Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the noteworthy phenomenon that Muslims seem to be in conflict with non-Muslims virtually everywhere they come in contact with one another:
Pim Fortuyn, the head of an important political movement in the Netherlands, shot dead. Theo Van Gogh, a well-known columnist and tous-azimuths gadfly, bearer of a famous name, stabbed to death. Two members of Parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders, forced to be accompanied by a half-dozen guards everywhere, changing residences, even sleeping in army barracks. Rita Verdonk, the current Immigration and Integration Minister, forced to wear a bullet-proof vest after a bullet is fired by way of warning into her office window. And that is just a small part of what the most tolerant and relaxed and easy-going country in the world, Holland, is now experiencing — because, like the rest of Western Europe, it did not investigate Islam before allowing into its Infidel midst hundreds of thousands of Muslims.
Everywhere that Muslims live near or next to non-Muslims there are problems. It does not matter if those non-Muslims are Catholics, or Protestants or Greek or Russian or Serbian Orthodox. It does not matter if they are Sephardic Jews or Ashkenazi Jews. It does not matter which caste of Hindus they belong to, or whether they are members of a scheduled caste at all. It does not matter if they are Theravada Buddhists or another kind, or if they are Confucians, or if they are agnostics or atheists or anything else, as long as they are not Muslims. Living in proximity to Muslims anywhere in the world presents an enormous complex of problems for non-Muslims, for their safety, and for their way of life.
This happens in the Western world and in the non-Western world. It happens in the Sudan and in Kashmir, as well as in Paris, Amsterdam, London, Madrid, Rome, and a thousand other places.
That is one way to begin to understand the problem.
Another way is to compare — within the countries of the Western world that have received so many immigrants under the prevailing policies of unwary tolerance and acceptance, and even self-congratulatory promotion of, “diversity” as a Good Thing — the behavior and attitudes of Muslims as compared to the behavior and attitudes of non-Muslim immigrants. How do Muslims in France, for example, compare in attitudes and behavior to the attitudes and behavior of black Africans, or black immigrants from the Caribbean? How do they compare to the smaller immigrant groups who also arrived during the past few decades — Vietnamese, Chinese, Hindus?
And now let’s move to Great Britain. How do Muslim attitudes and behavior compare with that of people who may outwardly look the same — Hindus and Sikhs — but whose mental makeup is entirely different? Are they the same, or different? If different, different in what ways? And here again one can compare as well Chinese, Vietnamese, black Christians from the Caribbean or Africa. How do their attitudes and behavior, and chances for “integration,” appear? Are they better or worse than those of the Muslims, from wherever those Muslims come? Could this be that there is something in Islam itself that explains the inability of Muslims to “integrate” into Western societies? Could it be that they cannot “integrate” into Western societies without dropping Islam altogether, and that they have no intention of dropping Islam? Could it be that rather than dropping Islam, in the end they intend to islamize the societies that they live in? Have Muslims anywhere in the world ceased to try to promote Islam or its constant expansion? Where that expansion has stopped, it has been stopped by external forces. The conquest of the Mughal princes by the British gave India, in the end, back to the Hindus and others who had been subjugated by Muslim rule, and allowed them to rediscover their own history. (Could one imagine, by the way, a Muslim equivalent of “Oriental” Jones — Sir William Jones? Of course not. Why would a Muslim take a sympathetic interest in the history of Hindus, much less of Sanskrit?)
These are the questions that Western Europeans, and North Americans, and the rest of the non-Muslim world, have to ask themselves.
Is there something about Islam that makes its adherents immiscible no matter what the proffered mix? Is there reason to believe that even among those who outwardly offer no aggression, as long as they retain a filial piety toward Islam that results in their calling themselves Muslim, there is always the chance that they themselves, or their progeny somewhere in the future, down the genetic line, will revert to “immoderate” from “moderate” Islam?
Yes. And yes.
This needs to be understood.