In discussing today Tom Tancredo's comments on what to do if jihadists were to use nuclear weapons against American cities, Hugh Hewitt, an outstanding political commentator, revealed a huge blind spot regarding Islam.
It is an ignorance demonstrated by many in the West that, if allowed to persist, will result in either the death or dhimmitude of "unbelievers" everywhere.
Mr. Hewitt is right when he argues that many Muslims are decent, law-abiding people. He is right to want to avoid killing innocents, and he is right in arguing that a cataclysmic attack against Islam's holy sites would enrage those who otherwise would give little or no support to the Jihad Against the West.
Here is where Hugh is dead wrong:
First, open war is upon us, whether he would see it or not. We are not at war with Islam; Islam is at war with us, just as it has always been.
This is because the Qur'an commands it. Sura 9:5 says, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them;" Sura 9:29 reads, "...fight the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya;" and 8:39 exhorts, "...fight...until all religion is for Allah."
For 1400 years, Islam has waged holy war against non-Muslims all around the world. The global jihad continues today. All non-Muslims need to recognize this before it is too late. Having otherwise well-respected, influential commentators like Mr. Hewitt deny this truth dangerously weakens us in our life-and-death struggle against Islam.
Second, Mr. Hewitt apparently views Islam through the prism of Christianity (as do many in the West).
For many people, since Islam is a religion, and over and over again we hear about how Islam means "peace" and values "tolerance," and because many Muslims in the West appear to be decent people, Islam is believed to be just like Judaism or Christianity. People automatically assume that Islam shares the same values as those two (actually) great religions.
It is not! It does not!
If you need any more evidence than the commands of the Qur'an, the examples of Muslim perfection found in the Hadith, and fourteen centuries of bloody Jihad against the infidels, the four Englishmen who made their profession of faith on July 7th should be enough.
Third, the Reformation of the western Church was a move toward obedience to that faith's Scriptures. When a Muslim kills a non-Muslim for refusing to convert or submit to Islam, it fulfills Allah's command. What Islam needs is not a reformation (back to Qur'anic fundamentals), but a deformation away from the Qur'an's numerous commands to fight and kill unbelievers.
Fourth, instead of investigating the validity of the arguments of those who challenged his position, Hugh resorted to ad hominem attacks. That kind of non-argument is the last gasp of those supporting the untenable.
Instead of trying to equate one's ideology of choice with factors over which one has no control (ethnicity, national origin, etc.) , perhaps Mr. Hewitt should research terms like taqiyya and kitman and the doctrine of Abrogation. Maybe he should delve into why traditional Islamic theology divides the world into two lands: dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam) and dar al-Harb (the Abode of War).
Hugh might discover that the "tolerance" afforded non-Muslims under Islam has been a less-than-second-class citizenship. He might discover the meaning of "dhimmi" before he becomes one himself.
Mr. Hewitt demonstrates his lack of Islamic credentials by denying what those who have studied Islam's "sacred" texts and history know to be true.
