| 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 Wahhabi tendency to label the current rulers of Muslim states "Infidels."
In the Qur’an and Sunnah, it is clear: Infidels are to be despised. Infidels are to be condemned. Infidels do not deserve to keep their own inferior, and outrageous, political and social arrangements. Infidels are Kufr, ungrateful to Allah, wretches. The vilest of creatures (Qur’an 98:6). Islam is "to dominate and not to be dominated." You may use whatever instruments prove effective, seriatim or in tandem, to ensure the conditions for the spread of Islam.With all this one cannot disagree.
But, alas, in Saudi Arabia, and in Kuwait, and in the U.A.E., and elsewhere, we find that some people have begun to use the term "Infidel" for their rulers. This is, of course, the principle of takfir, so beloved of the Wahhabis. They seem to think that they can simply call "Infidels" anyone they wish to oppose. And they imply that the House of Al-Saud, or Al-Sabah, or Al-Thani, or Al-thisorthat, are in cahoots with Infidels.
“No,” the denizens of those Houses might respond. “We are not in cahoots with the Infidels. We use the Infidels. There are those who think they can get at us by calling us Infidels. But we are not. Both the Infidels themselves, and apparently these wild men who try to bomb us, are confused, and confused in the same way. We charge the Infidels $60/barrel for oil that they discovered, that they make use of, and that costs us litle more than $1/barrel to lift. We smile, and smile, but we twist them around our little fingers. We use the West for shopping sprees, of every kind. It's a vast fun-fair-cum-brothel for us. We buy up stock in the major media companies, so we can get on the phone and change a headlline at will. We have bought up, directly but more often indirectly, many of their diplomats and even their intelligence agents. A former C.I.A. station chief, a few dozen diplomats in London, Washington, Paris -- we even managed to have the Italian ambassador ‘revert’ to Islam recently. It is we who recognize that, for the moment, we are temporarily unable to compete militarily with the Infidels.
“Look at how fantastically we have done. Now the Infidels have spent more than $300 billion in Iraq. For what? At the end, Iraq will still be Muslim. In fact, it will very likely be an Islamic state, far worse for women and non-Muslims than was the regime of Saddam Hussein. Of course there is the little matter of whether Sunnis will regain control of Iraq. We think so, after some turmoil, especaily if the Infidels destroy the Iranian nuclear project and Iran is in turmoil, and then it is the turn of the Sunnis from outside -- did you know, by the way, that Sunnis really are the majority in Iraq? -- to help put back, not Saddam Hussein (we don't miss him because he threatened us), but Sunni rulers. Perhaps a nice general, and officers newly equipped with American weaponry left behind for the "Iraqi" army. And instead of the Shi'a in al-Hasa being inspired to revolt, it will be the Arabs of Khuzistan. Call us dreamers, but would Allah really desert the Arabs, and the true Muslims -- the Sunni Muslims? Of course not.“Everywhere in Europe and North America, we see mosques sprouting up. When, in a small town outside Boston, in the town of Billerica, a mosque is built for $15 million, which serves only 100 families, where do you think the money is coming from? Meanwhile, all over the churches are shutting down for want of money. There is a huge mosque, on 7 3/4 acres of land donated by the government of Italy, not a mile from the Vatican. There are mosques in London, in Paris, in Berlin, in Madrid, in every large and small city in Europe. And in America. And they do nothing, nothing at all to stop us. And with the mosques come madrasas. And with the madrasas, comes Da'wa.
“How can we be called Infidels? It is we who are doing the most to spread Islam.
“Make no mistake: we are here for Islam. Our money, our power, our bribes and our frowns, our smiles and our wiles, are all for promoting the cause of Islam. How could it be otherwise? It defines us. It calls us. It makes us everything we have been, everything we want to be. It explains the universe and regulates our lives. And even the most corrupt of us can have his corruption ignored, if in addition to the palaces and call-girls and gambling in Monte Carlo, he has enough left over to fund Da'wa, to fund mosques, madrasas, and propaganda, to participate -- through his bulging bank account -- in the Jihad.
“Those fanatics who call us "Infidels" are, we know, agents of the Infidels. For who benefits when they kill Saudis or other Muslim Arabs? We have no objection when they kill Infidels in Europe or America or Israel. But for the moment, we want to take advantage of the Infidels who work here. We need the knowledge we can get from them. Killing them now, when they are useful to us, here in the Arabian peninsula, is silly. Why kill the instructors who train our military? Why kill the doctors who help treat Muslims, and increase our numbers? Why kill the people who are the cogs in the Muslim oil machine, the war machine, the mosque-and-madrasa jihad machine? It makes no sense.
“No, kill the Infidels wherever they oppose us. But remember: we are Muslims, the best of men. All of us. The rich and the poor, the Al-Saud princes who prostrate themselves at Friday Prayers, just as does the lowliest street beggar in those Muslim lands where there are still beggars. That makes us one. That makes it okay for us to keep helping ourselves to the country's wealth. But what's that among fellow Muslims? Nothing should be allowed to divide us. No one should dare to call us Infidels, and if they do -- then it is they who are the real Infidels, and we have plenty of muftis and imams on our payroll who will be happy to say so.”
Translate that into Arabic, print it out (first printing of 100 million copies), and you'll be all set.
That wasn't hard, was it?
Posted by Robert at January 16, 2006 12:55 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Even a graduate of Clown School would know that what justified the Benes Decree was four years of cataclysmically terrible hot war. We not only have no aftermath like that now, we have a climate of opinion hostile to most substantive criticisms of Islam. An anti-Islamic Benes Decree now would be unthinkable, no matter how rational and good we agree it is; and the resistance to it would be staggeringly monumental -- more staggeringly monumental even than Hugh's denial about its staggeringly monumental dimensions. What good are solutions that can't be implemented?
Posted by: Dr. Pepper![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 17, 2006 2:53 AM
Hugh wrote:
"did you know, by the way, that Sunnis really are the majority in Iraq?"
I'll assume that results from a comination of 'Iraqi' Sunnis and 'Kurdish' Sunnis.
In that case, for a Kurdish Sunni, does an alliance with Iraqi Sunnis against the Shi'a population take precedence over the need for a Kurdish state? And if that is the case, I'm not sure why that hasn't already happened, with the public acknowledgement of said Kurds.
Has it happened in a more covert manner?
Posted by: PRCS at January 17, 2006 4:35 AM
I think that when Hugh that "sunnis are a majority in Iraq," that he meant that this is what the Saudis might say.
Posted by: Eliyahu at January 17, 2006 7:05 AM
Penultimate poster above -- see ultimate poster above. The speaker is a Saudi. A Wahhabi (Sunni) Muslim, he naturally shares the delusions of the Sunni Arabs within Iraq.
Real Sunni Arab percentage of population in Iraq (not "Iraqi population"): 19-20%.
Percentage of Sunni Arabs in Iraq who believe they constitute only 19-20% of the population: 5%.
Result: Priceless.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2006 8:26 AM
Hugh,
You wrote:
"Of course there is the little matter of whether Sunnis will regain control of Iraq. We think so, after some turmoil, especaily if the Infidels destroy the Iranian nuclear project and Iran is in turmoil, and then it is the turn of the Sunnis from outside -- did you know, by the way, that Sunnis really are the majority in Iraq? -- to help put back, not Saddam Hussein (we don't miss him because he threatened us), but Sunni rulers."
Sorry. Without knowing the stats, I thought you were interjecting a fact into the fictional narrative.
Iraqi Arab Sunni: 20%
Kurdish Sunni:15%
Looked it up. Yes, still the minority.
Posted by: PRCS at January 17, 2006 9:21 AM
For the Kurds, save for the Ansar al-Sunna of Mullah Krekar (still in Oslo is he?), solidarity with Sunni Arabs, because they are Sunnis, is non-existent. What counts is Kurdish identity.
These things are not nearly as important in advanced societies, and one hates to use such phrases as "the Kurds" and "the Sunnis" and "the Shi'a." They are offensive and reductionist. But these are not advanced societies, and these loyalties, these "identities," do matter to the people involved. So one has to agree to use such terms, even while being embarrassed about having to do so. In a better world, such lumpings would themselves be lumped.
Posted by: Hugh at January 17, 2006 9:59 AM
All very, very true. I would compare the Saudis and other great friends of the West, on the one hand, and terrorists, on the other hand, to Stalinists, on the one hand, and Trotskyites and other communist left-wingers, on the other hand. Then, just like now, Westerners often saw the former as "moderates" and the latter as "radicals". Whatever, these labels may imply, the West must fear "moderates" much more than "radicals".
Stalin and his followers realized correctly that in order to dominate the world, they must dominate the West militarily, and to acquire military dominance, they must first build the industry and consolidate their power within the Soviet Union. Industrialization required time and Western money, so in the meantime Stalin could pretend to be a moderate, while preparing for a final and decisive strike against the free world. Left-wingers, however, were too impatient; they wanted a world revolution and tried to stoke revolutions across the globe, all without much success. Needless to say that Stalinists were incredibly more dangerous than Trotskyites. By the same token, Saudi royals are an immensely bigger threat than terrorists.
There just two points in the article with which I disagree. First, royals should never translate it into Arabic. "Moderates" need "radicals" in order to play the time-honored good cop/bad cop game. In the absence of those "radicals", "moderates" would appear astonishingly radical to any reasonable observer. So, why should the Houses try to undermine the terrorists? They should only keep the terrorists under control, no more.
Secondly, jihadis are no less Muslims than the royals. Indeed, why should they help the royals advance the jihad if, when the victory comes, somebody else will rule? What's the point of the whole enterprise then? For precisely that reason, Bolsheviks fought against Mensheviks more fiercely than against the tsar: Lenin and his henchmen wanted to make sure that after the revolution they would be on top.
Posted by: Liggett
at January 17, 2006 6:24 PM
Liggett -- how many hands do you have?
Posted by: jsla at January 17, 2006 8:09 PM
All very, very true. I would compare the Saudis and other great friends of the West, on the one hand, and terrorists, on the other hand, to Stalinists, on the one hand, and Trotskyites and other communist left-wingers, on the other hand. posted by Liggett
Except of course if those Trotskyites have relabeled themselves neo cons,like Wolfowitz, Perle, Freith, Decter, Kristol, Cheney, Podoheretz, Safire.
Those be Trotskyties, and no they haven't changed, they only found a better horse to ride, to achieve their objectives.
When the winds shift to the Democratic Party (if they ever do) these Trotskyite neo cons, will change horses again and resurface in that party.
at January 17, 2006 8:33 PM
Liggett,
There is an important distinction between the Saudi government and Al Qaeda that you've either overlooked or chosen to disregard. Whatever symmetry there is in their respective ideological outlooks, it is Al Qaeda, not the Saudi government, that threatens the American homeland with terrorist violence that may include the use of WMDs.
This doesn't negate the malevolance of the House of Saud or the longer-term dangers of their intense dawa-funding efforts in the West. But it does pose for us the challenge of distinguishing between the respective threats and dealing with them accordingly.
To suggest that we must fear moderates more than radicals is to ignore the very real possibility of a terror event of massive proportions involving WMDs.
Posted by: Cornelius at January 17, 2006 8:33 PM
"Except of course if those Trotskyites have relabeled themselves neo cons,like Wolfowitz, Perle, Freith[sic], Decter, Kristol, Cheney, Podoheretz[sic], Safire.
Those be Trotskyties[sic], and no they haven't changed, they only found a better horse to ride, to achieve their objectives.
When the winds shift to the Democratic Party (if they ever do) these Trotskyite neo cons, will change horses again and resurface in that party."
-- from a posting above, by someone who has gone off the deep, Buchananite end
Now why do you suppose that the poster mentions a certain "Decter"? For she, Midge Decter, holds no government post and never has, and yet that poster fails to list all sorts of others high up in the govrenment who have promoted, are promoting, the very same policies as Wolfowitz, Feith, and the others listed above. These people have such names as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley, Bremer, even Woolsey (no longer head of the C.I.A., but certainly an enthusiast) -- yet they all go carefully unmentioned.
Why might that be?
What might be the common denominator in the names carefully selected by "Nariz," former self-declared Goldwaterite, now self-declared smiter of "neo-cons" and apparently, someone coming unhinged. And when certain people become unhinged, about world or local politics, many of them become curiously susceptible to a certain well-known mental condition or pathology, which need not be named, because we all know perfectly well what it is, and can recognize its salient characteristics in a moment?
For another example of the same phenomenon, go to the postings under the article about the ACLU lawsuit, and the discussion of one James Bamford at the following postings:
January 17, 2006 03:36 PM
and
January 17, 2006 03:38 PM
The next time evidence of such a mental pathology appears, the posting in question will not be left up as an example for examination and analysis, but simply deleted, along with all future attempts at posting by the same poster.
One can deplore, as I have a few hundred times, the arrogance, ignorance, and folly of the Light Unto the Muslim Nations project, and the misallocation of resources in Iraq. But use of the term "neo-Con" to mean "Jewish Neo-Con" or even simply "Jew," in carefully skewed lists, and then the denunciation of these "Neo-Cons," is not acceptable.
Today that pathology muddies minds and those who demonstrate that they are in its grip constitute a security risk to all Infidels. For just as the antiswemites of 1938 were disinclined to view Hitler with sufficient alarm, and helped to persuade others of their view, so those holding similar views are most likely today to suggest that there is no problem with Muslim doctrine, with tenets or attitudes, no problem with the Muslim distinction between Believer and Infidel, and the insistence that Islam "is to dominate and not to be dominated." Such people like to pretend that the only problem is Israel, and if that particular little country is thrown to the wolves, all manner of things shall be well. Sinister, and silly.
Only the unhinged, or the fools, could believe that kind of thing. Kunstler defending Saddam Hussein, Galloway purring and wiping his whiskers, Chomsky -- a version of the idiot savant -- smoothly piling falsehood upon plausible falsehood, Buchanan who can never quite dare mention Islam because to do so is to raise matters that he cannot truthfully examine including his own perversities -- these are varied examples of those suffering from the same malady.
As the wise man dieth, so dieth the fool. But that is no reason to allow fools to endanger wise men -- or at least those who are wiser than they.
Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2006 1:00 AM
Cornelius,
No, I didn't overlook the distinction that you talk about. But a terrorist attack, even on a huge scale, may hurt America, but will not destroy ir. Slow, gradual subversion through propaganda and corruption of those in power, however, can put an end to America as we know it. Remember how Arabs conquered Byzantium - not through terror, though it was plentiful too - but mainly through collusion with provincial leadership, especially clergy.
Posted by: Liggett at January 18, 2006 1:44 PM
(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.)