Original Article: Why the uproar?
Note from Robert Spencer:
A thoughtful piece by David Pryce-Jones, who wrote the Foreword to my book
>Islam Unveiled, on the hypocritical outcry following the killing of Sheikh Yassin. From the
href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1080188579605&p=1006953079865">Jerusalem Post
The impulse to throw Israel to the wolves is very strong. Its supporters
include, of course, that irreducible minimum of antisemites in all Western societies, and
those who, seeing Israel as an ally of America, a convenient stand-in for
their anti-American impulses. It may be natural to think, as non-Muslims, that "if
only we give them what they want from Israel" (now one would have
to be a fool, at this point, to believe that this means anything
other than the complete disappearance of Israel, an Infidel sovereignty in the middle
of dar al-Islam --but many have proven equal to the task)all manner of
things shall be well. But it is precisely the opposite. The surrender of
Israel will play to Muslim triumphalism; it will encourage Muslims to kill Christians
in Indonesia and the Philippines, to expand da'wa in Mexico and Chile, and
Brazil, and the rest of South America were operatives have been especially busy,
though working under the Infidel radar, it will make it all the more
difficult for Western Europe to get a grip, and realize that in order
to save its own civilization it is going to have to reverse decades
of appeasement (beginning with the ludicrous Euro-Arab Dialogue) and to prepare its own
population for measures which, in the end, will be essential -- including the
mass expulsion of Muslims to their countries of origin. Any Muslim victory anywhere
simply encourages Muslims elsewhere to press on in what is central to Islam:
the expansion of dar al-Islam at the expense of dar al-Harb. What part
of this does the Infidel world not understand? Or why does it wish
to do everything it can to avoid understanding it?
It is through darura -- necessity -- that Muslim behavior can be checked.
If Muslim Arabs believe that Israel is overwhelmingly powerful, they have an excuse
to present to themselves and to their people -- we just can't do
it at present. Why, Muhammad waited for a year before breaking the treaty
of al-Hudaibiyya with the Meccans. Meanwhile, the non-Muslim world has to educate itself,
or a sufficient number of those who are articulate, to understand what, as
a geopolitical cult, Islam is all about (the Five Pillars, the putative links
between the "Abrahamic" faiths, and suchlike -- the topics of the time-wasting "interfaith
dialogues," may all be safely ignored). And then one must work to allow,
within the Muslim world, real freedom of conscience, and a spirit of free
inquiry that, if it were really to take hold, would allow the freest
and most vital spirits to abandon Islam altogether. There is no way, through
"Islamic feminism" (the Azizah al-Hibri, Leila Ahmed, Shirin Ebadi detour) or through appeals
to the example of Mu'tazilites or others (the faltering attempts of Iranian "reformers"
to find their way to some solution within Islam, instead of forthrightly returning
to Zoroastrianism, or something else outside of Islam), to change the texts. So
we must encourage the fissures, national and ethnic, within Islam (Arab v. non-Arab,
for a start), which after all are based on history. It is not
a fiction that the Arabs have persecuted the Kurds, and the Berbers. It
is not a fiction that Arab money, building madrasas in Pakistan, and among
the poor Muslims of East and West Africa, is helping to destroy these
societies by creating people fit not for gainful employment, however modest, but only
for Jihad. This has to be emphasized, again and again.
And the West must protect, and sponsor, and publicize, the testimonies of ex-Muslims
-- much as ex-Communists were so helpful in alerting Western Europeans to what
the Comintern, and the Politburo, and Joseph Stalin had in mind.
|