| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the idea, being pooh-poohed everywhere today, that some Muslims want to dominate the world:
Haroon Siddiqui has an article in today’s Toronto Star entitled “Muslim conspiracy to rule world just nonsense.”Really? Is the idea that Muslims want to restore the caliphate and impose it on the world just a fantasy?
Not to a fantasist -- or millions of them -- it isn't. The first lesson to take in is not to assume that jihadists are operating rationally, with rational calculation as we understand it. Servier's "The Psychology of the Musulman," now available online, and similar studies help make less impenetrable a different worldview, a different psychology.
For that matter, defectors from Islam -- see www.faithfreedom.org, are invaluable for those wishing to understand what some can't quite bring themselves to believe.
In the same way, in the 1930s, some were content to dismiss and mock Hitler, to see him as a clown incapable of doing real damage. How could Germany conceivably think it might be able to defeat the Great Powers -- France, Great Britain, the Soviet Union -- along with other formidable smaller powers, including Poland, Holland, Belgium, and so on? Why, it simply wasn't possible. It was a fantastic idea. They would never try it. And that is why for so long so many simply regarded Hitler as a big joke, a figure of fun. Mock him, but do not take him seriously. Chaplin, for example, in "The Great Dictator" thought he was producing an anti-Nazi film. Yes and No. Yes, because he ridiculed Hitler. No, because in depicting him as a clown, he helped lull those who saw the film, for a while longer, into complacency. Churchill, who had spent a lifetime studying history and engaging directly with all sorts of men, and taking part in all sorts of events, did not see Hitler that way. Reading history had given Churchill an understanding that came not only from his own immediate experience, which was far beyond anything White House advisers, or think-tank "experts" or Fellows in thisandthat, have experienced today. But he also had the leisure to read and to think about what he read That made a difference. He did not take Hitler and the Nazis lightly. He did not think they were a joke. He did not dismiss them as fantasists.And how could Imperial Japan ever think it might be able to attack and swallow, like a cobra, all of vast, undigestable China? And the Americans, with their soldiers in the Philippines? And the British stronghold of Singapore and in India? And the Dutch ruling in the East Indies? Not to mention all the locals who would fight back. No, certainly Japan might be run by slightly wild people, but they couldn't, wouldn't, be crazy enough to do what they turned out to methodically plan to do, and did.
And surely Muslims in the West, rampaging in France and Australia, killing and threatening to kill local leaders in Holland, in Norway, attacking the free press in Denmark, holding rallies to denounce the French in the middle of Paris and the English in the middle of London --surely this is all just a way of acting out "fantasies." There is nothing to worry about.
The assumption should be that most of them mean what they say. And many more who do not say, but think, agree and owe their loyalty to Islam and the umma al-islamiyya, in a way that simply confounds the innocent, rational Infidel.
Islam and those who believe in it, or even those who while not believing in it nonetheless are likely, in the end, to offer their loyalty to fellow Muslims, must be understood and taken seriously.
Tens of millions of Muslims now live behind what they consider to be enemy -- i.e. Infidel – lines. They are settling in and attempting to change the societies in which they live. Far from lying low, they are aggressively attacking, using whatever weapons are available -- including, of course, clever exploitation of the rights that those same tolerant states offer as guarantees for its (presumably loyal) citizens.
And yet, despite all the evidence, the Western world continues to refuse to look at the evidence, refuses even to read, and study, what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims -- so similar from Spain to the East Indies, and whether the Infidels subjugated were Jews or Christians, Hindus or Buddhists. No one seems to care what all this would teach us, if only we would pay attention and stop being deliberately distracted students, or still worse, truants who refuse to attend the lessons altogether.
Yes, a fantastic situation. But not a fantasy. And Muslims are not merely "fantasists" when they dream their little dream of world domination. It may not come to be, but in the mere trying, horrible things have happened, are happening, and will happen. Why should we, by our inaction and inattention, choose to make things as difficult and unnecessarily painful as we possibly can for ourselves, the inoffensive Infidels?
Posted by Robert at December 16, 2005 11:49 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
The name Haroon Siddiqui says it all and is the number one reason why I would never buy that paper.
Posted by: johnb![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 16, 2005 11:57 AM
johnb:
Years ago, perhaps as many as 10, Frank Magazine (now deceased) printed an item to the effect that a staff reporter wanted to publish a story about the bile and spleen being spouted in a Toronto mosque by a mullah that he had captured on tape or wanted to, and it was spiked. Dollars to Tim Horton's Timbits, it was true and it was Siddique who gave the order.
Maybe someone needs to point out to Mr. Siddique that Bin Laden has repeatedly talked about the restoration of the Caliphate, and appointed Zarqawi an "Emeer", something that in itself suggests that OBL thinks he is the Caliph. Moreover, what does Siddique think the fundamentalists among his brethren are talking about when they talk about one big happy umma under Islam?
Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 16, 2005 12:31 PM
UBL has at times asserted authorities to himself that only a caliph can rightly exercise, such as his offer of "peace" to Europe a year ago, if they withdrew from Iraq. While an individual ruler of a principate or army can offer peace to a non-Muslim principate or army, only a caliph can make that broad offer to a group of principates, or an entire people. However, as noted earlier, Mullah Omar, now on the lam somewhere in Afghanistan, has UBL's first allegiance as caliph, based on his being the properly selected (by a shura council) leader of the sharia state in Afghanistan. UBL's designation of AMZ as an emir does not indicate he thinks of himself as caliph, only as a very senior general. Not sure that any of this makes much difference as AMZ proves himself the more visible, if not more successful, field commander of the jihad.
On a sidenote, does it strike anyone else as odd that both the NYT and the Toronto Star hit the same theme on the same day? Is there a joint publishing connection I'm unaware of? If not, it reminds me of the days when the Soviets could get all their lackeys to hit the same theme on the same day.
Posted by: longtime lurker at December 16, 2005 1:01 PM
Who will be the Caliph?
I guess he will also have a Grand Vizier plotting behind his back.
at December 16, 2005 1:13 PM
The coincidence is indeed strange. And it comes at a time when it appears that at least a few policy makers in the Pentagon and Capitol Hill are clumsily rolling over the articulation of the 'ideology' or 'motivation' of the so-called insurgents in Iraq.
This may turn into an election issue: understanding the reasons and causes behind the insurgency in Iraq. The US must begin leaving soon, and if civl war rages as the tanks depart, someone must come up with an explanation or a story to make sense of why it all is happening. Also, Bush's admission of faulty intelligence has opened the door to the question: what else did he miss? These questions seem to be on the burner both for military planners (who may finally start to more realistically and pragmatically analyze the enemy) and for the spin masters of both parties.
Are Islamic apologists and cover-up artists coordinating efforts to sanitize the debate?
"Its not about Islamic doctrine. Its not about a fantastic Caliphate. Its not about mujahediin versus Infidels. Its not about the Qur'an, the Sunnah. Its a political war and the Americans and Israel are to blame for it all."
And so the spin goes.
at December 16, 2005 1:40 PM
We have a Prophet by whom we will conquer all men.
-- Ishaq 471
"The earth has been made for me."
-- posted by Mohammed in Bukhari V1.B7.N1331
"I have been commanded to fight until they testify that there is no God but Allah."
-- posted by Mohammed in Muslim C9.B1.N33
"You are commanded to carry out Jihad until there is no God but Allah.
-- posted by God in Koran 47.4
SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS SAAS
I give up. These Moslems have worn me plumb down. If you can't beat 'em join 'em. The fallacious TV coverage of the Sydney beach riots has sent me over the edge. I hereby submit to Allah as my master and my savior.
Illah allah shalalala iluyla wah wah la la la illah ullah mullah lalalala Fatima a ha ha ha mufti mullah Osama I am down with my Ayatollah hula Khadija la la la Allah is my illah la la la oogha boogha sacred fatwah la la la sacred is my Allah rama lang a ding dong ha ha ha la la la Allah is my illah...
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 16, 2005 1:47 PM
Here's what those nice peaceful Muslims have been up to in France: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-12-15T185812Z_01_BAU568267_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-FRANCE.xml&rpc=22
at December 16, 2005 2:20 PM
True to form, our man Hugh strikes the nail squarely on the head. I, for one, can't help but be reminded of a certain Far Side cartoon I saw depicting Custer's Cavalrymen saying: "Indians shmindians" or medieval soldiers saying "Mongols shmongols" and so on.
A we seem to so often note on this site, it would be very amusing if it were not so applicable. This is what a society must expect if it fails to learn its history shmistory.
Posted by: Razorskarr at December 16, 2005 2:52 PM
And don't forget the old joke: "Oedipus, shmoedipus -- so long as he loves his mother."
Posted by: Hugh at December 16, 2005 3:42 PM
In reference the synchronicity between the NYT and Toronto (and probably other papers). In the world of profit driven enterprises, with always an eye to the bottom line and Wall Street, the papers have thinned out their staffs, they no longer do investigative reporting, and they rely on press releases and the press wire for stories and story (party line), just as they did in the build up the invasion of Iraq, which the NYT was 100% behind, in case any forgets.
As I said, they depend on government handouts, press releases, and the international news wires like Associated Press.. So the next item to investigate (since no media, print or electronic actually investigates anything anymore) is to find if and how much Saudi money and influence is invested in the international wire press. And how much Arab oil money influences the press..? I suspect considerable, and let's not forget that all media is funded by advertisers, and advertisers have their eye constantly on markets, especially foreign markets and Arab oil money.
For an idea of just how much commerical interest there is in Arab countries, try watching the business section of Deutsche Welle (DW TV's) four times daily presentation on Link TV.
Posted by: Nariz at December 16, 2005 3:45 PM
P.S. You, I and the little guy at the level of the worm might be ideologically motivated, thus flumoxed when we perceive betrayal by the media.. but the media is also ideologically motivated only their ideology is "green" as in greenbacks, or multicolored in Europe.
Posted by: Nariz at December 16, 2005 3:48 PM
Ain't no fantasy folks - if it was someone had better tell Bin Laden,Zaqawi & Co!!Agree with Nariz that petrol dollars control and are paymasters of the media. JUST FOLLOW THE OLD PAPER TRAIL OF GREENBACKS TO ITS SOURCE AND YOU'LL FIND SAUDI ARABIA,UNITED EMIRATES,KUWAIT ETC. Even Murdoch can't keep out the likes of filthy rich Arab princes who have shares in Fox.
A tune from 'Cabaret' is so appropriate - 'Money makes the world go round..'
at December 16, 2005 4:02 PM
On a sidenote, does it strike anyone else as odd that both the NYT and the Toronto Star hit the same theme on the same day? Is there a joint publishing connection I'm unaware of? If not, it reminds me of the days when the Soviets could get all their lackeys to hit the same theme on the same day.
Posted by: longtime lurker at December 16, 2005 01:01 PM
longtime:
the coincidence arises not from publishing connections but rather political orientation. I think it's a case of, "if Rumsfeld says" or "if Cheney says", Siddique and others of like mind go rushing to their laptops and churn out the same crap. Finding something original to rant about on a daily basis can be challenging, especially when you're a hack like Siddiqui.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at December 16, 2005 4:15 PM
"... since no media, print or electronic actually investigates anything anymore."
-- posted by Nariz
That's why it's so sickening to watch a pompous ass like Bill O'Reilly operate. With as much money as he's driving, couldn't he afford to hire a few young bucks to go investigate a subject or two?
No, it's all about presentation. Form over content. These guys aren't building stories, they're hanging window dressign and brushing trim paint on stories shipped in from the Story Prefabrication Plant.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 16, 2005 4:20 PM
Siddiqui is a clown and not a very good taqqiya artist at all. Maybe "world domination" is a misnomer, but can it be refuted that the jihad against the infidel is unending (with brief 10 year "truces" in order to strengthen a weakened ummah) until the world powers submit to the rule of allah and his prophet? It doesn't necessarily mean that the whole world will become all Muslim, there will be plenty of dhimmis to pay the jizya for the exploding Muslim population if this fantasy does come to fruition. It also doesn't mean that al-Qaeda will assassinate the POTUS and somehow overthrow the government and install sharia law. Much like the dhimmis at Georgetown, Siddiqui willfully misses the point. Islam's greatest advantage is not its military strength, but gaining a foothold in an infidel land and outbreeding the population and terrorizing the residents into accepting the "peace" of Islam. With great military powers such as America, Russia, Europe and China, this may take a very long time if left unchecked but the goal remains the same as it did for 1400 years, to claim more lands for the ummah al-islamiyya. This is irrefutable and no Muslim would object to another country adopting sharia law and joining the Islamic club through demographics. It may not be our country, but our country isn't exactly "off limits" is it? Even most so-called moderate Muslims admit that they would support sharia law in Western countries if the people "chose" it, and by this they mean through a dominant Muslim demographic. Also, the Muslim world won't become a caliphate right away because some swaths of Muslim lands won't be connected to each other and even if it was, given all the rivalries and sectarian and ethnic divisions in the Muslim world, a "caliph" may never emerge until a Muslim strongman is able to subdue the other Muslim powers to his rule. That may take even longer given the anarchic governance the Muslim world is so accustomed to. So no, this caliphate will not happen right away and al-Qaeda may be hindering the jihad by fighting "Amrika" at a point where they are weak militarily.
But like Hugh says, it should still be of great concern. The demographics and the ascendancy of the Muslim lobby in the West and the UN should be of the greatest concern, moreso than terrorism. The terrorism that they export to our countries costs a countless number of lives, expensive security costs, hinders our freedom, and destabilizes our economy. There is no reason why we should put up with this in order to prove our multicultural bonafides. And there is no reason to why we should put up with more Muslim immigration if they make our lives more misreable, and yes they do, look at Europe, look at Australia, look at Israel, look at anywhere where the Muslim population has obtained a critical mass where they feel they can terrorize the infidels with impunity. Ask the infidel citizens of any of these countries on whether they would feel safer if there were no Muslims in their countries or a very small amount were present, I'm sure they would answer in the affirmative.
Siddiqui is trying to calm the nerves of the infidels and trying to assure them that "No, Muslims aren't the problem and neither is Islam", but they are both the problem. Islam animates the Muslims to do these horrible things to themselves and to the infidels. They tolerate nothing that offends them but we have to tolerate everything they do. Why? To prove that we aren't "racist"? Is my mind supposed to be put at ease because there won't be a caliphate in my lifetime? Well, it's not at ease. Considering the growth of Muslim demographics in my country and the higher frequency of Islamic terrorism, I'm very fearful for my future. Even if I wasn't a victim of a terrorist attack but as my country became more Muslim, considering who I am, I would be the number one target for Muslims, not Islamists or radical Muslims, but MUSLIMS. I do not want to live in a world of fear just so Siddiqui doesn't think I'm a "racist".
Posted by: igor at December 16, 2005 6:11 PM
Haroon and T. Sher Singh, his buddy, are two of the biggest Terrorist supporting idiots based out of Canada.
Both of them write the most ridiculous pieces and on top of that T. Sher Singh acts as if he comes from a distinguished family but he caomes straight out of Patna (which is one of the most lawless regions of India).
I met T. Sher Singh and Haroon when I was asked to speak at a multi-faith meeting in 1996, even then these two were the biggest idiots in the world and were in complete support of anti-West terrorists.
-Cheers
at December 16, 2005 6:21 PM
Discussion of Andre' Servier's Islam and the
Psychology of the Musulman
http://musulmanbook.blogspot.com/
Summary of Andre' Servier's Islam and the Psychology
of the Musulman (4.5 pages-scroll down)
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/gmason_p8.htm#servier
Andre' Servier's Islam and the Psychology of
the Musulman (full-text, 125 pages)
http://fomi.no/English/Musulmanbook.htm
-------
Review/Summary of Raphael Patai's, The Arab Mind,
Hatherleigh Press; ISBN: 1-57826-117-1; Revised Edition, 2002.
http://www.6thcolumnagainstjihad.com/a_gmason_p5.htm
at December 16, 2005 8:01 PM
Interesting that Haroon uses the abbreviation A.D.
'''Anno Domini''' (Latin: "In the year of the Lord"), or more completely Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"), commonly abbreviated AD or A.D.
Someone should wise Haroon up a bit and have him use the more PC abbreviation CE.
Posted by: youcancallmemeyer at December 16, 2005 8:56 PM
Haroon Siddiqui, the dear chap, had an E Mail address so sent him a few words of my own - describing Mohammed in unflattering terms & last line was 'You may continue your soothing mantra but we are keeping our guns well oiled and powder dry.' Received E Mail back which thought I would share with you. Haroon's message: "YOU ARE BLINDED BY HATRED AND PARANOIA."
"Probably his stock phrase if anyone disagrees with him,eh!
at December 17, 2005 1:03 AM
The real threat is the Democrats and leftists in America.
A year and half ago, Dick Cheney, in a speech stated exactly the problem that Islam was trying to establish 7th century (caliphate) ideas in the 21st century.
He was immediately vilified and ridiculed by the media and other assorted idiots.
So the problem is not at the "top". They know the problem, but how do you make a point when idiots in this country refuse to even explore or examin his thesis???
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 17, 2005 9:29 AM
No reference to the Toronto Star is complete without reference to the 'Atkinson Principles'.
A major shareholder and long time editor (1988-1948), Joseph Atkinson championed many left wing clauses and before his death left his controlling share to a charitable foundation beholden to the Atkinson Principles. In a nutshell, this is a bucnh of 'socially conscious' left wing touchstones. The following references provide some background. So you see, it really is in the Star's 'mother's milk'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Star
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Page&cid=1035976365613
Posted by: johnb at December 17, 2005 9:45 AM
I heartily agree learjet0450.
I know not a single person that will even consider the idea that a caliphate is possible or even intended. Of course, none of them has ever cracked a Koran. None pays any attention to the news. Let alone the news behind the news. And what's more, they are all quite ready to villify the United States of America, it's leaders and themselves before considering that there may indeed be people that despise Western values.
I reside in a metropolitan liberal oasis. A "blue island" if you will. And I'm becoming more certain all the time that the GP (general public) around here will be blue in the face, holding thier collective breaths, waiting for the Islamofacsist menace to dissapate of it's own accord before engaging in any meaningful resistance. The best that can be done with many of them is to keep them employed and paying taxes so that serious people can offer real solutions to the problems they do not wish to face.
I'm no Christian, but if I go as far to say that I'd rather be a unbeliever in a Christian nation as opposed to an Islamic land, I get no end to the rolling of eyes and pshah! arguments. Folks, lately, are even willing to believe that 5,ooo Aussies would gather to beat on a couple Lebanese guys just because the Aussies were drunk. They are, as yet, unwilling to conjecture that the YOBs might have been riled about something real. Hell, if the Mohameddeans got a good beating every time 5,ooo Aussies got drunk, there'd be none of them left.
I have no real solution as to getting a 100 million liberals to pull thier heads out (of the sand or thier asses, you decide.) But I certainly hope it doesn't take a 911 in my town. Or yours.
Posted by: Indisbelief at December 17, 2005 1:30 PM
RE: I know not a single person that will even consider the idea that a caliphate is possible or even intended.
bin Laden stated the goal of resurrecting the caliphate.
Now I don't expect the average American to remember or know what this means. But our Senators and Congressman should be duty bound to educate themselves. Especially, the Kerry's, Dean's, Murtha (what a pompous ass), Kennedy, ect.
Posted by: learjet0450 at December 17, 2005 6:34 PM
Indisbelief: "I have no real solution as to getting a 100 million liberals to pull thier heads out (of the sand or thier asses, you decide.) But I certainly hope it doesn't take a 911 in my town. Or yours."
I have come to a conclusion just in the past few days. It should have been totally obvious to me because well, it IS obvious but sometimes important matters do in fact come down to the most obvious things and because they are so obvious, they are easily overlooked! And so at the risk of stating the obvious I shall go ahead and state the obvious!
I think the reason 100 million liberals refuse to pull their heads out of the sand or, er, their asses, as you so eloquently put it, is because they are stuck on a particular historical model - namely, that of a European majority villifying and persecuting the Jews as a minority and as Muslims are the new minority, they are drawing parallels and trying to avoid another holocaust along that model. No matter that the anti-jihadists are drawing the precise opposite parallel - that of the similarity between the Koran and Mein Kampf itself, as indicated by a recent post at this site. Until this issue is confronted head on and explicated (that issue being, to put it crudely, "Are Muslims the New Jews?") - you cannot expect to get widespread support for the notion that a MINORITY actually represents a REAL threat to the majority. The average liberal westerner only understands the opposite scenario - where a majority vilified and exterminated a minority - i.e. the holocaust - because it is so recent and occupies an unparalleled moral place in all our memories. So most western liberals naturally see "Islamophobia" and equate it to "Judeophobia".
Now obviously Muslims have been quite successful historically at turning a minority into a majority (with all the suffering and sorrow that came in their wake). And obviously the unfounded fears that westerners apparently had of Jews, as spread by outright forgeries such as the Protocols, (I wasn't alive then so I still have a difficult time understanding this), are in no way comparable to the justifiable fears that the anti-jihadists today feel about the threat of Islam (as indicated by their actual holy book, the Koran). But the average westerner hasn't thought these details through. They don't get it. All they see is vilification of a minority (and in this respect it may well not be sufficient to merely keep pointing out that Islam is an ideology and not a race). I think it's entirely possible that such folks actually mean well and really believe that they are taking the high moral ground in defending the minority. But until they get it, it is basically useless to keep dismissing as “apologists” of Islam, those who criticize critics of Islam as Islamophobes. (sorry for that convoluted sentence). What westerners brought up on the model of the holocaust (majority demonizes and slaughters minority) very much need to grasp, from an historical POV, is how a minority can represent a very real threat indeed.
The commenters here wish to point out that everyone dismissed Hitler's stated intentions even though he was a minority and ended up causing untold suffering and damage. But what those 100 million folks who dismiss the idea of the caliphate are relating to, is the paranoid fantasies of the majority who believed that the Jews intended to take over the world. They don't want to fall into that trap. And therein lies the problem of these two competing narratives - between those who see a threat and those who don't. In other words, where many of the "apologists" are concerned, I think it actually goes beyond "PC" and "multiculturalism". I think they truly believe that they are taking the moral high ground.
at December 17, 2005 9:54 PM
It's no wonder why most major newspapers are not doing so well,their circulation is going to the basement! l will never buy those rags! NEVER!!! hit them with lack of money to their crappy papers!
Posted by: Lulu at December 18, 2005 6:34 AM
(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.)