| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
Some time ago Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald wrote a superb piece entitled "The Mask Slips in Gaza." Now the mask is off altogether.
The mask has not merely slipped in Gaza. It is entirely off. Jihad, jihad, jihad. Use the word. The Arabs and Muslims are using it, day after day, not least in Gaza. It is a Jihad. It is prompted by the tenets of Islam, and those tenets do not say "compromise with the Infidels." Those tenets do not say "leave them with a tiny rump state." Those tenets do not say "Push them back to the pre-1967 armistice lines" or "Push them back until they are sufficiently small." No, Islam tells Muslims not to countenance, not to endure, any Infidel state, any state which permits non-Muslims the right to determine their own destiny, any entity or institution which would allow non-Muslims that modicum of power that would keep them from being reduced to the status of dhimmis -- no, neither the Qur'an, nor the Hadith, nor the example of Muhammad himself, permits such an interpretation.Some, but not enough, Israelis, have come to understand this -- not enough in time to prevent the Gaza disaster. But whether the Israelis do or do not come to comprehend their enemy and the relentless Jihad against them, that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside the Middle East, not to recognize the nature of the war against Israel and how it merely prefigures, and is not the cause of, the larger world-wide Jihad against all Infidels, to be conducted with whatever means prove most efficacious. It does not make sense to pursue open military challenges to the West. It does make sense to divide and demoralize and terrorize not only that West, but all parts of the Infidel population, whether or not they are within dar al-Islam: the Christians who remain in the Middle East, along with the Jews in Israel, as well as the Hindus and Buddhists and Confucians in such Muslim-ruled countries as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Indonesia, or even within Infidel lands where a small Muslim population still manages, as in Europe or Thailand or the Philippines or even India, to conduct attacks on Infidels despite the disparity in numbers.
Why is it that the Western world and Americans in particular fail to comprehend this and waste time actually ignoring the problem of Islam and pretending that the matter can somehow be solved if alternative regimes -- a primitive democracy rather than a primitive despotism in Iraq, for example -- will somehow help to contain the threat of Islam? It will do no such thing. The way to contain Islam is not to better the lot, still less to sacrifice one's own men and materiel and money to do so, of Muslims, however plausible some of the westernized representatives (Shalabi, Rend al-Rahim Francke, Kanan Makiya, Allawi himself), the unrepresentative representatives, may be. Rather, the way to contain Islam is to play upon and exploit the natural divisions within this or that Muslim state or population, so as to turn Muslim against Muslim, or, in the case of the Kurds, by supporting them to the hilt, to make the case of all non-Arab Muslims everywhere who wish to shake off the dominance of the Arab supremacist ideology for which Islam has always been a vehicle.While the mask is off in Gaza, Western dhimmis are doing their utmost to keep it in place. I just finished watching a propaganda piece on the Bill Moyers show. It was all about some "Palestinian" Arab widows trying to make a go of it as the start-up owners of a pickle factory. I did not count the many occasions on which it was suggested -- no, stated -- that everything depended on Allah, the number of times "Inshallah" (God willing) and other phrases were inserted into conversations, not as mere rhetoric, but as expressions of deep belief. Inshallah-fatalism is not conducive to economic activity. It has its points: it can reconcile one to a miserable condition and even to the injustice of the very belief-system that is almost entirely responsible for that miserable condition. But industriousness, entrepreneurial flair, and the constant attention to detail that modern economies require are simply incompatible with the lessons and tenets of Islam, and the overall attitude of inshallah-fatalism cannot be ignored, for it pervades everything.
After the propaganda show was over, Moyers interviewed one Azza Karam, an Egyptian woman described as connected to the U.N. Commission on Arab Development (or some such name). She of course, when asked about the possible connection between the teachings of Islam and the miserable condition of these widows and of women under Islam, referred to "tribal culture." One would think that the cities of Islam -- from Cairo and Tunis and Damascus, all the way to Karachi and Dacca and Jakarta, owed the treatment of women to some "tribal culture." And even if one could pretend that "tribal culture" rather than Islam was responsible for the treatment of women in, say, Iraq (which does have a tribal culture in many areas), could the same be said for Cairo? And even if we were to pretend that this "tribal culture" explained the position of women in the Middle East and North Africa, what "tribal culture" is there in Jakarta?
And even if we were, just for the hell of it, to pretend that it was "tribal culture" that explained the mistreatment of women everywhere in dar al-Islam, then how would we explain the same mistreatment of Muslim women in the Muslim areas of London, Paris, Milan, and Barcelona? The lingering effects of "tribal culture"? And what about the treatment of Western women who marry Muslim men, whether those women "revert" to Islam (i.e., convert) or not? Is their mistreatment, which has been so widely reported (not least after they flee those marriages that are often of convenience -- to the green-card seeking Muslim groom), the result of their "tribal culture"?
The viewer saw Azza Karam's attempt to defend Islam at all costs -- in her constant refusal to even permit the slightest hint that just maybe, there was something in the Qur'an, in the Hadith, in the Sira, that might cause Muslim men to act as they do (and there is, there is), and put the kind of restrictions they do on Muslim women -- as the transparent taqiyya it is. But no matter how often one views this spectacle -- of the Muslim who is intelligent, personable (up to a point), and seemingly part of the same rational universe, and yet who suddenly reveals that coute que coute, that person is going to lie about, to dissimulate, to hide, the truth about Islam, for Islam must never ever be subject to a hint of criticism – it is always stunning.
Really, Azza Karam's performance was astonishing, and most enlightening. One hopes that many non-Muslims will be able to -- as we old vaudevillians say -- catch her act. The things she does with masks are breathtaking.
Posted by Robert at September 15, 2005 9:13 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
" ... that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside the Middle East, not to recognize the nature of the war against Israel and how it merely prefigures, and is not the cause of, the larger world-wide Jihad against all Infidels, ..."
How does one get Bush to recognise this? In light of the Hughes appoinment to placate the RoP in America it appears that he does not understand any of this.
Perhaps he is so under Baker's spell that he goes along with Rice's resurrection of Baker's Middle East policy?
Rice removed Bolton and Wolfowitz from the sphere of influence and policy flipped 180 degrees and all the while they continue with State Department taqyia of "moderate" states as allies and use the phrase, "Israel is the only Democratic State ..., yadda yadda to imply a value of having Israel as a positive inluence in the region while implementing a jihadist state.
Taking your post on the World Tribune article
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008050.php
and Caroline Glick's column in the Jpost
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1126491575362&p=1006953079897
into consideration I am of the opinion that the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 15, 2005 9:51 AM
The evacuation of Gaza is an unmitigated disaster. A towering monument to idiotic decision making. I'd expect Bush and Rice to be dumbasses, but Sharon? Never for the life of me did I expect to see Ariel Sharon go soft on the Moselms.
However, it was enjoyable to read about the greenhouse riots. Those crazy nutty Moslems sure are a barrel of monkeys!
Posted by: Shaughn at September 15, 2005 9:55 AM
Muhammad was the first Jihadist, the first Muslim murderer, the first Muslim assassin, the first Muslim terrorist. Much of Koran and Hadith are devoted to boasts about terrorizing adversaries into submission. Making for an easier war by Allah's armies. Easier conquest via barbarism and heinous torture. The monkey on the stick approach
All Muslims are commanded to emulate the life of Muhammad. The perfect man. A most worthy example for all mankind claim the Muslims. So the root of Islam is terrible, making reformation very difficult. Muslims are nice and tolerant only when they stray from Islam's teaching due to inertia and quiet apostasy. Some are just innately good natured and Islam cannot warp them
at September 15, 2005 10:34 AM
Cynic, in the increasingly likely event of an al-queda induced shitstorm in the kingdom, it will be interesting to see what happens at State, as the saudi "grease" dries up. Fewer traitors and whores, perhaps? I had so hoped the intelligent Dr Rice would step in and clean up the cesspool. Instead, she has become mired in it. Intelligence without knowledge and conviction is wasted.
Posted by: Infidel33 at September 15, 2005 10:47 AM
"Some are just innately good natured and Islam cannot warp them"
- dennisw
I hope more people are like that. (Indeterminate deity) willing, I'd like to see more of that.
Prophet Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at September 15, 2005 11:37 AM
Excellent article. In the same vein here's one I posted on my blog at http://ravingconservative.blogspot.com/
HYPOCRISY!
The sheer hypocrisy of it all astounds me. That one group of people could be so protective their religous institutions but so destructive of others. I'm talking of course about the Muslims.
Remember when the U.S. military coldn't wipe out nests of terrorists because they were hiding in mosques? Remember how the Iraqi government, local Iraqi's, and just about every Muslim in the Arab world was ready to go up in arms if the U.S. military damaged a mosque in the process of rooting out murdering terrorists? Well that standard obviously doesn't apply to Muslims when they encounter someone else's holy places.
The instant the Palestinians moved into the abandoned Jewish West Bank settlements they began to burn down every synagogue they could find. Desecrating places dedicated to the most High God that they too claim to worship in an act of hatred and bigotry that would boggle the mind if it weren't just so damn typical. Would you like to see just how hyppocritical they are? Burn down a mosque and see what happens. I guarantee the entire local community and much of the surrounding countryside will be up in arms, I mean this literally, to avenge the desecration of their holy place. The fact that the Israelis are not doing the same thing speaks volumes about the truly high quality of the Jewish people.
To understand this action you have to understand the teachings of Islam, and not just selected quotes from the Quo'ran. You need to read Mohammed's further writings on his religion. Read the entire Quo'ran. Then you must also read the history of Islam as both the Muslims and their neighbors have recorded it. To summarize the dark side of the teaching of Mohammed and his successors I state as follows: Mohamed himself mandated the eradication of the Jews. Mohammed himself demanded that all Muslims wage unceasing Jihad on all "infidels". "Infidels" are everybody who is not a Muslim. Islam claims all lands once hed by Muslims to be holy unto Allah and demands that such lands be reclaimed through Jihad if they are ever lost. Islam teaches that you may commit any sin against an "infidel" and Allah will excuse it, all rules of conduct apply only to other Muslims. I could go on for pages, but I will stop here and encourage you do the research and see it all for yourself. It will definitely give you a new perspective on Islam.
It is this last teaching of Mohammed that is most disturbing. If you can commit any atrocity you want just because someone does not belive in your religion what do you get? A great example is what the Nazis did to the Jews in World War Two, this is calssic unchecked bigotry, and it was allowed by the Nazi cult of Aryanism. Unchecked bigotry is also allowed in Islam. Consider this a warning.
Being an evangelical Christian I take the Bible very seriously and literally. The Bible says that all of the nations will align themselves against Israel in the last days. In case you haven't been paying attention, most of the nations of the world are already aligned against Israel. This is why most of the world, particularly in the UN supported the bigoted terrorist regime of Yasser Arafat and opposed Israel. This is why there is very little international outrage at the descration of Jewish holy sites in the West Bank. You can rest assured that if any Jew desecrates a mosque anywhere the whole world be outraged. The hypocrisy of it all is infuriating, frustrating, and depressing.
at September 15, 2005 12:51 PM
Regarding the destruction of the synagogues in Gaza, I'm pretty sure they were actually empty shells of buildings. I could be mistaken, but I think they were 'deconsecrated' and all holy items removed.
That said, I agree that the destruction was uncalled for, particularly viscious, and abjectly stupid, showing the world, as Hugh has said, that the mask is off. But they were shells nonetheless. And aside from the shock value - that of course gets no traction in the world' media - let 'em go. These weren't Joseph's Tomb.
They could have been used for mosques, schools, community centers, auditoriums, theaters, etc. All the destruction showed, however, is that the Palestinians are more concerned with wiping the Jews off the face of the earth than building any healthy, thriving society.
I'm not concerned with the buildings, nor the greenhouses. They've just given themselves more shit in which to stew, and that's fine with me.
Let them have nothing. Let them destroy everything that they have and could have. Their stupidity and hatred and tribalism and everything else that they have demonstrated to the world is fitting for them.
I may not phrase things as well as many of the commenters on this site, but that's the way I see things.
Frankly, I hope they keep blowing holes in the wall down by the Philadelphi Corridor and let the Egyptians handle things. When they get too hot, let Mubarak shoot a few. What's that you say? He won't? Sure he will. They're a threat to him as they were to Nasser & Sadat. They won't put up with any crap. One Egyptian soldier killed and the gloves will be off there, too.
The only real item here is to expand on what Cynic said above, how to get Hughes off the dime, Rice to enunciate better what she so clearly knows but refuses to state, and Bush to go back to many of his earlier policy statements.
But then, that's the whole point of this site and its sister site.
Posted by: Grantman at September 15, 2005 6:24 PM
Superb article.
Posted by: US_infidel at September 15, 2005 8:14 PM
Hugh's Doppelganger over at the Examined Life philosophy discussion forum wrote this in response to my lengthy quote of an old essay by Hugh about Islamic scholarship, MESA nostra and related subjects:
"The poor Arse can't even quote the right passage in the Qur'an. It is to 7:150-151 that the Shi'a mainly appeal in justification of taqiya; 16.106 is the verse to which Sunnis chiefly appeal in their criticism and rejection of the Shi'a concept."
http://examinedlifejournal.com/discus/
[click on "Last Day" from the tree at the left, then go to the thread entitled "The Problem of Islam"]
Posted by: Dr. Pepper at September 15, 2005 8:45 PM
"Hugh's Doppelganger over at..."
--- from a posting above
I cannot possibly have a doppelganger, double, or sosie, either at the website mentioned or at any other conceivable website, in this or any other universe. My double died some years ago, and has not risen from the dead since.
Re taqiyya -- yes, of course taqiyya originates in, and has long been associated with, Shi'a Islam. So what? There are passages in the Qur'an, stories in the Hadith, and details in the life of Muhammad including his famous "war is deception" remark that have made "taqiyya" and "kitman" both terms that one can legitimately apply as well to Sunni Muslims. I fail to understand how 16.106 constitutes a rejection of taqiyya, or dissimulation. Call it, then, kitman -- that is, "mental reservation." But the key passage in 16.106 is "except under compulsion." Well, danger, a threat to the Faith and the Faith's well-being, a threat to aBeliever, and to a Believer's wellbeing, can certainly constitute "compulsion." And the passages says clearly that you can "under compulsion" do the very things that otherwise you should not do. What's so difficult about that?
Google "taqiyya" and "16.106" and read around a bit and you will find, at answering-islam.org, an entry on "Taqiya" (spelled there with one "y") that includes at the end discussion of Taqiyya in Sunni Islam.
In general, the websites where there is earnest discussion of Islam vs. Christianity, or analysis of Islam, posits good-faith debating and rational people. That seldom, or never, happens with Muslims. Why debate them there, why debate them here? Quote them, quote their texts, note what they do, note what they have done, note what they would wish to do if only they could -- but debate them?
You have to have a great deal of stamina, the kind that only ex-Muslims, and only the bravest and toughest, in order to engage such people in what is almost always futile debate, where your logic, your evidence, your sweet reason, mean nothing, or almost nothing, unless that particular Muslim has already reached the higher stage of "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim and just needs a little push across, over into the Promised Land of Apostasy, where if it has been a clean break, rational thought will gradually expunge the last dregs or remnants of that belief-system which, akin to that poetic wind that kills, from yon far countries blows. I do not care that much for the well-being of my Muslim fellow-man, to try to argue him out of his nonsense. Let events, and his own experience of the world, and the spectacle that Muslims are making of themselves everywhere, and possibly broadcasts from a future Radio Free Whatever, by slow degrees convince him.
I prefer to walk around my yard, pruning the lilacs.
Posted by: Hugh at September 15, 2005 10:46 PM
Jack Wheeler is incisive:
`Wheeler: You just made the right start. We are not in a war on “terrorism” and the enemy is not “terrorists,” but as you say, Islamic Jihadism. We should call this The War on Jihadism. The crux understanding of Jihadism, or Moslem Terrorism, is that it is a form of envious rage.
All three of the great barbarisms of modern times have been pathologies of envy. Nazism, preaching race-envy toward “rich exploitative Jews”; Communism preaching class-envy toward “rich exploitative capitalists”; Jihadism preaching culture-envy toward “rich exploitative America/Israel/the West.”
A clear example is the Nazi-type hatred Arabs have for Israel. The root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is envy. The Jews created a civilization out of the wilderness and a garden out of the desert, while the Arabs – even with their centibillions of petrodollars -- continued to mire themselves in medieval tyranny and poverty.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19388
If a simple mortal like I can see through the shenanigans of the evil cult, why do world leaders find it so difficult.
Heck, I might claim myself to be the chosen one.
at September 16, 2005 1:12 AM
With respect to this phrase
But whether the Israelis do or do not come to comprehend their enemy and the relentless Jihad against them, that is no reason for the rest of us, the Infidels outside the Middle East, ...
there are kudos for Andrew Bostom's latest book in the Jpost book review by Academia.
"Jihad diagnosed"
By RAPHAEL ISRAELI
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1126750765812&apage=1
But Bostom deserves credit for this first huge step, to be followed by others. At any rate, this is one of those books with a long shelf-life, because whatever further investigation and interpretation is done, it will stand alone as the impressive accomplishment of an autodidact layman, which many specialists have reasons to envy.
The writer is professor of Chinese History and Islamic Civilization, and Chairman of the Department of East Asian Studies at The Hebrew University.
So different from those "other" departments of Middle Eastern Studies.
If he gets it then there are plenty there who do get it, maybe even Sharon.
Posted by: Cynic at September 16, 2005 8:56 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi 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.)