| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Bud Day was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, but he has a long history of heroism before that. He first went to war at age seventeen (I think), in World War II. He was in that war, and the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. If you have seen him speak, as I have, you would know who Bud Day is and why he is so important -- and why we all in the end must depend, for certain tasks important for our survival, on those who are like Bud Day.
Let's start with his remark: "The Muslims have said either we kneel or they're going to kill us." Is this, as one news report self-assuredly says, a "gaffe"? Is it incorrect? What do the texts of Islam teach about how non-Muslims are to be treated under Muslim rule? And we already know that the duty of Jihad is that of removing all obstacles to the spread, and then the universal dominance, of Islam. Does it say to "make them kneel"? Well, not in that precise genuflecting mode, but in essence, of course it does.
For what does it mean to say, as the Qur'an does, that non-Muslims must either be killed or converted or, where they belong to the category of ahl al-kitab, the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, may stay alive, may even continue -- in a restricted and insecure manner -- to practice their own religions? We know that the status of these Christians and Jews under Islamic law is that of "Protected People." This bland phrase is used by Muslims entirely unselfconsciously, as if they simply do not realize, or hope that we won't, that what those Christians and Jews are being "protected from" are Muslims themselves -- should those Christians, or should those Jews, not comply with all the "terms" of the "agreement." And there is no agreement, of course: it's simply a Muslim diktat. This status as “Protected People” means that they must accept their status as dhimmis. And then that status comes with a whole host of political, economic, and social disabilities, of which the best known is the Jizyah, the payment by non-Muslims to support the Muslims and the Muslim state. Indeed, this was the reason for treating the Zoroastrians of conquered Sassanian Persia, and the Hindus (after tens of millions had been massacred), as "honorary" People of the Book who could stay alive and be treated as dhimmis -- and thus continue to supply the Jizyah which the Muslim overlords required.
Along with the Jizyah, there were rules about clothing, including at some point the requirement, imposed first in Baghdad, of a yellow star for Jews and a blue belt for Christians. Why, just a few years ago the Taliban was insisting on orange robes to be worn by Hindus, for, a Taliban spokesman said, "their own safety." Non-Muslims could not ride horses (a prohibition equivalent to telling someone today he cannot use a car), but only donkeys, and had to dismount if crossing the path of a Muslim. New churches and synagogues could not be built; old ones could not be repaired without the permission of Muslims; church bells were not allowed, and indeed, any symbolism that drew attention to these non-Muslim houses of worship was forbidden. Non-Muslim males could not marry Muslim females; the reverse was not true, for the non-Muslim females were not equal to, but often treated as chattel by, the males in Muslim societies, and so a non-Muslim female was no threat to a social order that always and everywhere required that Muslims be on top.
This is what should be stated by those who wish to defend -- or at the very least not to abandon -- Bud Day. Is the McCain campaign up to it? So far it has shown no signs of being able to coherently explain, or even to quote, the easily-retrievable Qur'anic passages -- a click away -- that they should bring to public attention. They should do this for no other reason than to show that they know their Qur'an, and that they intend, if attacked, to bring out more and more such items from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. This would show that they intend to perform that most important of tasks for those who would be entrusted with the responsibilities of rule -- that is, the ability to usefully instruct those whom one claims to be able to intelligently protect.
Posted by Hugh at July 23, 2008 10:23 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Given the current level of discussion about Islam, I glad just to see somebody even remotely close to a candidate with a coherent view as to what we are up against.
Nobody in the Obama camp will ever recognize even the most trivial danger coming from Islam.
The best that can be ascertained at this point is that Obama was raised for a time as a Muslim when he was a child.
At age 24 we have a picture of him in Muslim garb with his brother and some Muslim friends.
Sometime shortly after that he became a parcticing member of Black Liberation Theology which claims that their "god" is a god of the black people and demonizes white people.
He was introduced to this racist ideology by his wife Michelle.
Members of his church have ties to Islam.
So let's hope McCain gets it.
Posted by: cybo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 23, 2008 10:45 AM
Bud Day does have McCain's ear, this is the most comforting (although I'm really not comfortable at all about our leaders knowing true islam) article I've read about anyone even close to our government.
Posted by: abinitioadinfinitum at July 23, 2008 12:40 PM
I can't help but laugh at this never-ending discussion. Don't get me wrong, I like Spencer and Fitzgerald very much and agree with 99% of what they say but none of it matters until we Americans (and the West in general), reduce Muslim immigration.
As a life-long resident of Dearborn, Michigan, I can assure you, that since the mass immigration which started in the early 1990's, we have been flooded with fundamentalist, burkha-wearing, (yes, full-on, black burkhas - disgusting to witness in person) Muslims and we've had more aspects of Sharia law incorporated into our city government and school system.
Until immigration is reduced, forget about it.
Posted by: Nessus at July 23, 2008 2:02 PM
I've lived in the western suburbs of Detroit most all of my life, and have spent some time in a mixed neighborhood in east Dearborn, but I, at least, saw no burkhas or niqabs--full gowns and black abayahs, yes; the hijab, certainly; even some young, thoroughly Americanized Muslim girls in summer dress, heads undraped. I don't doubt that jarring sights of Death Taking A Walk don't exist hereabouts, but that I, fortunately, haven't seen them.
Posted by: John C at July 23, 2008 3:25 PM
John C:
What part(s) of Dearborn do you frequent? Michigan Avenue isn't bad, but if you go to non-downtown areas---the difference between now and and 20 years ago is very noticeable.
Posted by: JSobieski at July 23, 2008 4:13 PM
This is what should be stated by those who wish to defend -- or at the very least not to abandon -- Bud Day. Is the McCain campaign up to it? So far it has shown no signs of being able to coherently explain, or even to quote, the easily-retrievable Qur'anic passages -- a click away -- that they should bring to public attention.
Understand what McCain is and is not; he is first and foremost a politician. He will say whatever must be said in a moment of expedience. McCain will tell you what he thinks he must tell without being held to anything.
If you are expecting to be able to nail Jello to a wall as a result of anything McCain says then you are sadly mistaken. The reality is that there are no fundamental differences between this man and BO.
at July 23, 2008 4:33 PM
With all eyes on Noboma Bud being thrown under the bus may have come and gone!
Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at July 23, 2008 4:58 PM
Just last week, in one week mind you, my wife and I saw a total of six burkhas in less than seven days. One day, I saw three for a muslim man was being followed by three burkha-clad women. His wife and daughters or three wives? Who could tell? They were completely draped in Afghan-style burkhas with the kind of high, pointy head-dress.
If you have not been in Dearborn in the last 5-10 years, you don't know what it's liked. But I hasten to add, it's not just Dearborn. It's spreading throughout the metro Detroit area. Westland, Wyandotte, Warren, Taylor - everywhere you go you see fewer and fewer hijabs and more and more niqabs (essentially, a one piece, oversized poncho with a hole for the head).
And John C. if you saw Americanized Muslim girls, they probably weren't Muslim. Dearborn does have a large percentage of Christian Arabs.
My point is, after living and observing this all my life, something has changed in the last 10 years or so. Way more fundamentalist, radical looking Muslims. Pork (hot dogs) taken off the school menus since it's not "halal", kids have many more days off from school, since muslims have so many "holy days".
It's all the result of excessive immigration, plus the sick ideology of multi-culturalism, which denigrates Western and American tradition.
Posted by: Nessus at July 23, 2008 5:09 PM
'Round about Alber & Kenilworth. As I remember, the girls had names like Maduwa and Salimah and such. One of these girls was rather coquettish--at least until she enrolled in Islamic school and donned the hijab.
Posted by: John C at July 23, 2008 5:50 PM
Nessus, Sobieski - bear in mind that Tawfiq Hamid said once that there is a direct correlation between the extent to which the Muslim women are covered up, and the prevalence of aggressive jihad mentality among the men.
I don't trust him 100% - he hasn't apostasised, yet - but I do think there's something in that observation.
When I watched the show 'Jihad Sheilas' on Australian TV, the two women, Aussie converts to Islam, presented quite differently. One wore the headscarf (face visible); the other wore full burqa and niqab, all you could see was her eyes through a slit.
The one with the headscarf came across as something of a dupe or tool.
The one who was all covered up gave off a truly nasty vibe. She came across as the smarter one, and was much more aggressive and arrogant. I'm sure she was consciously and actively involved with jihad plots.
So: if you see the numbers of fully-shrouded women perceptibly increasing in a given area, it might be time to intensify surveillance of the mosques and pay close attention to the local police reports.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at July 23, 2008 5:50 PM
Disgusting to hear what is going on in Michigan. I used to go to school in Ann Arbor.
What a shame!
The moslems is what's caused the Wolverines to play so badly the last few years. They are truly evil spririts.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 23, 2008 8:19 PM
So: if you see the numbers of fully-shrouded women perceptibly increasing in a given area, it might be time to intensify surveillance of the mosques and pay close attention to the local police reports.
-Posted by dumbledoresarmy, above
No, my friend...not might. It IS time. And the same thing is happening in my area, far from Dearbornistan, in the exurbs of New York City. Burkhaed women, often pregnant, with many childen in tow, in Wal-Mart, accompanied by husbands in henna-dyed beards wearing dishdashis and knitted pillbox skullcaps. Now is the time, indeed. Past time, in fact. Apparently, the government has learned little or nothing since 9-11, and most of the locals, ignorant of Islam and of the menace these new and increasingly numerous arrivals represent (for their appearance alone speaks volumes about their views concerning the primacy of Islam and the need for the implementation of Shari'a), seem unconcerned, even oblivious to their presence. I feel like the protagonist in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, who tries to warn everyone about the alien menace they face, his efforts resulting in ridicule and disbelief.
Posted by: commonsense at July 23, 2008 9:19 PM
An American Hero like BUD DAY who served this country with Honor and Distinction ,both in Combat and in Captivity , knows how DANGEROUS the ISLAMONAZI Enemy is and HOW the LIBERAL Press is their ENABLER.
As for DEARBORNISTAN , today's Islamonazis are continuing Dearborn's history of being a haven for JEW-HATERS, going back to Henry Ford and his Detroit area(Royal Oak Mi.) fellow ANTI-SEMITE AND NAZI ALLY, Fr. COUGHLIN.
The proximity of FOREIGN SANCTUARY being minutes away ,in Canada,makes DEARBORNISTAN a Clear and Present DANGER TO OUR NATION.
Posted by: CHOI at July 24, 2008 1:49 AM
Again my point is this: I have lived in Dearborn all my life. We've always had arab/muslim immigrants. But in the 1970's, 80's, even the 90's, you rarely saw a hijab. But then again, the arab/muslim population was much smaller than today.
Now the niqab (poncho or goblin-suit) is the norm. Burqas are rare but present. As a life-long Dearborner, I've never seen a burqa prior to the last five years. Now you seem them once in a while around town.
It's the immigration, nothing else. But I have no hope, the elites in charge in Wash DC as well as most nation's capitals, are blinded by their pc, multi-culti ideology. Now the University of Michigan-Dearborn has put in a foot-bath for muslims students to wash their feet several times a day. What a joke! Nothing but CAIR pushing it's agenda.
Through immigration, they have achieved critical mass in numbers, so they now exert political power via their numbers. No hope.
Posted by: Nessus at July 24, 2008 7:47 AM
I see Amish with their horse and buggies on the road frequently here in the midwest. Walmart even has hitching posts for their horses when they park their carriages. They are very respectable and decent people. They will bend over backwards to help you anytime. Their children are well behaved and always polite. They are good to be around. They are happy.
The Amish people live and dress (by our standards) very differently from the the rest of us.
Why is it that no one every has to defend the Amish people but I hear almost daily, someone trying to find something good to say about Muslims.
Posted by: Spot on at July 24, 2008 8:16 AM
Brooklyn is another focal point of the Islamic expansion. Headscarves are most common, but hijabs and robe like layers for Muslim women are also frequent. Less common but definitely present are veils and full body burkas. One interesting summer sight was that of a jaunty young fellow dressed comfortably in shorts and a NY Yankees t-shirt, trailed three feet behind by a pathetic creature wrapped up from head to toe with only her face showing. All this in the sweltering heat.
Posted by: RBLA at July 24, 2008 9:39 AM
Because "Spot on", as I'm sure you realize, it's really not about clothes/fashion, the hijab, niqab and burqa are representative of a culture and political ideology that is antithetical to the Western tradition.
The Amish dress strangely by modern standards but the Amish are Americans, they've been here for centuries and they do not repeatedly state that they wish to spread their belief around the world, nor do some of them scream their beliefs at the top of their voices, while stabbing someone or planting a bomb. The Amish do not hav a history full of violence, nor are the Amish political and Islam is very, very, political.
Hijabs, niqabs and burqas don't grow out of the ground - they come here via endless family chain immigration. That's one policy that must change for any legal immigrant, they can not sponsor their entire home village to re-locate in the USA.
Posted by: Nessus at July 24, 2008 12:00 PM
Nessus has summarized it perfectly.
No one has ever heard of an "Amish" bomb. And the West did not invent the term "Islamic Bomb". That phrase came from the mouth of Muslims in heart of Islamic territory.
The problem we have is our PC leaders are blind to anything that would suggest that the Islamic culture has a problem.
at July 24, 2008 4:01 PM
Hurray for Bud Day.
See Hugh - there's hope for you - you acknowledge that soldier Day is the sort of person upon whom we sooner or later must all depend.
Screw the elitist narcissist fools like Barrie Obamerama.
God bless America.
Posted by: dgene at July 24, 2008 4:49 PM
"The proximity of FOREIGN SANCTUARY being minutes away ,in Canada,makes DEARBORNISTAN a Clear and Present DANGER TO OUR NATION.
Posted by: CHOI
Choi, I could rewrite your sentence and say,
The proximity of Dearbornistan being minutes away from Canada, makes Dearbornistan a clear and present danger to my country.
And kindly stop yelling.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at July 24, 2008 5:54 PM
Not only Brooklyn, RBLA (where I'd seen burkhas on the street, especially Atlantic Avenue, even in the mid-90's). Staten Island is also becoming infested with covered women. I've only seen a full burkha here once, but chadored women have begun appearing on the northern end of the Island. And hijabed women? Metastasizing...
I recently spent a couple of weeks in Nova Scotia on vacation. One of the things I hoped to relax from was the sight of covered women. The first night there, I'm way out in a rural area on the Evangeline Trail, and what do I see? A hijabed girl (fully covered everywhere else, of course) walking up a country road, with two males walking beside her on either side.
Sigh.
Posted by: Vee at July 26, 2008 12:38 AM
Yes, Vee, I know what you mean. My wife and our daughter go out West usually once a year and we usually get a break from the hijabs, niqabs and burqas, since our home is Dearbornistan.
Remember, if you see not only the headscarf (hijab) but the whole, flowing "robe" or "poncho", it's called a niqab and it truly is disgusting, especially in young women, to have them covered so much in a fabric prison. The burqa make me and my wife's blood BOIL!
There are fewer and fewer places one can go now in the US, Canada, England, even Australia, where one isn't forced to witness "Islamization". Truly sad.
Posted by: Nessus at July 26, 2008 8:51 PM
If you're a retiree or housewife with a little free time, and live in or near a Muslim colony, you could always indulge in some 'people watching'.
Take a friend who shares your counter-jihad views, pick a nice cafe with a good view of mall or street, go there for morning coffee, say, twice a week, and spend an hour playing 'spot the hijab'. Discreetly note how many you've spotted, what type (from the simple headscarf, to the full body-and-face ghost outfit), how many kids, age of woman if her face is visible, and garb of the man or men accompanying her - beard or no beard? Islamic dress or Western dress?
Do this for a few months and you might start to see whether there's a trend - i.e. whether they're covering up more, and whether there are more or less of them in the area, and their demeanour (low profile? cocky? aggressive?).
You could do the same, if you're on a university campus as faculty member, student, or support staff (actually, you've got special opportunities if you're working as a gardener or secretary or suchlike). Play 'count the hijab'; keep tabs on the ones that wear the full covering.
If you're a mum who has children at a school attended by kids from Muslim families, have a go at making social overtures to the Muslim mums. (I don't have this opportunity - there are no Muslim kids at our school, or if there are, I've never seen their mums).
If they cover their faces, you could find the chance to let them know, straight down the line, just how off-putting you find it, not being able to see the face of someone you're talking to. Make it clear that you regard it as unfair that they should be able to see your face in public, while you can't see theirs. Don't be 'soft' and 'apologetic' - let them know that you don't like it.
Islamic dress is not like nun's dress or Buddhist monk robes. It's an aggressive political statement by a totalitarian mind-control cult.
Our reaction should be similar to that of someone seeing a person strutting about in full Nazi SS regalia, or wearing a swastika armband.
Don't look away from these females - STARE at them. This one is for the ladies. Guys staring would be misconstrued. But the ladies' stare should be the 'I'm not fooled' stare; or, perhaps, the pitying 'oh you poor, poor thing in that silly get-up on this nasty hot day'.
at July 27, 2008 4:13 AM
Exactly dumbledoresarmy, exactly what my wife and do, especially her, for as you say, women can get away with staring and shaking their heads at Mohammedan women much more effectively than men can. My wife keeps saying one of these days she's gonna have the nerve to walk up to a muslim woman and say sarcastically - "aren't you hot in that outfit, honey? And why are you walking far behind your husband?"
And you are right on the money as well with your comment that Islamic garb is not like a Catholic nun, or American Amish or a Buddhist monk. Islam is very much an aggressive, political ideology.
Islam is a political ideology. Mosques/madrassas are the outposts or the vanguard of that ideology. We will fail unless the West reduces moooslim immigration significantly.
Posted by: Nessus at July 27, 2008 10:55 AM
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.)