Dhimmi Watch: Fitzgerald: A few suggestions for John Howard

February 21, 2006

Fitzgerald: A few suggestions for John Howard

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers Australian Prime Minister John Howard a few proposals for how he can escape the dhimmitude that seems to grip most Western leaders with vicelike strength:

"He [Howard] said a commitment to jihad and extreme attitudes towards women were two problems unique to Muslims that previous intakes of migrants from Europe did not have, and that Australia wanted people to assimilate and adopt Australian ways." -- from this article
Howard should in subsequent speeches define what a "commitment to Jihad" means. It means that "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated." A "commitment to Jihad" means a commitment to spreading Islam until it covers the globe. Attempts by non-Muslims to defend their own way of life, their laws, customs, manners, their free and skeptical inquiry, their art, their science, their right to mock and not to be respectful on demand, are all considered to be inadmissible ways of "blocking the spread of Islam" and hence "aggression" -- and hence can be opposed by violent Jihad.

A "commitment to Jihad" means a commitment to ending the rule of Infidels in Infidel lands and replacing it by the rule of Islam. Infidels may continue to exist here and there, but only as dhimmis -- for that is how, in every single land that Muslims conquered, for 1350 years, non-Muslims were treated, at best. In some places, as in India, they were initially killed by the millions and finally tens of millions, until the goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg consideration came into play, and it was realized that it was better, for the Muslim masters, not to kill off the Hindus but to treat them as much as Christians and Jews under Islam were treated, allowed to live but also forced to pay the Jizyah tax as protection money ("protected" from the Muslims themselves). Though guilty of shirk, outright polytheism, the Hindus could be treated terribly (far worse than any other group under Islam) but could stay alive so as to keep supporting the Muslim state through the Jizyah.

Howard should quote Sura 9.29. Quote Sura 9 in its entirety. He should quote from Sura 4. Quote the hundreds of verses in the Qur'an that would, if Infidels were made aware of them, chill their spines. Quote from the Hadith. Explain, in speeches, or have others in the Administration explain, in a tone of fake "more-in-sorrowness," that "we find troubling" the Hadith about "Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated." Say aloud that "we find troubling" the desire to institute the Sharia, and then give an analysis of what the Sharia means -- and don't limit it to the mistreatment of Muslim women, but focus on the treatment, always, of Infidels. That's the main thing Infidels should worry about.
And this is not for John Howard alone. It is for any and every American political figure, whether in the Executive or in the Legislative branch, Federal or state. It is for the candidates waiting in the wings, who should be using their free time, every spare moment, to study Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- and not with the espositos and armstrongs or helpful "volunteers" from MESA Nostra intent on misleading them.

Every Infidel who is already in political life, or wishes to be, in Europe, in North America, in Russia, in sub-Saharan Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, should begin to educate himself about Islam and the history of Islamic conquest, and then fulfill the solemn duty to begin to instruct others -- colleagues, where those colleagues clearly need instruction, members of the press, the lazy, complacent members of the press, and the general public.

Meanwhile Keysar Trad was indignant, saying that Howard “unfortunately just pandering to the Islamaphobia out there by making these comments.” He would have Howard and the world believe that all, or nearly all, Muslims in Australia are “moderate.” He says nothing about the possibility that Muslims in the Western world who have not declared themselves, could be mobilized, could be persuaded to participate in jihad if they felt that, as a communal or individual duty, Islam demanded it of them. For all sorts of reasons -- personal problems such as a loss of job, girlfriend or status, fury that the local Infidels do not readily meet the demands of organized Islamic groups -- they could move from the “moderate” to the “radical” camp. About this Trad says nothing.

And yet there are millions in the West, behind what they consider to be enemy lines, who are allowed to live not only without any hindrance, but find the governments of the Western world mostly bending over backwards to make them as comfortable as possible. Those governments are trying so desperately not to offend the local Muslims, not to point out that their attempts to change Infidel lands for the sake of Islam and Islamic beliefs is passing strange. They are desperate as well to "integrate" these Muslims, while failing completely to realize that most Muslims are taught not to integrate, not to befriend "Jews and Christians for they are friends only with each other" (Qur’an 5:51). They are taught not to fall for the whisperings of Shaytan that can be heard in the siren-song of seeming kindness offered by Infidels.

And we Infidels will never be sure, can never be sure, when this or that seeming "moderate" is transformed, for reasons we may never understand, into an "immoderate" Muslim. And even if that "moderate" remains "moderate," who knows what the children, or the grandchildren, will be like? Already all the evidence suggests that they will be far more devout and even fanatical than the first generation of immigrants , many of whose representatives were intent only on making a living.

Howard and other heads of state should take careful note: the "My Son the Fanatic" problem is real and identifiable. There are examples of the phenomenon all over the place. Just look.

Posted by Robert at February 21, 2006 12:32 PM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(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.)

I know this is getting boring but this is yet another brilliant article by Hugh. It should be framed and hanging on the wall of every politician here in the United States and in the West.

Posted by: Proud Infidel

at February 21, 2006 12:46 PM

Mr.Fitzgerald has amazed me with his uncanny ability to keep me focused on each of his artcles/posts. Given my severe ADD, that is proof positive he has a gift.

What were we discussing again??

J/j

Posted by: Bayoucoyote

at February 21, 2006 4:42 PM

Hugh

Can you please send your analysis to PM Howard.

Prime Minister
The Hon John Howard
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

Posted by: DP111

at February 21, 2006 5:01 PM

but find the governments of the Western world mostly bending over backwards to make them as comfortable as possible.

In Britain that consists of supporting about half the muslim population who are unemployed. The other half are for the most part, employed in halal shops and the like. In effect they are also dependent on welfare.

In addition most of the muslim population takes housing benefits and other such, without in any way contributing to the wealth of the nation.

Posted by: DP111

at February 21, 2006 5:09 PM

I find it quite amusing that although many are jumping up to denounce Howard's statements, most seem to hold the same view. The most worrying report I have seen in regards to this is from Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam (Australia's moderate imam from Preston) who seemed to not only agree that extrememists exist here but that they shold just keep quiet so everyone can continue to condemn Howard's (and others) so-called racist remarks.

Some of Sheik Fehmi's words of wisdom:
"These (extremists) can be found, but the mainstream are not extremists"
"But we should ask why the extremist have such views. In the case of Palestine and the double standards of the West, what do you expect?"
"It's not wrong to fight the invasion in Iraq, it's not wrong to assist the Palestinians but here (in Australia), we cannot go ahead to do some terrorist (attack) to help the people over there"
"If you live here, you have to keep (extremist views) to yourself. If you cannot keep it to yourself, then leave."

Very worrying. Could someone please explain to me what the definition of moderate is? Or better yet, could anyone tell me where I can find some moderate muslims that do not believe that everything is the fault of non-muslims? Nevermind, I think I already know...

Posted by: AngryMuppet

at February 21, 2006 7:13 PM

Angry Muppet posted: "If you live here, you have to keep (extremist views) to yourself. If you cannot keep it to yourself, then leave."

There you have it. Straight from the horses mouth. Keep silent and wait for the demographics to kick in.

I sincerely hope that they are keeping documenting all this. We will need, if it ever came to push, all the ammunition these imams generously supply us with.

Posted by: DP111

at February 21, 2006 7:35 PM

Thanks Angry Muppet for that bit of research.

Posted by: DP111

at February 21, 2006 7:35 PM

Thanks DP111. But I would make the suggestion to everyone that they do not just hope that 'they' are keeping track of everything that is being said.

News articles and interviews quite often have a habit of dissapearing from the internet and as we have seen, unless you have the proof of the ridiculous statements that have been made they are too often denied and left at that.

That is not to say that the media and governments of this world are not paying attention. The change in tone from a number of figureheads and commentators over the last 6 months is significant and although there is still some way to go, this change would not have occurred with their heads buried in the sand.

Posted by: AngryMuppet

at February 21, 2006 8:37 PM

Angry Muppet

I hope that it must be apparant to those who are in charge of the defence of the West - strategic planners, security services and that sort, that we are in a war of survival. In that case, I hope they are keeping records of what was said, by whom and when.

When it really comes to push and shove, I do not think one needs judicially qualified proof. All that the political establishment needs to do is to take the majority of the population with them, armed with the evidence that the security services provide them. In a war, that is all that is required. Sometimes even phony evidence is knowingly and conveniently used.

The trouble is that the establishment is not prepared to take that jump. Not yet anyway, but will that resolve still be there once a nuke goes off in a Western city? I hope not, but there are some here that think that even then we will absorb the damage in exchange for some meaningless words of apologies from the imams.

Islam is the most pernicious ideology to have infected the human population. It has outlasted every other vile creed by a long way, and that is proof enough of the extremely serious nature of the threat we all face.

Posted by: DP111

at February 21, 2006 9:02 PM

DP111:
I would be completely dumbfounded and quite embarrassed if as least some of those in charge did not view this as a very serious issue. Although I do agree that they are not yet ready to take the next step (whatever that may be) I don't know if fabricated or inconclusive evidence will be sufficient to garner public support. And unfortunately, pulic opinion seems to be the most important indicator these days.

These is more than enough evidence out there to convince most sensible people that Islam is a danger to them and our society in general. I personally find it difficult to accept that all Muslim are bad and should be viewed as a whole. I guess I still have hope that a moderate muslim population will appear and begin to combat on Islamic grounds the claims of the extremists (yes I know... immutable text... no interpretation... direct word of God, etc etc)

As far as nuclear attacks on western soil, I fear that it will take an event of this magnitude before there is a large change in opinion (government or public), and I do fear that such an event may be down-played with the usual "tiny-minority" and apologist lines we hear so often. But I think that this relies more on analysis of media responses rathen than that of the public. The general person would not comprehend the dropping of nuclear weapons for the purpose of strengthening a religion. They WILL become the enemy, even to those who currently perceive them as the victim.

Posted by: AngryMuppet

at February 21, 2006 9:18 PM

Hugh, you are right on target! However, I fear that few US or European "leaders" are willing to be so honest.

You wrote: "And we Infidels will never be sure, can never be sure, when this or that seeming "moderate" is transformed, for reasons we may never understand, into an "immoderate" Muslim. And even if that "moderate" remains "moderate," who knows what the children, or the grandchildren, will be like? Already all the evidence suggests that they will be far more devout and even fanatical than the first generation of immigrants , many of whose representatives were intent only on making a living."

Amen!!! In my observations I've found that this transformation usually depends on external reinforcement. If you have one or two Muslim families living in your local community, they will be excellent neighbors and good friends. They will behave like normal immigrants and be very open minded to the surrounding culture. However, as soon as the numbers of Muslims reaches a certain critical mass, they will start to reinforce Islamic attitudes and behavior among each other. That is theclearly observable process by which the moderates (read normal humans) are transformed into fanatics (read average Muslims).

I had a friend in university from Sudan. He was a normal student who could care less about Islam. Then several more Muslims came and he began to act like the most devout of Muslims and spout anti-Christian and anti-Jewish hatred. Several years later, his daughter told me that "he doesn't really believe all that Islamic stuff" but he had to be that way to protect his family's place in the community.

This is a clear example of the cult-like mind control of Islam. As a means of undermining this external reinforcement of Islamic "radicalism" several steps must be taken. These include closing all "Islamic Schools" in the free world, cutting off all Saudi and other foriegn funding for mosques and Islamic organizations, and directly limiting any external expressions of Sharia such as hijab and polygamy.

A clear choice must be given to these people. Join Western Civilization and enjoy the benefits of freedom and prosperity as fully integrated members of their new homelands or go back to their original homelands where they can remain Muslims. There is no middle ground.

Posted by: Provoslavni

at February 22, 2006 11:46 AM