Muslim Triumphalism

From Jihad Watch:

Fitzgerald: Muslim Triumphalism: "It's Over. It's Over. We're Here. Get Used To It."


Georgie Anne Geyer, known for decades for her anti-Israel and pro-Arab views, has come out with an article on the New York mosque that is not, as one might have expected it would be, a defense of the Ground Zero mosque as an inoffensive and innocent "free exercise of religion," but, she rightly senses, a depiction of the mosque as something more suspect and more worrisome.



She shows en passant that she continues to believe, or at least pays lip service to, the myth of Cordoba, that is, the myth of an Islamic Spain where Christians and Jews lived under benign Muslim overlords, a splendid example of "Convivencia" - and one presumably with implications for the brave-new-world we are allowing to be created, if we do nothing to halt it, in Western Europe.



But is this "convivencia" stuff true? Was Montgomery Watt, the Anglican clergyman who was, as his former student Ibn Warraq testifies, philo-Islamic because he had a horror mainly of atheism, correct in his depiction of Islamic Spain? And what about Maria Rosa Menocal, with her Ornament of the World? You can read about her at this site. Was Cordoba, was Islamic Spain itself, a place where "Muslims, Christians, and Jews" all lived in splendid harmony? Apparently the Christians didn't feel so, because otherwise why would they have spent 500 years in attempting to throw back the Muslim invaders? And what about the Jews, who had no army? Well, consider the most famous of those Jews -- there is a statute of him, by the way, in Cordoba, in the Juderia. What did Maimonides think of Cordoba, where he lived, as a place where under Muslim rule Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in "harmony"? In his "Epistle to Yemen," Maimonides described his experience. The Jews were treated so well? If so, why did Maimonides denounce the hideous treatment of Jews by Muslims in Spain, and why did Christians tirelessly engage in the Reconquista over 500 years?

But other than that conventional unwisdom about Cordoba, Georgie Ann Geyer appears to have come, at least somewhat, to her senses. It will be interesting to see if she can ever drop her anti-Israel animus. She was offended, and rightly, by the display of arrogance and contempt for the feelings of non-Muslims, demonstrated by the not-quite-as-suave-as-necessary Muslim spokesman who appeared on television to attack those who question the motives, the funding, the goals, the everything, of those behind the Ground-Zero Mosque:



One organization is the Cordoba Initiative, which has a good reputation as an Islamic group that wants to meet with Christians in an atmosphere reminiscent of an Islamic "Y." (It is named after the liberal Islamic caliphate in Cordoba, Spain, ruling from the eighth to the 15th centuries, which respected Christians and Jews -- a good sign.)

But no one has revealed where the $100 million for the mosque has come from, who is behind the idea, or who are the people leading the entire project. [...]



The so-named "spokesman" and "founder" for the Ground Zero Mosque initiative, interviewed on CNN, was far from courteously trying to convince other Americans of his group's good intentions. He was arrogant, smug and derisive of non-Muslim Americans. One came away from his interview feeling that he really wanted to, as the kids rather eloquently say, stick it to us.



Given these chasms of information -- and the attitude of the Muslims involved -- one can only be against this Ground Zero Mosque. The unequivocal fact is that the grounds where so many died so terribly is no place at this moment of history for any mosque....





And she ends her piece thus:



And here's perhaps the most important point. If the planners of this mosque, like the arrogant one on CNN, really consider themselves Americans, they would not bring up such an aberrant idea at such an emotional time, when the United States is fighting two wars against radical Islam, and when American Muslims remain a largely unknown quantity.

Last weekend, for instance, a conference of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was scheduled to be held at the Dulles Expo Center near the capital, in Virginia, with 5,000 set to attend. The theme was: "Are Muslims required to obey non-Muslim governments?" The radical Hizb ut-Tahrir America (HTA) was also scheduled to hold a conference in Chicago earlier this month to hype the idea of spreading an Islamic state to the entire world, but it was suddenly canceled by the Marriott Oak Brook hotel for reasons unknown.



That these questions could even be asked among people who have taken citizenship oaths to defend the United States, and who enjoy all the benefits of this country, tells you that we must carefully observe the players to be sure we are playing with the same rules.



Keep in mind that there are few Christian churches, much less Jewish synagogues or other religious temples, anywhere in the Islamic world. Until Muslims are willing to provide for others, in countries where they are dominant, what they so arrogantly demand for themselves in the West, it would be the height of folly to allow such a dramatic and intrusive development as the Ground Zero Mosque.





But this note of "no one can say us nay" and "we are here to stay" and "we'll do what we want- if not right now, then soon enough, when our numbers and our power increase," is a theme that Muslims have been sounding for a long time, and quite deliberately. It is only recently that Infidels have noticed this theme, thanks to the Muslims' behavior toward non-Muslims all over the world. This behavior includes the many reported acts (and just how many similar acts do you think are never reported, that we never hear about?) of persecution and humiliation, and attacks on, and even murders of, non-Muslims in lands ruled by Muslims. It also includes the demands, each more outrageous than the next, for changes in the ways of life, in the laws and customs, of non-Muslim peoples and lands, into which - in a fit of nearly criminal negligence, Muslims in large numbers have been admitted and allowed to settle, by those who simply relied on pious assumptions about Islam. They had no real knowledge or understanding of either the ideology of the Total Belief-System of Islam, or of the goals of Jihad. It is only just now that many are prepared to listen carefully, and no longer to overlook such statements, and to begin to grasp how such attitudes arise naturally from the texts and tenets of Islam.



Take that Muslim "scholar" Tariq Ramadan. He is, in truth - see Frere Tariq by Caroline Fourest, which is now available in English -- a sly propagandist for Islam. He has had a chair specially endowed for him at Oxford by Arabs spending some of their oil-and-gas revenues. Oxford has done this to its shame and, one hopes, to its great and permanent dismay, once potential contributors, non-Arab and non-Muslim, find out about this bought-and-paid-for well-upholstered chair supplied to Tariq Ramadan. Listen closely to Tariq Ramadan. One of the things he keeps saying is the phrase: "It's over." Yes, he repeats it too: "It's over. It's over." What does he mean when he says that to opponents? He means that we Muslims are here, and what's more, there is nothing you can do about it, so don't even try to stop us in any way, and don't even think about halting our arrival, or dislodging us, or taking away the benefits we exploit or refusing to meet the demands that we make: "It's over. It's over."



This is a rhetorical weapon, the weapon of the triumphalist bully, attempting to demoralize Europeans into throwing up their hands in despair, and not being able to summon the will to halt Muslim immigration and then even to reverse it, through a series of intelligent, carefully-crafted, and perfectly-justified measures. No other group of immigrants poses anything like the implacable and permanent danger that Muslim immigrants so clearly pose to the political and legal institutions, the art, science, literature, freedoms, of the advanced West. That large-scale Muslim presence has created a situation for the indigenous non-Muslims (and for other, but non-Muslim, immigrants) that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale Muslim presence. No one should hearken to, though we all should listen to, the implied threats and menace underneath soft-spoken, but deeply sinister Tariq Ramadan with his "It's over. It's over."



One year ago, the city was buzzing when the newspapers published a letter by Bouchra Ismaili, a Rotterdam city councilman: "Listen up, crazy freaks, we're here to stay. You're the foreigners here, with Allah on my side I'm not afraid of anything. Take my advice: convert to Islam, and you will find peace."



It is not over. It is just now that people are educating themselves and waking up. Tariq Ramadan does not want that to even be considered as a possibility. He wants - and many other Muslims want - us to believe in historical inevitability, and in the inevitability of their triumph. This is exactly what Hitler and the Nazis believed; it is exactly what the Marxists believed. And it is, I'm afraid, present even among us, with those who obliquely invoke something called "History" as demanding this or requiring that, in that dangerous phrase that Obama likes to use: "getting on the right side of history." There is no "right side" of history. There is one damn thing after another, and some things are much more worrisome than other things, and require different kinds of analyses, a shouldering of different kinds of burdens. The historical inevitabilists, even in the weak or etiolated form of that "getting on the right side of history," are always dangerous, and especially so if they allow the tariq-ramadans of this world to keep the peoples of Western Europe from rousing themselves and admitting that over the past few decades they made colossal errors in their immigration policies, and in their domestic policies that have permitted, and even encouraged, Muslim colonies within the West to expand, and to do so at the expense - in every sense - of the indigenous non-Muslims.



But the halting of any growth in, and the peaceful, legal, and orderly reversal of the size of, the Muslim presence in Europe, is exactly what people are coming to understand has to be achieved. And achieved with or without the understanding, help, and support of the benighted American government, at least as presently constituted. (And Tariq Ramadan's suavity, by the way, can turn to hysteria in a New York minute, and I have seen or heard it happen repeatedly. In this respect he is like a great many of the seemingly smoothest Muslim propagandists, who when challenged by the well-prepared falls apart, and starts to rant, in tel qu'en lui-meme fashion.)



Listen carefully to Muslim rhetoric in this country and elsewhere in the West. It is always not-quite-what-it-seems-to-be: we hear, for example, the phrase "we are here to stay." What does that ambiguous phrase mean? Is that a rousing sign of loyalty to the American political and legal system? Or is it, rather, an aggressive and defiant expression -- we're here, we're not going anywhere, and we will do exactly as we please, in putting relentless pressure on the American legal and political system, on its educational system, on its social understandings, and will never give up, and don't think about trying to stop us -- because "we're here to stay" and the lands that, for now, you possess do not really belong to you, but belong to Allah and to the "best of peoples," that is, the Muslims. You have only temporary possession, perhaps not even a life estate; the fee simple belongs to us, the Umma, the people who received rightly the message, from the Seal of the Prophets, that Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), Muhammad. And while some Muslims say no Infidel laws should be obeyed, others, more prudent, think that for now such a demonstration would not be in Islam's best interests. They take a different tack: we will obey your silly manmade Infidel laws insofar as they either do not contradict any part of the Shari'a. And they then add, in a sub-rosa coda meant to be understood only by fellow Muslims: "and only because it makes more sense for now to temporarily do so, in the same spirit of Muhammad treating with the Meccans at Hudaibiyya, that is, insofar as our present relative weakness in the West requires that we temporarily must, in order to bide our time and fortify further our position."



Earlier in July there was a big furor in Great Britain about another planned mosque. There have been so many furors, so much anguish caused by Muslims all over as they conduct their campaign of conquest-from-within, one whose goals the less-prudent or more certain-of-triumph among them have not hidden:



DEFENCE chiefs are fighting plans to build a giant mosque overlooking Britain's top military academy. They claim the new centre poses a security threat to budding Army officers at world-famous Sandhurst.

The building would have a huge dome and two 100ft minarets towering over the soldiers' parade ground.



The minarets will be sited within 400 yards of the Royal Military Academy in Surrey....



Campaign leader Alan Kirkland said: "A lot of people are questioning the size of the minarets which will overlook the whole of the academy."



Local MEP Nigel Farage said: "I am appalled at such an idea. Many fear it could pose a grave security risk."



A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "Sandhurst has put in an objection on the grounds of security."





Look at the comments by Muslims in any controversy, whether over this or that mosque, whether they are an affront to our sentiments, as with the Ground-Zero mosque, or a real threat to security, as with the mosque-and-minarets proposed to overlook the grounds of Sandhurst. You will find, once the slyly sweet-reason blague is not accepted at once, quite a different tone, one of triumphalism. A Jihad Watch poster ("dumbeldore's army") brought to my (and others') attention the comments that accompanied this article. "Dumbledore's Army" describes those comments thus:



There are plenty from native non-Muslims who have 'woken up' and are most alarmed and angry; but there are also some truly appalling remarks by obvious Mohammedan spin-doctors and brazen liars...as well as sneering Muslim triumphalists, boasting and taunting.

The most telling of those is this one, by an identified Muslim, from which the sneering triumphalism blasts like heat from a furnace. I'm reproducing it here, because it's a classic of its kind.



"get over it. This is multicultural Britian in case you haven't noticed. Muslims are here to stay. If you don't like it, you should leave."



"There are not enough Mosques as it is.



"There are churches everywhere. We should be able to have just as many places to worship as all the other religions have."



"We have the right to do what ever our religion says"



"and there isn't a single thing you can do about it."





Think about that. It connects to Tariq Ramadan's "it's over. It's over." It connects to the predictions made by Houari Boumedienne, the ruler of Algeria, back in 1974, at the U.N., when he said that Europe would be conquered not through outright military conquest, but "through the wombs of our women." That triumphalist theme has been repeated by so many Muslim clerics, Muslim political figures, Muslim journalists, in the press, on the radio, on television - see that indispensable site, www.MEMRI.org, for many examples.



And you who come to this site often, are not surprised. You are not surprised, as perhaps Georgie Ann Geyer was surprised, at the arrogance and contempt shown by that Muslim spokesman on television:



The so-named "spokesman" and "founder" for the Ground Zero Mosque initiative, interviewed on CNN, was far from courteously trying to convince other Americans of his group's good intentions. He was arrogant, smug and derisive of non-Muslim Americans. One came away from his interview feeling that he really wanted to, as the kids rather eloquently say, stick it to us.

Nor are you surprised when you learn, from Geyer's same piece, that the Ahmadiya Muslims - yes, the so-called famously "moderate" Ahmadiya Muslims, who are even considered in Pakistan not to be real Muslims, so unorthodox are their beliefs said to be - held a meeting just outside Washington, D.C.:



Last weekend, for instance, a conference of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community was scheduled to be held at the Dulles Expo Center near the capital, in Virginia, with 5,000 set to attend. The theme was: "Are Muslims required to obey non-Muslim governments?"

No, you know. But you have a task. You must make sure that everyone you know also knows what you have come, slowly, and with effort, to understand about the Total Belief-System of Islam, and that those others, in turn, having properly informed themselves, will begin to inform, and alarm, still others. Our government is not helping. Those who think they know better have so far proven that they are far behind many whom they presume to instruct and protect; they are not helping.



So it's up to you. It's all up to you.



And if you do not accept this task, in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in the countries of Western Europe, then -- I'm afraid -- "it's over."



Posted by Hugh on July 25, 2010 12:33 PM