Author:
Publication: www.jihadwatch.org
Date: December 28, 2005
URL: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/009583.php#more
Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald
makes some observations about the American Muslim community in the wake of
the radiation scandal:
It is forbidden for a Believer to ally with
an Infidel against other Believers. The American government should ponder
that carefully -- especially the armed services, the diplomatic corps, and
the intelligence services. There are people who may be Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only
Muslims. There may be those who are bad Muslims, and who can be bribed to
work against fellow Muslims. But those, one must assume, will be the exceptions.
One must assume that when someone identifies himself as a Believer, he subscribes
to the central idea of Islam (after monotheism): the idea that there is one
division, and one only, that counts in the world: the division between Believer
and Infidel.
This division has clear political implications,
as the influential and high-profile Imam Muzammil H. Siddiqi of the Islamic
Society of North America reminded us in 2002: "We must not forget that
Allah's rules have to be established in all lands..."
And how can one do that when outright military
conquest is not possible?
The answer, in the new conditions in which
Mr. Siddiqi now finds himself, is clear: "..as Muslims, we should participate
in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring about gradual change..."
We "should participate" in order
"to safeguard our [Muslim] interests" and "try to bring about
gradual change..." which can only mean islamization -- a situation where,
even if some Infidels remain, they are subjugated to the rule of Islam.
For a Believer, a True Believer such as Mr.
Siddiqi, it cannot be otherwise. A past master, necessarily, at taqiyya and
kitman, at obfuscation and speaking with forked tongue so that Muslims will
understand clearly what he means and Infidels clearly misunderstand what he
means -- this is a Muslim Everyman. For that he has earned what the courts
like to call strict scrutiny. Every Muslim spokesman deserves such, especially
in this New Season of Muslim Support for "Dialogue" and "Avoiding
a Clash of Civilizations" and "Pluralism" -- meaning: let us
take advantage of whatever freedoms are innocently proffered us until such
time as Islam is fully entrenched and cannot be dislodged, and islamization
is well underway through demography and a relentless campaign of Da'wa, aided
and abetted by an equally relentless campaign of sweet nothings or when those
won't do, intimidation and threat of litigation. It is the same everywhere,
with the results we all see -- in Holland today, and in France and England
tomorrow.
Is it beyond the wit of Americans to learn
from the unhappy experience of others?
Is there any non-Muslim in Europe today who could disagree with the following
statement: "The existence of a large population of Muslims in European
countries has led, for the indigenous Infidels as well as for other non-Muslim
arrivals, such as Hindus and Buddhists, to a situation that is far more unpleasant,
unsettled, expensive, and physically dangerous than it would otherwise be."
That statement is true. How one figures out what can be done, or cannot be
done, and how one acts or fails to act, is another matter. But the observation
itself cannot, by the realistic, be denied.
What can Muslims do to change this perception,
should they choose to do so? Many things. When we learn of a single Muslim
would-be terrorist, or actual terrorist, or instigator or promoter of ideas
that naturally would lead someone to engage in acts of terrorism being turned
in by a member of CAIR, or MPAC, or ISNA, and we learn it was done not to
win a green card, and not for the payment of a large sum of money (as is the
case with the very few Arab and Muslim informants who have been used), then
maybe we'll talk.
Or if we hear of acts of derring-do, you know,
some all-Muslim brigade that forms voluntarily and takes on the toughest jobs
smashing the "insurgents" in Iraq or the Taliban in Afghanistan,
whose exploits would be akin to those of the 442nd Regiment, composed entirely
of Japanese-Americans, that was the first or second most dedicated unit in
the Second World War, well then may be we'll talk.
But what we see instead is an attempt at every
level to gut the quite mild security measures already taken, from preposterously
forcing the government not to monitor radiation levels in mosques to protesting
any attempt to give extra attention to people who are either Muslims or believed
to be Muslims in airports and other searches. And this pressure comes from
groups that constantly attack the government, whose officials have in the
past been arrested and convicted of supporting terrorism. And when we see
a Muslim Marine desert not once but twice (he is now safely in Lebanon) after
giving us that stirring "Semper Fi" speech, and the Muslim soldier
who killed two of his officers and wounded others, all because he sided with
his fellow Muslims against these people, sleeping in their tents, whom he
believed would "harm Muslims," or the sailor who apparently had
contact with a Muslim ashore and offered to reveal details about the ship
he was on, or the Muslim F.B.I. agent who refused to wear a wire because he
would not record a "fellow Muslim" or.... well, if there were ever
a record that indicated, as clearly as possible, that we are dealing with
a Fifth Column, the record is there.
And why should anyone be surprised? Read the
Qur'an, with commentary. Read the Hadith. Read the Sira, and find out what
Muhammad said about Believers and how they should treat Unbelievers. Muslims
are inculcated with the teachings of Islam; the world is divided, uncompromisingly
between Believer and Infidel. And now those Muslims live, with Infidels, in
Infidel lands. And Muslims threaten those Infidels, their laws, their customs,
their understandings, their physical well-being. Why should anyone with a
good knowledge of Islam, unfooled by the army of apologists intent on obscuring
what Islam teaches, not believe that all Muslim groups should be treated as
being made up of individual Believers whose sole loyalty is to the umma al-islamiyya,
the Community of Believers, and to the Cause of Islam, to the Jihad to spread
Islam? Why should Infidels think for one minute that Believers do not believe
that? Perhaps CAIR or one of the other groups can explain how, despite Qur'an,
Hadith, and Sira, a Muslim in America can owe his loyalty not to fellow Muslims
and Islam, but to fellow Infidel Americans, and to the Infidel nation-state
that is under the Constitution, and not, as in Iraq, with "Islam"
as the final authority which cannot be contradicted.
Explain it to us, please.
We're all ears.
