[Islam’s massacres in India] are unparalleled in history, bigger in
sheer numbers than the [Nazi] Holocaust, or
the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks.
—Serge
Trivkovic
However much
institutions, attitudes, and customs have changed, the Muslim approach
to politics derives from the invariant premises of the religion and from
fundamental themes established more than a millennium ago.
—Daniel
Pipes
Anyone who has read the Quran as well as Ibn Warraq (Why
I Am Not a Muslim), or Robert Spencer (A Politically Incorrect
Guide to Islam), or Bernard Lewis (The Crisis of Islam), or
Bat Yo’er (Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide), or
Kenneth Timmerman (Preachers of Hate: Islam and the War on America),
or Raphael Patai (The Arab Mind), or D. F. Green (Arab
Theologians on Jews and Israel), or Melanie Phillips (Londonistan)—anyone,
I say, who has read these books knows that Islam, by any other name, is
Islam, and that the Quran is the Islamic equivalent of Mein Kampf,
as Winston Churchill indicates in his history of the Second World War.
We are now in the midst of a Third, but more subtle
and deadlier, World War, and we had better know and vigorously confront
the enemy.
It will be infinitely more difficult for
freedom-loving nations to win this war if only because their leaders
obscure the nature of the enemy. We know there are many Muslims who
deplore jihadists. Daniel Pipes estimates that “only” 10 to 15 percent
of world’s 1.3 billion Muslims support the jihadist agenda. That’s
equivalent to 130 to 195 million Muslims—hardly comforting. Other
scholars estimate at least 50 percent of the world’s Islamic population
identifies with jihadists—that’s 625 million Muslims!
No less worrisome, Bernard Lewis, the doyen of
Islamic scholars, tells us that “Even when Muslims cease believing in
Islam, they may retain Islamic habits and attitudes.” Various scholars
have shown that the distinction between Islamic “moderates” and
“extremists” is problematic, affected by changing circumstances. If
only for strategic reasons, Islam, regardless of any “politically
correct” adjective, should be deemed Islam.
Since the West, as Lewis and Samuel Huntington have
shown, is involved in a clash of civilizations with Islam—a clash
emphasized by Muslim theologians, writers, and rulers down through the
ages—it is exceedingly dangerous to obscure this clash of civilizations
when at stake are nothing less than freedom and the sanctity of human
life.
Apart from fear of being denounced as “racists,”
Western statesmen are afraid—reasonably so—that naming the enemy will
arouse unruly passions and trigger attacks against law-abiding Muslims. However, by obscuring the nature of the enemy and the magnitude and
profundity of the Islamic threat, the leaders of Western nations
minimize their people’s awareness of this threat and readiness to
support the arduous and even cruel measures required to overcome it.
Notice the anti-Iraq war movement in the West even
while England and Europe are being Islamized. Notice the widespread
hostility toward Israel despite its having been attacked by Hezbollah,
the proxy of Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmaninejad calls for
“wiping Israel off the map” and for “a world without America”—meaning a
world without Christianity and Judaism.
Nevertheless, America’s very Christian president
trivializes Ahmaninejad’s Islamic genocidal designs by seeking to
prevent Iran’s development of nuclear weapons by means of diplomacy (or
bribery). The president, who referred to the perpetrators of 9/11 as
“evil-doers,” does not seem to see the driving, historical inspiration
of those evil-doers in the hatred of “infidels” inscribed in almost
every page of the Quran.
This is why sanctions are not going to prevent Iran’s
development of nuclear weapons. But inasmuch as such weapons would
enable Iran not only to destroy Israel but also dominate Saudi Arabia
and thereby control the oil on which the world’s economy depends, the
Iranian regime and its nuclear facilities must be destroyed—and without
being squeamish about civilian casualties.
Yet this will not suffice to win the war against
Islamdom. Islam is animated by an envious hatred of the West. This
envy indicates that Muslim leaders know that Islam is decadent. Two
months before the Six-Day War of June 1967 a Syrian army magazine
published an article referring to Islam as one of the “mummies in the
museums of history.”
In The Dream Palace of the Arabs, the renowned
Lebanese-born scholar Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University agrees
with the most prominent literati of the Arab world who sorrowfully
behold the “death of Arab civilization.” Daniel Pipes sees in the
Muslim world “a pervasive sense of debilitation.”
One should add desperation, because Muslim leaders
know that Islam’s power rests on oil, which will eventually be exhausted
or replaced by another form of energy discovered by Western science—and
then Islam will succumb to “infidels.” Therefore: Islam, in its
cultural death throws, must employ the science of the West to destroy
the West so that Muslims, whose life blood is honor or pride, will no
longer feel degraded and tormented by the West’s superior civilization.
The enemy’s desperate hatred of the West and lust for
vengeance and self-immolation cannot be assuaged. It must be destroyed
before it destroys us.
Here let us learn from the enemy. Wherever Islam has
conquered, it has destroyed the symbols of other religions, has
demolished churches and synagogues and erected mosques upon them.
If the United States dismantles Iran, it had better
go further and destroy Mecca and Medina and take over Saudi Arabia, the
benefactor of thousands of mosques that have been preaching jihad.
It must be seared in the consciousness of Muslims
that despite the teachings of the Quran and Allah, Islam, like
Zoroastrianism, is but a shadow of the past, having been conquered by
“infidels.”
Why
Islam Should Be