Fitzgerald: Start with Shakespeare. Go from there.

How a Muslim should treat his non-Muslim relatives is an important question in Islam. Historically, after Muslims conquered non-Muslim lands and peoples with military force, almost at once and from then on people tried to escape from what turned out to be (they had initially misunderstood what the supposed kindness of their conquerors would be) not a pleasant but a most difficult, onerous, and at times intolerable existence: that of being a dhimmi, a condition that involved permanent humiliation, degradation, expense, and physical insecurity.

Younger people, obviously, would be the ones who would convert or "revert" most often, while those set in their ways would probably cling to their beliefs, faiths, rituals. So what early Islam had to deal with was not the case of Muslim parents dealing with a non-Muslim child, but the reverse: the new convert ("revert"), in the lands conquered by Islam by military force. Today, of course, that kind of military conquest is not possible, except at the edges of Islam, or where Infidel lands can be persuaded to give in or even to take the Muslim side -- as in the Balkans. There the West seems determined to rip part of Serbia where Muslims are the majority right out of Serbian control, as if head-counting were the final authority. This is an idea that will come back to haunt France, Great Britain, and other countries as Muslim populations are permitted to rise, inexorably, and where, in this city or in that region, the same Muslim writ will then inevitably run.

In the West today, the instruments of Jihad are the Money Weapon (which comes from donors and suppliers among the Arab oil states), the allowing of the building of mosques and madrasas, and the use of Western hirelings (journalists, lawyers, businessmen, academics, and others) to protect not only the "image" of Saudi Arabia but also of Islam, and to use that money to intimidate or silence critics of Islam -- or at least to everywhere attempt to do so. Da'wa and demographic conquest. The latter has been written about extensively by Muslims, though whenever an Infidel quotes such things, it is he who is attacked. See the vicious misreporting on Mark Steyn, whose quoting of Mullah Krekar's phrase about Muslims in Europe "breeding like mosquitoes" was mistakenly attributed to Steyn himself by someone quick with the idiotic charges of "racism" that we have all grown so used to, and that look more ridiculous and desperate every day.

The campaign in the West for Da'wa is accompanied by efforts, amazingly aggressive and relentless in every respect, by Muslim groups and communities. They use every instrument of dissemination that the Infidels have invented and provide, to present themselves simultaneously as:

1) Just like us, and to be accepted as perfectly fine (Americans, British, French, etc.);

2) Not like us, but purer and better than we are, and therefore deserving of having their demands to apply the Shari'a, as much as they can, agreed to, and, as much as they can, to have changes made in the legal and political institutions to accommodate Muslim demands and Muslim needs. These could be for hijabs in French schools, to make a political issue. Or, if the Muslims are in a system that is not so wedded to removing "religious" symbols, as the American school system, so that a fight cannot be had over the hijab, then it might be about other things: the demand for release from classes, or work, for five-times-a-day prayer, and the providing of prayer rooms on site. Or it could be zoning changes to allow mosques, or looming minarets that are symbols of Muslim power. Or a demand that municipal pools have Muslim-women-only days. It starts with that kind of thing, but it has essentially no end: every single obstacle, as Muslims define them, to the practice of Islam, and to the spread of Islam, and then to the ultimate dominance of Islam (that must come: not merely the existence, but the future dominance), must be removed.

Every kind of technological advance made possible by Infidels is exploited: radio, television, the Internet. Every bit of publicity that will further the cause of Islam is taken advantage of, so as to confuse or distract the Infidels, or make them, or some of them, think that Muslims are being "victimized," by likening them to whatever real historical victims exist. So the persecution and mass-murder of European Jewry is invoked by Muslims -- often the same Muslims who are completely at ease with their own brand of home-grown, Islam-prompted antisemitism (with a different prompting than that to be found historically in Western Christendom), and their own history of mistreatment, over 1350 years, of Jews as of other non-Muslims.

In this country, it happened the other day when a planted Muslim questioner undertook his propagandistic questioning of John Edwards. "Martin" (i.e., Martin Luther King) and the Civil Rights movement will be invoked by Muslims who, in fact, have not the slightest interest in or natural sympathy for blacks, and who, in their own countries, routinely make remarks and demonstrate racist attitudes that flabbergast visiting Americans there.

Thus in this country we are forced to endure the spectacle of Muslim Arabs asserting Islam as a vehicle of social justice. Yet it was Muslim Arabs who started and conducted for centuries before and after all others the slave trade in black Africa. Even today they enslave blacks in Mauritania and in the Sudan. And if we are to believe such keen observers as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, they do also in Saudi Arabia, beyond the prying eyes of any Infidels -- who hardly can be said, over the past century, and especially in the last few decades, to have done much prying, or much reporting, on what really goes on in Saudi Arabia, the country that has been far more successful than any Communist regime at shutting out or shutting off inquiries or investigations by reporters.

Then there is the Muslim propaganda of the "aren't Muslims just like us" variety. These "Muslims-are-just-like-us" heartwarming articles are always about the same two or three things: the observance of Ramadan and then the Iftar dinner, and then Muslims "integrating" into American society, trying so hard, so very very hard if only we would let them (what utter nonsense), as in that story in The Times a week ago about "Muslim Girl Scouts" in America (all 1,500 of them, which given the Muslim population is very few). The Times journalist made certain we would be led to believe that these "scouts" are emblematic of the touching Muslim desire to be just like us, when in fact the story ignores entirely not the Girl Scout uniforms, or the Girl Scout cookies, but what those little girls are taught to believe, taught to believe as Muslims, the attitudes and tenets of Islam that arise naturally from the texts, Qur'an and Hadith and Sira.

So nowadays, a new situation has developed. Along with all the psychically and economically marginal people who are those deemed most vulnerable to appeals of those carrying out Da'wa, there are, among the Muslims, those who have somehow managed, through intellectual effort and moral revulsion at Islam, to fight their way through to leaving Islam and, in many of those cases, embracing Christianity. It happens very rarely and requires enormous courage to do so, of course, in Dar al-Islam. And it happened in this case, with this girl, in Egypt.

Islam is hardly silent on how a Muslim child should treat, or rather how he should deal with, his non-Muslim parents. Read about it, merely by googling a bit. He should keep them at bay, making sure they are not able to re-convert him back to his original faith. This is not different from the way that the Nazis and the Communists (Pavel Morozov!) taught little Hitler Youths and Oktobryata to treat their parents: as people to be watched, people who, of course, might have to be reported to the authorities, and sacrificed For The Good Of The Cause. And of course the same would go for any other relatives, and parents would be expected, as well, to turn in their children.

Islam, like other ruthless totalitarian belief-systems, demands of its adherents that they be willing to sacrifice everything if need be, for the Good of Islam. And that includes the willingness to overcome what, we have been led to believe, are the natural ties that bind children and parents with ties of affection and loyalty and love. The ties may not always bind in the Infidel world, but no other faith teaches its adherents to think or behave toward relatives as Islam does.

We see the "Palestinian" mother (or many such mothers) who is taped for everyone to see, expressing her delight that one of her children has blown himself, or herself, up, "killing Jews." She tells the camera how delighted and proud she is, and she has another six or seven or ten at home, whom she has raised up to do the same. And we read of, though seldom see, the relatives who gather round to cause the death, by lapidation, of a girl convicted under Shari'a law of adultery, and it is the father who casts the first stone. All because Allah wills it, Islam demands it. Humans are merely the slaves of Allah, and must do his bidding, at every step. It is an incredible system of brainwashing, and then of rigorous reinforcement, and enforcement, at every level of society, in every way. Who can get out? Who can be mentally free or, still more amazing, once that mental freedom from such enslavement is achieved, who can remain free? And the same Islam that teaches disloyalty to parents and other relatives, and ignoring of natural tendencies of affection where the cause of Islam demands otherwise, also tugs -- or exploits. Filial piety makes someone keep declaring himself a Muslim, or defending the father who, in Iran, casts the first stone in the series that will cause the death, by lapidation, of his own daughter.

In the early conquering days of Islam, it was the younger non-Muslims who would convert to Islam. And it was therefore important to spell out exactly how they should treat with, deal with, “handle” their disapproving parents and relatives. Little attention was paid to the possibility that a child of Muslims might dare to leave Islam. Such a case, however, was dealt with under the general rule that applies to all Muslims, a rule that has been ratified time and again by Muslim clerics, including those who met with Prince Charles a year or so ago (see the testimony of Patrick Sookhdeo).

That is the case here. She has disgraced, dishonored her parents. She deserves to be attacked, beaten, possibly killed. And her relatives, her own parents, will be happy not merely to participate, but to lead the frenzied mob. It is the only way that they can redeem themselves in the eyes of fellow Believers and Allah. Their station here below is at stake, as is their possibility for that Muslim Paradise, the languor and lilies of that la-illah au-dela.

Punch and kick her, boys. Stab her if you feel like it. Here, let everyone join in. It will be like “Murder on the Orient Express,” where everyone shares in committing the murder. Except that was a mere fiction to be solved by the moustachioed Hercule Poirot. This is fact, and this happens all over the world, in Dar al-Islam, and now, right smack in Dar al-Harb, in England, land of hope and glory.

Yes, they can be screaming, and trying to beat down the door to kill such a young girl, right smack in the middle of old Londinium, or any other large city or town, in a flat just round the corner from the church, the caff, the fish-and-chips, the pub, the place where you can get bangers-and-mash, the one that has a faded picture of Elizabeth at her coronation tacked to the wall, and perhaps, upstairs (now we are renewing our poetic license with a vengeance), the sound of Gracie Fields being listened to by a pensioner in the flat upstairs (Her Grace, and Our Gracie, together again at last). Right there: the primitive minds and mores of people with minds on Islam. How does Her Majesty’s Government intend to deal with this? By continuing to pretend that Islam does not possess the immutable texts it does possess? By continuing to pretend that they are not taken seriously, and that those who do not take them seriously but continue to call themselves Muslims, will never take their religious texts seriously, and never will do so for all time, with no possibility of re-acquiring at any point, they or their burgeoning progeny, that old-time religion that means menace and more for Infidels?

Forget it all. Play that record one more time, will you? Louder, so that we can remember only the past, and drown out the present, and never ever think about our future, or of any conceivable future:

Gracie Fields: 'Shipyard Sally' Land Of Hope And Glory

Again, but turn up the sound so everyone in the house can hear it.

Now start thinking. Start with Shakespeare. Go from there.

Posted by Hugh at December 11, 2007 6:21 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us