The President has referred to “Islamic fascists.”
Hold your huzzas.
"Islamic fascists" has both good and bad points. It is a great improvement over that idiotic phrase the "war on terror." It is no longer possible for our government, or other Western governments, to pretend that Islam has nothing to do with the assorted terror plots foiled, or in some cases carried out, all over the world. The Administration must have sensed the fury directed at it not least from those whom it might have counted on to support it -- and who, for good reason, are opposed to the timidity and the stupidity with which the Administration has so often behaved.
But "Islamic fascists" is only a milestone along the way. Islam appears only adjectivally here, modifying the noun "Fascists." This still hints at a group that has possibly "hijacked" or "perverted" a great religion. Much remains to be made clear. What are these things about Islam, and the Jihad, that need to be made clear?
They include the following:
1. The Jihad to spread Islam must continue until all barriers to its dominance are removed, and it dominates, and Muslims, the Best of People, rule. This is as Allah wishes it. This is the just and natural outcome that all Muslims must work toward and for. The fact that some do not means merely that they are insufficiently devout, or lazy, or unobservant. No one should take comfort in this, for at any moment a lapsed or lazy or unobservant or insufficiently devout Muslim may become the real thing, prompted by some event in the great world, or often prompted by some event in his personal life which we, the Infidels, have no way of knowing will set him off. And then there is also the "My Son the Fanatic" phenomenon, in which immigrants do not have the leisure to dwell on their "humiliation" in this or that Infidel land, but their children, sons or daughters, proudly "return" to Islam -- in a way that of course spells danger to Infidels and to their laws and even, in the end, their lives.
This Jihad is both a collective and at times individual duty. It is to be pursued using whatever instruments come to hand. In 7th century Arabia the main instrument was "qital," or combat. But Islamic texts and Islamic commentators, are well aware of all the other instruments of warfare: the "wealth weapon" (which today means oil revenues, and the use of boycotts, bribery, support for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and armies of Western hirelings ready to defend and promote Muslim and Arab interests); that of "pen and speech" (again, propaganda to spread Islam, or to protect Islam from those inclined to question or oppose its spread); and the newest instrument, that of immigration. This weapon is openly discussed and even boasted about by Muslims, but hardly noticed by Infidels -- or if noticed, those Infidels simply throw up their hands and say "What can we do?," as if the initial mistake of allowing large numbers of Muslims into the Western world cannot possibly be rectified. Not a single idea can come to any Western people as to how they might halt and reverse this Muslim presence, as if it were simply an impossibility to figure out ways to protect the laws, customs, the civilizational legacy and the very lives of those Infidels from those who do not respect, and who cannot respect, those laws, customs, that inherited civilization created according to Infidel freedoms, and Infidel ideas of what is to be allowed. Nor do they respect those Infidel lives.
The phrase "Islamic fascists" implies that there are those among good Muslims, obedient Muslims, devout Muslims, those who could be other than "fascistic." But is this possible? Is this belief-system (do not call it a religion because the word "religion" in many quarters commands automatic respect) capable of permitting mental and other kinds of freedom? It presents itself as a Total Regulation of Life. Everything is either forbidden or commanded, and there are lists of such things, from foods and hairstyles, to matters of the most intimate personal hygiene. All written down, all carefully collected. And then there is Islam as a Complete Explanation of the Universe, with vague passages in the Qur'an supposedly containing all of modern science, from vulcanology right to Benoit Mandelbrot's fractals and the nature of DNA, the nature of atom and subatomic world. It's "in the book." But, you will answer, there are Muslims who do not decide everything according to the Qur'an, do not follow Muhammad in every particular. True, but irrelevant. As long as, in the population of Muslims, most of them are primitively wedded to the real Islam or can be made to be so because the textual authority is entirely on the side of those "Islamic fascists," then one has a problem with Islam that never goes away.
Furthermore, as we can see from the observable behavior of Muslims in the West, they do not express loyalty to the Infidel nation-state. Everywhere, whatever Infidel land they manage to end up in, the same disturbing attitudes of anger, hostility, a sense of "humiliation" and growing, not lessening, hatred of the Infidels, can be observed. That a handful are not like this, and in fact have become merely "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims, does not make up for the very large number who openly demonstrate their insensate loyalty to the most cruel acts of Muslim terrorists, who attempt always and everywhere, it seems, to mislead us as to the nature of Islam, with such obvious examples, to those who have studied something about Islam, of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque. These are easily exposed. Yet everywhere, these deceivers continue to explain things away, to mislead us as to what Islam teaches, or at the very least to do nothing to teach us about what it is all about. And our government does nothing to change this. Ask the soldiers returning from Iraq what they were taught about Islam, and what they more or less picked up, about the nature of Islam, from the behavior of the Muslims they were sent to "liberate" and to "help" -- never mind those they were asked to fight.
"Islamic fascists"? Perhaps one will now go beyond this formulation, better for the moment, but only just, then the previous efforts to hide the Islamic nature of the enemy, the Islamic goals of the enemy, the Islamic tactics of the enemy. ("War is deception" said Muhammad, and it is around us, we are swimming in Islamic deception, all over the world.) It still reveals nothing about the Islamic attitudes toward Believers and Infidels (loyalty is owed to the first, no matter what they seeming wickedness they may do, and hatred owed the second, no matter what kindnesses they do).
It has taken nearly five years for President Bush to begin doing (if he has begun) what he should have done in the many months following the 9/11/2001 attacks. At that time the American ruling elites should have, as part of their duty to protect and instruct us, begun to study the contents of Islam -- and not relied on armstrongs and espositos, or part-time "experts" on Islam of the kind known to have advised Bush. They should have begun to instruct us not only about what is in the Qur'an, but what is in the Hadith collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, and not only what is in the Qur'an and the Hadith, but about the Life of Muhammad, that Perfect Man, the man whose every word and deed and even silences tell the Believer how he should act, what he should do. That was not done. It still has not been done. Bush is said to have taken to the Crawford Ranch three books. Two of them are, we are told, about Lincoln. But it is silly for Bush to think he can learn about how to deal with Islam by reading about Lincoln during wartime. He can't. What he should have done is do what Abraham Lincoln would have done. He would have studied Islam. He would not have been satisfied to call it a "religion" and then without any grounds at all proceed to tell us that this "great religion" had been "hijacked" by a "handful of extremists." Lincoln would have studied the matter, and he would have looked at history. He would have asked himself what he could learn, what one could be taught, by an examination of the 1350-year history of Jihad-conquest, and of subjugation of non-Muslims everywhere. He would, in short, have known how to study. But then, Lincoln was also a man who could debate for hours, without notes or a speechwriter, Douglas and other opponents. He knew the value of words. He knew the importance of framing things correctly.
We are waiting for someone, anyone, to frame things correctly. It took Bush five years to get to the point of using that phrase "Islamic fascists." A tiny step, and insufficient. It must be followed by many more, until everyone understands that the duty of Jihad, to spread a belief-system which uncompromisingly divides the world between Believer and Infidel, is the problem. And it is a problem not only when terrorism is the instrument, but when the money weapon, and Da'wa, and demographic conquest, are the instruments. The plotters picked up in London are obviously the enemy, but so to are those Muslims who lie to us about Islam, who lead campaigns not to save souls, but to acquire, within the Infidel lands, more recruits for the army of Islam.
One of the least convincing arguments about the fiasco in Iraq is that "we have to fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." It is unconvincing because each passing day shows that they are "over here." Each passing day shows that they do not have to find a place to train in Iraq, or Afghanistan. They can train in Pakistan -- are we ready to invade Pakistan? And they do not even need Pakistan, or any country in Dar al-Islam. They can train down the street, in a basement, in a park, in an empty building, in a gymnasium, in a squat in Brick Lane over a curry takeaway, or in a posh apartment on Park Lane, funded by some rich Arab trying to atone, islamically speaking, for his decadent Western life by supporting such plots to kill Infidels, storing up points for his Muslim Heaven.
Bush is not there, and one doubts if he will get there. Why? He had a plan in Iraq, and now the plan has him. He still thinks that in Iraq there are those who are fighting against "freedom" and those who demonstrated that they "love freedom" by engaging in that purple-thumbed vote. Is that what happened? Did the Shi'a who voted in such numbers vote because they "love freedom"? Is that why they were so enthusiastic about the vote? Of course not. They were told to vote. They were issued a fatwa to vote. They wanted to vote because they knew that they constituted 60-65% of the Iraqi population, and they could win, or for those very rich American invaders, handing out all sorts of gifts and rewards, could legitimize, the transfer of power to them from the Sunnis that became inevitable once the regime of Saddam Hussein collapsed. Had the Sunnis constituted 60-65% of the population, instead of 19%, do you think they would not have enthusiastically gone to the polls and held up those purple thumbs? Of course they would have.
The phrase "Islamic fascists" still shows how far Bush is from understanding, how timid he will remain. He has not declared and will not declare, or even to hint at, the fact that it is Islam itself, not "perverted" nor "hijacked" but rightly, straightforwardly, understood, that is the source of the menace to us. He should further understand that his clumsy or awkward attempts to not-quite-understand, not-quite-comprehend, have real consequences for the fashioning of policies. These policies in Iraq and Afghanistan were, after the initial destruction of Al Qaeda's setup in Afghanistan, and by the scouring of Iraq for all major weapons and weapons programs (the reason we were given for the invasion of Iraq, and a reason that, according to the information Congress and the public were given, was a rational one, for no Muslim state can be permitted to acquire or retain such weaponry), allowed to metastasize idiotically, pushed by the smooth Iraqi exiles, into becoming an attempt at instant makeover in Iraq.
If Islam is correctly identified as the source of the menace, so that Believers, to the extent that they are Believers and take Islam seriously, even if this must be expressed synecdochically by the word "Jihad," then the folly of remaining in Iraq becomes clear. It may be that the Bush Administration is working backwards. It has a policy in Iraq. It doesn't know how to get out of it in a way that is face-saving. And so we still have the fiction that we must support those good Muslims, those Muslims who "love freedom," against that other group, the "Islamic fascists." Yet this is a drama that does not exist, or is hardly useful. Does Al-Maliki strike you as someone who "loves freedom," a regular reader of Spinoza and Hume, a man entranced by Jefferson and Madison, and the First Amendment? Does he? Does Al-Hakim? Does Moqtada al-Sadr? Does any of the winners in the winner's circle in Iraq today strike you as a true friend of freedom, democracy, the individual rights enshrined in the American Constitution, and in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man? Even close?
There is the camp of Islam. There is the camp of the Infidels. Any Muslim who is a true Muslim is hostile to the camp of Infidels. It is not a question of "Islamic fascists" but of Muslims, and of the extent of their belief and their commitment and the choice of the instruments they use to further Jihad. But whatever instruments are used to further Jihad are, from our Infidel point of view, dangerous to us.
In Iraq we have available, at the same time, two of the three main divisions within the camp of Islam. Those sectarian and ethnic divisions, between Sunni and Shi'a, and between Arab and non-Arab Muslims, are just waiting to be exploited.
That Bush cannot see this, that he persists in his inability to name, or even to identify for himself, the enemy rightly, and thus pursues this policy in Iraq is both wasteful and dangerous. It is wasteful because of the expending of the lives of soldiers, who by the time of their second or third or even fourth tours, know what a crock the whole thing is. If they return, it is not out of any love for the so-called "Iraqis" but only out of a sense of duty and loyalty to fellow soldiers. But in the end the harm done to the morale of soldiers and officers has long-term consequences. The indifference to this by the Administration, with those Potemkin-village arranged meetings with Bush and a backdrop of a dozen soldiers carefully instructed not to say anything controversial, merely disgusts. And then there is the damage to civilian morale, and the discouraging of the forces that want a withdrawal in order to more effectively deploy resources, of men, materiel, and above all money. What could the costs, past, present, and committed for the future of this Iraq tarbaby -- some $400 billion -- have accomplished if it had been used entirely for nuclear, solar, and wind energy projects, and subsidies to mass transit, and other energy-saving programs? What might that have done to diminish the "money weapon" of Arab and other Muslim members of OPEC, and hence taken away the main weapon of Jihad, the one that after 1973 permitted the worldwide goals of Jihad to be undertaken instead of merely this or that local, or Lesser, Jihad (against Israel, against India)?
Some will be full of praise for Bush. In my view, the only praise will come when he finally understands that the camp of Islam must be weakened, and he acts accordingly in Iraq, using whatever excuse he needs: "we can't get involved in a civil war" or "we've done our part, now it's up to all Iraqis who love freedom to do theirs" or other plausible mountebank's patter to the same general effect.
Until then, until this or any other Administration instructs us in the nature, the promptings, and the goals of Jihad, and in the various instruments of Jihad, we will still be lost in the darkness. Until this or any other Administration acts against not merely "terrorism" or those who "fund terrorism" but against all the instruments of Jihad, we will continue to be at a disadvantage. Until someone in power articulates the problem cleverly and convincingly, in a way that CAIR and other spokesmen for the Jihad (for what is CAIR if not an organization determined to spread the role, and therefore rule, of Islam?) will find, no matter how hysterically they scream, unanswerable -- because based, unanswerably, on a knowledge of what is actully in that Qur'an, in those collections of Hadith, in that Life of Muhammad -- we will continue to be losing this great struggle.
This needs to be said over and over, as unpleasant as it is. Altogether too many Americans have bought into the "religion of peace" notion, not realizing that "islam" means "submission," just as "mir" does.
President Bush might be tacking slowly, but he's tacking nevertheless, and deserves to be encouraged.
This essay should be worked into a mini-doco video.... to reach even the "illiterate".
I have noted in the past that this term - Islamo-Fascist - is misleadingly redundant in that it conveys the impression that there is a non-Fascist component to Islam. Michael Medved's prefered term - Islamo-Nazi - is no improvement. Having said that, the president, and others, who use this term, can be excused insofar as this as much as they can go, short of blatantly declaring that we are at war with Islam.
The problem I do have with those who use this term is ignorami like Hannity, who are too quick to issue the standard disclaimer that it's a twisted version of Islam. How does he know? He read the Quran, and the worst he could come up with was, "Take not Christians or Jews as your friends"? Or did he simply avoid citing various Quranic verses for reasons like 'polite company', 'family show', et al? An implicitly telling comment on the Quran.
But I'm seeing more reasons to be cheerful. While Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly are nowhere near the fore-front when it comes to identifying Islam as the enemy, their subs - Roger Hedgecock and Michael Smirkanesh (sp?) do a fine job of doing just that. Last week, Roger discussed the various items that have been discussed here - the MI Walmart cell phones, the missing Egyptians, the UK terror plots (and the issues with profiling), the Hizbullah war and Ahmadijihad's statements.
On O'Reilly's show, two callers talked at length about the myth about Islam being benign. One talked about the dicotomy about the Meccan and Medinan verses, and how, in Infidel lands, Muslims live by the Meccan verses, while in Islamic lands, they live by the Medinan verses. The next caller pointed out how the Quran was pure hate speech.
I know, not much should be made on what goes on on these talk shows, but the fact that people are more willing to state the obvious is definitely a refreshing contrast to the apologists who generally rule the day.
Good essay. It should reach more people. I feel obligated to spread the word around about this essay
Infidel Pride,
If I remember correcthly that in one of your earlier post you were awaiting naturalization. Good luck and god bless.
Good essay. It should reach more people. I feel obligated to spread the word around about this essay
Infidel Pride,
If I remember correctly that in one of your earlier post you were awaiting naturalization. Good luck and god bless.
Thanks
Although I myself use the term islamofascism frequently, I believe Hugh is correct in that it still dodges the issue at hand, i.e. islam, plain and simple.
However, using it carries with it some practical and pedagogic benefits. Practical, because "the world is not ready for naming that-which-must-not-be-named." At the same time as linking a Middle Eastern belief system with a specifically European concept serves to obfuscate, it also makes PC name calling more difficult, by emphasizing the ideological focus of the critique (as opposed to the hoary old chestnut of "race" [sic]), and, pedagically, pointing to the obvious similarities with Euro-style totalitarianism. Hey, this was set me on a sliding slope from kneejerk leftism to where I stand today. I am proof that this approach works.
"Islamofascism" helps deconstruct dated notions of left/right: what is more "right wing" than sharia rule? You (dhimmi) tell me? Why on Earth does the left find it so compelling to defend something so ... so ... reactionary as islam?
The term is useful at this stage of anti-jihadism. Hopefully one day naming the enemy islam will become mainstream. It requires the ability to distinguish between islam the belief system, and the Muslim person who is acceptable to us to the extent that he distances himself from this mental straitjacket that has been forced upon him.
islamic fascist, repeated enough (although not a great choice) it will resonate and achieve branding status. The targeted audience (pc types still too slow to figure muslims out) will understand some islamic people have a fascist agenda. Heard enough they will start to wonder what percentage of the islamic population are in fact fascist. A little research on their part with the idea already in their heads that at least some islamic peoples are in fact fascists and we will educate a sizeable portion of the yet uneducated. They will learn brand awareness and turn from supporters of islam into a much more cautious and potentially anti islamic audience. Sounds like a good idea to me.
I would tend to agree with Hugh that it doesn't go far enough. It also misses the whole world
domination thing that this cult espouses. Most
importantly, it still confuses by suggesting
that there are Islamic nonfascists. The sad
truth is that we're at war with Islam in all of
it's disgusting varieties.
That said, for marketing purposes, it will have to do for now.
two sayings come to mind of Hugh's point, 1) your dammed if you do, or your dammed if you
dont 2) points\ is like splitting hairs.
the first point is easy enough to understand, seems Bush never satisfies anyone, someone is pissed at him all of the time..the secound point, is that the use of "Islamic fascists.”can take away the true meaning of Islam, in that you can still hear the remark, which l detest, "hijacked". but the other point is that Islam is another form of "facism" and cult like all rolled into one religion. what ever phrase you use, if it gets the stupid muslim angry, go ahead and use it. anyone discussing with you the use of "facisim" you can bring the points to the rasons why you know islam is facist. one phrase can lead to more discussions, and so it has worked its term of use of "facist".
Ronin
Why not turn it around, and call it fascist-Islam? It will still have the same problem in that one might assume that there is a non-fascist Islam, but it would be more accurate in that Islam should be the noun, and fascist the adjective, rather than the other way around.
Zena, I agree. It is a good starting point and the fact that cair was so quick to jump on its usage tells me it is a good idea to continue to use it, spread it and discuss it.
I've never heard anyone use the word 'huzzah'. It's always 'hurrah', 'hurray' or 'hooray'. Unless you stepped off a time machine from Shakespeare's age. A bit of literary conceit here?
Ben
Hugh is 98 - factor that in when accounting for his language.
Infidel Pride, Good idea for those who understand the problem but bad marketing. It comes across as an attack against all of islam. The pc audience will roll their collective eyes and their brains will shut down. Remember they love an underdog that’s how we got into this mess. We first get brand awareness and modify it later after they start to point out to us that the term is not strong enough.
Hugh is 98?
No wonder he knows so much!
I'll vote for the Fitzgerald/Spencer ticket or the Spencer/Fitzgerald ticket, machts nichts.
Mr Bush and Ms Rice will leave office still not understanding the scope of the problem. Lieberman might be able to publicly call a spade a spade, but he needs to win an election in an uphill battle. The only people in politics who can articulate the situation don't have a Baptist's chance in Ryadh of getting elected. Reagan and Truman are dead. So who's out there?
Why in hell can't a politician just say Islam without a modifying prefix or suffix? I'll answer my own question. They're cowards.
________________________________________________
Commenter: "Pelayo, how can you call a political leader a coward when you have never had to take a public stand on an issue this important.
Pelayo: "I can't play pro-football either but I can tell a good player from a lousy player."
Who are Bush's advisors on Islam now? I would really like to know.
Who are Bush's advisors on Islam now? I would really like to know.
Posted by: John Sobieski
I don’t know for sure but I would bet on someone with a Doctorate in islamic studies, educated and graduated from an ivy league university with an islamic studies program funded by saudi arabia.
I believe the term originated with Christopher Hitchens, who still has some Leftist bugaboos.
But any modifier on the term islam itself, only serves to conceal the true essence of our enemy. I use jihadist islam because I think that is the most accurate. It implies that not every muslim is our enemy, but it also implies that our enemies are motivated from WITHIN by their own religious doctrines, such as jihad.
And Hugh is dead right too when he notices that the noun becomes fascism instead of islam. If Hitchens had used fascistic islam, that would have been far more accurate. For fascism has often served as a vehicle for ethnic supremacists. And there are some who believe that islam is nothing more than a vehicle and platform for arab supremacism.
I'm not sure that it is, because how can such a schemata account for the Persian problem we're dealing with now. Or how can that prism account for the Ottoman empire's constant attempts to invade Eastern Europe.
But regardless, we need to use more "jihad" and start phasing out fascism.
REMEMBER when the term islamofascists was first floated. I still recall the enthusiasm of Fred Barnes for the phrase.
And another thing, start spelling the word ISLAM with lowercase letters, such as islam. Never spell it Islam. Never capitalize it.
Bush prol got new advisors every few years, you know the first time after 9-11, he used the word "crusade" did you remember the explosions of howls from the left and muslims. the one time l saw Bush with one of the Saudi princes, or king what ever, walking hand in hand holding hands l gasped! he must of been told it was proper to act gay with the saudi princes. what is a president to do? needs upgrading on advisors, but l think he is getting warmer on islam.
Bush's position has devolved to the position of the prevailing establishment. His own clarity has been beaten down, and now all he does is spout United Nations boilerplate, "resolution this," "resolution that." It's so pusillanimous.
The hate, the vitriol, FROM LEFT AND RIGHT, has effectively broken his spirit. Whatever confidence he had seems to have been thrashed out of him.
If his positions seem chaotic of late, if he seems MALLEABLE, it's because he is.
Again, his communicative deficiencies, him being a verbal cripple, has served to cripple his policies and his vision.
And now.....................?
There won't be any rush to embrace the hard cynicism of Hugh Fitzgerald, that's for sure. NO. The West will rush to find a fig leaf from the United Nations. Each coward will now find excuse and cover for his own cowardice by pointing to the United Nations.
The Media will say that ONLY the United Nations can find the reservoirs of good will and prestige that can lead us beyond the intractable "political problems" of the middle east. And a de facto consensus will emerge that all of the world's problems find their source in the Arab/Israeli dispute. And there will arise an increased chorus calling for a "political solution." Id est, purge the zionist entity from the mid east landscape.
Israel has already been treated like Czechoslovakia in this drama. As Czechoslovakia was tasked to make concessions of her security for the peace that would supposedly accrue to a wider international community, so too was Israel tasked to cease her military operations, to assuage wider regional anxieties.
It's only going to get worse.
Ronin wrote:
"The targeted audience (pc types still too slow to figure muslims out) ....... A little research on their part with the idea already in their heads that at least some islamic peoples are in fact fascists and we will educate a sizeable portion of the yet uneducated."
Absolutely! I am one of the pc types who was too focused on my
other interests to add finding out what the terrorists motivation was until this latest aggression against Israel and I've been scrambling up the learning curve mighty fast.
I don't really think Hugh needs our encouragement, but he definitely deserves my gratitude. Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch were the first to spotlight for me the truth of the issues and I have passed on this post to a couple of senators as well as family and friends.
I'm almost finished reading The Sword of the Prophet. This use-to-be-a-Democrat is now an I-don't-know-what, but I do know what to expect of any politician who wants my vote.
wow l missed that point, Hugh is 98? well Hugh you are doing well for that age! you are from another age, where spelling, grammar was at its best, no wonder you wince at our spelling and grammar misakes. my worse subjects in school.
I thought that Ned Lamont's interview with Fox News after the primary was encouraging. He seems to understand that we ought not get involved in an Iraqi civil war and that having a Shiite dominated Iraqi government tilts too much towards Iran and has hurt Israel.
I also liked his emphasis on homeland defense over trying to transform Islamic countires, though he opposes the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretaps.
For once, though, we seem to have a liberal candidate who can present a logical and coherent view of things beyond the usual PC platitudes.
The nerve of CAIR to complain about Dubya's choice of words. Let's call them what they are: Islamic activists. And I'm still waiting for the etymology of the murky term Islamist.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
These cities were conquered in the time of Umar, Uthman, and others, Muslims used to say, “Conquer for yourselves whatever seems good to you; for by Allah you have conquered no city but that Muhammad was given its keys beforehand.”
--- al Tabari 8:13
War is kindled by passing winds. Our swords glitter, cutting through pugnacious heads. Allah puts obstacles in our victims’ way to protect His sacred property and our dignity.
--- Ishaq 489
Allah has promised to those among you who believe and do good work that He will make them rulers of the earth. He will establish in authority their religion—the one which He has chosen for them.
--- God talking about Himself in the 3rd person again in Koran 24:55
Oh the nerve of CAIR, and oh the intellectual laziness of Bill O’Reilly.
I use the term islamofacists myself. Also I will take the advice of one of the posters and not use upper case anymore for islam.
The unforeseen consequences of not naming the enemy....hold onto your hats..
Hugh-
Bush's use of “Islamic fascists” is a step in the right direction. However, the real danger of not naming Islam as the enemy is the unforeseen rise of a European fascism that will be the result of not naming Islam as the enemy.
The rise of European fascism is coming because the current European elites pretend to have a tolerance of Islam in order to use Islam, make antisemitism acceptable, and do business as usual with Mideast elites. But the elites are losing control of Islam in Europe.
I would not be surprised to see a populist fascism sweep West, Central, and even East Europe in the next decade. Europe in the 1920's Wiemar period looked placid, but then came the depression, and overnight fascists took power in Germany and elsewhere. It could happen again.
The elites in Europe have got to name the enemy (Islam) and expel Muslims from Europe or the parlimentry democracy that took root in Western and Central Europe after WW2 will vanish overnight. That's the danger of not naming and destroying Islam in Europe. However, most of the elites in Europe are too timid to do what has to be done re Islam in Europe-that's why I see a future of populist fascism (supported by a minority part of the current elite)in Europe.
"Bush Declares Hezbollah Defeated"
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-081406bush,0,6860730.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Hugh said:
"They can train down the street, in a basement, in a park, in an empty building, in a gymnasium, in a squat in Brick Lane over a curry takeaway, or in a posh apartment on Park Lane, funded by some rich Arab trying to atone, islamically speaking, for his decadent Western life by supporting such plots to kill Infidels, storing up points for his Muslim Heaven."
So true, it was on the news tonight (in Britain) that it is suspected that islamic terrorists have been training in a park in London and in the countryside (Lake District). This was stated as a reslt of the investigation into the foiled plot last week.
And can I say again- Muslim heaven is a very very bad place to be (psychos, terrorists, sex slaves, etc.), to be avoided children (not that it exists really). Christian heaven is the one to aim for- fluffy clouds, harps, really nice...
The 'fascism' in Islamofascism is a VERY useful talking point with knee jerk liberals and far left mutliculuralists.
Keep making the point. Item by item Islam and Fascism are a perfect fit. There is nothing remotely progressive about Hamas, Hezbollah etc. I've brought many around this way.
The terrible irony of this democracy crusade of President Bush could be that we end up being the only major democracy (with maybe Britain, Japan and Israel as allies) in the world. Things might look like 1940 again overnight. There is a subtext to this conflict with Islam that could bring about unpleasant and unforeseen consequences unless we have the courage to call Islam the enemy of secular parliamentary democracy, and the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions in a free, secular society.
islam has many fronts, violent terror, propaganda, legal, illegal, I'm not going to make a long list you get the idea. We have to throw the same back. When you see signs that say "muslim prayer room" demand one for your own religion. Display your Infidel t-shirts (only if your my size, they hate it but steer clear" give away copies of Roberts books, start discussions with friends and co-workers. I am not wealthy but I like to buy copies of Roberts book and leave them in airports when I travel (I have watched people pick them up look around and sit down to read) great fun. Use terms like "jihadi" Islamic fascism and anything else that will start a conversation. They have millions of voices, time we spoke up ourselves.
And another thing, start spelling the word ISLAM with lowercase letters, such as islam. Never spell it Islam. Never capitalize it.
islam islam islam.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 200
Ok, now I’ve got one. Always spell it Koran, Mohammed, and Moslems. I was pounding my steering wheel several months ago when Bob Spencer was on Dennis Prager pronouncing it coo-ahn which is of course the correct pronunciation as a Moslem would say the word.
Screw ‘em. Prounounce it coe-ran, make it real hillbilly, this is what makes Moslems wince. As for integrity, the Moslems call him Mo, not Mu, therefore we have Mohammed.
If you can’t show disrespect for islam by these not-so-innocent mispronunciations, what can you show disrespect for? I wanna see some O's in here. Make sense?
If only Bush knew about Ibn Warraq's essay where he brillantly shows that Islam is fascism under the 14 signs that Umberto Eco came out with to determine what is fascist and what is not.
It can be read here.
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/facism.htm
The correct term to use when referring to an adherent of islam is mohammedan. The term islam should properly be identified as mohammedism or anglicized as submission.
It took Bush five years to get to the point of using that phrase "Islamic fascists."
_________________________________________
Hugh, good essay as usual, but I believe that Bush used the term "islamofascist" several years ago, and received chastising then.
BTW, congrats on being 98. I figured you were old, but not THAT old.
Where were you when Clinton was in office, I am sorry but, George Bush has made strides, huuuge strides. To call him timid, misdirected, or stupid at this point leads me to believe, that I need to read the rest of your story, instead of skipping to the last quote to get a word in. It may not be good enough, but damnit, it is better than before. He gets the goat from the world, Dems, Reps, and the like. Give the man a break, give the U.S. a break. We can not do it all, right now, but give us some time.
I would never try and offend a muslim, islam old mo, new mo, iran, iraq or any other form of islamic fascists (yeah right). I also will not bend, offer encouragement to them, thier pedophile boss or stop warning the sleeping pc crowd to wake up. I recommend most folks just educate yourselves and invite everyone you know to visit this site. Give them Roberts books, challenge them to read it, it works. I still see the P.I.G going around at work (I had to buy myself a new copy, I never got my other one back). Folks most of us can not hope to match Robert's skills, don't try, use it, spread it. I like to email posts from this site around (yes, Hugh even your longer ones) great stuff, I am a real fan and greatful for your works.
Frankly I don't care if they call the religion "sooooooooo-weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee PIG," except that pigs don't strap dynamite on themselves.
Zena,
Hugh is not really 98...he's just so eccentric that he comes off that way.
Oddly, he claims never to have been kissed. Either he was kidding...or he's incredibly timid (highly unlikely given the swagger of his pen here)...or he was born with a congenital condition that left him lipless.
A. Major,
Welcome aboard. Get the word out. Shatter the paradigm of political-correctness.
Frank,
A mass expulsion of Muslims from Europe might just be catastrophic for America....if some bleeding-heart happens to be President when it occurs and accepts them as refugees.
I have read it all Hugh. And I stand corrected, So where should we go from here?
Frankly I don't care if they call the religion "sooooooooo-weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee PIG," except that pigs don't strap dynamite on themselves.
Infidel Proud you have no idea what's going on at my hog farm down here in south-central Kaintuck. We are aloft. I just got funding from Wells Fargo to establish a Porcine Aeronautics operation, which of course is a dive bombing operation a la the A-6, A-10, and Warthog.
And that includes not dynamite, but hogs chest wrapped with plastique and other incendiaries.
Incoming.
Cornelius-
I keep getting the nagging intuition that there are elements (probably still a relatively small minority) of the European elite that are using Islam as a road to fascism in Europe. I think they see the PC crowd there as useful idiots to that end. Eventually, these (now shy) fascists expect a popular revolt against what's being done in Europe under the guise of tolerance. (We may be witnessing Europe's 2nd (but long) Wiemar period.) At least I see it that way.
I also suspect that the fascists of Europe (especially in France) share Submission's hatred of Jews-and Submission is a temporary ally to that end.
In any case, I have a hunch that PC is not the only motive of the current coddling of Islam in Europe. Islam in Europe may be the pimp for a danger that we don't yet foresee: for example, a fascist Europe in alliance with a fascist Russia may become our worst nightmare.
President Bush's belief that democracy is the deep yearning of mankind is not self-evident. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I think (except for Britain), democracy may be the wave of the past in Europe. I'm not so sure democracy has such deep roots in Europe, anymore than that it has in the Submission lands.
The unhappy but liberating facts at present are that true islam is our mortal enemy.
When the West realizes as much, most everything follows, and we have a good chance of saving our civilization.
The battle is only in its inception stages.
"Oddly, he claims never to have been kissed."
But Hugh has kissed the Blarney stone-God bless him.
Hugh/
"The phrase "Islamic fascists" implies that there are those among good Muslims, obedient Muslims, devout Muslims, those who could be other than "fascistic." But is this possible? Is this belief-system (do not call it a religion because the word "religion" in many quarters commands automatic respect) capable of permitting mental and other kinds of freedom? It presents itself as a Total Regulation of Life. Everything is either forbidden or commanded, and there are lists of such things, from foods and hairstyles, to matters of the most intimate personal hygiene. All written down, all carefully collected. And then there is Islam as a Complete Explanation of the Universe, with vague passages in the Qur'an supposedly containing all of modern science, from vulcanology right to Benoit Mandelbrot's fractals and the nature of DNA, the nature of atom and subatomic world. It's "in the book." But, you will answer, there are Muslims who do not decide everything according to the Qur'an, do not follow Muhammad in every particular. True, but irrelevant. As long as, in the population of Muslims, most of them are primitively wedded to the real Islam or can be made to be so because the textual authority is entirely on the side of those "Islamic fascists," then one has a problem with Islam that never goes away."
I'm sorry and I really, really hate to contradict you, but here I think that you have gone completely over the top. Yes, oh very yes, I agree that the vast bulk of moslems adhere to a version of their holy book that almost all Christian, or secularist, westerners would, and do (if they read it as promulgated by the the grand mufti, for example) find abhorrent. However, I, personally, know moslems who do not read their sacred texts that way. I, personally, know moslems who choose to interpret the words in a western, secularistically, spiritualistic religious sense. I, personally, know moslems who are, and say so, personally appalled by the actions of the terrorists. It is not their fault that the main stream media choose not to report them. I cannot, and will not, buy into your assertion that "we can see from the observable behavior of Muslims in the West, they do not express loyalty to the Infidel nation-state..." when I, personally, know moslems who serve in the British armed forces (army, navy and airforce - and Iraq and Afghanistan, to boot), the fire brigades, the reservists, the nursing and medical doctoring professions, the scholastic callings and the political arena and who profess, openly and loudly, their loyalty to the UK and who demonstrate it in every way day by day.
Your assertions run counter to my everyday, minute by minute, hour by hour, experiences. Your assertions versus my everday experience is what it boils down to. I have personal experiences of moslems who join in, partake of and support, everyday, ordinary democratic society here in the UK. My youngest niece has, with the full blessing of our vicar (the most suspicious person about moslem motives whom I have ever met), a moslem godfather who made the promises that all godfathers must make freely and voluntarily, in front of a Christian congregation in a Christian church with his family and his imam looking on.
My family, at the end of the baptismal service, in accordance with our centuries old traditions, swore that we would make available funds that would enable her to make pilgrimage to Canterbury and to Rome on, or after, her sixteenth birthday. To the best of my knowledge, and I admit that I could be wrong here, the moslems in our little country Church that day were, up until that moment, unaware of that particular tradition. Not to be outdone, obviously, at the party afterwards, the imam asked that his people should promise to provide funds to make it possible that my dearly beloved niece should be able to make pilgrimage to St. James at Compostela, also. This they willingly agreed to do.
So please, Hugh, don't say that the two spiritual communities cannot meet. Don't say that all moslems are wicked, evil or seek our destruction. It simply isn't the experience that most of here in the UK have. Maybe they are practicing taqiya or kitman against us. But really, it just does not appear to be so at a grassroots level.
Oh, of course, you are probably asking why my niece had, or needed, a moslem godfather. Simply answered. Because my brother (the third eldest amongst my siblings) married, in a love match, the second child, the female child, of a moslem shop-keeper in the east end of London who hailed originaly from Pakistan. Her elder brother stood godfather to my niece - willingly. Worse, as far as you are concerned, this gay (known to the family and the imam) Englishman - me - stood nameman and witness for his son as he made his first profession of faith as an adult.
Of such small compromises is the future made.
And, I am aware, that whenever anyone challenges you about the modern state of Britain all we ever get is a resounding silence. Visit us soon, Hugh, for you are desperately out of touch, don't you know. The world's third largest economy is, despite what you Americans want, doing its own thing and trying, despite the moslem threat, and I grant you that despite my personal experiences that that is real enough, to find a way through the muddle and confusion
WITHOUT COSTING HUMAN LIVES.
Oh yes, I just shouted. Live with it! Because I don't really think, even after reading this site for months and months, that you either know or understand a d**n thing about Britain and Europe. You are, obviously, culturally well educated, but you are not, and probably never can be, socially au fait with us or the rest of Europe. As Wharton was to James so you Americans are to our Shakespeare (so to speak) - much to your cost and our benefit.
Dominic.
OK Mr. Garrison. Best of luck. Please tell the moderates to hurry up.
Dominic-necessitasnonhabetlegem
You havn't got a clue about America. You are an emotion driven jackass-and I am not shouting when I say that.
Frank; I’ve been wondering if this was the end of democracy in Europe for that last couple of days. I just can’t imagine Germany or England submitting to a popular vote installing Islam. An intentional conspiracy though… Maybe a stretch.
"Your assertions run counter to my everyday, minute by minute, hour by hour, experiences. Your assertions versus my everday experience is what it boils down to. I have personal experiences of moslems who join in, partake of and support, everyday, ordinary democratic society here in the UK. My youngest niece has, with the full blessing of our vicar (the most suspicious person about moslem motives whom I have ever met), a moslem godfather who made the promises that all godfathers must make freely and voluntarily, in front of a Christian congregation in a Christian church with his family and his imam looking on.
My family, at the end of the baptismal service, in accordance with our centuries old traditions, swore that we would make available funds that would enable her to make pilgrimage to Canterbury and to Rome on, or after, her sixteenth birthday. To the best of my knowledge, and I admit that I could be wrong here, the moslems in our little country Church that day were, up until that moment, unaware of that particular tradition. Not to be outdone, obviously, at the party afterwards, the imam asked that his people should promise to provide funds to make it possible that my dearly beloved niece should be able to make pilgrimage to St. James at Compostela, also. This they willingly agreed to do.
So please, Hugh, don't say that the two spiritual communities cannot meet. Don't say that all moslems are wicked, evil or seek our destruction. It simply isn't the experience that most of here in the UK have. Maybe they are practicing taqiya or kitman against us. But really, it just does not appear to be so at a grassroots level."
-- from a posting above
To the poster above who is quite sure that his own experience with Muslims he knows chipping in to send his niece to Compostela must, therefore, fatally vitiate my comments on the doctrine of Islam, which do not depend on the existence of this or that unfeignedly -- as opposed to feigning -- Muslim who utterly rejects what are central, and not tangential, tenets of the Faith, and about which we, the Infidels, not only have available to us a great deal of scholarship -- Joseph Schacht on the Shari'a, Antoine Fattal on the legal status of non-Muslims under Islam, C. Snouck Hurgronje and Arthur Jeffrey and St. Clair Tisdall on many aspects of Islam -- but also have a historical record that extends 1350 years back in time, and that extends from Spain to East Asia in space.
Against all this, against furthermore the testimony of many articulate ex-Muslims who, anytime they want, can attend a mosque and be recipients -- as they can so easily fit in as Muslims -- of all kinds of intra-Muslim confidences, things said by Muslims to Muslims --you prefer to set your own anecdotal evidence.
The observable behavior of many Muslims -- not all, but many -- confirms that support for Jihad is not limited to those who actively take part. Nor is Jihad -- this must be remembered -- merely a matter of "qital" or combat (i.e., violence). All who participate in the "struggle" to spread Islam, until it covers the globe, are engaged in Jihad. They may never participate in, and may even deplore, the use of terrorism. But the goal that they are given, as a duty by the immutable and canonical texts, is to spread Islam, to remove all obstacles to that spread which Infidels may have erected, and to help to cause, everywhere in the world, Islam to dominate and Muslims to rule.
Of course there are "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims. They are those who, while rejecting the politics or, more accurately, geopolitics of Islam, nonetheless continue to describe themselves as Muslims. Some do it out of filial piety. Many do it becaused they assume that they must retain or possess a kind of identity as members of a collective; Islam encourages the idea of the collective and abhors the individual, and the exercise of the individual conscience. There are also those who may actually not be completely aware of what the texts of Islam teach -- though this condition is becoming ever less frequent, and certainly, outside of the illiterate villager in Afghanistan or Indonesia or Pakistan, is not to be taken at face value, and may reflect a deliberate desire by some not to find out, lest that force them to make an unpleasant choice: to be apostates, or in remaining Muslims, to objectively further the Jihad.
Anyone who denies the tenets of Islam, denies what it so obviously encourages -- hostility, murderous hostility -- toward all non-Muslims, is objectively furthering the Jihad.
Ostentatious displays of affability, exaggerated kindnesses, an over-eagerness to please, are to me not things which should assuage worry, but rather are reasons to be ever more vigilant. There are all sorts of examples of people not only misrepresenting what Islam teaches, but what they themselves believe -- including examples of those who participated, seemingly in heartfelt fashion, in all kinds of candle-light vigils and interfaith meetings after 9/11/2001, and who were later discovered to have spoken, both before and after that period of sentimental "interfaithiness" (the interpolated "i" does the same work here that it does in Colbert's invention "truthiness"), and some have even been arrested for going beyond only words.
If you think that the handful of Muslims who have fought in the armed services of Western countries, in Iraq and Afghanistan, proves something, you are right. What it proves is that so very few have done so, practically none at all (I am excluding the so-called "Black Muslims" who, as you know, are not regarded by real Muslims as Muslims at all), and that, far from being celebrated by the Muslim community, are shunned by it, put into Coventry, for such service. That is what is telling, not the odd Muslim who ignores the stricture against ever taking the side of Infidels against Muslims. What those few do is perform a certain mental gymnatics-- telling themselves that they are indeed bringing "freedom" and making life better for Muslims, not really fighting them, and so, with that justification to themselves, that handful manages to tell itself it can fight for what is an Infidel nation-state.
The fact that some Muslims, in your or some other Infidel's acquiantance, live their lives seemingly (in your view of the matter) indifferent to the tenets of Islam, is not a consolation. The tenets remain. The taqiyya remains. The need to get along and to curry favor with Infidels, for now, remains. The ability of the "Muslim-for-identificaton-purposes-only" Muslim to turn on a dime, to become much more dangerously devout, remains.
Here. Perform this little experiment. That imam who was all for sending your niece to Compostela, and for raising the funds to do it, should be re-met. Get into a converstaion with him. Ask a few telling questions. Ask him whether he agrees that all people have the right to leave any religion they choose, and that those who would punish them should themselves be punished. Ask him what he thinks about the killing of Asma bint Marwan for her mocking verses on Muhammad. Ask him about Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was nine, and whether he agrees that that, and so many other things said to have been done (or said) by Muhammad, are extremely distressing and that you hope Muslims will find a way to somehow put Muhammad back in the box of historical context, so that he does not remain, as the Qur'an calls him, "uswa hasana" --- and does not remain, for hundreds of millions of Muslims, all of them far more primitive no doubt than that Compostela-approving imam, the Perfect Man for Muslims for all time.
In other words, get beyond smiles and wiles and pleasantries and unctuousness and an ostentatious We-Aim-to-Please attitude. Do you think I am not familiar with all that? Get to the real matters at hand.
Then report by email to Robert on your experiences, and if anything unsettling or troubling swam into your ken. And ask the imam as well about the "My Son the Fanatic" problem -- the Muslims who, out of their own mental or emotional disarray and private setbacks, find that they become far less easygoing in their faith than their own parents.
Your discussions will make sense only if undergirded by some preparation: some studying of Qur'an and Hadith and Sira (you can do it online quite easily), and studying the scholars who spent their lifetimes understanding those texts, and the relation of those texts to the observable behavior of Muslim peoples, both in the fulfillment of the duty and the conduct of Jihad-conquest, and in the treatment of all non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, Confucians, and others, in those many non-Muslim lands conquered and then ruled by Muslims.
Call it field research.
Frank/
limes/
I am sorry that you have misunderstood me. Please read my post again, closely!
By-the-way, one of my cousins has just married a serving officer in the American armed forces and I thoroughly approve. I am not, nor could I ever be, anti-American bearing in mind that my maternal grandmother hails from Boston and is WASP American to her very core - and a very scary old lady, to boot (well, she certainly puts the willies up me and my brothers and sisters).
Dominic.
As Wharton was to James so you Americans are to our Shakespeare (so to speak) - much to your cost and our benefit.
Good night Dominic. Good riddance.
A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Dominic, you're not the only European here so dont assume you're the only one who understands Europe.
You are right, not all Moslems are bad. Some are in the service. Some are good scientists, etc, etc. But *on the whole* they do much more harm than good. Moreover, their presence in the West was completely un-necessary to begin with.
Have you any works of fiction to your credit Fitzgerald?
I'd be interested in checking them out.
So comprehensive a command of the language should find itself in print.
And did you ever read Henryk Sienkiewicz's FIRE IN THE STEPPE? And if so, what did you think of it?
Hugh/
Thank-you for replying to me. I do understand where you are coming from and what you are saying - worse (or better) I agree with you! I know that it is possible that I am being lied to. Even worse (or better), I know that the moslems of my acquaintance may be lying to themselves, and me, - ignoring much of that which is written in the koran, hadith and surah, either deliberately, or out of malice or ignorance.
Of course the tenets of islam remain. But individuals have freewill. If some, regrettably a very few, moslems choose to integrate, to re-interpret the tenets, the verses, the statements made in their writings should I not encourage this? Should I cut off those members of my family who, out of love, have chosen to injoin themselves to those of another faith that I find unacceptable. Should I not explore? Should I not ask of them where their loyalties, their spiritualities, lie. In short, should I hate simply because they are different? And how does this profit me? Or us? If we cannot eradicate the threat that we face, and I agree with you - we do face a threat - should we not, to the best of our abilities, seek to neutralise the threat, to bring, at least the Naseems of this world to see things as we see them.
I have, long before you asked, re-met that imam on many an occasion. I have challenged him in the light of all that I have learned by reading this site (and many others). I still remain convinced that I am speaking to a good man - but not, I must admit, one who necessarily understands all the tenets of his faith. But that is precisely, and obscurely, my point. There are, there must be, more doors to God than one. I know that that is going to annoy you but I can't help it. I am a Christian and a spiritual being (as we all are, in my opinion). I see the world through the prism of my God-belief and it is a Western 21st. century God-belief.
The problem, as I see it, is that you classify all moslems as the same. They are not. How can they be? They, after all, merely human. They are susceptible to islamic fundamentals as laid out in their texts but they are not all the same. Some, deliberately, choose to ignore that which is counter to reality and reason; and the reason they then adopt is the reason that they know, the reason that they are brought up with - the reason of the enlightenment as they have experienced it through living amongst us.
Instead of condemning all moslems - and all Christian/moslem interreactions - try to have a little, a very little, Christian charity here. If you drive them into the lager then into the lager they will go but if you encourage the waverers to dialogue then we might just get somewhere without killing people.
You are right in terms of the philosophy of mohammedanism but you are not right in terms of where the heart can lead. Love: love, my friend, drives this world. If you want to turn that into hate then go ahead, but, I for one, will not follow you there.
I have family and I have moslem friends and, now, I have moslem stroke Christian family. It is too late to separate all of this. I have to find a way forward and so do they. Your comments are, to say the least, extremely helpful and un-helpful at one and the same time. This is Europe today. We have to find a way forward - or do want me to wage war against the moslem mixed Christian side of my family? Nothing is simple, is it? Bear in mind that some of my family is German Jewish also. Doesn't fit your paradigm? Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Oh, of course, remember Salman Rushdie (most apposite) here:
"Family history, of course, has its proper dietary laws. One is supposed to swallow and digest only the permitted parts of it, the halal portions of the past, drained of their redness, their blood. (From Midnight's Children first published in 1981.)
Dominic.
Post scriptum:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012678.php#comments and I would like an answer.
I was about to tie into Dominic about his passionately romantic drivel, when Hugh's rejoinder came through.
Nuff said.
Haid Dasalami/
Oh go on, tie in. I'm enjoying this. But I, too, must sleep. See you all tomorrow.
God bless you all (including Hugh - whom, believe it or not, I mutch admire).
Hugh/
Thank-you for your reply on the other thread. Will debate further with you on the morrow - I hope. Let us sleep now. May angels watch over you.
Dominic.
I call the critters Koraniacs. they have tossed away their butter knives and use an ax. they cut you off. they cut you up. they need to cut out now and their holy books with them.
I call the critters Koraniacs. they have tossed away their butter knives and use an ax. they cut you off. they cut you up. they need to cut out now and their holy books with them.
Dominic:
Do you have any training in science? The bottom line is that your personal experience is not 'statistically significant.'
Islamic fascism is correct description that is politically correct to prevent massive backlash from our Muslim and Muslimah "friends".
The only way to abolish Islam via love is to commit yourself to evangelism of Muslim people, starting perhaps from France.
Jesus our Lord was father of democracy. He taught us how to conquer the Roman Empire via love. It took us 400 years to conquer Rome and in the 4th century, an Emperor named Constantine embraced Christ. We can use this same method to conquer Islam.
Islamic fascism is correct description that is politically correct to prevent massive backlash from our Muslim and Muslimah "friends".
The only way to abolish Islam via love is to commit yourself to evangelism of Muslim people, starting perhaps from France.
Jesus our Lord was father of democracy. He taught us how to conquer the Roman Empire via love. It took us 400 years to conquer Rome and in the 4th century, an Emperor named Constantine embraced Christ. We can use this same method to conquer Islam.
The exchange between Hugh and the other person is very revealing. It is obvious Hugh has studied logic (carefully) and responds to the fallacy of an "appeal to emotion" based on personal experience with a appeal to reason and the facts re the general rule of Islam and its mandates re jihad. (A rule is no less a rule simply because there are exceptions to the rule.) A guy like Hugh would prove to be very difficult for Nazis in a place like Nazi Germany, as he appealed to reason re their belief-system-dogmas. That's why people like him ended up in Nazi concentration camps. People with emotion based "arguments" are often hostile and threatened by people like him (and Robert).
I don't claim to be some maven re logic. However, I have picked up a few books and studied them to understand how to think rationally. I suspect Hugh has read and studied a bit more than me on the matter. I think that is a rational deduction based upon facts.
BTW, in my own study of the rules of logic, I note that Islam appeals to fallacies of reason in an unusually systematic way. Its largely immune to the rules of logic. (A lot of folks in this world are immune or incapable of logic and I am not surprised that Socrates was killed for his apostasy re the religion of his time. He asked too many questions, exposed too many contradictions. There were people who hated him for that.)
FRANK: I keep getting the nagging intuition that there are elements (probably still a relatively small minority) of the European elite that are using Islam as a road to fascism in Europe. I think they see the PC crowd there as useful idiots to that end. Eventually, these (now shy) fascists expect a popular revolt against what's being done in Europe under the guise of tolerance. (We may be witnessing Europe's 2nd (but long) Wiemar period.) At least I see it that way.
RESPONSE: Sounds too much like the conspiracy theories we here from Leftists at the Guardian. No, I don't subscribe to this notion. I believe things are exactly as they seem: Europe's elite has simply swallowed whole-hog the multicultural paradigm.
FRANK: I also suspect that the fascists of Europe (especially in France) share Submission's hatred of Jews-and Submission is a temporary ally to that end.
RESPONSE: Agreed. Those among us who are prepared to embrace France's National Front and the British National Party because of their anti-immigrant stand are climbing into bed with anti-Semites and racists.
FRANK: In any case, I have a hunch that PC is not the only motive of the current coddling of Islam in Europe. Islam in Europe may be the pimp for a danger that we don't yet foresee: for example, a fascist Europe in alliance with a fascist Russia may become our worst nightmare.
RESPONSE: Again, I don't see the sinister intent. You could very well be correct that Europe is heading towards fascism due to the short-sighted policies of the elite, but I don't for a minute believe that this is their aspiration.
FRANK: President Bush's belief that democracy is the deep yearning of mankind is not self-evident. In fact, the opposite is probably true. I think (except for Britain), democracy may be the wave of the past in Europe. I'm not so sure democracy has such deep roots in Europe, anymore than that it has in the Submission lands.
RESPONSE: I tend to agree with you here. I think it naive to presume that all people aspire to the same ends. Certainly many millions of Muslims prefer "divine" law over the law of the people.
Cornelius-
The meaning of anything is in its consequences. I don't believe that all of the Euro-elites are looking at Islam as a road to fascism. But I do think that there are some that want the immigration to produce a crisis that will call for a fascist response. Most of the Euro-Elites are probably "useful idiots" for a few that have an agenda that might startle us. If Europe does not reform its immigration laws, the unforeseen result may be fascism. That is my point. For some, I think Islam may be a pimp to that end.
I might be wrong, but I am an American-and a lot us (I assume you are an American) are not afraid to think independently of conventional wisdom and even authority. (That's why I think that many Muslims here are a lot more questioning of dogma than appears to be the case in Europe or in Muslim countries.) I don't think its a conspiracy, but there are interests that may be working (independently) to a fascist end, to what the fascists may consider a god-sent problem.
It's just speculation. I want to look at the issue from different angles.
To Dominic aka necessitasnonhabetlegem:
First, a series of polls of British Muslims over the last two years shows alarming things about the Muslim community.
1.One percent (that would be 16,000 people) of British Muslims are "willing or even eager" to participate in acts of terrorism.
2. Seven percent of British Muslims (about 100,000 people) would support, at least morally, the one percent mentioned in item #1.
3. Thirty-nine percent of British Muslims think Western society is decadent and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end. Thirty-two percent think this the Muslim replacement (bye-bye religious freedom and human rights) should be brought in non-violently -- that means by the demographic method that Bernard Lewis and many other experts have pointed out as trending toward a Muslim majority in Europe by the end of the century, and in many parts of Europe by 2050.
4. Daniel Pipes, surveying all the polls recently done, concluded that over 50% of British Muslims would like to have some version of Sharia law rule in Britain.
5. The following article shows that the greater the percentage of Muslims in a nation, the worse the situation in terms of civil liberties and political rights:
Immigration Advisory
In this post I expand my last one, and take Freedom House rankings of civil liberties/political rights in every country in the world, and correlate those rankings with the percentage of a country's population that is Muslim. (Recall that the best possible Freedom House ranking is "1" for civil liberties and "1" for political rights, for a total score of "2". Costa Rica, Germany, Taiwan, the U.S. and Canada are examples of nations that earned a "2" ranking. The worst possible ranking is 7 for civil liberties and 7 for political rights, for a total of 14. Saudi Arabia and Syria are examples of countries ranked "14".)
For 2005, here is the inverse relation I found between Muslim population percentages and civil liberties/political rights:
23 nations in the world had populations that were 91%-100% Muslim. These nations earned an average Freedom House ranking of 10.4 for civil liberties and political rights.
13 nations had populations that were 71-90% Muslim. These nations earned average Freedom House ranking of 9.6.
8 nations had populations that were 51-70% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 9.3
14 nations had populations that were 20-50% Muslim. These nations earned an average ranking of 8.4.
The world's remaining 130 or so nations had populations that were 0% to 19% Muslim, and earned an average Freedom House ranking of 5.1.
So the 2005 period covered by the 2006 Freedom House report shows that the lower the percentage of Muslims in a country, the better off that country tended to be in terms of civil liberties/political rights.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are a few exceptions to that overall pattern, like Mali. Mali is 90% Muslim, but was given a "4" ranking, which is sufficiently good to put Mali in Freedom House's "free country" category.
Dominic, go back to the drawing board. Your position needs work.
Dominic (necessitasnonhabetlegem) said:
"Your assertions run counter to my everyday, minute by minute, hour by hour, experiences. Your assertions versus my everday experience is what it boils down to. I have personal experiences of moslems who join in, partake of and support, everyday, ordinary democratic society here in the UK."
Dominic, even if you are telling the truth (which we do not know) and even if the very few Muslims you know are being genuine with you (we do not know if this is the case, and niether do you), this is still an illogical statement. Hugh speaks of the texts and the worldwide and historical reality, not a small number of (genuine?) meetings. As correctly pointed out by americaningermany and george-rem, even if you are telling the truth these 'facts' are insignificant. Your statements provide no refutation to Hugh's statements. As Frank correctly states, you appeal to emotion rather than logic. You may be a 'cultural tourist', you may be a liar or a gullible idiot, I do not know. I do know that you have not refuted anything stated by Hugh. And you are not good at statistics or logic. Also, as george-rem said, you are not the only person on this board who lives in Europe, and your 'experiences' do not represent the general experiences in Europe - I speak from England and what you describe does not represent the majority expereince over here. You are either lying or have a very skewed view/limited experience. And another thing, joining in with the democratic process or anything else is not evidence of not desiring Islamic rule. Look at some of the Muslim organisations in Europe, they urge Muslims to join in as a means to take over.
Dominic (necessitasnonhabetlegem), your post was rubbish.
Dominic (necessitasnonhabetlegem) said:
"Oh yes, I just shouted. Live with it! Because I don't really think, even after reading this site for months and months, that you either know or understand a d**n thing about Britain and Europe. You are, obviously, culturally well educated, but you are not, and probably never can be, socially au fait with us or the rest of Europe."
From this remark it looks as though Dominic is attempting to misrepresent the whole situation in Europe and Britain. The is very little integration in Britain. For anyone in America who may belive the lies from Dominic then read any of the government Reports - they refer to the segregation, 'parallel lives', etc. Bruce Bawer's book 'While Europe Slept' gives a fair representaion of the situation in Europe. Of course, there are a tiny minoirty of exceptions to this, and many infiltrators and dawa practising Muslims (as Hugh said 'beware!')but this is not the general situation. It does appear that Dominic is attempting to mislead the readers on this board, relying on the fact that many are Americans and not familiar with Britain. By pretending that the situatuion is other than it is in the UK Dominic may hope to discredit Hugh in readers' eyes. Not a chance Dominic. We know how smart Hugh is.
Dominic, your posts were rubbish and you have presented a dishonest and misleading picture.
Bruce Bawer's book can be bought from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385514727/ref=sr_11_1/104-9739882-6651949?ie=UTF8
Here is a section of a review of Bawer's book, not exactly the rosy picture painted by Dominic:
"found an even more dangerous strain of religious and cultural bigotry ensnaring Western Europe. A swarming menace called radical Islam, he writes, rings Europe's cities in smoldering Muslim ghettos, provoking everything from so-called honor killings and political assassinations to the Madrid subway bombings and the massacre of school children in Beslan. Worse, the Taliban-like theocracy Bawer sees looming inside backward immigrant populations resistant to integration flourishes under the protective wing of Western Europe's America-bashing, multicultural, liberal establishment. The latter correspond to the appeasers of Nazi Germany, in Bawer's view, since he believes that radical Islamism is every bit the threat to Western civilization that Nazism was."