So what does Romney know about jihad?

Hugh Fitzgerald

Romney On The Middle East: Part Of The Passing Political Parade, Or A Dismal Portent Of Things To Come?

This Activist Role includes:

1) Believing that the “Palestinians” exist and that, despite what we know all know of the history of both the Mandate for Palestine and of non-Muslim peoples in the Middle East and elsewhere in Dar al-Islam, that subset of the Arabs — the “Palestinian” Arabs –  deserve a state.

2) That such a “Palestinian” state can possibly be anything other than a new means for waging Jihad on Israel, which would, because of that “Palestine,” be condemned to permanent insecurity of a kind no other people or country have ever been asked to endure.

3) Ignoring the clear meaning of Jihad, which is the struggle to ensure that Islam dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere in the world – for the entire world belongs to Allah and the “best of peoples.” And there is no provision for exempting any part of the world from this necessary future fate.

4) Failing to note that Jihad can be carried out through various instruments: the Jihad of wealth, the Jihad of propaganda, the Jihad — the newest instrument — through demographic conquest.

4) Ignoring the significance of Hudaibiyya, which makes all peace treaties between Israel and the Arabs, or between any non-Muslims and non-Muslims, essentially worthless — for they are to be violated, by the Muslim side, whenever they feel strong enough to do so. Pacta sunt servanda is not a recognized principle in Islamic jurisprudence. That is something Westerners simply do not understand. They will have to learn.

5) Failing to grasp that the only thing that keeps the peace, more or less, between Israel and the Muslims who surround is the same thing — Deterrence — that kept the peace during the Cold War. The Muslim concept of Darura — of Necessity or of bowing to necessity — can be invoked by Muslim rulers to justify their own failure to make war on non-Muslims. But that requires that the non-Muslim enemy not only be overwhelmingly superior in military force and therefore in the vengeance it could wreak, the damage it could do, but that it be easily and universally recognized as overwhelmingly superior, by the Muslim masses, who otherwise would not forgive the failure of their rulers to act.

All of this could have been taught to Romney, and he could have shown he understood this. But clearly he hasn’t.

And as for intervening to help the Sunni Muslims overcome the Alawites who, in a particularly unpleasant way, are keeping them down – which is of great benefit to the West — that’s not quite as shocking, but it is still unacceptable.

Someone on Romney’s staff should discuss General Kutuzov with him, and how sometimes, and not only for the Bauhaus, less is more.

Or better yet, send him a little indelible link.

3 thoughts on “So what does Romney know about jihad?”

  1. Dreadful.

    This is about as close as he gets:

    Romney: “These attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others”

    Not great, but better: Romney offers something approaching honesty regarding the Islamic jihad against the West — and that’s a commodity we have not seen in a long time. From his speech today at VMI:

    …The attacks against us in Libya were not an isolated incident. They were accompanied by anti-American riots in nearly two dozen other countries, mostly in the Middle East, but also in Africa and Asia. Our embassies have been attacked. Our flag has been burned. Many of our citizens have been threatened and driven from their overseas homes by vicious mobs, shouting “Death to America.” These mobs hoisted the black banner of Islamic extremism over American embassies on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks.
    As the dust settles, as the murdered are buried, Americans are asking how this happened, how the threats we face have grown so much worse, and what this calls on America to do. These are the right questions. And I have come here today to offer a larger perspective on these tragic recent events—and to share with you, and all Americans, my vision for a freer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world.

    The attacks on America last month should not be seen as random acts. They are expressions of a larger struggle that is playing out across the broader Middle East—a region that is now in the midst of the most profound upheaval in a century. And the fault lines of this struggle can be seen clearly in Benghazi itself.

    The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the Administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long. No, as the Administration has finally conceded, these attacks were the deliberate work of terrorists who use violence to impose their dark ideology on others, especially women and girls; who are fighting to control much of the Middle East today; and who seek to wage perpetual war on the West….

Comments are closed.