So, the lib'ruls are the dhimmis?

If one votes for a democrat, they are "playing the dhimmi"?

Bush et al. are going to tell us the "real deal" about Islam?

What a joke you cons are. When are you going to realize that you are being had? The principle of explaining the MANY similarities between Islam and good ole, American, republican, conservative Churchianity is summed up in "More in Common Than You Think."

See the book for yourself at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0910643016/002-9413462-8498443?v=glance

I look for the Bush administration to roll over on Israel any day now. All it will take is a nice bribe by Saudi Arabia...

What I would like to see is a pledge from Robert Spencer that if the republican party does turn it's back on Israel, he will side with Israel, the original and most effective anti-dhimmi.

Please Mr. Spencer, let's have that guarantee.

Posted by: kj at November 5, 2004 8:10 PM

Keith,

Have you ever read anything I've ever written? Books? Articles? Website posts? Anything?

I doubt that anyone who has would think that this entire anti-jihad effort is something I would abandon if the Republican Party said so.

I think you missed my message to you about this a few days ago.

In any case, I find your partisanship repulsive, and your accusations of partisanship on my part offensive. I do support anti-terror candidates, although as I have said, none is perfect. I do not support candidates who are dhimmis, but again, none is perfect.

As I have said thousands of times, the resistance to jihad is not a conservative issue, or a liberal issue, but a question of human rights.

If you think I would abandon it for partisan reasons, you don't know me, you have not read my work, and you are just another in a growing line of people who feel free to misrepresent my positions and then attack me for the positions they attribute to me.

"Repulsive" may have been too understated.

Cordially,
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at November 5, 2004 8:21 PM

See, I don't think Bush and his cabinet are playing the dhimmi. I think they're playing the "see, I'm being nice to you and honoring your holiday and breaking bread with you and won't you please help me get rid of the bad guys 'cuz I know you're not the bad ones" hand. It's kind of we've got the hudna thing going.

We are dependent on Saudi oil and we have 142,000 troops in the Middle East. We can't afford to antagonize Saudi Arabia or all the assorted Muslims by trumpeting the truth about the horrors of Islam. Then they'd give up on rounding up the hard-line "terrorists" in their midst. And really get an oil embargo going.

Unlike Kerry and his crew, President Bush, John Ashcroft, John Danforth and all the assorted bible-based Christians do know the score. And rolling over on Israel is the last thing they'd do. Evangelicals always remember that Jesus was a Jew, the disciples were Jewish, the early church was Jewish, and that Yahweh promised to bless any nation that blessed the children of Israel.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at November 5, 2004 8:27 PM

Yep - The State Department is playing nice and keeping them close. See THIS State Department Sponsored Website

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/muslimlife/

Posted by: epg at November 5, 2004 8:32 PM

Set 'em up and knock 'em down. Do a bit of taquiya upside their heads. Temporary prayer rooms I have no problem with. Permanent Muslim prayer rooms I do. Google Chris Hitchens about male only Muslim prayer rooms at the BBC.

Posted by: dennisw at November 5, 2004 9:01 PM

Yes a little learning from the Muslims themselves, a lttle taqiya. we should learn to recognise it when it comes from us.
It seems that this is not a permanent feature so perhaps there is little to criticise.

Posted by: george at November 5, 2004 9:11 PM

Actually I'd rather know they're all in one area to minimize any scuzzy muzzie from abuse his position and become a closet suicide bomber that picks that particular night to go postal.
I no longer fully trust any Muslim on Earth
after hearing far too cases like Van Gogh where
he deserved to be murdered for criticising islam.

The Quran has a verse where Allah tells them that the Jews and Christian worship false-Gods and
if they claim to have favor with God then
ask them to "Prove it".
Well,if Muslims want me to trust them then they can "Prove" they're worthy of it by their behaviour and public statements denouncing the terrorist and not the terroristic action of the Muslim doing it.
Non-muslims within Islamic run Countries very rarely get accepted as equal and even live in fear of being killed just for their beliefs.
How obsurd that Muslims in America whine about the slightest perceived injustice for not being able to live as if they're back home in their
Islmic Country of origin.
To equate the denial of a prayer room in a school to the beheadings in Iraq and Saudi Arabia is truely frightening,it's time to put an end to the Islamic crusade in the west to force us to practise Islam by proxy.
Islamic groups in Canada are trying to have alcohol and tobacco banned from University campuses to make them more "Muslim friendly" to
avoid western values from denying all faiths from getting an education. Next they'll demand all females in hospitals wear Hijabs in case a female Muslim enters,then female-only Doctors at Muslim-only Hospitals.

Cancer spreads slowly but left unchecked it consumes the body it took over.

NO ISLAM - KLNOW PEACE

Posted by: ala-sux at November 5, 2004 10:04 PM

This is just another sign of the Bush Administrations submission to Islam. After the 9/11 attack George W. Bush played the poster boy dhimmi by proclaiming Islam a " great religion " and accepting clerics and a copy of the Koran at the White House. And why? Because Islamic fanatics had just slaughtered thousands of American civilians! His words and actions since 9/11 just goes to show that terrorism works to advance respect for ones religion.

The Faith Based Iniative will divert millions of tax payers dollars to promote religion in America, including Islam. It also serves to underminde the secular state, a prerequisite for an Islamic State to be established.

Remember the point of the Jihad is to promote the influence of Islam. Bush has played into the Muslim scheme of things that we know as " good cop , bad cop ". Al Quada is the " bad cop " the moderate muslims is the " good cop ". Cooperating with and embracing one and rejecting the other does not recognise the fact that they both are working for the SAME OBJECTIVE.

This but another indication that the Jihad is working and the Bush Administration is openly embracing it and cooperating with and yes submitting to it ( the good cop ). All the while vowing to rid the world of terrorist ( the bad cop ).

The Muslim world sees him for the fool that he is.

Nossy

Posted by: Nostrodamus at November 5, 2004 11:00 PM

If the United States, as Secretary Powell says, moves "forward with the peace process" (what a phrase, "peace process," what a ludicrous phrase. Try to imagine Gladstone, or Disraeli, or Lord Palmerston, or Abraham Lincoln, or Jeffeson, or John Quincy Adams, or Churchill, using that awful phrase "Peace Process."), this will of course only continue the mixture as before. It means pressure on Israel, and focus on negotiations and an "agreement" that will, from the Muslim side, be absolutely breachable as soon as that side feels stronger. What is the point of an agreement? To bring peace, presumably. But any agreement is likely to weaken Israel's position, its control of invasion routes, the security of its handful of airports from hand-held Katyushas, its control of water resources. And what, then, is the effect of weakening Israel, over time? Will that improve the prospects for permanent peace?

No. The Muslim model for all treaty-making is the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya. It is clear, from all the Arab strategy manuals that have been written since 1967, that the salami-slicing technique is -- and must be-- part of an attempt to reduce Israel to a size that will, in a final assault, be susceptible to defeat. One assumes that this cannot happen, because of Israel's nuclear capability. But Israel may not get a chance to use those weapons, or it may be too late, or the Muslim powers arrayed against it may think the nuclear weapons it does manage to drop will cause casualties, but in the grand Islamic scheme of things, it will be well worth it to wipe out the Jewish sovereign state that is such an affront to Muslim sensibilties -- smack dab in the middle of dar al-Islam.

That is why, if peace is to be preserved, any further "peace process" is to be avoided. Let Israel be so overwhelmingly strong -- and seen to be by the Arabs and other Muslims -- that they, in turn, may with their excitable, even hysterical populations, clamoring for war whenever a glance at the map leads them to believe it might succeed, invoke the doctrine of darura, or necessity. King Hussein of Jordan wanted to stay out of the 1967 war, but Nasser spoke of great Egyptian victories (in that famous, and famously taped, phone call), and King Hussein was unable to invoke the excuse of "darura" to stay out of the fray, and that is how he lost the "West Bank" (known to Jesus Christ, among others, as Judea and Samaria).

As for the other part of Powell's remark -- the "war on terrorism" -- that little phrase just has to go. For it cannot be repeated too often: if all we care about is ending terrorism, then we apparently can have no objection to, or make the preventing of it a central goal of our policy, the islamization of Europe. But stop it we must, and use all of our energy and cunning and resources to do so -- and if that means Bush must send out others (given how he has been depicted in the European press) to speak for this policy in his stead, so be it. What matters is that the European climate be changed, the appeasement ended, and the malign French influence, with all that silly talk about the "deux rives" of the Mediterranean -- as if the differences between the Maghreb and Europe were merely geographical, and did not involve an entire unbridgeable civilizational divide deeper and longer-lasting than any other, come to an end. It is not America, but France, that should be the odd man out. It is the insufferable Hubert Vedrine, the swanning sociologist-pretending-to-be-a-scholar-of-Islam Gilles Kepepl, the preening poseur Dominique de Villepin, and Mr. Big himself, counting his loot and enjoying the simultaneous services of three poules de luxe, Jacques Chirac, who have to be isolated, investigated, mocked, and relieved of any influence, power, or position they have, or might have. Ditto, of course, for the E.U. retinue -- Patten, Solana, Prodi et al.

Posted by: Hugh at November 5, 2004 11:59 PM

Hugh said "what a phrase, 'peace process,' what a ludicrous phrase. Try to imagine Gladstone, or Disraeli, or Lord Palmerston, or Abraham Lincoln, or Jefferson, or John Quincy Adams, or Churchill, using that awful phrase 'Peace Process.') . . . "

Peace is a state, a condition, that exists between two factions that had previously been at war. It is not a "process," and the only process that can lead to peace is the utter defeat of one of the factions by the other. The defeated side surrenders, it accepts the conditions to avoid any further attacks by the victor.

That is hypothetical, of course. Germany was defeated in WWI. Unfortunately it was not devastated sufficiently, and the means to fulfill the dream of starting hostilities again, and this time with overwhelming force, were not destroyed.

Hence, Germany and WWII. Defeated again, devastated, surrenders. Rebuilt with the help of one of the victors. Now no longer bellicose and with a lukewarm relationship with the victor that rebuilt it.

Japan and WWII, similar story to that of Germany in WWII. Only Japan became an ally of the nation that defeated it.

In both cases the victor rebuilt the vanquished.

So, can the examples of Germany and Japan and WWII be applied to a Moslem country or group? Can Israel utterly defeat the Arabs that torment her, devastate them, and have the type of relationship with them that the US has with Japan or Germany?

Hell no! Why not? Because based on history, there can be only one kind of peace with Moslems. Utter destruction of the Moslem forces, sending them back, scattered, to whence they came.

No quarter, and as we all know, no hudna, that trick should have been worn thin by now, Unfortunately, there are still those that fall for it.

Back to the process that leads to "Peace." It is not negotiations, bargaining, giving up land to get a "guarantee" not to be attacked further. The process that leads to peace is the defeat of the aggressor. No ceasefires, no stopping before the aggressor is utterly defeated, scattered and driven from the land he occupied.

Example is the Moslem defeat and expulsion from Spain in the 15th century. The "process" was lengthy, complicated, and "peace" was not achieved until there were no Moslem fighters left on the Iberian peninsula.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 6, 2004 2:27 AM

Hugh said "what a phrase, 'peace process,' what a ludicrous phrase. Try to imagine Gladstone, or Disraeli, or Lord Palmerston, or Abraham Lincoln, or Jefferson, or John Quincy Adams, or Churchill, using that awful phrase 'Peace Process.') . . . "

Peace is a state, a condition, that exists between two factions that had previously been at war. It is not a "process," and the only process that can lead to peace is the utter defeat of one of the factions by the other. The defeated side surrenders, it accepts the conditions to avoid any further attacks by the victor.

That is hypothetical, of course. Germany was defeated in WWI. Unfortunately it was not devastated sufficiently, and the means to fulfill the dream of starting hostilities again, and this time with overwhelming force, were not destroyed.

Hence, Germany and WWII. Defeated again, devastated, surrenders. Rebuilt with the help of one of the victors. Now no longer bellicose and with a lukewarm relationship with the victor that rebuilt it.

Japan and WWII, similar story to that of Germany in WWII. Only Japan became an ally of the nation that defeated it.

In both cases the victor rebuilt the vanquished.

So, can the examples of Germany and Japan and WWII be applied to a Moslem country or group? Can Israel utterly defeat the Arabs that torment her, devastate them, and have the type of relationship with them that the US has with Japan or Germany?

Hell no! Why not? Because based on history, there can be only one kind of peace with Moslems. Utter destruction of the Moslem forces, sending them back, scattered, to whence they came.

No quarter, and as we all know, no hudna, that trick should have been worn thin by now, Unfortunately, there are still those that fall for it.

Back to the process that leads to "Peace." It is not negotiations, bargaining, giving up land to get a "guarantee" not to be attacked further. The process that leads to peace is the defeat of the aggressor. No ceasefires, no stopping before the aggressor is utterly defeated, scattered and driven from the land he occupied.

Example is the Moslem defeat and expulsion from Spain in the 15th century. The "process" was lengthy, complicated, and "peace" was not achieved until there were no Moslem fighters left on the Iberian peninsula.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at November 6, 2004 2:27 AM

I am speechless, angry and ready to kick some behind. Where are our defenders? Where are those patriots and defenders of our civilization?

We are going to be under Shariá law if jihad is to reach its logical conclusion i America.

God, they slaughter us and we reward them. When the hell will it end, when the black banner of Islam is flying over the White House?

Posted by: Andrew at November 6, 2004 4:44 AM

Too bad the State Department doesn't extend the same consideration to US Christians living abroad in the corrupt, totalitarian, shari'a nation of Saudia Arabia, a "client" of the US State Department.....

Remember Lt. Col Tim Hunter, who campaigned to preserve worship services for American Christians inside the U.S. mission in Jiddah?

So the State Department can dhimmi to Islam in Foggy Bottom, but violate the International Religious Freedom Act, Section 107, "Equal Access to United States Missions Abroad for Conducting Religious Activities" in Jiddah?

Shame on you, Mr. Powell.

Posted by: Witness at November 6, 2004 8:38 AM

The greatest American Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, would not have approved. Google "Islam" and "John Quincy Adams" and "Andrew Bostom" to find out more. Then print it out, and give it to your children or your friends, or anyone you know interested in American history.

And if someone says -- but "that was then, and this is now" -- point out to them that observations made about Islam 50 or 100 or 150 or 500 or 1000 or 1200 years ago remain equally valid. What is in Qur'an and hadith and sira does not change. The belief that "war is deception" -- as Muhammad says in several hadith in both Bukhari and Muslim -- has not changed. The insistence that Islam "must dominate and is not to be dominated" does not change. The insistence that Muslims must rule, and all non-Muslims either be killed, converted, or put into a status of deliberate humiliation that will confirm, at every step, their lower status -- because they are Infidels, and not Believers -- has not changed.

The ONLY things that have changed are:

1) the ability, through OPEC oil revenues, to finance mosques and madrasas and to buy huge amounts of Western arms

2) the new phenomenon, unheard-of in human history, when those carriers of a belief-system completely inimical to non-Believers in that system, are nonetheless allowed in large numbers to settle deep within the lands of those non-Believers, those Infidels -- in the Bilad al-kufr.

3) a refusal to consult the texts, or the history, of that belief-system, by those who have, through their laxity and laziness, permitted their own lands, and their own societies, and their own peoples, to create -- quite unnecessarily -- a threat to themselves which, already, has created a world far more unpleasant, constrained, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would have been, had the elites of Europe (and above all of France, which possesses the most self-deluded and simultaneously self-assured ruling class, the products of a narrow examination system, and of an assumed "understanding" -- presumably born of French rule in North Africa -- that actually is no "understanding" at all, because the real French scholars of Islam who profited from its rule, and did understand Islam -- Edmond Fagnan, Bousquet, Dufourcq, and even that precursor of Sania Hamady and Raphael Patai, Andre
Servier -- are long dead, and have been studiously ignored.

Meanwhile, a fool like Gilles Kepel, really a sociologist offering up a gallimaufry of observations that make him a handmaiden of Tariq Ramadan -- with his bright little predictions of a kindler, gentler "European" Islam -- what can he be thinking of? based on what texts? and on what historical parallels -- oh, the "convivencia" of Andaluz, and similar romantic tales? -- swans about the Sorbonne, and attends conferences, and is solemnly treated as an experts. Dufourcq, Abel, Fagnan, Bousquet, and so many others -- or rather, their shades -- must be rolling their eyes in haughty disbelief.

As long ago as 1988, the French writer Jacques Ellul complained that "it is not possible to criticize Islam" any longer in France. Think of what has happened since 1988, with the steady rise of Muslim power, and Arab hirelings (Chirac, let me repeat, has been a recipient of Arab favors of the most obvious kind for more than two decades -- one would still like to know more about that jewel-encrusted falcon he received from Arab admirers, a little tribute for his services rendered -- another one was made for Bouygues, or some French contractor doing business in the Gulf -- a kind of "Kniphausen Hawk" -- see the Chatsworth Collection of the Dukes of Devonshire, a la francaise). Le Monde prevented Peroncel Hugoz from continuing to write about Islam (oh, but you can read him on travelling to Portugal whenever you want), because he was too acute, too understanding ("The Raft of Muhammad" though it is out of print, is still available, and worth it).

Just as policymakers in Washington have still neglected to brush up on the letters of Gertrure Bell, or the best book on modern Iraq -- written in 1939 -- Philip Ireland's Iraq -- so they, and those in Europe who were supposed to worry about immigration matters, have all failed to find out what this strange thing called "Islam" is all about. They have not really thought through what Muslims are taught to believe (some may reject those teachings, or not take them quite so seriously, or live in a country where the mosques are monitored, as Turkey, but that does not mean that the canonical texts do not, if uncensored, lead inexorably to inclucating a hostlity, even a murderous hostility combined with contempt, toward all non-Muslims).

How about a little retreat for everyone in the State and Defense Departments? We pass out copies of Peroncel Hugoz, and Ibn Warraq, and Bat Ye'or, and a large number of articles, taken from the most meticulous scholars of Islam (no, I'm afraid John Esposito will not make the cut, nor many of his friends and fellow apologsts). Then a few lectures -- bring in Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina and Bat Ye'or. Yes, Muslims will be offended if such takes place -- but so what?

Eventually, there is going to have to be a meeting of NATO Defense MInisters to discuss the threat of European Muslim populations, and their ability to rise in the local security and military services, and the possible danger of their acquiring access to major weaponry. This is no joke, no hypothetical.

So whether such meetings offend or not, they had best be taking place now, not in 10 or 20 years. The West, let it be repeated, owes the Muslim world exactly nothing. The West has no need to commit suicide. Everyone can recognize things that are wrong with our own countries -- god, we could fill up 26 volumes, could we not, with our complaints -- beginning with the collapse of higher education, and celebrity worship, and the idiocy of modern musical lyrics, and ....no, there's no time to go on. But that should not be first in our minds -- this impulse to believe that " everyone is the same, we all want the same things, all cultures and belief-systems are of equal value and significance." This is a Western cult, with its high priests and sacred rigmarole, called by some "multiculturalism." But since that word is so deplorable, too deplorable even to be used in order to deplore it, kindly overlook the fact that it has been used here. And may the Gods of the Lexicon -- Webster, Littre, Dal', Henry Fowler -- forgive me.

Posted by: Hugh at November 6, 2004 9:39 AM

I too like the idea of keeping them all together as a group that way if things go sour they are boxed in.

Mr. Spencer YOU GO GUY,if you ever need some extra help feel free to drop me a line and I will have your back.

AM YISRAEL CHAI
YKWH AKBAR

Posted by: Chuck at November 6, 2004 10:53 AM

Some good news

I only found this out from a relative who's friends had finally had enough of Al Majouroun's presense in Luton, so they went down every week with loudspeakers condemning them as terrorist sympathisers, and traitors.

Apparently the police moved Al Mujouroon off the street, and when they complained 'We have been here for 2 years' they were told 'But now you have people complaining about what you have been preaching so bugger off'.

Lots of peolpe in my area are brassed off with Muslims who they see as state spongers.

breadwinner

Posted by: breadwinner at November 6, 2004 9:25 PM

In fairness to State, many of its people "understand" colleagues who bow to say grace over lunch; keep a Bible handy to read on the homeward subway, and things like that. Some State people also moved towards a deeper and more mature Christian faith during their years of service--possibly because rosy notions of the basic goodness of man held as callow fledgling academic internationalists have a way of evaporating after you've done some anti-fraud work or reported on a military or refugee crisis. State also hired its share of qualified Muslims as both foreign service and civil service employees, and those whom I met during my brief State career seemed loyal, patriotic Americans and (in the case of some language teachers) law-abiding immigrants. Of the citizens, it seems the biggest secrets they kept from the bulk of their colleagues were a propensity to vote Republican (traditional values, close kin in the business world, you name it).

Frankly, if Muslims are going to serve the USA well, work well with non-Muslim colleagues and supervisors, honor the law, and limit their jihad against me to verbal and reasoned argument, I'm ready to accommodate the space needs the motions of their prayers may require--and be glad that my God lets me pray at my desk or standing up.

Posted by: Kepha1 at November 7, 2004 2:13 AM