Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald poses a question, of many parts, to those dhimmis who make immigration policy in Western countries:
Query: Why should Infidels living in their own countries, with their own laws, customs, manners, in any country among those considered to be the Lands of the Infidels, feel themselves obliged or required to admit unconditionally, without any attempt to confront the elements of the belief-system in question, those who claim to be adherents of a belief-system that:
1) Uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb.
2) Allows Infidels three options: death, immediate conversion to Islam, or a permanent status of dhimmi, one that included expense and deliberate humiliation. The best-known of the requirements imposed upn the non-Muslims as dhimmis was the payment of a tax, the Jizyah. The humiliation inflicted at the time of the payment of that tax was important; the Jizyah was to be paid personally, and the dhimmi to be hit or spat upon (as happened to Hindus) or otherwise humiliated — no mere “put the check in the envelope” arrangement, and send it off to the palace, as some may think. And there were many other requirements made of dhimmis, that receive far less discussion than the Jizyah, which together added up to a life of degradation and, since the failure even of one member of a particular community of dhimmis to fulfill his obligations could lead to aggression against the entire community, and since even the scrupulous fulfillment of all the obligations imposed on dhimmis might not stop a maddened mob or a maddened ruler, from doing whatever it or he felt like to non-Muslims, the dhimmi status also brought with it a condition, experienced variously depending on place and time and ruler — and despite that misleadingly comforting phrase “protected people” –of permanent physical insecurity.
3) Agrees that a figure (who may or may not have existed, but that is irrelevant) called Muhammad must be regarded as he is referred to in the Qur’an — as “uswa hasana” (a phrase used three times in the Qur’an, twice in reference to Abraham) and as al-insan al-kamil, the Perfect Man. The stories of his acts and deeds and even silences have been collected and winnowed, and then ranked for their degree of likely authenticity by such muhaddithin as Bukhari and Muslim, who studied the isnad or chain of transmission and carefully investigated the likely trustworthiness of each human link on that chain, and by whom, and when, that particular isnad-chain was begun.
Since Muhammad is the Perfect Man, those who claim to be Muslims either believe or pretend to believe or lend support by their presence to those Muslims around the world today who do fully believe that Muhammad was the Perfect Man, and that means endorsing:
1) The witnessing of the decapitation of the prisoners of the Banu Qurayza.
2) The assassination of Asma bint Marwan, Abu Afak, and others who for some reason — often because of a satirical verse or two — had earned Muhammad’s enmity.
3) The bloodcurdling ways that Muhammad encouraged people to be murdered.
4) The role of Muhammad as slave-owner, thereby justifying for all time the institution of slavery within Islam, which explains why there never was a Muslim William Wilberforce. This acceptance of slavery claimed tens of millions of victims in Western Europe and Eastern Europe, and most of all in black Africa, where huge numbers of young males, in particular, were seized, castrated on the spot, and then taken in slave coffles, and then by dhow from such slave gathering-centers as Pemba, to the slave-markets of Islam. About 10% are likely to have survived the trip.
5) Muhammad, who killed the father, brother, husband of Safiya and then took her as his sex slave, and encouraged others in his entourage to do the same. There are many such cases, lots of examples of this kind of thing.
6) Muhammad, who took an interest in Aisha when she was six (daughter of a Companion), and “married” her — i.e. had sexual intercourse with her — when she was nine. She was called away from her toys to go to Muhammad.
7) The Sayings of Muhammad, which are dear to a great many Muslims. They do not include much that would remind you of the sayings of Jesus. No gentle this, meek and mild that, no mercy and peace and justice and the meek shall inherit the earth. None of that. Muhammad was the leader of a warrior band, a political leader who seized power, made treaties that he then broke when he felt strong enough to do so, and gave impetus to the creation of an empire based on aggression against all non-Muslims.
One of his statements deserves to be committed to memory:
“War is deception.”
There are many other similar remarks. They should not be ignored. They are taken in by tens or hundreds of millions of people. Significant numbers of these people believe it all — all of it. Many people in Germany, within living memory, managed to believe all kinds of things. One must not underestimate the ways in which masses of people can behave, whether as a result of less than a decade of Hitlerian rule, or of a 1350-year history of aggression against, and subjugation of, all non-Muslims. That history was interrupted only by those periods of relative calm when Muslims were simply too weak to conduct Jihad through combat, and did not possess as yet those other instruments of Jihad — the money weapon, propaganda, demographic conquest from within the Lands of the Infidels — that they possess today.
It would be a start for Western governments to discuss openly, to undertake studies, to determine just how people who hold to such ideas can accept, can be expected to accept, without question or hesitation, the idea of Western pluralism. It would be just a tiny start. But given the state of affairs, it would be enough for now.