| 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 suggests a change of focus for the dhimmis in the State Department:
The tarbaby of Iraq has prevented the American administration from turning its attention to, or even beginning to grasp, the menace of Europe's islamization. It has to do several things after it gets out of Iraq and lets the divisions there take their natural course. One may anticipate that those divisions will have an effect on the two countries that benefited most from the removal of Saddam Hussein -- Saudi Arabia and Iran -- and both of which hope that the Americans will remain there: the Saudis because they want the Americans to hold the Shi'a in check, and the Iranians because they want the Americans bogged down, close to potential Iranian retaliation.By leaving Iraq, the Americans will free up time and mental space for considering the islamization of Europe and what it means for European foreign policy, for the advanced weaponry including nuclear weapons in France and England, and for the continued survival of Western civilization. Not exactly small questions, but questions have been ignored.
Ignored for a number of reasons. People are lazy. At the same time they are also hectically busy, busy, busy, running around, having meetings, reading prepared one or five-page summaries of complicated matters, never stopping to allow themselves the leisure to read and to think about Islam -- which should be an absolute duty for those who wish to be in the Pentagon, the State Department, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the CIA, the FBI, the Congress. It should be a duty, in short, wherever decisions are to be made by those whose duty it is to protect, and also to instruct, the populace.
It has been almost five years since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It has been several decades since OPEC oil revenues, amounting to $10 trillion since 1973, began to be used, in part, to buy huge amounts of armaments and to fund mosques all over the Western world, and other campaigns of Da'wa. It has been slightly longer since, in Germany, and in France, and in England, and then all over Western Europe, large numbers of Muslims were allowed to enter, and to settle deep within the Bilad al-kufr, the Land of Infidelity or of the Infidels -- the territory that was always regarded as dar al-Harb or the House of War. During that period, the number of Muslims in Europe has grown inexorably. In 1970 there were 30,000 Muslims in Holland; today there are 1 million -- and the consequences for the Dutch have only in the last year or two begun to be understood. Everywhere this large-scale Muslim presence has led to a situation for Infidels that is much more unpleasant and unsettled, and much more expensive, and much less physically secure, than it would otherwise be.For many, this is deliberately being ignored or denied, especially if they are part of the governing circles that allowed such a situation to develop and have no idea what to do about it. Many others have begun to understand the problem, despite their governments, and despite the severe inhibitions and self-censorship by the media (not only by the likes of the BBC and Le Monde). Still others, a very few, have fully grasped the problem and are full of horror and justified anxiety.
Yet the United States, for nearly a century the final guarantor of Western Europe's peace and prosperity, has been sundered from Western Europe, partly out of its own clumsiness and inarticulateness of presentation, and partly because it has failed to grasp what is happening in Europe and how that affects America as a civilization -- and threatens it militarily. This has also happened partly because in Europe, a clever campaign by Arabs, in collaboration with those eager for ideological or financial reasons to do their bidding, have played on the pre-existing mental pathologies of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, since America is seen as the great defender and ally of Israel (which has suffered from its own incapacity to articulate properly its legal, historic, and moral rights, or to identify as such the Jihad being conducted against it).
It should be a priority for this and all future administrations to focus on halting and reversing the islamization of Europe. There are many ways to do that. Some of them involve the kind of propaganda and subsidies familiar from the successful attempt to diminish Communist influence and Soviet infiltration of Western Europe during the Cold War.
But this whole Iraq business -- not the invasion, not the period up to the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003, which should have signaled the appropriate moment to begin departing -- but the period since late 2003 has distracted both the Bush Administration and its critics. The withdrawal might have been completed by mid-2004, and then the natural processes governing the new relations of Sunni to Shi'a, and of Kurds to Arabs, might have been allowed to work their magic. Instead, everyone has been busy nattering on about such fascinating topics as to why Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger, and whether offenses at Abu Ghraib should be attributed to higher officials, and whether Rumsfeld sent enough troops, and whether it was right or wrong for Bremer to dissolve the Iraqi army, and whether it was right or wrong to put so much faith in Ahmad Chalabi, and whether Osama Bin Laden was or was not on the verge of capture at Tora Bora, and other essentially trivial matters. All these are trivial matters in light of the world-wide scope of Jihad, the permanent force of Jihad as an article of faith in the belief-system known as Islam, and the menace presented by demographic conquest, and Da'wa, and growing dhimmitude (that is, that collection of attitudes of appeasement and self-debasement when confronted by Muslim demands for changes within the West itself, exhibited by some in the Infidel lands) in Western Europe and, so far to a much lesser extent, in North America.
The State Department and the Pentagon, and the American government as a whole should now be directing its attention and most of its efforts to reversing the Muslim influence in Western Europe. Bush, given his low reputation in Europe, should not be the man to lead this effort. Others within his administration, once they have thoroughly grounded themselves in Islam as a belief-system (a summer of solid reading will do it), and in the history of Jihad-conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims should do it. Those others should be more plausible, more articulate, more clever and more cunning than Bush. Meanwhile, the administration should stop wasting money trying to "win hearts and minds" through the payment of Jizyah to Muslims in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and the "Palestinian"-controlled territories of the former Mandate, seized in 1948 by Arab forces. Instead, this money should be directed toward renewing the alliance on both sides of the Atlantic, and on helping those forces within Europe willing to oppose the forces of appeasement toward Islam -- the forces of dhimmitude -- just as the Americans, after World War II, managed through the deployment of economic, diplomatic, intellectual (the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Encounter Magazine), and military support to help reverse the seemingly inexorable spread of Communism.
Tarbaby Iraq gets in the way. It uses up energy, uses up attention, clouds minds. Once the Americans have left, and once the Sunnis and Shi'a all over the world can have at it to one degree or another, and an independent Kurdistan can be supported so as to both weaken Syria and Iran and to create a model for other non-Arab Muslims (e.g., Berbers in Algeria, and even Berbers in France) of what can be done once the yoke of Arab supremacist ideology is identified and thrown off, there will be time and money for Western Europe.
And it will be amusing, will it not, to see the more intelligent and cultivated members of the State Department -- those on the European desks -- realize that their enemies are the apologists for Islam on the Arab desks? Then there will be, like the "Spy vs. Spy" cartoons in Mad Magazine, the spectacle of internecine warfare -- of State vs. State. It will be won, and must be won, in the end, by those who represent the interests of Western civilization -- and not those of Islam.
Posted by Robert at April 13, 2006 8:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
It has been almost five years.
Posted by: Borg![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 13, 2006 8:38 AM
Hugh:
"an independent Kurdistan can be supported so as to both weaken Syria and Iran and to create a model for other non-Arab Muslims"
I agree about an independent Kurdistan and also support any other independence movement that can fragment Islam (i.e. Sindh, Baluchistan, Hijaz, Al-Hasa, etc.) but let's not be deluded about the Kurds. The current genocide against the Assyrians is being waged mostly by Kurds who want their state to include the historically Assyrian areas but without those pesky Christians, Yazidis, Alawis and other dhimmis and heretics.
Alawite Syria always plays a double game. Suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood at home while trying to co-opt them abroad. It's a fool's game. Nevertheless, Syria is the only country in the region that gives complete asylum to Christian Chaldo-Assyrians and Armenians fleeing Iraq. For that, they earn some credit.
So, while we should support an independent Kurdistan, it should never be at the expense of Assyria. The full soveriegnty and independence of Christian Assyria should be a primary goal for all of us who are fighting against Islamic imperialism.
Posted by: Provoslavni at April 13, 2006 9:57 AM
Another clear eyed and on the spot analisys by Hugh. The Islamization of Europe is the gravest threat the West faces. The loss of these important pillars of Western civilization would be a major disaster, given the nuclear weapons the UK and France have. Not to mention the psychological impact on both the US and the Islamic world.
I fear there isn't much we can do here from the US though. Anti-Americanism is too firmly ingrained in Europe at all levels, and it's unlikely the majority of Europeans while recognize the threat and make common cause with us. Europe, like the US, seems a long way from recognizing the truth of Islam.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at April 13, 2006 10:27 AM
"It should be a priority for this and all future administrations to focus on halting and reversing the islamization of Europe. There are many ways to do that. Some of them involve the kind of propaganda and subsidies familiar from the successful attempt to diminish Communist influence and Soviet infiltration of Western Europe during the Cold War. "
I'm for it but this is too vague. Anyway, how can the USA with it's constitutional separation of religion & state have a propaganda war that will certainly be called (with justification) a war against Islam? How about some workable specific ideas for this halting.
This is why I think the only real solution is private parties working in the USA to inform the public about the true anti-democratic and anti-West nature of Islam and planning for an eventual constitutional amendment to outlaw this cult and close all the mosques. This can be done with the will to do it. This will set an example and could be of great influence in Europe. Only then can the USA officially help Europe fend off the new Muslim conquest, if it's not too late. But first end the islamization of America. Right now in our "home of the brave" Borders won't even sell a magazine with harmless Muhammad cartoons.
at April 13, 2006 11:05 AM
Yes, we must work to inform the public about the ideology of Islam. Particularly political Islam.
Islam has no separation of church and state and the sharia laws must be obeyed when possible. It is a totalitarian theocracy. So you have enclaves of Muslims following the sharia laws and arbitrated by their local shura (council) and the laws of their host land when they absolutely must.
The West is too hamstrung by multiculturalism and political correctness to attack a religion but we can still attack with a vengeance in the political arena. And its there where we must go on the offensive, shouting to the rooftops, TOTALITARIAN THEOCRACY, JIHAD, ETERNAL WAR, SECOND CLASS CITIZEN, DHIMMITUDE, etc. What Islam prescribes for non-Muslims is politics and affects us. That's where we have the right to speak out. That politics is a part of their religion is their problem.
Posted by: the poetess at April 13, 2006 11:31 AM
The only great hope to avoid Islam taking over the West is in the influx of more of the Christians from the global south. They are not only devout Christians but also conservitive in faith. The political Muslims are no match against them. These Christians would bring needed revival.
Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at April 13, 2006 11:51 AM
bigcatgirl;
I agree with you completely. I also believe we Christians in the "developed" world have a duty to support and stand by our suffering brothers and sisters in the global south. In this duty, we are failing miserably.
at April 13, 2006 12:01 PM
As an Englishman I would like to see Tony Blair take a little time to consider the CURRENT situation and NOT the next election in a couple of years time.
The labour Government in my country have opened the borders and sold us out to the EU, a European superstate first put forward by Hitler.
There reason being that they know that Muslims vote as a block. I have seen my home town change into something that looks more like the middle east since the start of the current labour government.
My grandmother fought in WWII for the freedom we used to enjoy, she said to me recently that she felt she had been used as a sacrifice, that she fought just to hand over the power and resources of our country to anyone, as long as they didn't do anything for it.
She a clever old bird my granny.
Until politicians stop spending there entire time in office trying to get back into office we will continue to see our country destroyed a piece at a time until it's too late.
Posted by: DaveMate at April 13, 2006 12:06 PM
"how can the USA with it's constitutional separation of religion & state have a propaganda war that will certainly be called (with justification) a war against Islam?"
How about framing that propaganda war as a war against a globally violent expansionist ideology that fuses religion & state? We would thus be fighting a war to protect the separation of religion & state around the world.
If that powerful magnetic energy that fuses religion & state in Islam can be separated or reversed, all the problems we have with Islam will be solved. That's a big If, but that's the core of the problem: Islam maintains a principle of self-defense, which is a principle appropriate only for the state, not for any religion or church. With the political dimension of existence de-Islamified, there will no longer be an Islamic legal system, and even more importantly, there will no longer be self-defense of Islam -- there will only be the defense of Islam as one group among many that might require protection within the state, as all groups in a secular state might require, with no one group singled out for privileges of any kind.
at April 13, 2006 12:09 PM
Hopefully soon,we will change,and really fight,even recognize who the enemy is.and not let your granny down
"It's not a whim anymore if you put on clean underwear." - Barney Fiffe
at April 13, 2006 12:10 PM
I think we are all missing the real problem & nature of the Muslim onslaught on Europe viz., the "Conquest of the Womb", highlighted in Orianaa Fallaci's book by a quote from the Algerian President, Boumedienne, who, in 1974, addressed the United Nations General Assembly and declared unequivocally,
"One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one, but not as friends. They will burst in to conquer and they will conquer by populating it with children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women."
High Muslim fertility is multiplied by hard-to-detect Muslim polygamy in Europe that the authorities mostly ignore. Sucker Europe is to be stolen from its non-Muslim citizens by a low-level demographic war. By 2050, it is estimated that 30% of the population in Europe will be Muslim. That's too much political power to overcome and Muslims know it.
Americans some day may have to worry about all the European nuclear missiles that may come under Muslim control. Certainly Israel will, if by then it's still around.
Posted by: Odysseus at April 13, 2006 1:34 PM
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
Aldous Huxley
at April 13, 2006 1:49 PM
Odysseus - Eurabian control of nukes directed against us will be different than the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) standoff we had with the Soviets. Whatever you make of the Soviet Commies, they at least had the fundemental desire to live, which is why MAD worked. That will not be a factor with an Islamic finger on the nuke button. The more deaths for Allah the better in their sick view.
Iran nukes may be an even greater near-term hazard to us since they will have delivery platforms in Cuba and Venezuela.
I was all for taking out Saddam and staying the course for a while, but I am coming around to Hugh's view that it is a distraction from the more serious threats of a Eurabia and Iran. The Eurabian nukes are a finished product, only awaiting a complete Islamic takeover. The Iranian nukes are not a finished product, but they have a button-pusher who is ready and willing to do it as soon as he gets one.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 13, 2006 2:20 PM
There has never been a peaceful muslim take over of any non arab land, and before that happens as it has in the past, Europeans will send them packing, boiling points have not been reached yet, you cannot fall for the media elites, but you talk to the common people and they understand the enemy.
Posted by: Lulu at April 13, 2006 3:08 PM
Judging from the range of opinion in Danish news media, editorial or letters to the editor, my country is very, very far from even acknowledging the existence of a problem such as Hugh outlines, let alone discussing solving it. The debate now goes around in circles:
Freedom expression is all fine and dandy "but" it should be used "responsibly"; one should "respect" the religious feelings of others, i.e., Muslims, and not print "provocative" cartoons like Jyllands-Posten did; the "tone" of the debate is "shrill" (i.e., by those criticizing Islam); there is a tacit assumption that if we just "respect" them there will be no problems, ay-men, and we will live happily together in our multicultural melting pot, there-are-fanatics-on-both-
sides-who-are-we-to-criticize-others and on and on and on.
What Hugh writes here would be dismissed as loony conspiracy theorizing. I don't believe I have *ever* seen any local "halal hippie" (MP Naser Khader's term for dhimmis) even address demography and its implications for the future.
Posted by: anti-uffe at April 13, 2006 3:24 PM
Lulu - "There has never been a peaceful Muslim takeover of a non-Arab land..." That may be true up to now, but the "policy of the womb" is a new 20th century tactic. It is apparently working so well that many Europeans still do not see the picture. Anti-uffe's comment would seem to bear this out.
Posted by: Jimmy Bones at April 13, 2006 3:31 PM
Oddyseus said
how can the USA with it's constitutional separation of religion & state have a propaganda war that will certainly be called (with justification) a war against Islam?
Does this mean I can create my own new religion, called say "U-slam", that mandates stealing sportscars and robbing banks and shooting random non-U-slam-ites? If the police stop me, I'll just start quoting from my U-slam holy book, and they'll have to let me walk. Of course, the problem with U-slam is that it doesn't have hundreds of billions of oil dollars to fund political connections and purchases of media outlets, so I'm screwed.
Islam offers Mohammad as the Perfect Man, to be emulated throughout eternity: A thief, murderer, child-rapist, slave-holder. Islam teaches that believers must fight and subdue non-believers, and that the law of Allah takes precedence over the law of man, and loyalty to religion takes precedence over loyalty to state.
At some point someone will have to ask the question, "What does Islam require of its believers, and are those requirements compatible with a free and democratic society?". And not Karen Hughes' version of Islam, but the one actually practiced in the mosques and madrasses. That discussion cannot be stifled forever.
Posted by: special_guest at April 13, 2006 4:14 PM
"what Hugh writes here would be dismissed as loony conspiracy theorizing..."
-- from a posting above
And of course I am not loony. I am perfectly sane. And so is Bat Ye'or, and so is Oriana Fallaci, and everyone else who simply looks, does the math, looks at the immutable texts and therefore tenets of Islam, looks at what Muslims themselves eagerly look forward to and discuss quite openly in all sorts of forums, and then draws the most obvious of conclusions.
It is those who refuse to see this who are the crazy ones.
Posted by: Hugh at April 13, 2006 4:15 PM
Hugh, really, we would have defended you against any charges of looniness. Well, we would have wanted to, and isn't it the intention that really matters?
Sometimes, I wonder whether Eurabia also is a tarbaby. We are wedded to the idea of a "Christian" Europe, but it is not Christian anymore. Demographically, Christianity is South American, African, Asian--pretty much anything but European anymore. Given the demographic trends and analyses such as that of Steyn, I wonder if we should spend much wealth trying to "save" a Europe that doesn't appear to want to be saved. Southeast Asia, Australia, South America, even North America--these we might be able to do much better with, and must do better with if Europe is already doomed.
Just thinking aloud.
Posted by: longtime lurker at April 13, 2006 4:45 PM
"It is those who refuse to see this who are the crazy ones." - Hugh
Which then begs the question, why does the majority of the debate only scrape the surface? Unprovable thesis: denial and wishful thinking probably accounts for a significant proportion of the answer. I wasn't implying anything about your sanity, of course ;-). To me the premises are obvious: if a rather small proportion of the population can cause so many problems and so much persistent debate, and demographic extrapolation makes this proportion quite large within the foreseeable future, it follows that these problems will in all likelihood grow, even accounting for modernity catching up with many of the Muslims living in the West.
Notice that I do not nor do I want to demonize the individual Muslim (FWIW I regard the majority of them as victims of a sick ideology, so much more difficult to cast of as it has been inculcated during childhood). There is no need to demonize individuals - the problems with the ideology may be caused by a minority, but they are there, in every single country where the ideology has gained a foothold.
The dhimmis in the newspaper debate here are statically focused on the present. I rarely meet them IRL, but I would like to confront them with the demographic issue. Do you believe that even thinking of publishing the cartoons would be an option in, say, 20 years' time?
Posted by: anti-uffe at April 13, 2006 8:18 PM
To the poster above: isn't there a difference b/w an African Christian or Asian Hindu in terms of adding to society without commiting terrorist acts in lands they settle in Europe vis-a-vis the Muslims from the same countries of origin? This issue here is not racial in any sense of the word. Is their a difference between the adopted views and actions of John Walker Lindh and a hard working Christian Cab driver from Nigeria? You bet ya. The latter will chat and joke with you, marvel at America, but the former will take you head off. This is a classic case of a religion highjacking a people and culture . . . not the other way around. Culture, race has zero to do with it . . . remember, it's the Jihad, stupid.
Posted by: biorabbi at April 13, 2006 9:38 PM
I cannot help but contemplate with dread and even physical illness the fate of the contents of the great (and even second-rate) museums of Europe - the paintings, the illuminated manuscripts, the sculptures of Cellini, of Michelangelo, of Greco-Roman antiquity...and what of the original musical scores in the great composers' own hands - those works of Beethoven, of Bach, of Schuetz, Monteverdi, Lassus, Haendel..the list is endless. What of the orchestras, the instruments themselves? What of the churches - of Notre Dame, of St. Paul's? All of these are in grave danger. To a believing Muslim, all of this is nothing but infidel trash, to be obliterated.
Posted by: commonsense at April 13, 2006 9:52 PM
Biorabbi, I agree that this has nothing to do with race in any sense of the word. The word is an all too easy means to tar somebody with views they do not hold (I admit to being guilty of this in the past, not that I was dhimmified, but I did stick to the comfort of simplified stereotyping). I believe for you English speakers "race" has a far more vague meaning than it has in say, Danish - in English the word may as well connote culture, whereas in Danish it is more biologically defined, although "racism" in my language may also describe any discrimination related to ethnicity. Quite confusing, actually.
I also agree that those with adopted views such as Lindh may be the most dangerous. They have voluntarily submitted to an alien set of values, and may feel obliged to demonstrate it all the more forcefully. Where I disagree with you is that I don't believe you necessarily need to distinguish between a Christian or a Muslim Nigerian cab driver. The latter may as well be concerned with settling down and making a living, not caring a bit about jihad.
Posted by: anti-uffe at April 14, 2006 7:54 AM
There has never been a peaceful muslim take over of any non arab land, and before that happens as it has in the past, Europeans will send them packing, boiling points have not been reached yet, you cannot fall for the media elites, but you talk to the common people and they understand the enemy. Posted by: Lulu
Oh yeh, there was Malaysia and Indonesia, but those were top down conversions, where Buddhist overlords found that an Islamic Church State, with them as Khalif, was more productive to authoritarian and complete rule (they didn't have to contend with those pesky and competing Buddhist bonzes).
On a side note, I've seen your posts and espied you for an irrational Bush bot, your propensity for apologetics, apologia and denial mirrors that of the most devout Muslim. but I didn't know that you were also historically ignorant.
Europeans will send them packing? LOL, they haven't yet, have they? you live in a fantasy world, where you create reality in your own mind.
at April 14, 2006 6:07 PM
leisure to think about Islam -- which should be an absolute duty for those in the FBI, the Congress. by those whose duty it is to protect, the populace.
Good luck Robert:
Bush lied to US saying "the word Islam means peace". The libs are so much like the Jihadis, that I wonder who is the pawn and who is the player.
at April 14, 2006 9:55 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.)