجرد تدريس حقوق الاوامر والتعاليم
at August 30, 2007 1:04 PM
Im.mad.as.Hell: You're correct that ignorance of Islam and the belief that everyone is really like us here in Judeo-Christian land account for the dearth of concern about the Islamic religion. Of course, to really know Islam is to be repelled by it. But the "knowing" part is key. When I've confronted ignorance by others about Islam, such as you have experienced, I often start by asking such a person what they know about Mohammed-----because when you start telling folks what this guy actually did, having huge numbers of people killed, getting all kinds of convenient divine revelations justifyiing his sexual desires, etc., that's when I often see that look in the other person's face which indicates that they just might be starting to get it. Then when you add Koranic verses and Islamic schools of theology and their teachings to the argument, the resistance by the person you're speaking to usually begins to crumble. Good luck and keep informing as many as possible. Our nation and way of life are at stake.
Posted by: Wellington at August 30, 2007 1:59 PM
A salient and vital point Hugh.
Would "fundamental" be a more apt description ?
As the song goes, "nothing from nothing leaves nothing".
Posted by: dgene at August 30, 2007 2:04 PM
"As the song goes, 'nothing from nothing leaves nothing.'"
-- a poster speaks above
Shakespeare put it better, and earlier:
"Nothing will come of nothing."
Speak again.
Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2007 2:25 PM
It's not every day that you can do that.
Posted by: Hugh at August 30, 2007 2:51 PM
Is it possible to have nothing, and still have nothing? Or does the act of having, make nothing become something, so that you no longer have nothing?
This is making me think too hard I am getting dizzy....Next time someone accuses me of being a radical, I will refer them to this article. Now I have to lay down and regain my equalibrium...
at August 30, 2007 2:52 PM
FM-
Re: Houda-Pepin, raised a Muslim, warned that the public should make an effort to get to know those in the Muslim community who are lobbying for application of Shari‘a.
"One of the strengths of Islamists is that they know you very well. They know our history, they know our culture, they know our justice system, the Charter of Rights. … Their objective is not to integrate into Canada, it is to integrate Canada to their values".-Houda-Pepin
Exactly. They know their "enemy" and how to play "victim", etc. As Hitler noted (he called it "spiritual terror"), propaganda methods (intimidation, pose of "victimization", campaigns of lies, slander, work with "mathematical certainty" in circumstances where the target is clueless. (Hitler also noted (Mein Kampf) the importance of lauding enemy "weaklings" for their "intelligence" in the propaganda process. )
JW is feared for good reason. The "weaklings" (as Hitler called them) are not to be found with Robert or Hugh.
at August 30, 2007 2:52 PM
Exactly Frank, which is why extra vigilance and precautions are in order. You never know when desperation may overcome those who fear RS, Hugh JW/DW and staff, and do something drastic. That's the bad part, the good part is that I am sure JW is aware of that, they are nobodys fools.
Posted by: duh_swami at August 30, 2007 3:14 PM
islamic radicalization...a redundant term if I ever heard one...lol
Posted by: jcom972 at August 30, 2007 3:42 PM
It is redundant and more than just a little sickening. Muslims whether "radical" or not, demand respect while giving none. They take great offense to even the smallest slight (real or percieved) while showing zero respect for those things that we hold dear.
They go ballistic over a koran not being treated properly, yet gladly burn my flag. I will respect them when they start contributing. And no, suicide bombers and beheadings are not a contribution.
They are a small and angry people. They insult us, make demands of us and threaten our lives. They do so from the dark and from behind us. They claim we don't aknowledge their greatness. They are right. Without truth there can be no honor and without honor life has no meaning.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 30, 2007 5:26 PM
It is redundant and more than just a little sickening. Muslims whether "radical" or not, demand respect while giving none. They take great offense to even the smallest slight (real or percieved) while showing zero respect for those things that we hold dear.
They go ballistic over a koran not being treated properly, yet gladly burn my flag. I will respect them when they start contributing. And no, suicide bombers and beheadings are not a contribution.
They are a small and angry people. They insult us, make demands of us and threaten our lives. They do so from the dark and from behind us. They claim we don't aknowledge their greatness. They are right. Without truth there can be no honor and without honor life has no meaning.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 30, 2007 5:27 PM
"The Great Satan" has less appeal eh?
Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at August 30, 2007 5:28 PM
"The Great Satan" has less appeal eh?
Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at August 30, 2007 5:28 PM
O.T.
I post this on another thread but got no response. Could someone who knows the Koran better than I give me the book/verse that mentions the jihad's reward of 10 virgins in the afterlife?
8^) thanks
Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at August 30, 2007 6:47 PM
I agree with the main essay above. This is one of the main themes on JW/DW. However, I have yet to see it followed to its logical conclusion. Clearly, there is some kind of conflict taking place in today's world. Mr. Fitzgerald has consistently mocked popular names for this conflict, correctly in the case of the "War on Terror" (you don't fight a tactic, you fight an enemy), and confusingly so in the case of World War 4 (although this has been popularized by N. Podhoretz, I believe the phrase originates with Democrat James Woolsey). However, neither Mr. Fitzgerald nor Mr. Spencer has given a formal name to the conflict. When Fitzgerald and others correctly accuse the administration of not naming the enemy, we have a pot-kettle-mote-beam situation.
I understand JW/DW must tread lightly and must not commit incitement, but I think a little more clarity is possible. I have consistently called our conflict the "War Against Militant Islam". This makes it clear that we are fighting not a tactic, but a society united around certain principles and behaviors. I too flinch from the ultimate extension of this title (a "War Against Islam") because I fear fighting 1.2 billion people under the slogan of destroying their religion. As I've said before, I love the multiplicity of the world's religions, and learn a lot from others' beliefs. I'm fine with the pillars of prayer and charity. But the world has paid the price for jihad for 14 centuries - tens of millions murdered, women mutilated and dehumanized. Enough is enough!
No to jihad!
No to shari'a!
No to the caliphate!
at August 30, 2007 8:53 PM
The worry about Islamic "radicalization" is yet one more scare phrase used to try to intimidate the infidels from a reverse angle:
"You don't want to get them mad, do you?"
(Which implies that they are basically violent, not fundamentally rational and peaceful.)
Instead of the direct threat of violence from the Koranic justifications, the indirect (but equally terroristic) threat of outrage turning into violent indignation.
Ironically [except that there is no irony in Islam], because of being vaguely linked to those who practice violent intimidation.
Either way, they're going to be violent:
A) because they say their creed tells them to be, or:
B) because you imply that their creed tells them to be,
-which make them just as violent as their brethren in choice "A)".
A win-win for Islam.
Double intimidation methods.
Aggressive and passive-aggressive (but always hair-trigger ready to become truly aggressive).
Bad cop and worse cop.
As someone aptly noted:
A moderate Muslim is just one who's gun has jammed.
Posted by: profitsbeard at August 31, 2007 12:01 AM
Surak said
However, neither Mr. Fitzgerald nor Mr. Spencer has given a formal name to the conflict.
The name of the conflict, as Robert and Hugh have both pointed out, is "jihad"; or more specifically "qital". The conflict was defined, declared, and named by Islam, centuries ago. Robert and Hugh have been extremely clear and open about this.
I have consistently called our conflict the "War Against Militant Islam"...I too flinch from the ultimate extension of this title (a "War Against Islam") because I fear fighting 1.2 billion people under the slogan of destroying their religion.
Is there an Islam that is not "Militant", as you put it? What texts does this non-Militant Islam follow, and which does it ignore? Who are the leaders of this non-Militant Islam? I understand that you're flinching from a conflict with 1.2 billion people, but these 1.2 billion people are the ones who declared the conflict, not us. Whether you're flinching or not, it exists.
Posted by: special_guest at August 31, 2007 1:20 AM
It is a war of self-defense, against the Jihad. The Jihad can be conducted by various instruments. Military means, combat, qitaal, is what the Bush Administration, and its generals in Iraq, apparently limit themselves to considering when they argue the case for remaining in Iraq. They fail to consider what is going on elsewhee, through deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
It is ungainly, but "a war of self-defense against Jihad" or "a counter-Jihad" is the best that in the past, or now, that I can do.
Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2007 1:37 AM
Hugh said
It is a war of self-defense, against the Jihad.
Yes. We are not "fighting under the slogan of destroying" Islam. We are, or should be, defending ourselves against the war that they are waging to destroy our religions. Doesn't matter if it's Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism or Buddhism; Allah cannot abide by any of them.
And Hugh is right (as always) too about the methods of warfare. They wage it in many ways, most of which do not involve guns or explosives. So should we.
Posted by: special_guest at August 31, 2007 4:07 AM
I have not heard it mentioned, but I have another theory as to why radicalization is not as prevalent in the U.S. The U.S., as opposed to Europe, does not have wide-spread and often politically condoned Antisemitism. A common ground to which Europeans and Muslims can agree and unite over.
In the U.S., Jewish-Americans are pervasive in politics, medicine, education, entertainment, media, philanthropy, etc. They are good neighbors and good friends. The Muslims are quite aware of this. That is why they devise propaganda to soften this relationship e.g. "Jews were warned on 9/11", "9/11 was an Israeli plot", "Israel told U.S. to invade Iraq".
I believe that as long as Americans, unlike our European counterparts, do not listen to the Muslim diatribe that everything wrong in the world is the fault of the Jews, radicalization will remain less pervasive in the U.S.
at August 31, 2007 5:52 AM
If it looks like a banana, peels like a banana, taste like a banana, it is a banana. A banana does not need to be radical, it just is.
Posted by: DeadRecknoning at August 31, 2007 8:25 AM
Sigh, this idiocy again... When muslims started migrating to Europe they didn't immediately jump to the top of rape statistics and start committing acts of terrorism. Once upon a time we only had as few muslims as you do now. And back then there were no immigrant gangs going after underage girls in our town centres, no muslim gangs going after politicians or others who dared offed them and no attempts to bring down airplanes. In short the descent to the current situation has been gradual.
Frankly when comparing a Europe with your percentage of muslims to current-day US you are no better off than we were. It's one of those simple truths about humans: people (even muslims) adapt to one another. If you have schools with one muslim student they *will* more or less adapt to the norms of the rest of the kids there. But once you have schools where a third or even a majority of students are muslims they *will* stick together and radicalize one another. Which brings us to the current day situation of "Norwegian" schoolchildren chanting 'Death to Norway' as they did during the cartoon crisis. It's all simply a question of numbers.
And this whole anti-semitism thing is bigoted nonsense brought on by the very people who *want* a divide between the US and Europe. By repeating their talking points you reduce yourself to a mouthpiece for the left. Is there anti-semitism in the media/leftwing politics/schools? Absolutely. But while your left-wing media feeds you propaganda about the racist Europeans in the same way that our left-wing media tells us about the racist Americans, the common folk are disgusted and outraged but have no voice.
I'm sure you've heard about the left's incessant calls for a boycott of Israel here in Norway. And I'm equally sure you've never heard that the response to these calls here is an *increase* in sales of Israeli produce as people use the boycott lists to show their support of Israel.
What you need to realize is that the anti-European attitudes in American media and the anti-American attitudes in European media are simply two sides of the same coin. -The leftist attack on western culture. Until we realize that and start sticking together as westerners there is no chance at all that we are going to win this war...
Posted by: LastNorwegian at August 31, 2007 12:19 PM
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.)