re: jihad/weekend.....i dare you!!!!!!
Snooks........I had just cut and was about to paste that guy's Hugh effort
I absolutely
dare
anyone to read that and gain a new perspective on what is happening...
So I might do a bit of cutting and paragraphing...and maybe a bit of shortening to make it easier to read.
Too many scholars are now following in the path of Bat Ye'or and studying the institution of dhimmitude.
No, people are reading the Qur'an, not in the sanitized Sells version, but the full text, with explanatory notes (various translations can be compared online at www.usc.edu; you can also find the sahih recensions of hadith by al-Bukhari and Muslim). They are beginning to read, and understand the significance of, the hadith. They are beginning to study the sira, the Life of Muhammad, to see what this military leader, who married his favorite wife Aisha when she was six, but demurely waited until she was nine to consummate the marriage (which is why Khomeini's first act of legislation was to lower the marriageable age for women down to nine, was all about, including that little business of the 600 Jews beheaded at Khaibar. Not exactly a Christ-figure, I'm afraid.
They are noticing, these obstinate Infidels now engaged in study, that Al Qaeda is only the most mediagenic of many groups wishing to harm Infidels.
They are beginning to notice that being a target of Muslim attack is not just an "American, Judeo-Christian thang" and that there are attacks on black Christians in Nigeria and Sudan, attacks on Asian Christians in Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, attacks on Hindus in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Bangladesh, attacks on Sikhs in Kashmir and India, attacks not only on the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan in Afghanistan, but on living Buddhist monks and villagers in southern Thailand -- and, well, you can fill up the page here with your own JihadWatch news.
The terrorism has nothing to do wtih poverty, Infidels have begun to notice.
Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri (whose great-uncle was Azzam Pasha, Secretary of the Arab League,the very same who in 1948 promised "the Jews" a "war of extermination" the likes of which would not have been seen since "the days of the Mongols" -- nice to see one family keeping up its tradition), Mohammad Atta, and many more of the instigators and ringleaders, are at least middle-class.
The world-funder of the Jihad is also the one of the world's richest countries, where without moving a finger a native Saudi is entitled to a richly-endowed existence, and without the slightest effort on his part.
Spoiled members of the Moroccan jeunesse doree have been implicated in the Madrid bombings; the data just keeps coming. And poor people, in non-Muslim countries, people in the Congo, or Bolivia, seem strangely not to plot, and execute, mass murders. Ideas matter; even extremely primitive and trivial ideas, having their origins in the seventh century.
Indeed, rich Muslims, or Muslims who live in the West and cannot deal with it, or enter into its perceived decadence and then experience almost a kind of post-coital revulsion (cf. Shakespeare's "past reason hunted, and past reason hated" etc.), and seek to regain their equanimity, or equilibrium, through a return to Islam, in all its strictness and totalitarian -rules, and to win Paradise by smiting the Infidels hip and thigh. Bin Laden once was a habitue of the fleshpots of Beirut; now he and Al-Zahawiri, beards, white dress, and walking-sticks, doing their obvious imitation of the Prophet and His Companions for their audience of hundreds of millions.
Despite the insistence of many (e.g. John Burns of the Times) Muslims are not really filled with a sense of "humiliation" in the Western sense. No one has humiliated them.
Have the southern Sudanese, two million of whom have been killed by Arab Muslims, "humiliated" those Arab Muslims?
Did the 200,000 Christian East Timorese who were killed "humiliate" the Muslims of Indonesia?
Do the Christians killed in their churches and schools in Pakistan "humiliate" the Muslims?
In what way, pray, are Muslims being "humiliated" by the the Thai monks, or the Hindu and Sikh villagers of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir, India itself (where Muslim attacks are routine, and routinely not even reported outside of India itself).
How has the United States, in ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and spending more than $150 billion so far to do so, "humiliated" Muslims?
Did it "humiliate" Muslims when NATO bombed Serb forces? How did the United States "humiliate" in particular al-Sadr, whose father, uncles and brothers were killed by the very Saddam whom only the Americans managed to get rid of?
No, it is not "humiliation" that the Muslims, including the PLO or P.A., suffer from: it is something else altogether -- not a sense of humiliation but a sense of being thwarted.
They are being thwarted, at times, in the conduct of their Jihad. They feel it is wrong for others to oppose this, and of course it is wrong for Infidels to think that
Muslims do not necessarily have the right to eliminate all non-Muslim states withiin what they see as the dar al-Islam. Muslims feel they are being thwarted, not humiliated (though "humiliated" is the term of choice, for obvious reasons) when Christians in northern Nigeria, or the Moluccas, or southern Sudan, refuse to convert, or at least submit, to the dictates of Islam as embodied in the Shari'a, or of Muslims.
They feel thwarted, not humiliated, when Europeans show a glimmer of wariness about the effect of large and growing Muslim populations, and begin hinting at legislation to regulate those populations that give no sign of loyalty to the nation-state, or to the ideals, and the wellbeing, of the Infidels among whom they have come to live, and where they insist on pushing constantly for the expression of a separate Muslim identity, the establishment of shari'a to supplant the civil code for Muslims, the expansion of Muslim political power to promote specifically Muslim ends.
It is not "humiliation" but the desire not to have the endless demands of Jihad thwarted, that underlies Muslim rage.
The inculcated hostility toward Infidels is everywhere in Qur'an and hadith. One wonders if those who report from Iraq, or from Israel, or from Pakistan or Afghanistan,actually study the most essential subject -- the tenets of Islam -- before they arrive. Perhaps they just show up, notebook and laptop at the ready, thinking they will pick up what they need to know just as they would in Cleveland, or Albany, or London. This complacency is clearly not justified.
The evidence is simply too great that there is something in Islamic teachings that explains both the fact, and specific targets, of Muslim terrorism, that help to explain the many examples of Muslim hysteria and hate (where else, except in Cairo, or Ramallah, or Baghdad, or a city somewhere in the Muslim world, has one ever seen mobs akin to that in Fallujah, ripping apart the American corpses?).
And study of Islam makes it clear that "terrorism" is only one of the many instruments of Jihad.
One would have to be a complete fool now, to see Islam mainly as a religion. In fact, its origins are to be sought in the geopolitical situation of the seventh-century Arabs.
It used to be believed that the warrior's faith of Islam accompanied the Arabs on their razzias outside the peninsula. But the evidence for the non-Hijazi origins of Islam, outside Arabia altogether -- philological, archeological, numismatic -- is growing. No longer are Western scholars of Islam willing to accept, without critical examination, the received Muslim version of the origins of Islam.
In the same manner, they are now writing the history of dhimmitude themselves, not by limiting themselves to Muslim records (such as they are)but by the records of dhimmis themselves (as Gointein used the records of the Cairo Geniza for A Mediterranean Society) and of Western observers (chiefly visitors and diplomats)to study the history of dhimmitude -- as Bat Ye'or has so brillliantly done, virtually alone, without any academic post or support.
Islam, unlike all other religions, seems from the beginning to have been a fighting faith deliberately concocted to appeal to conquered peoples who were far more numerous, wealthy, and civilized than their conquerors. Those conquered were now presented with an ideology, a belief-system, a "religion," that justified, and promoted, conquest.
And this is what Infidels are now beginning to comreprehend: that the word "religion" is entirely inadequate to describe Islam.
They are studying Jihad.
They are studying dhimmitude.
They are beginning to understand that it is impossible, according to the tenets of Islam, for Muslims to make a permanent peace treaty with any Infidel state (such as Israel).
Policymakers still need to become even dimly aware that all that effort put in recent decades into Arab-Israeli negotiations, all those smiles and handshakes on all those lawns, mean -- are required to mean, for Muslims -- nothing. But if one would have to be a fool to still believe in the significance of such treaties, a great many people in and out of Washington are proving equal to that task.
And the hypertrophied attention paid to the Jihad against Israel, still thinly-disguised as a non-Jihad by the Muslims (instead, as a fight for the "legitimate rights" of the "Palestinian people" -- i.e. a Jihad decked out, tarted up, tittivated, in the political rhetoric most calculated to appeal to Western audiences) muddies the understanding of the many other instances of Jihad, and also of the instruments of Jihad beyond the purely military.
Under cover of the obsessive attention paid to Israel and its (non-existent) outrages, tens of millions of Muslims have entered, without opposition or even notice, the Bilad al-kufr,where they are reproducing at rates that rival the way kudzu vines are driving out the native species in the swamps and woodlands of the American south), spreading da'wa to the economically and psychically marginal members of Infidel societies.
They are beginning to pose a security headache, or perhaps nightmare, that can only get worse, and that is extremely expensive for Infidels to monitor and control.
Mosques and madrasas are being built in the very centers of what Muslims see as Western Christendom -- Paris, London, Rome. They are almost entirely funded from the Middle East, from Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Kuwait.
These are seen not as houses of worship but as Muslim beachheads, and army posts for the Army of Allah, a classic fifth column that is now deeply (and believes itself permanently) established, all over Western Europe.
The failure of Europe's leaders to protect Europe's indigenous population, and its civilization, from those who are hostile to it, is at least as great as it was in the 1930s, possibly even greater). Europeans must now pretend to contemplate with equanimity, or skepticism, the possibility of conquest, through demography and da'wa, of the Lands of the Infidels, the Bilad al-kufr, by Islam. Just how do they propose to prevent this, in twenty or thirty or forty years?
It is clear that vital to Islam is the insistence that Islam MUST cover the globe, that the dar al-Islam must swallow up the dar al-harb; if military means are not available, all other instruments are to be employed.
Loyalty to the umma al-islamiyya, even or perhaps especially among Muslims in the West, trumps all other loyalties -- indeed, for Muslims, no other loyalty is permissible.
Given the triumphalism inherent in the supremacist ideology of Islam, any further concessions to the recently-invented (post-1967 war) "Palestinian people" will only whet, not sate, the Arab Muslim appetite to go in for the kill.
There are only two metaphors for Israel in the Arab press, television, and mind: Israel as a dagger, pushed into the beating heart of Araby, or Israel as a metastasizing cancer. Now if you have a knife in your heart, you do not take it out only part way, but pull it out altogether. And if you have cancer, you do not surgically remove only part of it -- you must remove all of it, precisley to avoid having it re-appear.
Those metaphors are keys to the Arab Muslim view of Israel. A two-state "solution" is actually a problem, for by contemplating a further reduction in Israel's size, such a "two-state solution" not only ignores what a Jihad is, and what the ultimate, unwavering goals of Islam.
No need to waste one's time carefully parsing the differences between Hamas, Hezbollah, and the supposedly "secdular" Al-Aksa Martyrs' Brigade ("Al-Aksa"? "Martyrs' Brigade"(a a un gout of something just a little --- shall we say, Islamic?). They are all one in the Jihad. They do not differ a whit in their intentions toward the Infidel state of Israel. Who cares who claims responsibility for this or that.
One must understand that Jihad, to spread Islam all over the world, has never ceased to remain a goal of Islam. What changed, a few decades ago, is not the ideology, but the wherewithal: the money of OPEC.
And what also changed, and forever, was the technology which allowed the penetration, into backwaters and sleepy villages, where Islam was recalled only as a few prayers and wudu.
With the P.A., the goal is to weaken, and ultimately end, the Infidel sovereignty of Isarel.
In Kashmir, it is to win back territory deemd of most immediate need -- the rest of India can come at a later date.
In the southern Philippines, and the southern Sudan, and southern Thailand, it is to extend Muslim rule, whether by defying a non-Muslim nation-state, or suppressing the desire for local power by non-Muslims.
And everywhere there is already Muslim power, and there remain non-Muslims, the campaign to enforce dhimmitude can be seen.
The burning of 2,300 churches in Indonesia in 2003 (with hardly a story in the Western press), the killings of Christians in Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, post-Saddam Iraq, Lebanon, to impose the shari'a in northern Nigeria, are all parts of the dhimmitude that, with Jihad, makes up the Muslim system for dealing with non-Muslims.
The host of disabilities, financial, political, social, legal, placed on non-Muslims in lands subjugated by Islam, are never forgotten, and abandoned only when outside forces demand it (as with the Tanzimat Reforms of 1839 in the Ottoman Empire, which had to continually be presssed by the European powers).
The 600,000 Chinese killed in Indonesia in the 1960s were described for the world as "Communist sympathizers"; this was uncritically accepted in the West. In fact, those ethnic Chinese were killed for being non-Muslims -- Confucians and Christians -- by Muslim mobs and soldiers.
So by all means let Hamas join the P.A. It should help to clear Infidel minds, to undo decades of PLO propaganda. It was farcical ever to dwell on the "secular" nature of Arafat.
The "Palestinian people," who, in the tens of thousands of pages of U.N. records before 1967, are never mentioned, not even once -- not by the non-Arabs, and not by the Arabs, came into existence. Leftist professors with PLO leanings like to write about the "construction of Palestinian identity." Oh, they constructed it all right, and how.
Forgotten were the actual demographic facts. Forgotten was the fact that when Abdel-Malik was defeated, thousands of his troops from Algeria ended up in --- the various vilayets, and one sanjak, that made up Palestine! And so did tens of thousands of those Balkan Muslims, stranded under Christian rule as the Ottoman Empire receded, who were kindly plucked up wholesale, for example after the 1877 Bulgarian Wars, by the Ottoman Porte and deposited, safely, in what was rightly seen as the emptiest inhabitable part of the Ottoman Empire --- Palestine!
And on and on.
But no matter how many times Israeli scholars go through the tedious, exhausting process of actually examining the demographic history of that area, no matter how many myths are exposed, it really doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter from the antisemites, because they don't care.
It doesn't matter to the Europeans, because they want to appease the Arabs, coute que coute.
And it doesn't matter to the Muslims themselves, because for them it is irrelevant if there were 50,000 people in "Palestine" (and plenty of them being Circassians, Turks, Europeans, etc.) in 1820, or 2,000, or fifty million. People don't matter (except to the Israelis trying to make their case, so patiently, so soberly, so utterly ineffectively).
What matters is that the land, was once part of the Dar al-Islam: Dar al-Islam quondam, Dar al-Islamque futurus).
Inclusion of Hamas in the P.A. cannot possibly make things worse for Israel, and might make things better.
The only thing keeping the peace now between Egypt and Israel is what is keeping the peace between Syria and Egypt. Not a peace treaty, not those Camp David Accords which Jimmy ("I'm sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust")Carter and Brzezinski inflicted on the hapless, hopelessly trusting (and un-mediagenic) Begin, not that agreement by which the Israelis surrendered, for the second time, the entire Sinai, with three airfields, oilwells, amd tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure and with priceless strategic depth (there would be no smuggling of arms into Gaza today, had Israel kept the Sinai, or a circumjacent sliver of it, then), all in exchange for solemn commitments by Egypt, every single one of which Egypt has broken, again and again.
And all this without a syllable of protest from the United States, the very party that arranged and hammered out the deal, in all its hideous worthlessness.
America, one hopes, will at the riot act when he arrives next week, and cut off all military, and indeed other aid, to Egypt. Because if you are not with us against the Jihad, to quote someone, then you are for the Jihad.
Egypt has already received, since Camp David, more than $60 billion in military and economic aid.
Why should we give any Muslim country foreign aid raised from Infidel taxpayers?
Have we won over Egypt with that $60 billion, or is Egypt one of the world centers of antisemitism and anti-Americanism?
We don't have to win Muslim "hearts and minds."
Can't be done.
We have to change Muslim behavior, and that requires an end to being a patsy, mere putty in their pyramidic (Al-Ahramic) hands.
The ideology of Jihad never went away. It was there in Biafra. It was there during the Moplah Insurrection in 1921; in Xinjiang and the Gobi Desert in 1930. Jihad erupts wherever, and whenever, it has the wherewithal to erupt. OPEC money gave it that wherewithal, and on a global scale. In 1973 there began the OPEC-induced, greatest transfer of wealth in human history, which helps to fund the Jihad. Stop the aid, start the Manhattan Project, work not to make Muslims rich but to understand that the causes of their failures, of their distempers, lie in Islam itself. No foreign aid, less money to fund the Jihad.
And instead of giving Egypt military aid (unless those planes and tanks will be deliberately sabotaged, capable of being telecontrolled) like the computer items sold to the Soviet Union), Egypt, like all Muslim states, should be prevented from acquiring any major weaponry. There should be no more ground invasions of Muslim countries; ideally, it will be unnecessary if we throttle their weapons programs and weapons procurement. "We have the Gatling-gun, and they have not." Let it stay that way.
And if Mubarak is bad enough, what about the Muslim Brotherhood boys waiting in the wings? What about a freelance group, into whose hands American or other Western weaponry foolishly allowed to Mubarak's regime, could fall -- by accident or design?
Forget about the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations-Project in Iraq. Keep them as poorly armed as possible, stop all Muslim migration (and reverse it), and forget about risking American soldiers'lives on the Sisyphean and fool's errand of bringing "democracy." Let a dozen Ataturks bloom, leaders who realize that Islam is not the solution (as al-Sadr, Bin Laden, and a cast of millions thinks) to Muslim woes; Islam is the problem. And get Europeans to recognize, and take measures to reverse, the demographic conquest from within.
The difference between Hamas and the P.A. is like that between the "extremist" Muslim spokesmen and the "moderates" -- the "extremissts" tell the truth about the teachings of Islam, and have considerable, indeed overwhelming, textual authority, in Qur'an and hadith and the sira, or life of Muhammad, on their side; it is the "moderates" so ill-defined and ill-analyzed, who -- out of embarrassment, filial piety, or prompted by something else(taqiyya, kitman, deliberate religiously-sanctioned deception) who have almost no textual authority on their side, and are, to the degree that they abjure the Jihad, and dhimmitude, incomplete or bad Muslims.
The goals of the P.A. have always been the same as those of Hamas.
It will be fascinating to see if those who dole out the American and European largesse to the P.A. will be willing to continue; will they awaken to the fact that in so doing they - Western Infidel taxpayers - are now clearly supporting one aspect of the world-wide Jihad against themselves?!?!
Europeans seemingly incapable of recognizing the Jihad, of understanding Islam or the demographic threat to their own societies
It scarcely matters -- they are all in the same boat, from Abu Sayyaf in the distant Moro Islands, to the preachers at the Finsbury Mosque, to the Lackawanna Five, to Mike Hawash of Intel and Portland, Oregon.
