It was a great honor to be invited to the U.S. Capitol on February 26th for a screening of Fitna sponsored by Senator John Kyl (R-AZ), the Center for Security Policy, and the International Free Press Society.
The honor was only increased by my discovery the next day that at the same time we were watching Fitna in the Lyndon B. Johnson Room, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) spoke the following words on the Senate floor:
As we gather here today, a Senate colleague of mine is reportedly hosting a screening — in the Capitol building itself — of a short film called “Fitna” that defames a faith practiced by 1.3 billion people. The movie’s director has not only compared the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf — this director, a supposed champion of free speech has suggested that his own Dutch government ban the Quran outright. So I’m glad you’re here, rather than there.
Well, I was glad to be where I was, too, instead of being forced to listen to the trademark Kerry drone. So we were both happy.
But what put the burr under Sen. Kerry’s saddle concerning Geert Wilders and Fitna?
It just happened that the junior senator from Massachusetts was in the middle of a speech about his efforts on behalf of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project. This is a major outreach program being pushed by leading lights of the American cognoscenti. It aims to build an interfaith bridge to the Muslim world and heal the deep wounds caused by 9-11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the emergence of virulent Islamophobia in this country and abroad.
At least that’s the official take on what it’s all about. For those of us who are accustomed to the covert efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is evidence of a very successful initiative to deliver the United States of America into surrender and dhimmitude.
Its leadership group includes Madeleine Albright, Richard Armitage, Richard Land, Ingrid Mattson (President of ISNA), Dennis Ross, Vin Weber, and a number of other notable public figures. The non-Muslims on the list have been co-opted into the subliminal sharia campaign, and now that Barack Hussein Obama is president, the entire operation is tantamount to official government policy.
Here’s some more of what Sen. Kerry had to say that day on the Senate floor, interspersed with my remarks:
As the President made clear in his speech on Tuesday night, America has started a new chapter in our history. Part of this must be a new chapter in our relations with the Muslim world.
I’ve just returned from a trip to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. At every turn, I heard a newfound willingness by people and governments alike to take a fresh look at America. This moment won’t last long, and we need to seize it.
Here we go again. The effete corps of impudent snobs that crafts U.S. foreign policy is desperate, as always, to be loved by the wretched of the earth, especially those in Muslim countries. Because they hate us, we must soothe them. Because they think our President is a Muslim, now is the time for carpe diem. We can’t afford to waste a moment!
For all these differences, today we must send a simple message to all Muslims: we share your aspirations for freedom, dignity, justice, and security. We’re ready to listen, to learn, and to honor the President’s commitment to approach the Muslim world with a spirit of mutual respect.
Slow down a little, Senator Kerry.
The Muslims of the world may well share our aspirations for freedom, dignity, justice, and security. But what do they mean by those words?
– – – – – – – – –
“Freedom” means total submission to the perfect and unchanging word of Allah as recorded in the Koran.
“Dignity” means that one’s family, tribe, and religion must never be insulted, dishonored, shamed, or disrespected. Any insult, dishonor, shame, or disrespect may require that the offending party be killed — even if that person is one’s own daughter, sister, or wife.
“Justice” means the jurisprudence of the fiqh, the legal code laid out by sharia. Among other things, Islamic justice mandates the stoning of adulterers and the execution of homosexuals.
“Security” means that non-Muslims may acquire no significant political or military power within any Islamic countries. It also means that the state of Israel must be dismantled.
Given these definitional differences, how will the aspirations of Muslims be reconciled with the values of Western Civilization, not to mention the U.S. Constitution?
Or do you plan to issue “fiat reconciliation” along with “fiat money”?
We have a great deal of work to do. An alarming number of Muslims today believe that our goal is not to end terrorism but to dominate or diminish Islam itself. And their mistrust is reciprocated by many westerners who now wonder whether the gaps between us are unbridgeable, whether higher walls or fewer visas can substitute for difficult task of coexistence.
Our goal is to end terrorism but not to dominate or diminish Islam itself.
But what if these two goals are interdependent? What if it is impossible to end terrorism without dominating or diminishing Islam?
The vast majority of terrorist acts in the world today are committed by Muslims in the name of Allah. In fact, if one omits Islamic terrorism, almost all terrorist violence is committed for political reasons, by groups such as the Tamil Tigers or the ETA. Christians and Jews undertake virtually no terrorist acts in the name of their religions.
This demonstrates that Islam is in fact a political ideology, not a religion, and that terrorism is just one political weapon in its arsenal. Terrorist violence against non-Muslims helps speed the political supremacy of Islam under sharia law in a worldwide Caliphate.
The defeat of the Caliphate at the Gates of Vienna in 1683 was just a temporary setback, and the momentum towards a world Islamic state has resumed.
It’s impossible to end terrorism without diminishing Islam.
These perceptions are harmful to America. Each undercuts our efforts in what I see as the larger struggle — not a cooked-up “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West — but a struggle within Islam between the overwhelming majority who share our basic values and a small sliver who seek to pervert the Quran to justify bloodshed or move their societies backward.
The overwhelming majority of Muslims would prefer to live in peace and quiet. They want to lead normal lives and engage in the same pursuits that most people enjoy, while adhering in a minimal way to the strictures of their religion.
But that doesn’t mean they “share our basic values”. Most of them don’t.
The rule of law is an alien concept to them, and they do not easily accept civil society or a plurality of cultural institutions. They are used to being ruled by emirs and sultans who administer massively corrupt and brutal governments. Liberty in the Western sense is all but incomprehensible to them.
Turning these people into “folks just like us” is a monumental task. If it can be done at all, it will take decades or centuries, and must begin with the rule of an iron fist — something which Americans are loath to provide.
Not only that, when normal, peaceful, reasonable Muslims are pushed to the wall by a political crisis, they will not side with the enlightened people of the West — they will throw in their lot with the “small sliver who seek to pervert the Quran to justify bloodshed or move their societies backward”. You can see it happening from Morocco to Indonesia.
Islam is becoming more radical, not less, and the process is accelerating even as Western leaders go out of their way to appease Muslims.
Part of restoring trust will be broadening relations with Muslim nations beyond the few lightning-rod topics that have defined them since 9/11 to include combating poverty, climate change, investing in human development and creating knowledgeable societies. Among our most effective steps to counteract extremism was providing the humanitarian aid to Pakistan and Indonesia in the wake of natural disasters: what mattered wasn’t merely the assistance, it was the sight of American troops actively working to save Muslim lives.
This statement would be laughable if its potential effects on our national security were not so serious and dangerous. Imagine: combating climate change is important for restoring trust with Muslims! How goofy can you get?
The notion that doing good deeds for Muslims will gain their gratitude and change their enmity towards us is venerable, irrational, and persists in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
In general, Muslims are not grateful when you treat them generously. They expect payments from non-Muslims as a matter of course; it’s the jizyah tax, as mandated by the Koran. The fact that the West — without even being conquered — is offering such generous subsidies to the Islamic world is to them a sure sign that the final victory is at hand. It’s compelling evidence that the worldwide ascendancy of Islam is all but within their grasp.
Any display of compassion towards the average Muslim country will be viewed as a sign of weakness. The normal response of the beneficiary is to take what is offered, and then calculate the most effective way to extort more.
If we truly want to empower Muslim moderates, we must also stop tolerating the casual Islamo-phobia that has seeped into our political discourse since 9/11. As we gather here today, a Senate colleague of mine is reportedly hosting a screening — in the Capitol building itself — of a short film called “Fitna” that defames a faith practiced by 1.3 billion people. The movie’s director has not only compared the Quran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf — this director, a supposed champion of free speech has suggested that his own Dutch government ban the Quran outright. So I’m glad you’re here, rather than there.
It is also encouraging that both sides increasingly see the need to deepen and improve our dialogue. From the “Common Word” letter from Islamic religious leaders, to King Abdullah’s interfaith conference in Madrid, to President Obama’s appearance on al-Arabiya, to the US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar which our first two panelists recently attended.
It becomes evident that Senator Kerry, like former President Bush, has been snowed by the taqiyyah of King Abdullah and his Wahhabist colleagues.
As Sam Solomon points out (the full pdf document is available here), the “Common Word” letter is a subtly disguised form of da’wa, a call issued to Christians and Jews to abandon their erroneous doctrines and embrace the one true religion, Islam. It is not an interfaith initiative designed to affirm what all three religions have in common:
…“the love of God and love of neighbour“ taught in the Bible and championed by Christ, cannot be supported by even one surah in the Qur’an. Thus, though the Common Word appears to put forward true common ground between Islam and Christianity, and purports to be an invitation to seek even more common ground through dialogue — it is in fact a patchwork of partial Qur’anic and Biblical references designed to give an illusion of a commonality worthy of Shakespeare’s frequent treatment of appearance and reality in which he demonstrates that “oft, things are not what they seem…”.
The Common Word is certainly not new. It is nothing more than a 21st Century version of the call to unity and peace which Mohammad issued to Byzantium before his death in the 7th century — a call which has resounded again and again since that time throughout history, just before the Islamic forces moved in to make good militarily their claims to the right to rule politically by divine decree. However, there is an historic aspect of the document — this is the first time in history that so many Islamic scholars from around the globe, both Sunni and Shi’ite, have participated in reiterating this ‘call’ or ‘invitation’ using (or, indeed, abusing) the Christian Scriptures to back it up.
That the Common Word is an invitation is indisputable, but not the one which it appears to be. It is but a 21st Century reincarnation of essentially the same wording as every challenge to the Church and Christendom since the days of Mohammad — and it is based on the same Qur’anic mandate, surah 3:64.
King Abdullah’s efforts have borne rich fruit indeed: the “Common Word” is about to become the framework for official United States policy towards Islam.
One of the guiding documents for Sen. Kerry and other proponents of the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is “Changing Course — A New Direction for U.S. Relations with the Muslim World” (the full pdf is here).
As the blurb for the report says:
This Report presents the first senior, bipartisan and interfaith U.S. leadership consensus on a comprehensive approach to improving U.S.-Muslim relations. Moving beyond current deadlocked debates, the Leadership Group on U.S.-Muslim Engagement has crafted a multi-faceted strategy to enhance U.S. and international security
So what is this multi-faceted strategy?
The report recommends constructive engagement, mutual understanding, enhanced communication, improvements in education — yada yada yada; we all know the drill. Above all, it recommends that we engage in dialogue, and more dialogue, and yet more dialogue. If we follow its recommendations, we will chat with our sworn enemies until… SHAZAM! Peace and understanding miraculously appear.
Anybody who is concerned about the dhimmification of America should download the whole report and read it. Unfortunately — and presumably intentionally — it is protected against text-copying, so I had to print it out and run parts of it through the scanner and OCR to get the excerpts posted below.
Firstly, here’s one of the recommendations for helping “to improve governance and promote civic participation in Muslim countries” (pp. 59-60):
Assess the value of engagement with political representatives of armed and activist movements case-by-case, based on their principles, behavior, and level of public support. The US. has difficult choices to make about whether and how to enter into dialogue with movements that have gained political representation through elections, while continuing to use violence against domestic political opponents. Hamas and Hezbollah are arguably in this category. Both are on the US. State Department list of terrorist organizations primarily because of their attacks on Israel. Both are also involved in sometimes violent domestic political contests.
There is a range of views within the Leadership Group on the intentions, actions, and legitimacy of Hamas and Hezbollah. There is also a range of views on whether the US. should be in dialogue with either or both groups about conditions within their countries, or in regard to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Nonetheless, the Group has reached consensus on a set of criteria that the US. can use to judge whether, when, and how to engage in dialogue with armed political groups and movements:
- Does the group or movement have a substantial base of legitimate public support, demonstrated by membership, electoral success, and/or mass mobilization? Is this base of support equal to or greater than the apparent support for the current government?
- Does the group have some interests in political, economic, or social reform that are complementary to US. interests?
- Have the leaders of the group rejected the use of violence, or shown the willingness and ability to halt the use of violence and give up their arms, when they have had opportunities for nonviolent political competition?
- Is the group a potential spoiler of reform or peace initiatives advocated by mainstream leaders or movements? If so, is the group willing to negotiate participation in a reform coalition or peace process?
- Would US. engagement with the group strengthen the position of moderate leaders within the group, relative to those who advocate extremist views and actions?
- If the US. needs to explore the preceding questions before engaging publicly in dialogue with the group, does it have informal and/or indirect channels for communicating with the group’s leadership, and is there a high likelihood that those communications can remain confidential?
Arguably, the more questions to which the US. answer is “yes,” the stronger the case for some form of engagement with the armed movement in question.
Obviously, this list is laying the groundwork for a rationale that would remove Hamas and Hezbollah from the list of proscribed terrorist groups.
These fellows were elected. They have popular support. They have a “political” wing and an “armed” wing, so we should engage the political wing and discourage the armed wing. We should give them lots of money. Then they will stop blowing up buses and firing rockets. They will come to the negotiating table and agree to accept a hefty slice of the pork, perks, and patronage that go with traditional political power.
But the report asks too many questions. Two should suffice:
|1.||Does the group proclaim jihad and martyrdom as its primary goals, and advocate the murder of infidels as its openly-stated official policy?|
|2.||Does the group consistently call for the eradication of the state of Israel, and deny the right of the Jewish state to exist?|
If the answer to either of these questions is “yes”, then there’s no need for any further dialogue and engagement and reconciliation. We need only assist the members of these groups — particularly their leaders — in their oft-stated goal of attaining the martyrdom that they so urgently desire.
What could be simpler?
Or take this policy prescription from pp.80-81:
At the university and post-graduate levels, the Federal government has already expanded funding for Arabic language study and regional studies focused on the Middle East, South and Southeast Asia. However, both government and nongovernmental leaders need to provide more substantial incentives for teaching and learning Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, Turkish, and Bahasa Indonesia, and for undergraduate and postgraduate study of Muslim national and regional cultures, histories, and politics.
Overall, the US. needs an education program comparable in scale to the post-Sputnik U.S. commitment to math and science education. The National Defense Education Act of 1958 committed the equivalent (in today’s dollars) of more than $7 billion to meet the challenge posed by Soviet space research. The current challenge calls for an equivalent commitment to education on Islam and Muslims, sustained over a decade or more) focusing on teacher training and curriculum in middle and high schools, and colleges.
It is equally important for the U.S. to expand its commitment to fund basic education (literacy and numeracy) in Muslim countries, and to support teaching and learning about other cultures as part of the curriculum. The US. should not impose its view of what should be taught about other cultures in Muslim countries’ schools. Nonetheless, the US. should use dialogue and advocacy to promote balanced presentation of historical, political, and cultural issues, and to put an end to teaching that advocates violence. When advocating educational reforms, the US. government and nongovernmental agencies should seek to the fullest extent possible to work through multilateral organizations and/or with government partners who share their views on core educational principles. [emphasis added]
Can you believe this combination of unbridled hubris and foolishness?
We’re going to mount a new version of the post-Sputnik response — a massive national educational program launched to counter a perceived grave threat to our national security — in order to teach American children Arabic and Farsi so that they will understand Islam better, the Muslim nations will like us again, and terrorist attacks on us will cease.
Not only that, in order to avoid bias, discrimination, and Islamophobia, our government will have no say in the content of what is taught in these programs. We will throw billions of dollars into them, and then stand back and adopt a hands-off policy in order to prove what good little Multiculturalists we are.
It strains my credulity to think that there are people out there who actually believe this drivel, and who are willing to pony up a huge chunk of your tax dollars and mine to implement it.
This will be the bonanza of a lifetime for the NEA, ACORN, ISNA, CAIR, and all the other activist organizations into whose hands all this government lucre will trickle down. The beads-and-sandals crowd will join hands with the hijab-and-keffiyeh crowd to teach the children of America about the joy and harmony of the Islamic faith.
Welcome to Obamaland.
If John Kerry’s message were the only one being propagated on February 26th in the U.S. Congress, I would despair. There would be no point in my talking about all this.
But the good news is that an alternative message was available that day in the Lyndon B. Johnson Room. While Sen. Kerry was holding forth not far away, the next Prime Minister of the Netherlands, the Hon. Geert Wilders, was talking about the dangers of sharia, the dhimmitude of cowardly Western political leaders, and the urgent need to resist the Islamization of Europe and North America.
In the U.S. Capitol! Can you believe it?
Senator Kerry sat up and took notice. It was enough to force him to make snide comments on the Senate floor.
That’s a significant victory. The voice of the Counterjihad is at last being heard— albeit faintly — within the corridors of power.
Both the United States and Europe are facing Islamization, but the process on each continent is different.
Thirty-five years ago the European elites decided that it was necessary to import tens of millions of Muslim immigrants to help their economies and create a “Mediterranean future”. The Islamization of the continent thus proceeded from the ground up, and is now approaching its dystopian climax.
America, on the other hand, has imported relatively few Muslims. But our government, our media, and our academic institutions have been bought and paid for by Saudi petrodollars. The elites in this country are now falling into line, and Islamization here is proceeding from the top down.
Saudi Arabia and its Salafist allies have realized a good return on their investment:
- The U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project is being read into the Congressional Record.
- Major political figures are support it and other “outreach” to Muslims.
- Sharia finance is the coming thing in banking circles.
- Footbaths and prayer rooms are being installed in most major educational institutions, airports, community centers, and other public buildings.
- Many employers and government agencies accommodate Muslim prayer schedules and dietary requirements.
- Negative opinions about Islam are being muzzled on college campuses.
- The media engage in self-censorship about political Islam, and Muslims are almost never portrayed negatively in TV dramas and sitcoms.
- The federal government forbids the use of certain words and phrases, such as “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism”.
And last but not least…
- Major political figures are making pilgrimages to “the territories” and giving hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians.
And all of this is occurring without the presence of huge Muslim ghettoes in our cities, without carbecues and “Jews to the gas!” riots in our downtowns. Demographic pressure is not forcing us to institute sharia and suppress criticism of Islam. Muslim voters are not numerous enough to provide the margin of victory for the Democrats in elections.
No, we’re doing this of our own free will. The Islamization of the USA is a voluntary project, undertaken in the time-hallowed tradition of American civic responsibility and public-spiritedness.
The elites have been seduced by the multicultural siren song, and the rest of the population is snoozing in front of the boob-tube. Thanks to an immensely successful Saudi propaganda operation, sharia is coming our way, and we’re OK with it.
But there’s an alternative point of view that’s just beginning to be heard. In the U.S. Capitol on February 26th, 2009, for one brief shining moment, Geert Wilders stole John Kerry’s thunder.