The link given to Jihad Watch by Mr. Derbyshire at The Corner, at the word “separationists,” is peculiar. There has never been any advocacy by this website for “bribing” Muslims to leave the United States. He must be thinking of someone or someplace else.
Furthermore, he appears to believe that Jihad Watch offers what it does offer as a “solution” to a “problem.” I have never seen an example of Robert Spencer, or I, offering at Jihad Watch a “solution” to the “problem” of Muslims living within the West, receiving money from rich Arabs in order to build mosques and madrasas, conduct public-relations efforts, employ armies of Western hirelings (including lawyers to intimidate), mount carefully-targeted and well-financed campaigns of Da’wa, and in general, to make sure that Muslims may settle untroubledly deep behind what they are taught to regard as the enemy lines, the lines which demarcate Dar al-Harb. Not all Muslims may accept the full teachings of Islam, but even those who do not attend mosques or madrasas and may not accept all of the teachings for whatever reason, have shown a remarkable loyalty to, and defensiveness about, the faith that should be worrisome to Infidels.
No “solution” for Islamic Jihad will be possible as long as these conditions continue to exist, and as long as Muslims around the world continue to teach that a central duty of all Muslims is to participate, whether individually (in some circumstances) or collectively, in the Jihad to spread Islam, and to remove all obstacles to the supremacism and dominance of Islam — including those of Infidel political and legal and social institutions, so that, as is only proper, as must assuredly be, Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere.
It sounds fantastic to us, but our imaginations have become, these latter unsaintly days, much too limited.
No “solution” is possible, but there are ways to render the permanent problem more manageable, in the first place through education of Infidels about Islam. This will allow them to arrive at a conclusion that they may then pass on to Muslims, that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failings of Islamic states and societies are directly attributable to the teachings, attitudes and atmospherics of Islam itself. And that is the best way to constrain Islam and Jihad, along with what should be the more obvious measures of exploiting whatever pre-existing fissures (sectarian, ethnic, economic) are to be found within the Camp of Islam.
Finally, Mr. Derbyshire, who just yesterday attacked “the Bill” (about immigration) for the defeatism it embodies, is a proud, even courageous defeatist when it comes to Islam. Because there are native-born Muslims, especially in the “Nation of Islam,” which is hardly orthodox, therefore, he tells us, it is futile to keep out other Muslims — “Palestinians,” Saudis, Egyptians, Pakistanis, and so on. Why? Why are we not free to limit the number of Muslims who enter the country, who can possibly better conduct Da’wa among white and Hispanic Americans? Why can we not keep out those who have undeclared in their mental baggage a Total Belief-System that is based on a division of the universe between Believer and Infidel? Why can we not reduce the money available to campaigns of Da’wa, to reduce the potential economic and political power of Muslims in America?
Why, furthermore, does he think that because the Nation of Islam exists, that it too cannot be reduced in size and influence, if more information is disseminated about the long history of the Arab slave trade in Africa — which continues to this day? (Why, just today, in Dagobert Runes’ “Despotism,” I ran across a picture of chained black Africans being shipped to Saudi Arabia — a picture from the 1920s or 1930s.) Information should be spread far and wide about the permanent legitimacy, reaffirmed by Muslim scholars in Saudi Arabia within the past few years, of slavery in Islam, and about the unhidden racism to be met with everywhere in the Arab lands. All of that should become better known. And why cannot black ministers be supplied with materials to make that all better known, and be given support of other kinds so that they can conduct their own campaigns of counter-Da’wa?
The Derbyshire passage with its misattribution, followed by its curious defeatism, makes one wonder. Perhaps the sea air on those National Review cruises is not all it is cracked up to be, after all.