Thursday, January 04, 2007

Blind in both eyes

Since he first revealed it on air by offering a national platform to Islam's lies (by way of CAIR, Muslim propagandists with documented ties to terrorists), I have criticized Hugh Hewitt's utter and persistent blindness of Allah and his false prophet's requiring offensive warfare against non-Muslims to make the world Islam.

Mr. Hewitt still refuses to show Muslims the courtesy of defining their religion the way their god and prophet do. Rather than accurately state what Qur'an and Sunnah, Islam's sacred texts, reveal of their god's will and their prophet's example, Hugh chooses to mis-define the faith in terms of apostates, heretics, and liars. (Who told him CAIR was a reputable source of information on Islam? The same people whom Hugh trusts for his definitions of Islam, no doubt).

One hopeful sign is that Dean Barnett, a regular at Hugh's 'blog, has at least approached the fact that it is the faithful, devout Muslim--not the "radical" or "extremist"--who must war for his god.

Following are excerpts from a post from Barnett (along with one comment in reply notable for its obtuseness). He acknowledges that if non-Muslims wish to end the 1400-hundred-year jihad against them, the only way to do it (humanly-speaking) is by eliminating those who will not abandon warfare for Allah.

Disappointingly, Barnett does not mention the "divine" mandates for offensive jihad which inspire and sustain Islam's bloodlust (Qur'an 9:5, for example). It is disappointing because recognition of this central fact is vital to ending Islam's threat against humanity, and ignoring it allows the deluded to persist unchallenged in their suicidal ignorance.

Just as sadly, when mentioning President Bush's failure to secure already what Americans would widely regard as "success" in Iraq, Barnett fails to note that it is because the President was--and remains--ignorant of Islam (though he was coming close with "Islamic Fascism," a term the use of which he quickly abandoned). Its god requires the devout to fight against, subdue and humiliate, and kill non-Muslims until all mankind is under the tyranny of Allah (Muslim Book 019, Number 4294). Not only this, but Mohammed, considered a perfect model of conduct in Islam (Qur'an 33:21), confessed and carried out (much to the dismay of billions since): "I have been ordered to fight against the people until all confess there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24).

According to its own god and founder, the only "peace" of which Islam is a religion is the kind that comes when all who refuse to convert or submit and pay tribute are dead.

Finally (and ironically), a reply to Barnett shows its author suffering from the same blindness that prevents Hugh Hewitt and the President from properly identifying our enemy and speaking, planning, and acting accordingly. He fails to recognize that there are no other options for the Infidel under the threat of Islam; true equality and religious liberty do not exist under the rule of Allah.

In light of this, what can be done to end support for jihad among Iraq's (or any Muslim nation's) population? If the people are devout and aware of their own religion's "sacred" texts, what can be done to keep them from striving for our conversion, submission, and eradication? Money given for oil and in charity has only paid for the sword that beheads us, and giving up land for peace has worked for Israel not at all, for once under Islamic rule, a land always belongs to Islam.

Nothing but our conversion, subjugation and humiliation with tribute, or death will satiate Allah's malevolence.

Here are excerpts from Barnett and one of his readers:
THE HOPE WHEN WE INVADED was that we’d be greeted with garlands of roses. To some extent, metaphorically speaking anyway, this worked out. The vast majority of Iraqis were in fact happy that we toppled Saddam. Other than Baathist dead-enders and several million suddenly skittish Sunnis, the country rejoiced.
The Kurds appreciate us. Undoubtedly, other Iraqis do too. But how can one whose god commands, "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them..." (Qur'an 9:5), do anything other than hate us, even if it is "with a smile on their face" as they "curse us in their hearts"? How can the devout receive American blood and treasure with anything less than contempt for those who so generously and selflessly supply it?
The reason that those Sunnis were skittish, though, should have given us some pause. The problem with the “garlands of roses” metaphor was that it implied that once Saddam was gone, the Iraqi body politic would be a proverbial piece of clay for America’s State Department wizards to shape and mold. Oh sure, the nascent Iraqi democracy would probably have screwy things like Kafiyehs and a constitutional clause dedicated to annihilating Israel, but the administration’s plans banked on the hope that the Iraqi people, above all else, would want to live in peace.
Because of Islam. That fact is the elephant in the room, it's what the emperor isn't wearing, and it's why too many Iraqis do not want to live in peace.
And that’s where the program parted with reality. The Islamic world hasn’t really excelled at living in peace over the past several decades. More specifically, Shiites and Sunnis have never been great in the peaceful coexistence department. Given the bad feelings that Iraq’s Shiites had after a few decades of abuse at the hands of Saddam’s Sunni henchmen, Iraq was a particularly problematic spot from which to launch what would have to be a historically harmonious Shiite/Sunni joint venture.
Actually, its been the last one hundred forty decades. And Sunni/Shia violence has been going on since Mohammed's too-late passing.
...WAS THIS ALL FORESEEABLE? Perhaps. I’d even say probably. It should have been obvious given even a cursory glance at Iraq and its neighbors that there would be a great number of people who, after Saddam fell, would have little interest in living in a peaceful, tolerant society.
Before and immediately following 9/11, I "knew" of Islam nothing more than "It's a religion of peace," and "They share the same values as conservative Christians." In other words, I knew nothing of Islam.

The President can be excused for not knowing then. Over five years out, when even a few hours with an internet connection is enough to discover that, according to Mohammed, there is no greater work for Allah than jihad (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44), it is inexcusable--it is treasonous malfeasance--to not know, and our political, media, and academic elite are all culpable.
None of this is to say that both the Sunni and Shiite communities aren’t full of good and wonderful people. But any serious appraisal of the situation has to take into account certain indisputable facts from the region: If Egypt had free elections, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. If Saudi Arabia had free elections, a Wahabist sect sympathetic to Osama bin Laden would win. A similar statement can be made of every country in the Middle East. (Except Israel, of course, where free elections are in fact held and Radical Islamic parties usually do quite poorly.
Which destroys Hugh's "tiny minority of extremists."
SO WHY SHOULD IRAQ BE DIFFERENT? Perhaps a more pressing concern today is whether in fact Iraq is different. Things like the Saddam execution suggest the answer to the latter question is no. There is a deep undercurrent of savagery in the Iraqi culture that will not just inhibit the growth of a peaceful democracy there, but probably prohibit it.
Not "probably." Definitely, as long as it is Muslim. And the source and sustenance of that "deep undercurrent of savagery" are the commands of Allah and the words and deeds of Mohammed as recorded in Qur'an and Sunnah.

What part of "...fight until all religion is for Allah," is compatible with a free society? Democracy (one male believer, one vote) is only a tool to be used to establish Shari'a, the rule of Allah. In that sense, our imposition of democracy in Iraq has aided those who want to kill us by replacing one America-hating, terrorist-aiding, WMD-wielding monster with thousands of America-hating, terrorist monsters who wish they had WMD and would use them if they did (and millions who support them).

Why should Iraqi culture be contrary to the will of Allah? Ideology determines everything.
The only answer, as it always has been, is to stamp out that savagery ferociously and totally. At the end of this war, Iraq must necessarily be composed of people who always wanted to live in peace and the one-time enemies of peace who have come to realize they have no other choice but to live in peace. How much killing will this take? That will depend on how many enemies of peace there are and how determined they are to live in a state of war. One thing's for certain - the more resolute we are, the less killing there will be.
Dean is right that Islam only understands overwhelming, brutal, bone-splitting force. But here he runs into the question that all Infidels who want their wives and daughters unviolated, who want their boys safe from kidnapping, castration, and slavery, who want to be free to worship (or not) as they see fit, have always faced: how does one distinguish the truly peaceful Muslim who will forever abstain from jihad (and support full equality under the law for non-Muslims and women) from the one who is only waiting until conditions (including Infidel carelessness and cluelessness) improve for "striving in the cause of Allah"? For Islam is patient, and--according to its founder--"War is deceit"
(Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 268).
Some might argue that we can’t get this done. But let us remember, the remnants of Imperial Japan came to embrace peaceful democracy. Eventually.
Japan had not embraced Islam.
The best news of the past few days actually wasn’t Saddam’s execution, even though Saddam facing justice (in spite of the primitive savagery of the execution itself) is something that every American can feel proud of. The even better news than Saddam’s death is that (according to the reliable Strategy Page), American and Iraqi forces have begun to make war on the Sadr militia:
Without much fanfare, much less a press release, the government and Coalition troops have gone to war with Moqtada al Sadrs Mahhi Army militia. Leaders are being arrested or killed. The raids are being carried out with overwhelming speed and force, so that pro-Sadr gunmen have little chance to put up effective resistance.
At this point, we need not a national, but a a civilizational recognition of what Islam's foundational texts plainly state: that Allah and his apostle require the faithful to fight to convert, sub
jugate, and kill until all confess the supremacy of Islam (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24). After we admit that, we can plan accordingly.

Apart from that, taking out some blatant jihadists is the best for which we can hope. And what a disservice to our military! Our best and brightest sacrifice life and limb to carry out fatally-flawed strategies--flawed because they are formulated under a misperception of historic magnitude, strategies intolerably perverse in light of Islam's history.
Are we at last getting serious about this thing? Let us pray.
Until the President announces to the world that our enemy is not the tactic Terrorism but the ideology Islam, we can not describe ourselves as "getting serious." Until we accurately redefine Islam not as a religion the expression of which is protected by the Bill of Rights but a genocidal, totalitarian, seditious ideology sworn to the overthrow of the American Constitution and the destruction of our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, we can not possibly be considered "serious."

Finally, here's a snip demonstrating that the West is blind in both eyes, Left and Right:
It is, as I have been taught, very bad manners and vulgar and moonbatty to point out that this would require the slaughter of hundreds of thousands more people, and shows a callous and admitted indifference to life. No, scratch that, it shows a positive love of murder, with Mr. Barnett practically drooling at the idea of murdering Iraqis who are designated as Enemies Of Peace. It shows Mr. Barnett as an ideological cousin of, say Pol Pot.

But it's bad manners to point that out. So what's your preferred euphemism for genocide, and would you please let me know so I can describe it to the widows and orphans of the hundreds of thousands who will have to die to make Iraq a Model Society.What a disgusting, anti-life, murderous and evil person you are, Comrade Pol Stalin Barnett.
Since it is Islam that requires the death of all who will not convert or capitulate, this is obviously not about Barnett or anyone else who resists jihad "loving murder," but self-defense against an enemy whose "divine" calling is waging war against us.

Such a depraved moral equivalence demonstrates the poster's ignorance or cowardice, or both, and is far too typical of what passes for "argumentation" when Islam is the subject.