Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald discusses the implications of the fact that so many in the government are not willing to accept or examine the implications of the facts we present here:
Now and again we hear that some in the American government have the dreamy idea of funding “non-Wahhabi” madrasas — akin to Sarkozy’s idea that if only the French government funds mosques, all manner of things will be well. What can this possibly mean? Was the Ayatollah Khomeini a follower of Wahhabism? The idea that Infidel taxpayers should pay for mosques and madrasas anywhere instead of trying to cut off their funding from anywhere (and not just the Saudis) shows that the evasion of reality continues — an evasion based on avoiding, at all costs, actually studying what is in Qur’an and hadith, what Muslim jurisconsults say about Infidels, how Infidels are to be treated under the Shari’a, and how the Jihad-conquests and subsequent subjugation of Infidels has, over 1350 years, proceeded — from Spain to China, from 650 to 2004. No interest in history, no interest in learning about dhimmitude or Jihad, no interest in reading the texts. Just — hope.
Every single failure of the Western world in the last thirty years, in dealing with oil, with terrorism, with Muslim migration to Europe and other countries of the Bilad al-kufr — every single failure is a direct result of misunderstanding the nature of Islam. One to two trillion dollars might have been recaptured by oil-consuming nations if the Saudi lobby and Saudi hirelings had not convinced successive American administrations that they could rely on Saudi “friendship” to “moderate” oil prices (all nonsense, all silly). If Islam had been understood, the incredible criminal negligence above all of the French elites — good at passing ENA exams and arranging comfortable existences, not so good at things like understanding the Arabs and Muslims but making smug assumptions that, in contradistinction to those buffoonish Americans, they do, they do — would never have been permitted. Had Islam been understood, one would not be surprised by anything that happens today.
If, tomorrow, you read that the Louvre had been leveled by Muslim bombs — would it surprise you? Of course not, because you now know not only about the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas, but about Muslim prohibitions on sculpture and painting. You know now that in Afghanistan the Taliban, in destroying thousands of Buddhist artifacts and other pre-Islamic works, were just doing what Muslims did to the Buddhist and Hindu temples in India and to Christian and Jewish sites all over the Middle East.
No, if you understand Islam, what to others seems confusing and disconnected suddenly begins to make sense: attacks on Buddhist monks here, bombs in Iraqi or Indonesian or Pakistani or Nigerian churches over there, and so on, outrageous remarks by various heads of (Canadian, American, British, Australian, fill it in here) Islamic or Muslim Congresses or mosques or whatever, who declare that 1) Islam is here to stay and to dominate 2) it is right and proper to kill (Canadian, American, British, Australian, fill it in here) troops, political leaders, civilians, babes-in-arms and 3) Jews are “sons of apes and pigs” and Christians are just as bad. Of course, all of this is promptly disowned by “moderate” Muslims who refuse to do what, if they were not so intent on protecting Islam and their own positions, but had some minimal sense of loyalty to Infidels and to the Infidel nation-state, they would do — which is to explain to Infidels, rather than to keep hidden from them, that all of this is perfectly coherent with, and derives from, the tenets of Islam, and what they, those “moderate” Muslims, propose to do is somehow to change those tenets, those texts (if only such were possible). But they know how absurd that conclusion is, and for various reasons — filial piety, worry over the threat from other Muslims of ostracism or physical harm, including death sentences that are the prescribed punishment for apostates, and this of course persuades many “moderates” not to find out too much about Islam, or the history of Islamic conquest, or about the treatment of dhimmis, lest it prove too unsettling, too hard both to take in and then to be forced to continue to justify or defend or pretend that such does not exist.
It is not “democracy” or lack of it that is the problem. The most effective constrainers of Islam were despots, enlightened despots — chief among them Ataturk. Infidels cannot work against Islam; only Muslims can, and only after they have been thoroughly convinced that the problems of Muslims and Muslim countries — the political, economic, intellectual and moral problems — can be attributed to Islam. This is what the loss of the Ottoman Empire and other promptings did to Ataturk. 25 years of the Islamic Republic of Iran have made Iranians the least susceptible of all Muslim peoples to the wonderfulness of Islam. Let the Muslim countries descend into the situations of their own making, and let them not be rescued, much less given instant makeovers, by Infidels being bombed even as they attempt to rebuild schools, hospitals, power grids, roads and bridges.
As for that mantra the Lt. Cols. and Cols. are taught to earnestly believe in order to scoff at nay-sayers, the most transparent one, that a moment’s thought should explode, is that Iraq today is just like Occupied Germany or Occupied Japan. People laughed then, and look what happened.
Nonsense. Tokyo and Berlin were both in ruins. The countries were physically destroyed. Millions of Japanese and Germans had been killed, millions more wounded. The two reigning ideologies, Nazism and Kodo (the aggressive militarism) had been discredited.
Has Islam been discredited in Iraq? For it was not Saddam Hussein, a local murderer, who was and is the problem. It is Sharia, jihad, dhimmitude, all of it — the tenets of Islam that for 1350 years have prompted behavior, sometimes more aggressive, sometimes less, depending on the circumstances and the wherewithal, to subjugate the Infidels and conquer their lands.
Query: If we are engaged only in a “war on terrorism,” then logically we should have no objection if, through peaceful Da’wa and the inexorable workings-out of demographic trends, Europe becomes thoroughly Islamized and part of the Maghreb. Well, do you care? Does it matter? If it only a question of “terrorism” and has nothing to do with Islam, then you shouldn’t care a whit. But if you do, and if you realize the tenets of Islam that pose a threat to art, science, and human freedom, then what do you think our leaders and others whose duty it is to instruct us should be doing?