Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers some recommendations on what to do about Darfur:
“Genocide continues to rage in Darfur” — from today’s headlines
Darfur should be a place upon which Infidel attention should be focused, and much made of the situation there, as it is so clear-cut. Two points can be made, and action — by the United States, which seems fated to do the work for everyone — could help after another few months of false rescue by the Muslim troops in Nigeria.
Let Darfur be used to hammer in two propositions:
1) Islam is not a universalist religion, but is a vehicle for Arab imperialism. This has been noted by Ibn Warraq, Anwar Shaikh, and many Muslims — among the Berbers, the Malays, and others. The requirement that one learn Arabic to read the Qur’an, or at least to memorize the Qur’an in Arabic (as so many Urdu-speaking Pakistanis do in the madrasas); the adoption of Arabic names (including those “Sayeeds” in Pakistan — the name indicates descent from the Prophet); the imposition of the Sunna (the ways, the customs, of Muhammad and his Companions), which inflicts on non-Arab peoples the ways of the Arabs; and the history of Arab aggression against non-Arab Muslims (Kurds, Berbers, blacks) should be emphasized. Darfur is now well-publicized as a place of organized massacre of Arabs against non-Arab Muslims. Let that, and its imperialist, supremacist implications, become as much a focus of world attention as possible.
2) Use Darfur to make black Africa less inclined to succumb to this creed that would impel them to jettison their culture and reject their history. Darfur may be taken to stand for the whole history of Arab exploitation of black Africa. The Arab slave trade, of which Zanzibar became the eastern entrepot, began centuries earlier, and ended later, than the European slave trade. Actually, it has not even ended, because once the Europeans left Mali, Mauritania, the Sudan, the Arab enslavement of black Africans was renewed. Also, the Arab slave trade was much more devastating than that of the Europeans, especially because many slaves were castrated before they were shipped thousands of miles, and the mortality rate was very high.
The Biafran War, a war as Colonel Ojukwu said (in the Ohiara Declaration in 1969) was a fight by the Christian Ibo against “jihad” (Ojukwu’s word) ended because the entire Western world ignored the war of the Muslims in the north to retain control of Nigeria, and the oil that existed in the Christian south. Only two states — Ghana and Israel — recognized Biafra. But just as Muslims in northern Nigeria have used the oil wealth to pay for their military regime that allows the northern Muslims to dominate the much more industrious and entrepreneurial south, and to use southern oil to prop up northern, Muslim supremacy, the Arabs in the north of the Sudan intend to use the oil wealth — which lies under the southern, black, non-Muslim part of the Sudan — to continue to massacre all blacks including those who are not regarded as Arabs.
In Mali and Mauritania blacks are still enslaved by Arabs. Indeed, the slave trade continues still — that is, blacks are still shipped to the Arabian peninsula, and though slavery was formally abolished in 1962 in Saudi Arabia, the fact that the Qur’an sanctions slavery means that in the Muslim world, as Saudi clerics have recently emphasized, slavery must continue, for it is sanctioned by God, the God of Islam, the only God that counts.
And let the Darfur folly and U.N. fiasco lead to action by American troops. No need to repeat here what has been posted many times. Right now the “Nigerian contingent” of Muslim-officered troops, and almost entirely Muslims, are likely to follow whatever secret understandings were arrived at by Nigeria, Egypt, Libya, and the Sudan, all designed to create a facade of action that will be inaction — while the massacres and displacements continue. This will all be in order to head off what is really feared, and what should take place — an American intervention. The declaration that American troops will stay to protect the people from genocide and that they will leave when a referendum on independence can be arranged in the southern Sudan and in Darfur — well, what can the Arab League, the U.N., the E.U. say about that, when the black Africans will so obviously welcome American troops? Will they denounce us for not permitting the 20-year-old genocidal campaign in the southern Sudan to continue? Or to allow it to be enlarged in Darfur? Might be just a bit embarrassing. And in this country, would the Democrats wish to bewail such a move — earning the fury of the Black Caucus and others whose support they need?
Iraq, at this point, is a misallocation of resources. But the Sudan — well, the Sudan would require far less (a few thousand troops). And as for those famous bases America wants to have somewhere in the region, since it foolishly pressured Israel to give up the Sinai, the perfect place for such bases, on a long-term lease? Well, the southern and western Sudan are within range, as the F-16s fly, of both North Africa and the Middle East.
Perhaps there is something wrong with this idea. Perhaps one has missed something, and just doesn’t understand.
Well, what could that be? Might it be hat it makes too much obvious sense?