[Ifroham4]

Spencer provides this reasoned, sobering assessment of the modern predicament created by the living institutions of jihad and dhimmitude, which is consistently obfuscated by his timid or uninformed peers in modern Western intellectual circles:

“…the simple fact that jihad remains a vital part of Islamic theology is insufficiently appreciated in the West. In stark contrast to apologies for the Crusades issued by the Pope and various Protestant groups, no major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of jihad. The ideology of jihad, with all its assumptions about unbelievers’ lack of human rights and dignity, is available today as a justification for anyone with the will and the means to bring it to life…The idea that non-Muslims must be fought, and that the ideal state of peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims is predicated upon the subjugation of non-Muslims, affects the overall prospects for peaceful coexistence between the Muslim world and non-Muslims. Can non-Muslims ever be full citizens in states that obey Islamic law (the Sharia), either in whole or part? They are not so today in large part and on account of the doctrines of jihad and the Qur’anic injunction to make non-Muslims ‘feel themselves subdued’ (Sura 9:29), and because of the complex of laws and institutions that are founded upon these teachings.”

Spencer concludes his discussion of the Akbar case by asking whether the sergeant, “might have heard that his primary allegiance was to Islam, not the United States, in his mosque…[The Bilal Islamic Center in Los Angeles].” Indeed, Akbar’s mosque was funded by Saudi sources ( i.e., $ 8 million from King Fahd himself, and another $295,000 from the Saudi Islamic Development Bank for the mosques’ school) with an explicit ideological agenda- the promotion of “the principles of Shari’a,” interpreted through the prism of Wahhabism. And this school of Muslim thought expounds, unabashedly, the classical doctrines of jihad war and dhimmitude, which certainly would include, as Spencer, notes, “teaching about the impermissibility of a Muslim fighting another, and the necessity of jihad against non-Muslims….”

The author segues from the Akbar case to a host of other chilling examples which illustrate the pervasive influence of jihad and dhimmitude in both the U.S. and European Muslim communities- primarily mosques expounding these institutions, but also intermediate school textbooks, and college student organizations (for e.g., chapters of the Muslim Student Association).

Spencer’s carefully referenced, but concise, thoughtful discussions address a truly impressive array of issues critical to an informed understanding of international jihad conflicts and terrorism. Two key analyses, include:

Describing how seminal 20th century Muslim ideologues- the Shi’ite Ayatollah Khomeini, and four Sunnis - Hasan al Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, and Abdullah Azzam - revitalized and implemented the “forme fruste” of the classical Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Since the 1930s, their teachings and actions have had a profound impact on every major jihad campaign across the globe (including, but not limited to Israel, India, Bangladesh, Iran, Sudan, Indonesia, former Yugoslavia, and Algeria). Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center, was influenced deeply and directly by Abdullah Azzam, with whom he studied and fought alongside, in Afghanistan.

Exposing the corrosive hagiography of both (Medieval) Muslim Spain and the 500 years of Islamic rule in the Balkans. Spencer’s succinct review of the actual plight of those indigenous Christians and Jews conquered by jihad campaigns in each region shatters the utopian myth of “enlightened” Muslim rule under Shari’a-imposed dhimmitude. This contextualizes the recent explosion of sectarian violence in the former Yugoslavia, incited in no small measure, by the writings of Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic, who (in his “The Islamic Declaration”) openly declared his desire to reimpose the Shari’a. This was a simply horrifying prospect for Serbs based on their painful 500-year legacy of dhimmitude, including nearly 300 years of being subjected to the cruel devshirme system- a recurrent levy of adolescent Christian males, removed from their homes, forcibly converted to Islam, and raised as Turkish military slaves.

Finally, Spencer also provides an invaluable introduction to the writings of three brilliant contemporary scholars largely ignored by poorly informed, and/or agenda driven “elites” in the media and academia. Despite these currently prevailing, but misguided attitudes, it is worth noting that the work of each of these scholars- Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, and K.S. Lal- has in fact been peer reviewed and extolled by three of the 20th century’s most important authorities on Islamic history: Professor H.Z. Hirschberg (Bat Ye’or); Maxime Rodinson (Ibn Warraq); and Sir Hamilton Gibb (K.S. Lal).

Thirteen years ago (September, 1990) Bat Ye’or made these prescient observations regarding the struggle against what she termed the “Islamist trend,” by its myriad victims:

“…this effort cannot succeed without a complete recasting of mentalities, the desacralization of the historic jihad and an unbiased examination of Islamic imperialism. Without such a process, the past will continue to poison the present and inhibit the establishment of harmonious relationships. When all is said and done, such self-criticism is hardly exceptional. Every scourge, such as religious fanaticism, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, apartheid, colonialism, Nazism and, today, communism, are analyzed, examined, and exorcized in the West. Even Judaism- harmless in comparison with the power of the Church and the Christian empires- caught, in its turn, in the great modernization movement, has been forced to break away from some traditions. It is inconceivable that Islam, which began in Mecca and swept through three continents, should alone avoid a critical reflection on the mechanisms of its power and expansion. The task of assessing their history must be undertaken by the Muslims themselves…there is room to hope that the ending of the contentious dhimmi past will open the way to harmonization of the whole human family….”

Sadly, more than a decade later, Robert Spencer demonstrates that dhimmitude is still ignored or obfuscated, and most Muslim (and many Western) intellectuals continue to justify the jihad concept as an inoffensive spiritual engagement with one’s own evil instincts, or purely “defensive” combat for “justice.” Let us hope the author’s elegant, uncompromising analyses prompt intellectual and media elites in general, and the Muslim intelligentsia and media, in particular, to begin the long overdue process of a (self-) critical reflection on the uniquely Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Only then can meaningful interfaith dialogue begin to facilitate sincere efforts at reconciliation between Muslim and non-Muslim societies and peoples.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Bostom, MD, MS is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School, and occasional contributor to Frontpage Magazine.

[radikal]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
That is a good question.

I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the litmus test. Anyone who supports the phony 'Palestinian' side in the conflict is not a moderate. So pushing for a state of Palestine or for any sort of roadmap, is that also out of the question? Re the Palestinian question, I think it is the best place for 50,000 or so American troops right now. I'm all for regiem change, are you with me?

Islamism is far more serious than our leaders yet realize. $150 billion or so isn't serious enough for you!? 150,000 troops in Iraq isn't serious enough? The Department of Homeland Security isn't serious enough? WTF do you want? Total nuclear annihilation?

So? No one should be surprised there is a great deal of intolerance in a religion that, as widely interpreted, is set on conquering the world. I don't interpret it that way. Muslims who spend their days worrying about the coming of the Mahdi instead of paying attention to their personal morality remind me of Christians holding onto the Book of Revelations. If we live our lives correctly, the Day of Judgement is not something to fear. But past efforts to bring it on sooner have failed miserably at the cost of many lives.

Nonsense. People buy weapons for self-defense, hunting, or to murder. The real issue is not the seller--but what the buyer does or intends to do with them. So you aren't one of the ones who thinks that France and Germany are hypocritical to sell weapons to Iraq and then refuse to fight?

I dare say that most Muslims are taught to hate Israel and Jews. You can deny it, but when Muslim leaders in Malaysia ranting about Israel and the Jews it's because they are evil Islamists. Israel is thousands of miles away and, other than being the victim of Islamist mass murder, has absolutely no relation to anything happening in Malaysia. You and I both know that anti-Semitism doesn't begin and end with Muslims. Anti-Semitism isn't a necessary ingredient of Islam and it is one we had better learn to do without.

I suggest we turn our energies towards crushing Islamo-fascism. Make it clear that we will not tolerate such evil. Put Syria, Iran, and Arafatistan on notice that they are next. Great idea, now who pays for all this? And what do we lose by focusing all of our energies and moneys away from every other issue on earth?

[Peptobismol]

Originally posted by andak01
It is worth noting that "Holocaust Denial and the Elders of Zion" is approved by three scholars- Heinrich Himmler, Kurt Waldheim and Rudolph Hess. Such is the extremism of these "experts".

I would get violently ill before recommending that anyone read such hateful things about Christianity or Judaeism.

I will ask you what I have asked Abu a thousand times with no response. Once you have convinced everyone that all Muslims are evil, what then? How do plan to prove your moral superiority? Please try not to put words in my mouth.

Not all Muslims are evil. But there are two huge problems that will eventually need to be resolved:

1. The Fifth Column: Islamists living in Western societies posing as moderates to avoid deportation.

2. Large pockets of Islamism and sympathy with Islamism in the Muslim world.

Whether we can avoid a "war of civilizations" is by no means clear.

[Drugmachine]

Originally posted by andak01
So far I don't see any solution. I just reiterated the problem and you still don't acknowledge it ... but say .. emptily.. you "see no solution yet"
another Disingenuos and non-response



Anyone who has read my posts would know that I do acknowledge and condemn Arab anti-Semitism as part and parcel of world anti-Semitism. That condemnation includes condemnation of any policy to keep people out of Arab nations on the basis of their faith. And that includes support of changing any school curriculums that include antiSemitic teachings, including those in madrasas. And anyone who has Read my posts, including the last, knows "Anti-Semitism" is just a Tiny part of the Problem of Islamic/Muslim Persecution, War, and Cleansing of others by Islamic Peoples and their Governments.

You STILL haven't acknowledged the problem, and, as usual, Disingenuosly, seek to narrow it to 'anti-semitism'



I have never tried to convince anyone there is no problem. It's just that I feel measures taken against it, when right minded (i.e. with a mind towards education, coalition building and cooperation instead of carpet bombing and arrogant dismissal.) are sufficient. "Convincing us there is no Problem" or minimizing it to a few thousand Radicals of miniscule proportion to Islam, is not only what you do, its, what you Mainly do, and it's why most people here know you're a liar.. and why I reiterate .. You Are.
(some think being a polite one is acceptable... me?
I prefer an honest basher to a Lying apologist)
You've put up scores of posts on Sudan alone trying to prove there was no Genocide.



I did quote the king of Morocco's recent anti-terror speech on one of the boards. Yeah I saw that .. you actually told us about Muslim-on-Muslim Violence that's going on in Morocco to show Muslims can demonstrate against Violence! (on each other though)..
No ambiguity in the Koran on that I bet.
Congrats!
Now that we know they can demonstrate when they feel anything...
Any Muslim Demos that big against 9/11, or the Sudan, or Bali, or Coptic persecution, etc etc etc etc etc etc ?

[PhillipHer]

Originally posted by andak01


They are neither progressive nor honest. In fact, they are in the pocket of the neoCons. They profit by starting wars and fueling the military machine. You almost had me thinking you really are a moderate Muslim...

When you accuse Fouad Ajami of being "in the pocket of the NeoCons" [read: pro-Israel, conservative Jews in government] you show your true colors. Ajami is a respected scholar and commentator and there is no evidence he simply mouths positions dictated to him by others. Your accusation that he "profits" by war is baseless--yet so typical of the way Islamist apologists think and act.

I see the results of this shock wave in a rising American body count. Yes, the number of Americans killed by jihad-genocide is rising, but that is no reason to stop fighting this scourge. Quite the opposite.

I didn't ask for yet another bunch of Islamophobic links. I asked for a proferred solution. Telling me to shut up and go away is pretty feable. If you want me to go hang out with the Islamists, my response would be for you to spend more time with the Nazis, where you get your news from. I have no use for hateful people of any stripe. Out trot the "Islamophobe!" complaints.

Actually, your complaints match those of the jihad-genocide Islamists much better than you are willing to admit.

The day the Iraqis have a true and fair election, I'll say that we accomplished at least the most important part of what we went in to do. Meanwhile, you are for preventing that from ever happening.

What gives us the right to make unlimited adjustments to the governments of sovereign nations? And who is going to pay for all these wars? And do you give a rip how many have to die in order to enforce MacGovernment upon all the peoples of the world? I thought not. When other governments attack and threaten their neighbors, use WMD against their own citizens, support terrorism, and pursue WMD to blackmail the Free World, then we have the right to intervene.

Your concern about "who is going to pay for all these wars" is phony to the core. If your professed leftwing views are genuine, then you would be all for massive deficit spending on social programs.

The real questions are "Who is going to pay for all of the damage wrought by Islamists?" and "Can we ever hope to pay the cost of another major terrorist attack on the US?"

In your eyes, the Islamists attack us, our assets and people abroad, and our allies because we made them do it. Then when we depose terrorist-supporting regimes, you oppose that.

Your claim that you oppose Islamists and jihad-genocide rings hollow.