| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Pilot projects to root out Islamist extremists grooming young Muslims are being planned for British cities….Another proposal is a network of local anti-radicalisation forums which would be charged with countering extremist street politics and interpretations of holy texts. – from this article
Suppose a few, or many, young Muslims are carefully shepherded through schools which the British government will monitor from top to bottom. Every textbook, every teacher, will be closely scrutinized. Even tapes of every class will be reviewed so as to make sure that every teacher -- Muslims all, of course, in Muslim schools -- teaches nothing that would cause pupils to be reminded of certain elements of Islam, including:
1) Islam as a belief-system that regulates all areas of life.
2) The fact that in Islam, the division of the world between Believer and Infidel is permanent, and requires a state of permanent warfare (though not permanent fighting at all times) between Muslims and Infidels.
3) The fact that such permanent warfare is required because Muslims must always work toward expanding the Domain or House of Islam, the Dar al-Islam -- that is, those lands where all obstacles to Islam have been removed, and where Islam dominates, and Muslims rule. Therefore they must also constantly shrink the land area still part of Dar al-Harb, the Domain or House of War, where at the moment Infidels still rule and Islam does not yet dominate.
4) The fact that the Qur'an and the Hadith and the Sira are full of passages, or of details from Muhammad’s exemplary life (a life to be emulated by all Muslims) that inculcate the duty of Jihad -- that is, the "struggle" to expand the Dar al-Islam. Jihad is a duty for Muslims. It is discussed so often in so many different parts of the Qur'an, but especially in the chronologically later suras, including Sura 9 (the last or second-to-last of those written), that it would be impossible not to find out about it. The Hadith are full of tales of warfare waged by Muhammad on the Unbelievers, which include the killing of the enemy (including those who are bound prisoners), the seizure of their women, and the looting of whatever property or food or goods they had. Then there are the constant statements about war by Muhammad ("war is deception" being one of the best known), so that his sayings, and his deeds, together amount to a Manual of War.
How does Ruth Kelly, how do all the King's Horses and All the King's Men -- no, make that the Queen's Horses for now, and All the Queen's Men -- propose to keep Muslims all over Great Britain from finding out about these passages in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira? Will they keep the teachers from meeting with students after school? Will they raid their homes to make sure they haven't been receiving the real Qur'an unbowdlerized? Oh, would they dare, those British authorities, to put out a heavily-censored "Complete Qur'an," or a version of the Hadith that is prepared by British bureaucrats? Would they expect this new Hadith collection to take the place of Bukhari's authoritative collection, or that of Muslim?
Do they think they will be able to prevent Muslim students from talking to all kinds of other Muslims "in the community"? Will they be able to monitor what magazines or newspapers those Muslim students receive at home, or what their parents tell them, or what they can so easily discover, with a single click, about Islam on the Internet?
Will not such a government program merely waste money and hold out naive hope for Infidels that this can be done -- that Islam can be censored or twisted or changed so as to make Great Britain, again, safe for its Infidels? Safe, that is, from Muslim malevolence, Muslim menace, Muslim notions of Muslim supremacy and claim to the land. For Muslims do indeed claim it; they believe all the Lands of the Infidels by right belong to them, and it is only a matter of time before those lands do become part of Dar al-Islam. Then there will be nothing else -- anywhere! -- but Islam, Islam, Islam.
Posted by Hugh at February 8, 2007 4:00 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
...wishful thinking at best....in the end, it will come down to either outlawing the Qur'an or living under its evil message....
Posted by: exsgtbrown![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 8, 2007 5:04 PM
"ON DEATH AND DYING"
What's terrifying is the thought of how much worse things must become before a cure, a real cure, is sought. Thousands of words have been written about the human tendency towards denial. No need to repeat. But as Elizabeth Kubler Ross explains in her book "On Death and Dying" there are a series of emotions that we experience after the death of a loved one: Stage 1 is denial; stage 2 is anger.
When Europeans finally get to the anger stage is anyone's guess.
But Kubler-Ross explains that after "anger" comes grief.
I just pray it will be the Wuslims who do the grieving.
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at February 8, 2007 6:00 PM
Hugh,
Something I've been thinking about lately is the potential for a Muslim "Night of the Long Knives" at some point. Let's face it, even if all the moderate Muslims are sincere, which is almost certainly untrue, they will not be able to fend off the advances of the radical Muslims, once Muslims reach a point where grabbing hold of the state is feasible, which it will be because of the demographic implications of keeping the current Muslim populations in the West in place.
How are these moderate Muslims supposed to avoid that? The older ones in Europe, who skew more moderate, can't stop their kids and grandkids from radicalizing. As you say, the cost of even trying to avoid radicalization is much too high, assuming it could be done.
Could it be, though, that this sort of Rube Goldberg Muslim Moderation machine become the "non plus ultra" of Ruth Kelly's of the world? The arguments in favor of such a scheme are so flimsy (why exactly keep Muslims in Britain at all if it's so damn complicated?) that surely they would have put forward a better program than this if they had one. Maybe their next step is to finally admit they were wrong about Islam and that folks like you and Robert were right?
Fjordman also has an excellent article about this:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html
Posted by: venividivici at February 8, 2007 7:00 PM
"Maybe their next step is to finally admit they were wrong about Islam and that folks like you and Robert were right?"
and
"When Europeans finally get to the anger stage is anyone's guess."
--from posts above
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
When the infidel majority gets to the self-evident stage it will be driven by anger and rage, both internally and externally directed.
Will there be a logically inevitable state of perpetual violent disorder and riotous confusion?
Or will Churchill reincarnate in time to administer the life-saving desiderata?
Posted by: Malinois at February 8, 2007 9:59 PM
what the shit are muslims doing in the UK anyway? who the hell invited them to live in my country? really? im frickin pissed off with this. who can help us? why does everyone whisper when they talk about muslims? why does no one speak out when in public?
our democracy is getting pissed away, our laws are being perverted for these pieces of human garbage, yet we just dont do anything? im frustrated, angry, upset at seeing a once great nation brow beaten and bullied by frickin pussies. our police dont care, afraid of muslims and pakistani/somali gangs. people that we took in as refugees to help them.
thank you tony blair, your marxists/socialists have totally f###ed up my country.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 8, 2007 11:25 PM
sorry for my bad language everyone. just really upset right now, this is all like some perverse nightmare.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at February 8, 2007 11:30 PM
Very, very often I feel just like the poster above -- except, it's here in Canada. I fear we're rapidly following the UK.
Everyday yet further idiocy -- if we're not paying 10 million dollars to a dual citizen (Canadian and Syrian) who was flown in first class air to Jordan, later winds up in Syria, the Syrians torture him, and Canadians then pay "the victim" 10 million dollars -- the Canadian government is hiring two academics to figure out whether or not throwing acid on women, doing female genital mutilation, stoning to death adulterous women, or hanging homosexuals, just might not comport with western values. yeah, we need to pay academics to tell us this.
What I'm actually afraid of, though, is that these two geniuses might want to tell Canadians how really wonderful Shariah law actually is once you "study" it, and that we, as Canadians, just dang well better start to get use to it. Seriously, I don't trust the academics to tell us anything about "Canadian values."
Posted by: J.S. at February 9, 2007 10:38 AM
Correction to above, it's the Quebec government paying the academics, not Canadian government.
Posted by: J.S. at February 9, 2007 12:33 PM
The arguments in favor of such a scheme are so flimsy (why exactly keep Muslims in Britain at all if it's so damn complicated?)
Posted by: venividivici at February 8, 2007 07:00 PM
We all ask ourselves that question almost every day, whether we're in America, Europe, Canada, or Australia. Why are muslims in our nations? They do not belong in Western lands for a multitude of axiomatic reasons, right? Wrong!
The great social experiment called "multiculturalism" began in Canada and was the brainchild of the nihilistic visionary, Trudeau. He wanted to populate the vast expanses of Canada and remake Canadian society. So mass immigration from the four corners of the globe began and Canada became the first offical multicultural country. As all Canadians know, hordes of third-world immigrants poured into Canada and continue to migrate there by the millions. These people do not look, act, talk, or think like native Canadians. Many never learn to speak English or French. But that's fine, because the official Canadian government policy is multiculturalism and one can be a Canadian by virtue of a document granting citizenship. Once citizenship becomes official, the new Canadian citizen is free to join his respective immigrant "community" and participate in the wonderful world of separatism, tribalism, ethnic/cultural traditions, and identity politics. Who needs national unity and a cohesive society?
Many people do not understand what "multicultural" really means. The first tenet of multiculturalism is cultural relativism; all cultures are equally valid and one is no better than another. Why should an immigrant respect and adapt to the culture of his new country when he can settle in an enclave totally populated by people from his home country? He has his home away from home plus all of the benefits home didn't offer. Who could ask for a better deal? And on top of all that, there's free health care, welfare, and other assorted freebees, no questions asked, no strings aattached. These people come from the worst places on earth but in no time flat, they're so arrogant and emboldened that they're ready to overthrow the government and create a national hellhole just like the one they fled. Who could help but love them and generously contribute to their sustenance? They deserve it! The extant culture and the native population are eventually viewed as repressive, racist, bigoted, prejudiced, even by their own government. The government struggles to appease the demands of minority, special interest groups at the expense of the native citizens. What a complete and utter farce!
Multiculturalism and diversity are two entirely separate and distinct entities. A nation can be diverse without being multicultural, which would describe the United States thirty years ago. Multiculturalism's insidious tentacles have spread and although multiculturalism has not been officially enacted by legislation, it has become an unofficial and widely accepted policy in the U.S. Identity politics have become a divisive and ubiquitous pain in the ass with dozens of special interest minority groups competing and clashing, while the majority scratch their heads and wonder what in the hell went wrong. The government bureaucrats and liberal egalitarians fall all over themselves to ensure that none of these third-world parasites are victims of diabolical "racism", the most heinous of crimes, while ignoring the real crimes, disease, and social upheaval they import and inflict on the general population.
It certainly would be easier to eliminate the intractable, belligerent, parasitic muslims, but that would be an admission of multicultural failure. The success of this inimical but hopeless social experiment is so important to Western elites that they would rather see their nations collapse than to dismantle their failed utopias. They will NEVER ADMIT FAILURE. I think the final stage preceding a revolution will be a semi-police state, a last-ditch effort to maintain the appearance of law and order in the midst of chaos. They have already taken draconian measures to prevent civil unrest between muslims and non-muslims, and there will be more to come
Posted by: Susanp at February 10, 2007 2:28 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(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.)