| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"I'm a policy guy and excuse the directness but when folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there." -- from a Muslim apologist, doing his sly damnedest in the comments field here
No, Jihadwatch does not "make Islam the problem." Islam itself -- what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira -- is what makes Islam the problem. That, and the tenets that naturally arise from those texts, and that, over 1350 years, in many different lands, with many different sets of non-Muslims, have been acted on, by Muslim conquerors determined to kill, or convert, or permanently reduce to that subjugated status of "dhimmi" all those conquered non-Muslims.
If we ignore history, and ignore the texts of Islam, then we can all play the game of "Let's Pretend." But playing the game of "Let's Pretend" is what has gotten the countries of Western Europe in the fix they are in. Playing "Let's Pretend" simply allows non-Muslims to continue to ignore reality, continue to turn their heads away, as people in the last century, and more than once, turned their heads away until the reality could not be denied.
In the case of Islam there will not be an invasion of Poland or a Pearl Harbor attack or a seizing of Manchuria, but rather a slow and steady conquest. That is why it is important to alert, using nothing more amazing than the most banal and obvious of truths about Islam -- truths that no non-Muslim growing up under Muslim rule, and no apostate from Islam can fail to be aware of. See Wafa Sultan, see Ayaan Hirsi Ali, see Ibn Warraq, see hundreds of others, with their numbers swelling in the Western world all the time. See those great Western scholars of Islam -- Schacht, Jeffery, Snouck Hurgronje, Lammens and so many others -- who studied and wrote about Islam before the Great Inhibition set it. That is, they studied and wrote before Muslims, and their non-Muslim sympathizers, managed to insinuate themselves into academic positions where they have been quite good at keeping out any other viewpoints, and have steadily managed to hire and promote each other, aided of course by grants from Arab governments and institutions and individuals, until they have managed, all over the Western world, to control so much of what is taught about Islam and "Islamic studies" and "Middle Eastern studies."
But a few holdouts never were booted out, and nowadays, many in the West, alert to the danger, have simply chosen to go around, to do without, to ignore, the sly apologists of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA Nostra), and that has had a salutary effect.
The American government should simply set up institutes to teach Americans about Islam and the Middle East, going carefully around the universities -- or perhaps carefully vetting every department that would wish to get in on the money. It may not be possible to re-create an atmosphere in American universities, or in other universities of the Western world, in which disinterested study, rather than transparent apologetics, is offered to innocent students. Certainly the number of schools where such study is possible has diminished over the past 30 years. Georgetown’s lean, mean, jogging John Esposito is the rule, not the exception. But one should at least try. University administrators now have a duty to inform themselves fully, and not permit the fellow-travellers of MESA Nostra already ensconced in their institutions to manage to smuggle in one more of their number.
Eventually even to belong to MESA Nostra will be seen as somewhat comical and suspect. It must terrify the members of MESA Nostra that, out of nowhere, so many well-informed people -- because a doctorate nowadays in Middle Eastern studies guarantees absolutely nothing, nor does a tenured post -- are simply bypassing them and informing themselves about Islam on their own. But what can you do when all the canonical texts of Islam, all the Muslim commentators, and all the evidence from history as carefully accumulated by hundreds of careful scholars, are against you? How the hell is someone like Rashid Khalidi or Laurie Brand or Joel Beinin going to impugn Joseph Schacht, or David Margoliouth, or Snouck Hurgronje, or Vajda, or Abel, or Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, when they refuse to stay buried, but are being triumphantly revived, read, studied, and found not wanting, but thoroughly relevant to explaining the evidence of the Jihad and dhimmitude that are everywhere around us?
MESA Nostra and its European equivalents, and all the attempts to thuggishly silence truthful discussion about Islam, from Said's Orientalism to the latest lawsuit by CAIR or latest phony "Dialogue of Civilisations" or conference on "The Need for the 'Other' in Western Civilization: The Case of Islam" and so on and so obviously forth, are now coming to naught.
The evidence from 1350 years, and from today's newspaper, is just too great. And you cannot hide the Qur'an, the hadith, and the sira forever from the Infidels. Some of them actually know how to read.
Posted by Hugh at February 13, 2008 10:16 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Yeah that's it - blame the messenger and not the message.
Well, if Obama gets into the White House, it will be interesting what he has to say about Islam...
Posted by: HOV Dummy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 13, 2008 10:23 AM
I don't beat around the bush anymore.
When confronted by a PC MoonBat I just say, "Have you read the Quran?" A blushing silence because, of course, the PC MoonBat hasn't read the Quran, and didn't expect that question. Then I say:
"All of the numerous commands from Allah to kill everyone not Islamic if they don't convert are in there. Check it out sometime!"
I've got it down to a science. It's the Quran, stupid.
Posted by: darcy at February 13, 2008 10:31 AM
The evidence from 1350 years, and from today's newspaper, is just too great.
.................................
Yes. Even pre-9/11, and just reading MSM accounts, I was becoming more and more alarmed by "Islamic extremeism"; the violence, the gross intolerance of other faiths, the grotesque treatment of women, and an obviously growing targetting of the West. It was becoming incresingly clear to me that there was something very, very disturbing about the "Muslim World".
Like many, I only really began to educate myself about Islam following 9/11. But it was already quite clear to me that attributing the massive levels of Muslim violence all over the world to nothing more than residual colonial grievances and local disputes over land or sovereignty simply did not make sense.
at February 13, 2008 10:42 AM
Well, if Obama gets into the White House, it will be interesting what he has to say about Islam...Posted by: HOV Dummy at February 13, 2008 10:23 AM
at February 13, 2008 10:50 AM
What's stunning to me is that assholes like that have the information RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR EYES. Yet, they choose to be willfully ignorant or tacitly supportive of Islamism.
They're liars. All of them. Leftists have their transparent agenda for supporting Islamists. Islamists have their transparent agendas, period. Most Muslims are Islamists (politically active Muslims who want to implement Sharia in part or fully). It's just the way it is.
Posted by: antishock8 at February 13, 2008 10:56 AM
"I'm a policy guy and excuse the directness but when folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there."
The idea that lost Coughlin, the only man that's bothered to substantively look into the ideological motivation of the enemy in this war, his job.
Are we supposed to think that the violent extremists cannot point to a solidly textually grounded variety of Islamic theology to back their claims and to win recruits?
Are we supposed to think that the whether or not they can point to a textually-grounded theology and thereby win recruits depends upon whether or not we look away from their relationship with potential recruits?
Such positions are nonsensical. The sensible position is for people whose lives and freedoms hang on the line to examine the relationships between the religious texts, the violent extremists, and the potential recruits.
Such investigation doesn't help the violent extremists win recruites at all, unless the potential recruits get all their information on Islam from JihadWatch.org and from Coughlin.
They don't.
at February 13, 2008 11:16 AM
Obviously the policy people, the 'Islam is a religion of peace' people do NOT want anyone to figure out that Islam is the problem. It's easier to fight individual 'extremists' who are 'perverting the peaceful message of Islam' rather than an ideology built around conquest and 'submission.'
Posted by: s at February 13, 2008 11:18 AM
"The American government should simply set up institutes to teach Americans about Islam and the Middle East, going carefully around the universities -- or perhaps carefully vetting every department that would wish to get in on the money."
by Hugh
But what will it accomplish? The next person of either party to be elected president cannot be relied upon to tell the truth about Islam. He or she will be anxious to maintain good personal relations with the Saudis, so as to benefit from their largesse upon leaving office. It wouldn't be fitting for the president to demonize the religion of millions of Americans. The State Department is rife with Islamists even as this country is under daily threat from Islamist governments, let alone terrorists. Look at Great Britain. Their response to Islamic terror is to call it something else. The same will happen here. Won't all these institutes inevitably come under the control of the multicultural lobby? Vetting every department that wants to teach Islam will be construed as restricting their freedom of speech and stifling academic inquiry. It won't be enough to ensure that there are no Islamist sympathizers in the department. They don't have to want sharia to present an unbalanced view of Islam. I doubt Karen Armstrong would live in an Iranian-style environment if she had the option but it is still worth her while to peddle her fictions.
Posted by: PMK at February 13, 2008 12:13 PM
"In the case of Islam there will not be an invasion of Poland or a Pearl Harbor attack..."
Actually, more were mass-murdered on 9/11 than in the Pearl Harbor attack. And the 9/11 victims were nearly all civilians, in civilian targets (save for the Pentagon attack which resulted in the fewest casualties) right inside the U.S.A.; unlike Pearl Harbor, which was largely military and occurred not only outside the States but far away on an outpost.
Let's not get carried away with this JW doctrine of the "stealth jihad": while it has the merit of widening the focus of our collective problem out from the mere data of "terrorism" upon which the attention of most analysts is rigidly fixated, taken too far it errs and adds insult to the injury of 9/11.
at February 13, 2008 12:34 PM
"there still is something to be said against unmoderated comments on JW saying things like "exterminate Islam from the face of the planet" and such."
-- from a posting above
Please understand that neither Robert, nor I, nor Marisol, nor others who may be associated with this site, can possibly read every posting. If there are wild and offensive things being posted, bring them to Robert's attention, and he will promptly delete them. He is aware -- he has the ocular proof -- that Muslims are deliberately placing such comments here in an attempt to de-legitimize the site. There may also be some idiotic non-Muslims who like to hear themselves rant and, what's more, to inflict their rants on others at this site, when such rants do obvious harm, and no obvious good.
Posted by: Hugh at February 13, 2008 1:02 PM
Occupant,
The commenter tied to those words, albeit a bit different when you provided the link to the actual words instead of paraphrasing and throwing the word "exterminate" in to support your "Hitleresque" comment, is not one I recognize as commenting here for that long.
I am neither supporting nor defending that particular comment.
That being said, when your sensibilities were offended by the comment, you did the right thing and sent in your concerns to Robert at director@jihasdwatch.org, as he had asked as recently as four days ago, right?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/019874.php#comments
Or did the tedium of that two-minute exercise outweigh your desire to respond as an apologist for those who wish to stifle free speech about Islam, by what you consider unacceptable, over-the-top, Hitleresque..."unmoderrated comments"?
I presume your initial comment on this thread to Hugh was a response to this paragraph:
"MESA Nostra and its European equivalents, and all the attempts to thuggishly silence truthful discussion about Islam, from Said's Orientalism to the latest lawsuit by CAIR or latest phony "Dialogue of Civilisations" or conference on "The Need for the 'Other' in Western Civilization: The Case of Islam" and so on and so obviously forth, are now coming to naught."
If that is the case, you missed the point entirely.
Posted by: awake at February 13, 2008 1:03 PM
Hugh - awake ... no argument.
The comments should be monitored first and foremost by those commenting.
Rogue comments, though thankfully rare, provide fuel against JW and its work.
The reality that they exist was the sole point of my post.
I was unaware that Robert had made such a request four days ago - I'm just back from a remote base overseas. To this extent, I stand corrected.
Posted by: Occupant at February 13, 2008 1:22 PM
Darcy;
Here in the U.K. - If you ask a Labour Party politician or councilor about Islam or the Koran - you are automatically a Racist, Fascist, Bigoted B.N.P. supporting, right wing Nazi of unspeakable hatred and obnoxious repulsion.
And guess what?
And after all of that!
They still wont answer your question!!.
Posted by: Stone Rose at February 13, 2008 1:35 PM
... "The more I read about Islam, the more I am convinced that Islam cannot be reformed. Islam is a global cancer, and it must be removed from existence -- as an ideological establishment."
This as an incriminating remark, is rather weak compared to others that have been posted here...and removed. This says nothing about harming individual muslims, or any muslims. It refers to an ideology, that the author wants to abandon. Lots of people would like the world to abandon Islam, and say so often. The reference to cancer is one I have heard many times, because the spread of Islam resembles cancer.
I can't see where that particular remark would get much mileage from the enemies of freedom... I think that care must be given to what remains posted, but what that consists of is up to Robert and staff...
at February 13, 2008 2:04 PM
Here is someone else who agrees with Hugh that Islam itself is the problem: Abul Kasem. FrontPage has an excellent interview with him that closes with:
Islamic terrorism is not the problem. The problem is Islam, in the guise of Islamic Multiculturalism. Terrorism is just a tool to advance Islamic hegemony, so is Islamic Multiculturalism—it is just another tool to force Islam on entire humanity. It is a tool for endless jihad.
http://islam-watch.org/AbulKasem/Islamic-Multiculturalism-interview.htm
Posted by: PMK at February 13, 2008 2:28 PM
Read the Qur'an.
Remember that the Qur'an is THE word from Allah that cannot be questioned. Those muslims who do are apostates and it is the duty and obligation of other muslims to kill them.
There is no other religion on the planet that does not allow its followers to ask questions. There is no other religion that kills its members that do question the faith.
Islam is a loaded gun aimed at the head of every infidel on the planet. It is the problem. Don't take my word for it!
Read the Qur'an.
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 13, 2008 2:53 PM
The man is sick, diagnosed with cancer.
But cancer is not the problem. Its global warming. Capitalism. BUSH! Iraq. Our wrong policies in the ME.
That's the mindset. And we are spoon-fed with this crap 24/7.
Yes, Islam is a 'RoP'- but what if its not?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 13, 2008 2:59 PM
If I could agree with Hugh about this, if I could be at all confident that he is right: that the word is out, the deception has been noted and its time is fast going, that you cannot fool all the people all the time - I would feel more hopeful than I have for years about the self-immolation of the West, crucifying itself on a cross of political correctness, carrying on the work of aiming a cannon at its own collective head and lighting the fuse which seems to have begun in 1914, long before PC or Islam were the problem.
But however much I applaud his work and Robert's, I simply cannot be that optimistic. The obstacles are too great. The knowledge and common sense of jihadwatch, of Fjordman, of Bat Ye'or and Oriana Fallaci, and I guess of all the scholars Hugh mentions (of not a single one of whom, I am ashamed to say, have I ever heard before) is much more generally dismissed than respected, as far as I can see. Fighting the consensus is like, well I suppose it's like trying to stand up to Islam in an Islamic country: everything and evrybody is ranged against you. Securus judicat orbis terrarum.
All I can say about Hugh's efforts and excellence is that I am amazed by his forbearance, I respect his endurance and determination to the last degree, and I will continue to be thankful for the work he is continually willing to take on, on behalf of us all.
If I am hopeful, then I am hopeful that the day will come when it is possible to be more hopeful.
That is the best I can do.
at February 13, 2008 3:15 PM
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.
There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."
Winston Churchill, 1948
Posted by: Amillennialist at February 13, 2008 3:55 PM
Islam is the cure for still-connected heads.
No problem.
Posted by: profitsbeard at February 13, 2008 6:30 PM
"If we ignore history, and ignore the texts of Islam, then we can all play the game of "Let's Pretend." But playing the game of "Let's Pretend" is what has gotten the countries of Western Europe in the fix they are in".-Hugh
Absolutely. And the "Let's Pretend" game will probably lead Muslims to a disaster in the Mideast because Islam must dominate-as per Muslims, and Jew-hating by Muslims is central to the Quran and Muslim theology. It's nonsense to pretend that it's not so.
Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2008 6:56 PM
In this article the so-called "Muslim nation" is extolled (yeah, Somalis should try settling in rich Arab Saudi Arabia and they will find out that in the "Muslim nation" some are more equal than others). The issue here is Islam.....
"JAFFA, Israel – A representative of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas praised Hezbollah deputy commander Imad Mughniyah as a hero after the report today of the most-wanted terrorist leader's death in a car bomb blast in Syria"......
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56294
Posted by: Frank at February 13, 2008 7:10 PM
I,ve said on this forum before the day the western world wakes up will be when a western country ends up with a majority muslim population and they then attempt to impose there will.
I saw an interview with a dutch member of parliment and he stated that with current birth rates within one generation the four major cities in the Netherlands will be majority muslim.
If europe doesn,t do something about it,s birth rate the whole place is going to go.
Posted by: stevenz at February 13, 2008 11:26 PM
"I'm a policy guy and excuse the directness but when folks in Jihadwatch's world make Islam the problem they are indirectly helping the violent extremists out there."
How? In what way can we "make islam the problem" by stating facts, pointing out the truth? Are we wrong? if so ,in what way?
Tell us "policy guy", how what you say is even somehow true? Just be sure to stay in context, and give us the details, that you must have to support your statement.
at February 14, 2008 1:29 AM
When will any of our leaders take the time to just read the Koran, just a tiny bit?
Posted by: Silly Allah at February 14, 2008 2:34 AM
Darcy;
Here in the U.K. - If you ask a Labour Party politician or councilor about Islam or the Koran - you are automatically a Racist, Fascist, Bigoted B.N.P. supporting, right wing Nazi of unspeakable hatred and obnoxious repulsion.
And guess what?
And after all of that!
They still wont answer your question!!.
Posted by: Stone Rose at February 13, 2008 1:35 PM
How did things get so twisted? It's the Mohammedans' and their Quranic ideology who are all of those things!
at February 14, 2008 10:04 AM
In addition, I couldn't care less what imbeciles call me.
I just say, "You can call me any of your hate-filled names that you want. I couldn't care less, as you're an imbecile."
Posted by: darcy at February 14, 2008 10:12 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)