Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers Australian Prime Minister John Howard a few proposals for how he can escape the dhimmitude that seems to grip most Western leaders with vicelike strength:
“He [Howard] said a commitment to jihad and extreme attitudes towards women were two problems unique to Muslims that previous intakes of migrants from Europe did not have, and that Australia wanted people to assimilate and adopt Australian ways.” — from this article
Howard should in subsequent speeches define what a “commitment to Jihad” means. It means that “Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated.” A “commitment to Jihad” means a commitment to spreading Islam until it covers the globe. Attempts by non-Muslims to defend their own way of life, their laws, customs, manners, their free and skeptical inquiry, their art, their science, their right to mock and not to be respectful on demand, are all considered to be inadmissible ways of “blocking the spread of Islam” and hence “aggression” — and hence can be opposed by violent Jihad.
A “commitment to Jihad” means a commitment to ending the rule of Infidels in Infidel lands and replacing it by the rule of Islam. Infidels may continue to exist here and there, but only as dhimmis — for that is how, in every single land that Muslims conquered, for 1350 years, non-Muslims were treated, at best. In some places, as in India, they were initially killed by the millions and finally tens of millions, until the goose-that-laid-the-golden-egg consideration came into play, and it was realized that it was better, for the Muslim masters, not to kill off the Hindus but to treat them as much as Christians and Jews under Islam were treated, allowed to live but also forced to pay the Jizyah tax as protection money (“protected” from the Muslims themselves). Though guilty of shirk, outright polytheism, the Hindus could be treated terribly (far worse than any other group under Islam) but could stay alive so as to keep supporting the Muslim state through the Jizyah.
Howard should quote Sura 9.29. Quote Sura 9 in its entirety. He should quote from Sura 4. Quote the hundreds of verses in the Qur’an that would, if Infidels were made aware of them, chill their spines. Quote from the Hadith. Explain, in speeches, or have others in the Administration explain, in a tone of fake “more-in-sorrowness,” that “we find troubling” the Hadith about “Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated.” Say aloud that “we find troubling” the desire to institute the Sharia, and then give an analysis of what the Sharia means — and don’t limit it to the mistreatment of Muslim women, but focus on the treatment, always, of Infidels. That’s the main thing Infidels should worry about.
And this is not for John Howard alone. It is for any and every American political figure, whether in the Executive or in the Legislative branch, Federal or state. It is for the candidates waiting in the wings, who should be using their free time, every spare moment, to study Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira — and not with the espositos and armstrongs or helpful “volunteers” from MESA Nostra intent on misleading them.
Every Infidel who is already in political life, or wishes to be, in Europe, in North America, in Russia, in sub-Saharan Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, should begin to educate himself about Islam and the history of Islamic conquest, and then fulfill the solemn duty to begin to instruct others — colleagues, where those colleagues clearly need instruction, members of the press, the lazy, complacent members of the press, and the general public.
Meanwhile Keysar Trad was indignant, saying that Howard “unfortunately just pandering to the Islamaphobia out there by making these comments.” He would have Howard and the world believe that all, or nearly all, Muslims in Australia are “moderate.” He says nothing about the possibility that Muslims in the Western world who have not declared themselves, could be mobilized, could be persuaded to participate in jihad if they felt that, as a communal or individual duty, Islam demanded it of them. For all sorts of reasons — personal problems such as a loss of job, girlfriend or status, fury that the local Infidels do not readily meet the demands of organized Islamic groups — they could move from the “moderate” to the “radical” camp. About this Trad says nothing.
And yet there are millions in the West, behind what they consider to be enemy lines, who are allowed to live not only without any hindrance, but find the governments of the Western world mostly bending over backwards to make them as comfortable as possible. Those governments are trying so desperately not to offend the local Muslims, not to point out that their attempts to change Infidel lands for the sake of Islam and Islamic beliefs is passing strange. They are desperate as well to “integrate” these Muslims, while failing completely to realize that most Muslims are taught not to integrate, not to befriend “Jews and Christians for they are friends only with each other” (Qur’an 5:51). They are taught not to fall for the whisperings of Shaytan that can be heard in the siren-song of seeming kindness offered by Infidels.
And we Infidels will never be sure, can never be sure, when this or that seeming “moderate” is transformed, for reasons we may never understand, into an “immoderate” Muslim. And even if that “moderate” remains “moderate,” who knows what the children, or the grandchildren, will be like? Already all the evidence suggests that they will be far more devout and even fanatical than the first generation of immigrants , many of whose representatives were intent only on making a living.
Howard and other heads of state should take careful note: the “My Son the Fanatic” problem is real and identifiable. There are examples of the phenomenon all over the place. Just look.