Fitzgerald: no one should ever expect to win Muslim hearts and minds. It will not happen.

If you grab them by the balls, their hearts & minds will follow….

Why America’s “reputation” among Muslims has “taken a hit”

“’The problem here, however, is that when it comes to Islamic jihadists, virtually anything short of full capitulation is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting. Any resistance to the jihad agenda is immediately cast as a grievous insult that must be redressed’”

You are partially right, but the mistake you keep making is that these outreach efforts are targeted at Jihadists. They’re not, they’re targeted at the Muslim world where America’s reputation has taken a hit following such stupidity as destroying a secular state (Iraq) which acted as a buffer against religious extremism.

“And because the Qur’an teaches Muslims to distrust Infidels, as they are the “most vile of created beings” (98:6) and will never be satisfied until the Muslims discard Islam (2:120). One is not take them as friends or protectors (3:28; 5:51).”

Here, your reductionist approach, while convenient for the average jwatcher is off the mark. Look first at Afghan perceptions of America which were quite good following the invasion, these started to dip in 2005 when much that was promised to Afghanistan did not materialize (in part because many resources were diverted to Iraq). Second, the situation in the north is different than in the south. This is because the south is Pashtun while the North is a mix of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks etc. perceptions of America are different depending on whether you’re a pashtun or not. These people have read the same Koran but react differently to Americans because they are not the same as AQ. — from a poster critical of Robert Spencer’s comments on Admiral Mullen here

The poster begins with an astonishing take on the invasion of Iraq. He claims that “America’s reputation has taken a hit following such stupidity as destroying a secular state (Iraq) which acted as a buffer against religious extremism.”

That statement deserves scrutiny. America’s “reputation” among Muslims has not “taken a hit” because the Americans never did, and never could, stand high in the opinion of any Muslims who take Islam seriously — and whose contempt and hostility, and sometimes murderous hatred, for non-Muslims has its source in the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam. It is true that Sunni Arabs are enraged that the Americans replaced Saddam Hussein, but that is not, as the poster claims, because Iraq was a “secular state” and they longed for that “secular” state to remain. Why would the likes of Saudi Arabia regret the passing of a “secular state” in the Middle East? I have explained at tedious length before that the soi-disant “secularism” of the only two Ba’athist regimes — those in Syria and Iraq — was skin-deep. In fact, it was merely the camouflage used to disguise, and make palatable, in the case of Syria, a despotism run of, by, and for the Alawites (who make up only 12% of the population). In the case of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, it provided cover for a Sunni Arab despotism, when the Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20% of the population.

The real reason the Sunni Arabs were furious with the United States for its invasion of Iraq was that that invasion, and the subsequent toppling of Saddam Hussein and his entire regime, meant that power had been irrevocably transferred from the Sunni to the Shi’a Arabs in Iraq. That, for Sunni Arabs, is intolerable in and of itself. But it becomes still more infuriating at a time when the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Shi’a state, makes claims to be the most aggressive Muslim state in the Lesser Jihad against Israel and the Greater Jihad against the camp of Infidels and in particular the perceived leader of that camp, the Great Satan, the United States. (For Iranians, however, historical resentments will also give pride of place, surprising to those unfamiliar with the Iranian bestiary, to Great Britain.)

But this is hardly the end of the series of misconceptions that underlie the larger criticism of Spencer, a criticism based on the notion, that neither Spencer nor I nor Marisol share, which is that a “Jihadi” must necessarily be someone interested in promoting Jihad only through the use of terrorism. The word “Jihadist” rightly means all those who participate, directly or indirectly, in the “Jihad” or “struggle” to remove, by whatever instruments are available, obstacles to the spread and dominance of Islam. And many were unavailable until recently. The Money Weapon did not exist before OPEC revenues supplied sums of money so vast that much could be spent on building mosques and madrasas and spreading propaganda and employing Western hirelings in the service of Islam, and threatening Western governments with economic reprisals, or holding out the prospect of economic gain (see the latest Lockerbie outrage). Campaigns of Da’wa and demographic conquest in the Western world would have been unthinkable a mere fifty years ago.

There was nothing inevitable about it, no long historical process that was simply impossible to stop, but within a mere 30-40 years, millions of Muslims were allowed to settle in Western Europe, and were permitted to receive every conceivable benefit from generous welfare states set up by, for the benefit of, and still paid entirely by, the non-Muslim indigenous peoples of those besieged-from-within countries. Those countries were betrayed by their own negligent elites, who were so unprepared to deal with or grasp the meaning and menace of Islam, and so willing to console themselves with unexamined and pious sentiments that assume that all people everywhere are the same, want the same things, and that while many come with an alien creed, they can ultimately be integrated.

What those elites did not understand is that not all immigrant groups are the same. Muslims pose a permanent problem that cannot be overcome, for they brought with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, a Total Belief-System that is the source of their hostility to all non-Muslims. Their creed is not merely alien. It is alien, and permanently hostile, hostile to the view of man, hostile to the solicitude for the individual, hostile to the equal treatment of women, hostile to the many means of artistic expression, hostile to the free and skeptical inquiry that the West encourages and without which the enterprise of science cannot take place, hostile to the legal and political institutions of the advanced Western world or, more accurately, to all the institutions that are the product of non-Muslims, in the West, or among the Rest.

And this is not all that poster shows, by his ill-considered criticism, that he has failed to register. He says, for example, that Al Qaeda (or AQ) should not be understood to stand for every one of the Muslim groups and groupuscules that use terrorism as their form of “qitaal” and see it as an instrument of war legitimized by relative military weakness vis-a-vis the Infidels. By that token, the six million Jews of Israel would be justified in using every weapon on earth, including nuclear ones, against the 300 million Muslim Arabs who have been conducting Jihad against them.

And of course there are differences among Muslims. No one who writes at JW thinks that every Muslim, every group of Muslims, has taken in the Qur’an and the Hadith in exactly the same way. Who would possibly think that of a billion people?

But that’s not the main point. The point is: what are the differences among Muslims, in their reception of the message of Islam, particularly as it relates to the attitude toward non-Muslims, and their societies, laws, and rights to continued existence? What are the attitudes that naturally arise in those who claim to be Muslims, and that in order to be suppressed or ignored, take a great effort on the part of the Believer, or the one who at least calls himself, considers himself, a Muslim? What are the differences, for example, if one is an Arab, and can read the Qur’an in Arabic — even though, as Christoph Luxenberg notes, nearly 20% of the Qur’an is inaccessible even to native speakers of Arabic? How will such a person’s reading of the Qur’an differ from that of those Muslims, some 80% of the total, who read the Qur’an not in Arabic but in Urdu, or Farsi, or one of the Bahasa variants, or, for that matter, in French or English or Spanish? What will be the effect of the ferocity of the Arabic, scarcely conveyed in other languages, and the relentless negativeness of Muhammad’s message — with constant references to the awfulness of doing what is prohibited, and seldom praise of doing what is commanded? For the Qur’an is all hellfire and brimstone; the Bible only very intermittently so.

And even if this or that Muslim population reads the Qur’an differently, either in another country (e.g., Afghanistan as compared to Iraq) or of different ethnic groups within the same country (e.g., within Afghanistan, Pashtuns as compared to Tadjiks) or different Muslim sects (Shi’a, Sunnis, even Ibadi Muslims), it is surely the responsibility of those in charge to note those differences, and to be sufficiently comprehending of Islam to be able to explain them.

But along with explaining why, for example, Afghani Muslims tend to be far less vicious in their attitudes than Arab Muslims, though perhaps even more aggressive in the sense that Afghanistan is a completely tribal society, where fighting is a way of life, not something taken up only when the occasion seems to warrant, one has a perfect right to do as is done at JW, stressing that the texts of Islam, the tenets of Islam, all prepare the mental substratum of Believers so that they will always tend to be hostile to non-Muslims. One has a perfect right to point out that even Good Works by those non-Muslims, no matter how obviously generous (to us) and straightforward they seem to be, will be taken by Muslims to be sly acts designed to undercut them, to make them listen more closely to the whisperings of Shaytan.

The effect of Islam on the minds of men, the ways in which it causes them to acquire, early on, a habit of mental submission, and discourages them from asking questions about Islam itself, in engaging in any form of moral probing, or wondering about the logic of Islam, or the tall tales of the Qur’an, and all of this contributes to fashioning brains that, only in the free West can Muslims really participate fully in the life of an advanced Western society, and then only with difficulty, and only to the extent that the mind-forged manacles of Islam can be thrown off. Otherwise, they are here geographically, but not in any other sense.

Yes, Afghanis were pleased to have the horrible regime of the Taliban thrown off by the invading Americans, but that is not the same thing as thinking that the Americans, as Infidels, could ever be objects of true gratitude and real friendship. The same thing can be observed in Iraq. The Shi’a were delighted — Shi’a exiles had after all helped inveigle the American government into the invasion of Iraq — when Saddam Hussein was overthrown by the only power on earth that could do it, and could remove his sons and all of the main figures in his regime so that it would never come back. But did this translate into any sustained support for, gratitude to, the Americans? Of course it didn’t. And it couldn’t.

And by this time no one should be surprised, and no one should ever expect to win Muslim hearts and minds. It will not happen. It can’t, not as long as Muslims take the teachings of Islam deeply to heart.

The poster goes on to say that in Afghanistan the Afghanis lost their faith in the Americans when the “ressources” [sic] that they were promised failed to materialize. What a peculiar remark. What exactly does he think the Afghanis were promised? Haven’t tens of billions of dollars been spent on Afghanistan, a country where the constant fighting, and the inshallah-fatalism, and the 90% illiteracy rate, and the hatred of “bida” or innovation, make in impossible to do very much? And in any case, why did the Americans owe the Afghanis anything at all? Didn’t they remove the oppressive and murderous Taliban regime? Wasn’t that quite enough?

The same poster then mentions the differences between the hostility exhibited by the Pashtuns as compared to the northern tribes (Uzbeks, Tadjiks) — a point that I have already made above. Arab Muslims are those who, in a sense, are most Muslim, and therefore most deeply and permanently hostile, and also the people who, as a group, have been most scarred intellectually by Islam. Why? Because Islam, and the Arab sense of being Arab, of Arabness, of ‘Uruba, is so tied up with Islam, inextricably so, that many Christian Arabs defend Islam, protect Islam from Western criticism, make allowances for Islam — even promote the Muslim agenda against, for example, the Israelis, even as some of those Arab Christians know perfectly well what they must endure from the Muslims, and know perfectly well that they have nothing to fear from Israel.

There are Middle Eastern Christians, however, who are numerous and cohesive enough to resist this. Above all, they are fully aware that while they use the Arabic language and may even carry Arabic names, they are not Arabs. For their collective existence preceded the arrival of the Arabs bearing Islam — I am thinking especially of the Maronites of Lebanon, the Copts of Egypt, and the Chaldeans and Assyrians of Iraq. When they can leave the Middle East and are free to think and speak, they show quite clearly that they, unlike for example the “Palestinian” Arab Christians, do not, and will not, promote the agenda of Islam. Instead they will, in the West, often tell the horrific truth about Islam, once they have managed to adapt fully to the mental freedom the West offers, and to see clearly, from afar, their own reality — which when you live, permanently fearful, in a Muslim sea, sometimes leads to self-deception as well as deception.

Robert Spencer explains, again and again, sometimes with a hint of weariness or frustration (it takes stamina to keep pointing out what should be obvious, but amazingly, is not) that the behavior of Muslims around the world can most intelligently be explained by reference to Islam itself, to its texts and tenets. He points out that the enormous and frequently comical effort that is made by so many in the press, on radio, on television, and in various Western governments, to deny that Islam, a Total Belief-System that offers a Complete Regulation of Life, has anything to do with that behavior is akin, in its totalitarian effect (especially in the Arab countries) to a kind of lifelong brainwashing unlike anything that we, out of mental incapacity, have been able to recognize. And we have failed to make important distinctions, lazily lumping together under the same word “religion” very different kinds of faiths. Islam is a Religion and a Politics, and a Geopolitics, and in its effect, among those groups — such as the Arabs and Pakistanis (who are the least resistant to it) akin to a totalitarian political system.

13 thoughts on “Fitzgerald: no one should ever expect to win Muslim hearts and minds. It will not happen.”

  1. Oh, and I thought this was going to be an intersting and informative article, it turned out to be the blog-owner fulfilling his commitment to posting items from Spencer and Fitzgerald’s Jihad-Watch. Because it is from them, we know that perhaps quotes will be genuine, they have been only partially quoted and pasted into other frameworks to simply give an image of hate-mongering agenda.

    The reality is, like this blog-owner, they must have celebrated on 9/11 because it will help their rather sickening agenda. I think, personally, that really disrespects the more than 3,000 victims, there families and all those that have suffered since.

    Simply put, this blog-owner and his superiors (Spencer & Co.) wish us to believe and in fact support radical and extemist islamists. They wish us to believe and in fact in many of the blog-owner’s comments try and suggest that Wahhabism and Salafism is the real Islam and that others are not real adherents. Thus the smallest minority of Sunni Islam is now for their part the prefered Islam and if you are not a part of that, the blog-owner will condemn you as being an apostate!

    1. Solkhar, you are really boring!

      I understand you cannot debate any of the issues since they put your whole belief system in doubt, but your constant smears and ad hominem attacks on me, Spencer, Fitzgerald, Wilders or anyone who criticizes Islam are just primitive. Even a third-grader knows that it is not us who cause the global jihad, but your co-religionists who “have hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam”- (this phrase always cracks me up because Islam is actually the religion of hijackers!) However, you would be well advised to take it up with your co-religionists instead of trying to smear me and “my superiors”, because all we do is connect the dots. None of our readers believes any of the nonsensical stuff you are posting. So once again: shape up or ship out!

  2. You’ve gotta love it:

    Police turned out in large numbers to hunt down members of the English Defence League, in order to prevent “attacks” on muslims only to be attacked by those same muslims they were supposed to be “protecting”.

    You couldn’t make this shit up!!

    Luton: Not so much the multicultural melting pot as touted by our political leaders, but rather the boiling point of racial tensions throughout Britain!

    The only way we’re winning their “hearts and minds” is by submitting and allowing Western nations to become fully fledged islamic states, so the logical course of action regarding the terminally offended and rapidly growing muslim population is to kick them all out, if our culture and people are to survive, right?

    Unfortunately common sense is seen as a cancer amongst those who cling to power, despite the growing distaste for their treachery amongst the general public….

  3. Also, the Aussies are awesome….

    As far as unbiased journalism goes, this report is far better than any UK report on the BNP. Rather than paint them as “evil nartsies” as the Guardian and the Mirror et al often does, this Aussie TV channel gives them a fair shot to explain their views. I wish UK TV channels and media would take this as an example, and not just ram the morally corrupt labour fascistic views down our throat 24/7.

    Hats off to the Aussies, fair play is still not a dirty word down under!!!!

  4. Davey ,
    There are quite a few nationalists in Aussie. For more about the Aussie scene you could go the the APP site…Australian protectionist party and then click australian identity forums. Lots of interesting things there.
    I think that in western countries we are all fighting the same battle. It is just that the process is much further on in the UK. I admire the Brits who are staying on rather than fleeing.

  5. Fitzgerald: no one should ever expect to win Muslim hearts and minds. It will not happen

    Ive heard that if you get them by the b***s, their hearts and minds are sure to follow.

  6. Mohammedans like the incredibly dense and brainwashed Solkhar always confuse answering a question or accusation with complete taqqiya or nonsense with actually answering or rebutting the claim. These logically and mentally challenged fools think that by responding with any form of rubbish constitutes rebutting the accusations against Islam such is their brainwashed state of mind. The next step of course is to run away loudly claiming victory and having defeated all of Islams enemies when of course all they have done is make complete fools of themselves. Fellow Mohammedans then compound the stupidity by praising the “victor’ LOL. Someone once posted a flow chart detailing a Mohammedans response to criticism of Islam it was hilarious and oh! so true. If anyone has a copy I would love to see it I wish I had saved it when I first saw it.

  7. Actually blog-owner, it is you each and every time who has avoided the point or debate, and I find it rather laughable that you try and say otherwise.

    Shall we list them?

    You stated the Five Schools of Islam support and recommend Jihad when they do not. When offering evidence you give 9th to 18th century individuals as proof.

    You stated that the Qur’an was not turned into book form in the 7th century, 19 years after the death of Mohammed but in fact somehow appeared in the 9th century, 200 years after his death, which has not only been proven impossible, but somehow the Qur’anic references over those 200 years must have been made up. Yeah, sure!

    You have also constantly told everybody that wahhabist and salafist radical teachings of Islam are the only true varient and thus anyone else (basically 1.6 billion) are heretics and apostates, because somehow – you know better. Duh!

    Simply put your postings (and those of your sources) have questionable motives.

    Unlike you, I can not only cope with but will support the pointing out, the examples of radicals and extremists, when they are fairly pointed out. You on the other hand avoid response, avoid actual debate, constantly bite, place items that are basically skewered propoganda and in the end if you cannot debate, you have also cut my posts to advantage.

  8. Every concession in an English school encourages the next generation to believe that their conceptions are correct.

    Whether it be agreeing that girls faces should not be shown in public, or that art, music , dancing, singing, swimming and gymnastics are evil, or that it is cheaper to make 95% of pupils eat animals that have been cruelly tortured to death rather than suggest that 5% bring packed lunches (which, as a vegetarian, I did) – each is a stepping stone on the path to submission.

    Isn’t there a saying about “the road to perdition is paved with good intentions”?

  9. STILL waiting for your answers about illogical sadistic allah creating beings with the sole object of punishing them and the HYPOCRISY of killing Gays in this world and providing ‘Pearly Boys’ in the ‘knocking shop in the sky’ Your silence on these two subjects is so REVEALING SOLKHAR

  10. gsw,

    The idea then should be that the School authority and the schools themselves set standards and rules to ensure that domination by one is not allowed and that – based on age and understanding – that it is taught that there are differing views and standards BUT “in this country we accept and do the following”.

  11. @Solkhar,
    Certainly, “in this society/school, we accept and do the following”.
    Unfortunately, teachers are people and can be equally unreasonable. It is therefore necessary that they too are convinced that equality, respect and independent thought is important. This equality must exclude any special treatment. I also believe that it is very unhealthy to force growing children to starve until sundown.

  12. Islam strives for world domination but has any moslem ever thought a bit deeper and figured out what that would mean for the human race and the world?

    – all Jews on this world will be exterminated, not only the ones in Israel.
    – the same fate will be for all dogs, pigs and any other unclean animals.
    – freedom of speech is gone.
    – critics of islam are put to death
    – Christians are forced to convert.
    – apostates from islam are killed.
    – lives of Christians that do not convert will be made miserable.
    – moslems can have slaves again… Christians, Hindus. etc….
    – all other religions and atheist must convert or loose their head.
    – homosexuals will be hung or thrown from a tall building.
    – the history of the world will be re-written in islamic friendly terms.
    – women will be taken out of the work force.
    – child rape is permissable
    – thieves will lose their hand.
    – adultres women will be stoned.
    – women will be forced to give birth to as many children as they can.
    – women can be beaten again.
    – all women need to wear their penguin suit.
    – women and girls are not allowed to go to school.
    – all western literature will be destroyed.
    – libraries will be destroyed.
    – technical, medical and science subjects on schools will be banned because these contradict with the quran.
    – society will get a shortage of doctors, engineers and technicians.
    – hospitals run out of doctors and nurses.
    – no more medicines, camel urine is in high demand.
    – no more inoculation against diseases.
    – diseases that were eradicated are back.
    – the average life span drops from 80 years to End of 19th Century levels, about 37 years.
    – factories run out of people that can run the processes.
    – factories, refineries and utility plants run unsafe and need to be closed.
    – the western industrial system collapses.
    – you don’t want to know what the unemployment rate is.
    – no more electricity.
    – no more oil or any other fuels.
    – no more telephone, TV, radio and Internet.
    – cars, trains, ships, planes and agricultural equipment can not be built anymore.
    – Fertilizers and pesticides are not produced anymore.
    – farm land needs to be cultivated by hand.
    – there are not enough Christian, Hindu, etc… slaves to do the manual work in the fields.
    – the quran does not give instructions to the moslems on how to grow food or work the land.
    – the farmers can not even produce one tenth of what is produced currently.
    – enormous famine will occur.
    – People will fight and kill each other for food.
    – all domestic and wild animals will be slaughtered for food
    – Christians will be in the minority and will be murdered first.
    – human population will shrink to levels before the industrial revolution, about 500 million.
    – for ages to come, the whole world will resemble current Somalia and Sudan.
    – the world has been made in a living hell.
    – separation between good and evil has occurred.

    I wonder, why didn’t allah foresee this? Or maybe he did…

Comments are closed.