by Hugh Fitzgerald


There is an old joke: a wife returns home suddenly to find her husband in
bed with another woman. Unfazed, the husband looks up from the sheets at her
and, with great indignation, demands: Who are you going to believe? Me, or
your lying eyes? It seems to me that right now almost the entire world is
like that wife, looking down at that husband, who represents Islam. 

As we look around the world at the veritable orgy of violence directed at
Infidels - from the killings of 200,000 Christians in East Timor, the
murders of Christians in the Moluccas, the bomb in Bali directed mostly at
Australian Christians, the attack on Filipino Christian peasants in the
Philippines, the plots uncovered in Singapore, the Christians, Sikhs, and
Hindus persecuted and often murdered by Muslims in Kashmir and Pakistan, the
attacks on Jews all over the Muslim world, but especially in the Arab world,
the attacks on non-Muslims, 800 of whom were held hostage in a Moscow
theatre, the attacks in New York and Washington, that killed 3000, the plots
uncovered in Spain, and Italy, and France, and Holland, and Norway, and
Germany, and almost everywhere in the Infidel world - all tell us one thing.
Yet, the world of organized Islam, including those we are repeatedly told
are "moderate", keep telling us: Who are you going to believe? Us, or your
lying eyes? I propose today to offer a Guide for the Perplexed among you. I
will talk about several things. First, I will offer a kind of taxonomy - a
la Linnaeus - of the different kinds of apologetics for Islam, some made by
Muslims, some made by non-Muslims who act as their willing collaborators. 

I will then go on to discuss the main features of Islam which an Infidel
need not worry about - the Five Pillars of Islam, which all concern
individual worship, and which so much unnecessary attention is given, while
the real essence of Islam, the basic political attitudes and preachings
concerning the Infidels, are almost entirely ignored. Then I shall suggest
why the Infidel world has to educate itself - not from agents of Islam, just
as one would not study the Soviet Union by learning from KGB agents, but
only from defectors from the KGB - and how we, the Infidels, need to protect
ourselves in two very basic ways, and then what else we can do to go on the
offensive against Islam, to weaken it, to cause it to divide within, and to
keep it permanently at bay. Because this is not a struggle that will end in
a year or a decade, or indeed, I think, ever. Islam has over a billion
believers. It is in a campaign to spread Islam within the Infidel world, a
campaign until now not sufficiently recognized or opposed. But I will get to
that later. First, let me explain the various kinds of Muslim apologetics.
After the attack of September 11, 2001, many different things were said in
defense of Islam.

One thing that was repeated, endlessly and mindlessly - and if you have a
mind in this area, you are likely to suffer more worry, more woe; indeed,
gore ot uma deistvitel'no gore ot uma - was that Islam is a religion of
"peace" and "tolerance." Well, yes, and no. The "peace" that Muslims mean is
not the kind of "peace" we mean. It is the "peace" or pax Islamica that will
reign once the entire world accepts Islam, and Islam rules. As for
"tolerance" - yes, it is true that Muslims will "tolerate" Christians and
Jews-or at least they did in high Islamic civilizations. But that
"tolerance" had nothing, has nothing, to do with Western ideas of
"tolerance." Chirsitnas and Jews were kept in the status of second-class
citizens, deliberately humiliated, and subjected to a host of requirements.
First, there was a heavy financial burden. The "dhimmi" or tolerated
Christian or Jew, had to pay a jizyah or head tax. After a while, this lead
to many conversions. After all, if you lived in a country, and had to pay 50
or 100 thousand dollars each year, just to keep practicing a certain
religion, you too might, in the year 900 or 1100 or 1300, give up your
religion. Only the most stubborn would continue. Then, too, you were not
equal to a Muslim at law, and could not testify against him. Then, too, you
often had to wear special identifying clothes or signs on your clothes.
Christians often had to wear a special belt. The yellow star for Jews, which
Gospodin Gitler imposed, had its first use in medieval Baghdad. Then you
could not build your synagogues or churches higher than any mosque, or
indeed, behave as individuals or as a community, as other than a "tolerated"
minority - one that could be subject to attack, and frequently was, at any
time. But the truth of this "tolerance" is almost never discussed. When a
great expert, such as Bat Ye'or, tries to deliver a lecture, as she did
recently at Georgetown, she was shouted down by organized groups of Muslim
Arabs, and could hardly speak. Instead of defending her, the students, Jews
and Christians, later apologized for her "views" which they thought were
"unworthy" and "hateful" - but Bat Ye'or is the world's greatest expert, a
famous historian , on the subject of treatment of minorities in the Islamic
world, from the earliest times to the present. Along with this denial of
certain realities, there is another technique. Focus on the presumed links
of Islam with Judaism and Christianity. For example, offer such treacly
notions as "we are all children of Abraham" or "we all worship the same
God." Sounds good, doesn't it? But it isn't true. Muslims believe that Moses
and David and Jesus were previous prophets, but imperfect prophets, received
imperfectly by Christians and Jews. Islam is the final, the perfect
revelation, and even though it incorporates the other, older monotheisms by
recognizing its figures as important prophets (but denying, for example,
Jesus' divinity) it actually takes them over, appropriates them, and assigns
them the value it wants. 

By taking over all these figures from the other two monotheisms, it denies
their validity within the earlier religions, just the way the Muslims have
deliberately appropriated the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as a sacred site in
Islam, even though this is all based on one obscure passage in the Koran
about Muhammed' s Night Journey to Heaven on his winged steed Al-Buraq, from
a site that is not identified but later they decided to claim it must have
been in Jerusalem. As a religion that was seeking converts among Jews and
Christians in the 7th and 8th centuries, naturally Islam had to recognize,
and use for its own purposes, bits and pieces of the doctrines of both
religions, and its holy figures, and even holy sites - but it has taken them
over, and regards with obvious hostility, as any reading of the Koran would
show, both Jews and Christians, to a murderous extent. Along with denial of
any hostility, and focusing on those features which presumably link Islam
with Judaism and Christianity - and so they do, but not in a way that should
cause us to think everything is okay, there is another technique. 

That is to focus not on the central tenets of Islam which make it a threat
to Infidels, but precisely on those features which are unthreatening. For
example, Imams at local mosques, and Muslim professors supposedly explaining
Islam, will spend a lot of time discussing the features of individual
worship, the so-called Five Pillars of Islam. These Pillars are relatively
simple; they consist of the Shehada, or Profession of Faith; zakat, or
alms-giving, salat, or the five canonical prayers, Ramadan, or the annual
monthly fast; and, if you can afford it, the hajj to Mecca at least once in
your life. Now think for a moment. Does giving alms, or going to Mecca, or
observing Ramadan, or saying prayers, bother you at all, as an Infidel? No,
not at all. What do we care? But by focusing on these essentially trivial
matters, we ignore the much darker and sinister aspects. It is as if the
Vatican, trying to answer questions as to why the Church did almost nothing
to stop Hitler, or why it even actively promoted anti-Semitism, were to
begin speaking about the Eucharist, or the difference between how the
Orthodox cross themselves, and how Catholics do it. A complete red herring.
Then there is still another brand of apologetics. This is not to deny that
Muslims may be guilty of some crimes, or even that Islam itself may not have
some doctrines that are dangerous. But instead, the argument is invoked that
everyone does it, the Roman Tu Quoque (YOU TOO DO IT). How many of you know
that anecdote about the American tourist who is being taken around Moscow by
an official guide in the 1930s. The guide takes him to the Moscow Metro. He
shows him the gleaming marble walls and fountains. He shows him the
chandeliers. Everything is clean. Everything is sparkling. Everything is
beautiful. But the American asks: "But where are the trains?" The KGB Guide
quickly answers: "What about lynching in the South?" That is how Islam today
is behaving -when asked about the reality, it says: What about lynching in
the South? Isn't the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus, full of
bloodthirsty talk? Aren't there persecutionst by Christians (the Muslims
seem to overlook the fact that the victims of that persecution were not
Muslims, who were constantly attacking Western Christendom, but rather the
Jews, whom Muslims nowadays speak of with genocidal hatred). 

So: the arguments consist of
1) denial of the truth
2) pretending that only a small fraction of Muslims are extremists, and most
deplore Bin Laden and the rest, when in fact Muslims all over the Arab world
were delirious with joy at the attacks on New York and Washington, just as
80% of the Palestinian Arabs applaud suicide bombing, and Arabs everywhere
continue to applaud Muslim terrorism. 
3) using the Tu Quoque argument - You do it too (most Christians and Jews
are eager to agree, and to believe that "we are all guilty." 

Some of you may remember Nabokov's examples of poshlost': such as "we all
share in Germany's guilt." No, we don't. We didn't. And there is no other
major religion in the world that takes, as central tenets of its beliefs, an
open and incessant hatred and contempt and desire to subjugate the
non-believer, as does Islam. Let me turn to the second topic, which is the
central political tenets of Islam. Let me first mention the Qur'an. If you
read the Qur'an, you must do so with notes. It cannot be read unaided. It is
quite literally an incomrepehensible document, for about 20% of its content.
No Muslims have been able even to explain it. Whether you accept the
traditional Muslim view of its origins - which as Infidels we obviously do
not - there is even a question as to whether there was a historical
Muhammad, and much of the most recent Western scholarship, such as that by
Michael Cook and Patricia Crone at Princeton, suggest that the Qur'an is a
concoction from about a century after Muhammad supposedly lived, that it
consists largely of fragments of Jewish and Christian lore, mixed up,
sometimes confused, and that it came about after the Arabs began conquering
their neighbors, as an ideology both to explain, and to justify, the
conquests of first, the pagans of the Hejaz, and then of the Jews and
Christians in the area of Mesopotamia, or modern Iraq. It is probably in the
Fertile Crescent that the Qur'an actually came from, according to this
modern, and obviously entirely non-Muslim, scholarship. Equally important,
however, are the hadith - the sayings and traditions associated with
Muhammad, as handed down through a chain of narrators. This narration-chain
- A said to B who said to C who said to D, depends, of course, on the
quality of the first narrator, or A, who usually has to have been one of the
original Companions of the Prophet. The entire narration-chain or isnad,
will have to be studied, and Islamic scholars do study them, to see if the
chain is authentic, in their view. And these hadith, of which there are many
tens of thousands, obviously include many that are apocryphal, not
authentic. Indeed, almost all of them are tales told about what Muhammad
did, or said, made up after his life (if indeed he is a real figure), to in
essence expand upon, or help interpret, the Koran. 

Now the Qur'an contains many suras, or chapters. Some of these were
apparently written first, and are somewhat more mild in their hostility to
the Infidels. The later suras are definitely uncompromising. Given that
there are many passages that seem to contradict each other, we may ask: how
does a Muslim decide which passages are the ones that are true, or to be
followed, if they are all dictated by God? The solution has been to invoke
the doctrine of ABROGATION - that is, the later Suras abrogate, or in a
sense OVERRULE, the earlier, more moderate suras. But here is what is
interesting. Muslim and non-Muslim apologists will always quote the same
passages, and the same hadith, to "prove" to the Infidel that Islam is a
tolerant religion. Let me give just two examples. At one point in the Qur'an
it says: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." That is often quoted,
as supposedly showing that Islam does not believe in forcing others to
convert. It is also directly contradicted by hundreds of OTHER verses in the
Qur'an, that came later, and that are taken by most Muslims as the final
word. We have only to look at how Islam has treated minorities, and the
various ways - the taxes, the special clothes, the inequality at law, all
the deliberate signs of subjugation and humiliation to which other "Ahl
al-Kitab" or "People of the Book" must undergo, to show that of course there
is compulsion in religion. Indeed, Muslims themselves, throughout history,
have been punished by death if they have tried to leave Islam --- the death
sentence has been imposed in Saudi Arabia, in Kuwait, in Pakistan, in
Indonesia, and elsewhere, for Muslims who have trieed to become Christians.
Of course there is "compulsion in religion" in Islam. It could not be
otherwise. If you possess the truth, Islam, and Islam must be everywhere
victorious, you will use force in such a worthy cause. The other standard
quote is about the Jihad. In one hadith Muhammad is described as returning
from combat to his domestic life. It is written that he said "I am returning
from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad." This supposedly means: the real
Jihad is the struggle you fight within yourself, to be a good Muslim, and
not the Jihad of warfare." Now this is ridiculous. Jihad has always meant to
believing Muslims, and is used to day, to mean conducting warfare - by all
means available - to spread Islam. For the central political tenet of Islam
is that there must be uncompromising hostility between the Dar al-Islam, or
Lands of Islam, and the Dar al-Harb, or Lands of the Infidels. It is the
duty of Muslims, the religious duty, to constantly expand the Dar al-Islam
at the expense of the Dar al-Harb. This does not mean you must kill every
last Infidel. 

If you can take control of their lands, and create conditions so that Muslim
rule and the Muslim Holy Law, or shari'a, can be imposed, so that Islam will
take over in those territories, that is enough. Now the conflict between Dar
al-Islam and Dar al-Harb can not ever end until Islam covers the globe. So
even if all of Israel were to disappear, and Kashmir be given to Pakistan,
and all the Christians expelled from Indonesia and the Philippines, this
would mean nothing. It would only whet, rather than sate, the appetite.
Islam must control Australia, and China, and Japan. It must cover all of
Africa. It must, and through demography it might, take over all of Europe -
and then, of course, the final struggle will be with the United States, the
most powerful Infidel state, and the only one willing, it seems, to confront
Islam, because it is the only one where there is a critical mass of people
who are beginning to understand the real problem that Islam poses. The
weapon of Islam is the Jihad. It means, literally, "struggle," but it is not
innocent, any more than "Mein Kampf" meant innocently "My Struggle." It is
more sinister, rather like that bor'ba za mir I druzhbu, about which you do
not need any further explanation. It is mentioned 28 times in the Qur 'an,
always in connection with combat, or qital. However, combat is not the only
form of struggle. When your enemies are too powerful, you may use other
means in the Jihad. For example, "wealth" or economic warfare is to be
employed, and is specifically discussed. This means economic boycotts-as of
Israel. It means bribery - as the bribing of diplomats who are accredited to
Saudi Arabia and then go back to their Western countries as Saudi agents,
including almost every single American ambassador since the early 1970s,
with the honorable exception of Hume Horan. It includes the bribery of CIA
officials, including those, such as Raymond Close, who were stationed in
Saudi Arabia. It means bribes to African diplomats and others at the U.N. It
means using their vast oil wealth to build mosques everywhere, especially in
the heart of Rome, Paris and London, as a political act, a way of showing
that Islam is here, Islam is on the march, Islam will triumph. It means
paying for tens of thousands of madrasas, that in places such as Pakistan
help to brainwash millions of children, who spend their entire youth
studying the most fanatical brands of Islam, those of Wahhabism, and
memorizing the Qur'an, a skill which simply ruins their brains and makes
them unfit for learning any skill or acquiring any real education that might
be of use to them in the modern world. But the Saudis have their oil money,
and do not have to work. Poor people in Indonesia and Pakistan and Africa,
however, need to acquire real skills and education: when they are used as
"soldiers of Islam" they are also deprived of any real chance at education.
Along with military combat and economic warfare, there is propaganda.

When the Saudis buy large shares in CNN and other media companies, when they
openly discuss their plans to buy up media, it is clear that they understand
their task as one of both preventing any serious understanding of Islam, and
also that they realize that they can, like the Nazis and the Communists, win
converts and support through powerful, well-financed propaganda. As against
Israel, they have been remarkably successful: they have turned much of
Europe into the enemy of this tiny country, which is only trying to defend
itself against cruel and cowardly murderers. They have also had success
against the United States. It is absolutely incredible how the Europeans,
for example, have forgotten what it is America has done for them, both
against the Nazis and the Communists, and seem willing to accept the idea
that the world of Muslim Arabs are at least as worthy of belief as is the
United States. It is an absolutely unbelievable situation. Of course, one
must never discout the power as well of envy - of American power, and that
age-old disease, anti-Semitism, which affects anywhere from between 10-30%
of the population, irrespective of the presence of Jews, and obviously, in a
world war where one side, the Muslim side, also has as one of its aims the
destruction of Israel, there are antisemites who are willing to overlook the
threat to themselves, so powerful is this disease of anti-Semitism, the
etiology and epidemiology of which still needs profound, and widespread,
study. Finally, there is a new weapon in the Jihad. When, during the
Reconquista of Spain, and the Muslims were finally overcome in 1492 after a
campaign lasting hundreds of years, Muslim jurists were asked what the
Muslims should do? They all replied: Muslims must leave Spain, because they
could not stay and live under Infidel rule. So they left, and went to North

The idea of migration is central to Muslim history. The Muslim calendar
itself dates from 622, the year of the Hijra, or migration, from Mecca to
Medina, by Muhammad and his followers. Now, in the last 30-40 years, slowly
at first, and now much faster, there is a new phenomenon: migration of
Muslims to the Bilad al-Kufr, or Lands of the Infidels. And how do Muslims
explain this migration, this willingness to live in countries largely run by
Infidels, without Muslim rule? It is explained, within Islam, and by
Muslims, and this has all been articulated, as justified because it is a way
of eventually taking over these lands, of subversion by demography. Already
there are many reports of Muslim leaders telling their people in Europe that
in a generation or two, because the Europeans have so few children, and the
Muslims between 6-10 children per family, they will "inherit Europe." More
and more mosques are being built. Within 20 years, in Holland, the majority
of school-age children will be Muslim. Without 40 years, Italy - an
essential part of the Western world, of Western civilization - will, if
present birth-rates and immigration rates continue, have a majority Muslim
population. Will the West allow it? Can the West allow Italy to become
Muslim? If Italy, or for that matter Israel, are lost simply through
demography, then the very idea of Western civilization may be fatally
damaged. Let me repeat: this is not a fantasy I have constructed. I have
written about 150 pages of a text that includes many quotes from such
leaders as Sheik Fadlallah, former head of Hezbollah. Let me offer you one:
Fadlallah told his followers that when Hulegu, the Mongol leader, invaded
Baghdad in 1258 and conquered the Abbasid Caliphate, it seemed that Islamic
civilization was on the verge of being destroyed. But, said Fadlallah, the
Muslims managed to convert their Mongol rulers, and turned things around.
Instead of losing their territory to the Mongols, they made the Mongol
territories Muslim, and enlarged the Dar al-Islam at the expense of the Dar
al-Harb. No doubt Hulegu, whose name is instantly understood by all Muslims,
will be much on Muslim minds in the coming months, when America conquers
Baghdad. People will wonder: we cannot defeat the Infidels, especially
America, directly on the battlefield. But with terrorism, economic warfare,
propaganda, and above all through demography, will we do to America what we
did to the seemingly more powerful and conquering Mongols - that is,
eventually seize their territory, win over their people? Unless there is a
real understanding of this, it could happen. In any case, life for Infidels
everywhere is now much more dangerous and unpleasant, and the more Muslims
we allow into our midst, the more that will be so. No country, no
civilization has an obligation to commit suicide. 

Western civilization has many faults, but life in the Muslim world is, for
any liberal, amused, educated Westerner, simply death: no art, except
calligraphy and mosques (scultpture, and depiction of the human form, of
course, forbidden), no literature, virtually no music (no Fred Astaire, no
Louis Armstrong, no Bach, no Mozart, no nothing), no equality of sexes, a
strange and rather sick attitude toward sex, and so much else - including I
should say, a complete humorlessness. Think of everything you do in a day
that makes it interesting and pleasant - what music you listen to, what
books you read, what people you like, of both sexes, to have an easy and
amiable time with. Think of what, in your daily routine, would be allowed
under Muslim rule, and what would not be allowed. As for me, there is hardly
a thought, hardly an action, hardly a line I read or a picture I look at or
a song I listen to, that would not be forbidden in an Islamic world. Along
with the division of the world between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb, and the
hostlility between them that must exist until, through Jihad, Dar al-Islam
spreads across the globe, there is one other thing. According to Muslim
thought, no permanent peace can ever be permitted between an Infidel power
and a Muslim one. The principle that rules in Western legal thought, that
"treaties are to be obeyed" or PACTA SUNT SERVANDA, has no place in Muslim
legal thought. The rule is that based on the model of an agreement, or
treaty, that Muhammad made with the Meccans in 628 A.D. This was the famous
Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya, where Muhammad agreed to not invade Mecca if the
Meccans would give him rights to visit the city each year. The treaty was to
last ten years. The first year, the Meccans allowed Muhammad and his
followers to enter Mecca and to worship. But before the second year was out,
Muhammad had found a reason to break the treaty - he had gotten more
powerful during that time, and now thought he could conquer Mecca. The
reason given was that a tribe allied to the Meccans had attacked a tribe
allied to the Muslims - but it was a flimsy excuse, and Muslims ever since
have praised Muhammad's cunning in first making, and then in breaking, that
agreement. It has been taken as the model, and endlessly discussed, for
making agreements with Infidel states. For example, all agreements with
Israel are not about "peace" but about a "truce" - though this is not really
understood, even by Israelis, very few of whom have actually studied Islam. 

I know this seems unbelievable, amazing - shouldn't the Israelis, who live
in that world, who are surrounded by Muslims, learn about the central tenets
of Islam? Indeed, they should, but they have not, or only a handful have. It
is simply too painful, it seems to me, to realize that your struggle will go
on forever, that it has no end, that there is no "peace" treaty you can rely
on. I perhaps should add that all Muslims understand perfectly what the
Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya means. Arafat himself has constantly referred to it -
always to Muslim audiences. He did it first in 1994, within a year of the
Oslo Accords, at a gathering of Muslims in Johannesburg. There is a tape of
it, which the Israelis got hold of. He has mentioned that Treaty as his
model on at least four other occasions. He never does it to the Westerners,
or to the Israelis, but always to his fellow Muslims. This should be a major
focus of American, and Isareli attention: if no peace treaty between
Infidels and Muslims can possibly mean a real peace, and can only last for
10 years, then Deterrence, and not a worthless agreement, is the only way to
keep the peace. These then are the three main tenets (there are others) that
I would think you should understand: Dar al-Islam/Dar al-Harb, Jihad and its
various forms, and the Treaty of Al-Hudabiyya. Now let me turn to what the
Infidels should do. First, they should - or a sufficient number of them
should - study this subject. Know what I have just been talking about today.
Learn in detail, and talk to your neighbors, so they will understand. The
survival of Infidel civilization depends on a sufficient number of people
knowing the real core of Islamic teachings and beliefs. Second, the Infidel
world has two immediate goals: 1) keep all weapons of mass destruction, or
indeed all major weaponry, out of the hands not only of Iraq, but of all
Muslim countries. It is too late to deprive Pakistan of nuclear weapons. But
that situation can be watched. What about Saudi Arabia? It is unpleasant,
but not like Iraq. What about Egypt? What about Jordan? Not a single one of
these countries can be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction. For even
if one believed - and I do not, not for one minute - that the regime itself
could be trusted, there is always the chance that someone, or some group,
allied to someone powerful in the country, could then acquire such weaponry.
After all, just this past week it was discovered that in tiny Qatar, the
small sheikdom that has allowed our soldiers to be based, the Interior
Minster, himself a member of the ruling family, has for years been an Al
Qaeda supporter, and helped the leading Al Qaeda leader, the man who planned
the Sept. 2001 bombings, to escape from FBI agents who were about to arrest
him in Qatar. Not a single one of these countries could be trusted to be
able to keep such material out of the hands of terrorists, even if it wanted
to - and I doubt that it would want to. The second important goal is to stop
all Muslim migration to Muslim lands, to the U.S., to Canada, to Western
Europe. For obvious reasons, Muslims do not migrate to Eastern Europe and
Russia. If possible, not only should migration be stopped, but life can be
made more difficult, if not by the government, then by private individuals,
so that Muslims will be discouraged from remaining. 

What do I mean? I mean that we, as private citizens, do not have to hire
Muslims, we do not have to buy their goods, or make their lives,
economically, more rewarding. It may seem mean, and many of you may be
offended by it, and I am perfecty aware that there are nice Muslims, that
there are those who simply ignore the main tenets of Islam. But as a group,
the Muslims are a threat to me and those I love. Even the innocent ones,
merely by being here, swell Muslim political power. Lookat France, where the
government is afraid to offend its 5 million Muslims, and its leaders have
admitted as much. We cannot allow Infidels to be prevented from defending
themselves out of fear of Muslim political power. For already Muslims in
England have demanded a separate Muslim parliament. In France they have
demanded the right to ignore the French laws and to wear the hijab to
school. In Italy they have demanded that Dante no longer be taught in
schools because he condemned Muhammad. In Germany, in Cologne, the Muslims
tried to set up a separte Muslim state that they called the "Caliphate."
What is amazing is that these, and many other demands I cannot go into here,
is that these are made by relatively tiny groups of Muslims. What happens if
there are not 5 million Muslims in France, but 10 or 15 or 20 million? What
happens if Italy has a majority Muslim population by 2040? What happens to
America's ability to have a muscular foreign policy if it has to worry, not
about a few million Muslims, but ten million? Finally, along with depriving
Muslim states of weaponry, and stopping all immigration of Muslims, and even
encouraging returning to the Muslim lands by making life not completely
easy, there is another weapon: we have to get off oil. They do not have
economies; their huge wealth, amounting to many trillions since 1973,
trillions, is a result not of hard work, not of entrepreneurial activity,
but solely from the fact that so many Muslim Arab states sit on large
amounts of oil and gas. We have to figure out ways to limit the demand. And
this is not only a fight for all Infidels, but also for the existence of a
world that, environmentally, is at all tolerable. 

A Manhattan Project, much greater taxes on gasoline, and so on, are a start.
Finally, there are ways to exploit uncertainties and differences within
Islam. It is not unified, and we should play, for example, on the contempt
and hatred of Turks for Arabs, of Arabs for Persians, of Persians for Arabs,
and so on. If we can encourage the Kemalist example of modern Turkey, which
is the only kind of Islam the Infidel world can abide-for the great Kemal
Ataturk decided that for Turkey to survive, it had to suppress all the
political aspects of Islam, the very aspects I have told you about here. The
new oil wealth of the Turkic states of Central Asia may make them relatively
more powerful within the Muslim world, and they have more in common with
their fellow Turkic peoples, following Kemalism, than with the Arabs, whose
way of life, is quite foreign for example, to the peoples of Central Asia.
They are to be encouraged to follow Kemalism, or even, where possible, to
allow real religious diversity. In other words, the Infidel world should not
be only defending itself, but must go on the offenseive: the ideological
offensive, against Islam as it currently exists. The great Ibn Warraq, in
his study Why I Am Not a Muslim, notes that "there are moderate Muslims, but
Islam itself is not moderate." So we must encourage more "moderate" Muslims,
but never forget that "Islam itself is not moderate" and it is only by
suppressing or ignoring certain aspects, as Ataturk required in his state,
that Islam and we, the Infidels, can coexist. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.

Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
Brooks Isoldi, editor

  Post message:
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to