Fitzgerald: It can happen here
... and it WILL. What are we going to do to stop it? What are we willing to do to stop it? This AND the invasion of illegals. Are we even willing AT ALL to save our sovereignty?
**
February 05, 2007
**
**
"Sunni/Shi'ite Jihad coming soon to a city near you. Doesn't it occur to anyone who reads stories like this that it might not be a good idea to import this problem?" -- from Robert Spencer's comment here.
**
And doesn't it occur to anyone, looking around the world and noticing that in every Infidel land, whether in Europe or in Asia or Africa, or in formerly easygoing Australia, that the presence of large numbers of Muslims has disrupted life for the indigenous Infidels? This presence has caused their lives to be more constrained and unpleasant. It has forced them to defend their own legal and political institutions against constant assault.
It has required them to spend billions upon billions in guarding their own transportation centers (airports and airplanes, train stations, bus stations, ports and ships), schools (Christian and Jewish in Western Europe, Christian and Hindu in parts of Asia), religious institutions (churches, temples), government offices of every kind, skyscrapers that house the offices of American or British or other Western countries, embassies, and so on. And finally, it has led to a feeling of physical insecurity among many Infidels, so that, for example, Jews are warned not to wear outward signs of their faith in most of Paris and in whole cities (Malmo, Rotterdam). Or large parts of cities (see Marseille, see Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London) are declared dangerous for Infidels and for the forces of order. One has to worry, even along the Champs-Elysees, about the attacks of groups of Muslims on Infidels, both native and visitors.
And along with the data suggesting that everywhere, even or perhaps especially in those countries most famously generous, liberal, tolerant, and easygoing -- that is, in Denmark and The Netherlands -- the Muslim population is largely hostile to all the institutions of the infidel nation-state, there is the evidence that that hostility is only natural and right given what Islam inculcates. For Islam exhorts Muslims to be hostile to the Infidels -- what else can all those passages in Qur'an that teach hatred and violence against the Unbelievers, and even carefully insist that Muslims "should not take as friends" any Christians or Jews, possibly mean? And what else does the example of Muhammad, his words and deeds in the Sunnah (i.e., as derived mainly from the Hadith and the Sira) mean? What else could it all possibly mean?
And even in the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims are firmly and totally in control (as Muslims are taught should be the case everywhere), the discrimination and constant harassment of non-Muslims by Muslims, and the physical attacks on them, are seldom punished by the state. This includes attacks on Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or mainly on Christians in Indonesia. The terrorism on Bali, when it destroyed the economy of the local Hindus, hardly caused any Muslims even a day of disquiet. Also going unpunished were the two decades of mass-murder of Christians in southern Sudan, or the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, or on Christians of all kinds, over the years, by Muslims all over the Arab countries. Since the Jews were either massacred or driven out or simply escaped in time, there are almost no Jews, any more, for whom Muslims can make life hell as they did most famously in the Yemen. But everywhere in the Islamic world Jews suffered. If they were not quite as the slaves they were in the Yemen, they were under constant fear of assault by their Muslim neighbors who could do with them what they willed.
Everywhere, in other words, that Muslims either dominate, as in Dar al-Islam, or in Dar al-harb, where Muslims do not yet rule, a state of war exists with the Infidel inhabitants. Where Muslims possess sufficient numbers, they behave with their wonted aggressiveness in demanding here and there and everywhere changes in the Infidel institutions in order to accommodate Muslims. And these are all not as a final "compromise," but as the first in a long series of demands that must be made in order to remove every "barrier" to the dominance of Islam. Every attempt to retain those "barriers" (which are nothing more than the Infidel legal and political and social institutions, that those Infidels for some reason think they have a right to preserve) is regarded as an act of "aggression" by those Infidels against Islam -- and that "aggression" therefore justifies all kinds of violence as a necessary act of "defense."
Is it impossible to take note of what is actually written in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? One wishes to ask those who keep refusing to learn the contents of those texts -- which hundreds of millions of people take as their total guide, as the repository of all they know or need to know -- why they think they have a right to comment on what Islam is all about, or what Muslims think. How can they do this if they do not immerse themselves, at least for a while, in those texts? And one wishes to ask them why they keep avoiding the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims. Why is the treatment and fate of the dhimmi -- that is, the "tolerated" or "protected" (from Muslims themselves) non-Muslims under Muslim rule -- which is so unsurprisingly similar in all the lands conquered by Islam, is not a subject of intense and widespread scrutiny. Instead, the Infidels of this world continue to make policy based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
It is not a good idea to import the Sunni-Shi'a problem into Infidel lands. But it is far more important not to import the Muslim-Infidel problem, the state of permanent war between Believer and Infidel that Islam inculcates, into Infidel lands. Yet we are importing it by continuing, monstrously, and suicidally, to pretend that what is going on in all the other Infidel countries that are now suffering from the large-scale presence of essentially un-integrable Muslims will not happen here. (There are a few exceptions: Bassam Tibi suggests that in Germany there may be a "few thousand" out of several million Muslims who may agree with him and hence be capable of becoming full and earnest citizens of an advanced Western Infidel polity.)
It can happen here.
And doesn't it occur to anyone, looking around the world and noticing that in every Infidel land, whether in Europe or in Asia or Africa, or in formerly easygoing Australia, that the presence of large numbers of Muslims has disrupted life for the indigenous Infidels? This presence has caused their lives to be more constrained and unpleasant. It has forced them to defend their own legal and political institutions against constant assault.
It has required them to spend billions upon billions in guarding their own transportation centers (airports and airplanes, train stations, bus stations, ports and ships), schools (Christian and Jewish in Western Europe, Christian and Hindu in parts of Asia), religious institutions (churches, temples), government offices of every kind, skyscrapers that house the offices of American or British or other Western countries, embassies, and so on. And finally, it has led to a feeling of physical insecurity among many Infidels, so that, for example, Jews are warned not to wear outward signs of their faith in most of Paris and in whole cities (Malmo, Rotterdam). Or large parts of cities (see Marseille, see Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester, London) are declared dangerous for Infidels and for the forces of order. One has to worry, even along the Champs-Elysees, about the attacks of groups of Muslims on Infidels, both native and visitors.
And along with the data suggesting that everywhere, even or perhaps especially in those countries most famously generous, liberal, tolerant, and easygoing -- that is, in Denmark and The Netherlands -- the Muslim population is largely hostile to all the institutions of the infidel nation-state, there is the evidence that that hostility is only natural and right given what Islam inculcates. For Islam exhorts Muslims to be hostile to the Infidels -- what else can all those passages in Qur'an that teach hatred and violence against the Unbelievers, and even carefully insist that Muslims "should not take as friends" any Christians or Jews, possibly mean? And what else does the example of Muhammad, his words and deeds in the Sunnah (i.e., as derived mainly from the Hadith and the Sira) mean? What else could it all possibly mean?
And even in the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims are firmly and totally in control (as Muslims are taught should be the case everywhere), the discrimination and constant harassment of non-Muslims by Muslims, and the physical attacks on them, are seldom punished by the state. This includes attacks on Hindus and Christians in Bangladesh and Pakistan, or mainly on Christians in Indonesia. The terrorism on Bali, when it destroyed the economy of the local Hindus, hardly caused any Muslims even a day of disquiet. Also going unpunished were the two decades of mass-murder of Christians in southern Sudan, or the attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt, or on Christians of all kinds, over the years, by Muslims all over the Arab countries. Since the Jews were either massacred or driven out or simply escaped in time, there are almost no Jews, any more, for whom Muslims can make life hell as they did most famously in the Yemen. But everywhere in the Islamic world Jews suffered. If they were not quite as the slaves they were in the Yemen, they were under constant fear of assault by their Muslim neighbors who could do with them what they willed.
Everywhere, in other words, that Muslims either dominate, as in Dar al-Islam, or in Dar al-harb, where Muslims do not yet rule, a state of war exists with the Infidel inhabitants. Where Muslims possess sufficient numbers, they behave with their wonted aggressiveness in demanding here and there and everywhere changes in the Infidel institutions in order to accommodate Muslims. And these are all not as a final "compromise," but as the first in a long series of demands that must be made in order to remove every "barrier" to the dominance of Islam. Every attempt to retain those "barriers" (which are nothing more than the Infidel legal and political and social institutions, that those Infidels for some reason think they have a right to preserve) is regarded as an act of "aggression" by those Infidels against Islam -- and that "aggression" therefore justifies all kinds of violence as a necessary act of "defense."
Is it impossible to take note of what is actually written in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? One wishes to ask those who keep refusing to learn the contents of those texts -- which hundreds of millions of people take as their total guide, as the repository of all they know or need to know -- why they think they have a right to comment on what Islam is all about, or what Muslims think. How can they do this if they do not immerse themselves, at least for a while, in those texts? And one wishes to ask them why they keep avoiding the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims. Why is the treatment and fate of the dhimmi -- that is, the "tolerated" or "protected" (from Muslims themselves) non-Muslims under Muslim rule -- which is so unsurprisingly similar in all the lands conquered by Islam, is not a subject of intense and widespread scrutiny. Instead, the Infidels of this world continue to make policy based on wishful thinking and willful ignorance.
It is not a good idea to import the Sunni-Shi'a problem into Infidel lands. But it is far more important not to import the Muslim-Infidel problem, the state of permanent war between Believer and Infidel that Islam inculcates, into Infidel lands. Yet we are importing it by continuing, monstrously, and suicidally, to pretend that what is going on in all the other Infidel countries that are now suffering from the large-scale presence of essentially un-integrable Muslims will not happen here. (There are a few exceptions: Bassam Tibi suggests that in Germany there may be a "few thousand" out of several million Muslims who may agree with him and hence be capable of becoming full and earnest citizens of an advanced Western Infidel polity.)
It can happen here.
**
posted by jillosophy at 2/05/2007 10:27:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home