We have long bemoaned the militant hate-speech elicited by countless inflammatory and downright fascist posts at Robert Spencer’s JihadWatch. Garibaldi exposed his “Stop the Islamization of America” as an anti-Muslim hate group based on its European counterpart.
Lately, Spencer has posted articles by the mysterious Roland Shirk, someone we know nothing about, probably because he is another one of Spencer’s pen-names (like Hugh Fitzgerald). Apparently, Mr. Shirk is a mouthpiece for JihadWatch’s more belligerent attacks on the constitutional freedoms of indigenous law-abiding Muslims. Hewrites his latest article about how religious discrimination is our only way to stop a world war against Islam:
If the influx is stopped in the next few years, and Western societies overcome the self-gelding political correctness and hysterical scrupulosity that drives them to hold their own societies to an inhuman standard of Kantian selflessness–while endlessly indulging the sins of newcomers–it’s possible that we will keep our freedoms intact without a major violent confrontation. For that to happen, we’d need to slam shut our borders, cut welfare programs that allow recent immigrants to breed irresponsibly on the taxpayers’ dime, rigorously enforce laws suppressing sedition, infiltrate and expose terror networks already in our midst, and push back hard against attempts to force an alien religion into our cultural mainstream.
Did you get that? Mr. Shirk wants us to end all Muslim immigration, period. Nevermind that this would be economically impossible or the glaring hypocrisy of the fact that Mr. Shirk’s ancestors at one time were likely immigrants in a new land. But how should we deal with the Muslims already here?
We’d essentially have to reduce Islamic enclaves to the condition of the Basques–midsized, deeply disgruntled minorities treasuring claims against our territory, without the power to do much more than disrupt the peace, and occasionally murder some policemen. (Of course, the Basques have old, and in some ways legitimate grievances, since they really were here first–while the Muslims have none–but that’s not really the issue.)
Ghettoization. Mr. Shirk is clear he sees no place for Muslims in Western society at all. Islam is “alien.”Nevermind that official U.S. government documents, such as the historical Treaty of Peace and Friendship, ensure a place for Muslims in America:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (Muslims), and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
History has never been very important at JihadWatch anyway. Mr. Shirk goes on to accuse Western leaders of “demographic treason” for not discriminating against immigrants because of their religion. He outlines the nightmare scenario for his readers:
But that’s not even the worst conceivable outcome of the demographic treason committed by Western leaders who admitted so many Muslims. From a humanitarian point of view, it might be even worse if some European countries woke up to the Muslim threat while others did not–and the governments of those countries on either side of the divide formed into regional blocs. The divide between dhimmi and anti-dhimmi countries would become every bit as sharp as that which sundered Europe during the Cold War.
For Mr. Shirk, the very presence of Muslims, law-abiding or not, could possibly lead to a world war in Europe between so-called dhimmi and anti-dhimmi countries. He sums up his argument in the final line:
Islam is a religion of fear and force, and its adherents can only be at your feet or at your throat. We had better decide which posture we prefer. The time is short.
Either we subjugate the Muslims (with discrimination, stigmatization, and dehumanization), or else they will destroy our civilization. For Mr. Shirk, there is no difference between normal mainstream moderate Muslims, who are proven by scientific polls to be the vast majority, and radical fringe extremists like Al-Qaeda. No need for inconvenient details or nuance. There is simply no chance for peaceful co-existence due to the inherently evil nature of Islam. Time is short.
Indeed, this is the message picked up loud and clear by his readers who vigorously encourage only the harshest measures to be applied indiscriminately against all Muslims.
Buraq, our first commenter, pulls out the usual genocidal anti-Muslim nuclear card:
Very well put! And not a word wasted.
However, if we wish to survive, then we have to ‘go nuclear’. What I mean is that Al Qur’an has to be Hiroshamized, or Nagasaki-ed, if you like…
It’s as simple as that.
Armed Infidel wants to declare war on all Muslim countries and “confiscate” all mosques:
With the full and unyielding support of our National Command Authority and ALL our Congressional Representatives, the following actions should implemented:
• Declare war on all nation states, non-state actors, or proxies (e.g. Hamas and Hezbollah) anywhere in the world that are based upon or support the Islamic doctrine of Sharia, in particular Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran…
• Systematically deport all Muslims from inside our national borders and stop the legal immigration and/or entry of all Muslims into America who are unwilling to denounce all aspects of Sharia, swear allegiance to our American Constitution, and assimilate fully (by way of their actions and deeds) into our American culture and way of life as loyal and law-abiding citizens…
• Confiscate all existing Islamic mosques under the laws of eminent domain. Prohibit the building of all new mosques. Declare that all mosques are nothing more than political and military command and control centers for Islam.
How one swears allegiance to the Constitution while systematically denying fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Constitution is left to our legal imagination.
John K thinks having normal relationships with Muslims is akin to appeasement of Hitler because the real Muslim-Christian holy war is yet to come:
Having been an ardent student of WWII Europe in my youth, I can see the same patterns emerging here as we relive the Chamberlain appeasement phase at the present time. I can also see that we are not going to do anything about Islam until the real war starts. What we have now are just the Rhineland and Sudetenland occupation phases.
Rich thinks Islam shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment:
There are two ways to win.
1. Stop the massive immigration
2. By declaring Islam a Political ideology and removing its protection as a religion.
Ethoman explains his understanding of what Muslims believe:
They plan to subjugate and murder our children the same exact way they subjugate and murder non-Muslims all over the world that have fallen under their dominion. They believe “God” promised them this … They are quite confident right now.
DP111 explains the pickle in which the anti-Muslim movement finds itself:
The question is how to stop Muslim immigration without it appearing as religious discrimination. The next question is how to reverse Muslim immigration. Both need to be done in a manner that does not appear discriminatory, does not require laws to be passed that are viewed as unconstitutional.
Advancing an unconstitutional agenda while not appearing unconstitutional? Yes, that is very tricky. But alas, DP111 has a solution to save Western civilization:
The only solution left is total war, which is the way Western nations operate. Muslims do not seem to understand that Western nations modern war strategy is based on total war till the enemy surrenders, ie unconditional surrender.
Battle of Tours agrees:
“Violent confrontation” with Islam/Jihad/Sharia societal violence is inevitable, no matter what or who happens. This is the “Next World War” in the making.
R.K.MacUalraig also agrees:
Not only am I in favor of all Muslims in the West being deported, but I’m for a reconquista of all formerly Christian and Jewish lands in the Middle East, EU, and Asia.
Sonofwalker thinks that spitting on local Muslims or otherwise indiscriminately insulting them is a good way to fight the “crusade” against Islam:
As an example, one might spit on a Muslim shop window or litter on a mosque property. One man doing so is a small thing, and it’s not going to see anyone harmed. If all the informed readers in this field would do some small act, then there would be multiple thousands of acts daily that in combination would accumulate into a massive action against Islam. That’s how I would attempt to destroy Islam, step by tiny step till there is a storm of activities. It is, in effect, a crusade.
Susan thinks all Muslims should be punished for the next terror attack by destroying Mecca or another “fancy mosque”:
I heard a fellow on the radio say that we had to tell Muslims that every time they committed a terrorist act, we would obliterate one of their holy shrines, starting with that big black box thing in Saudi Arabia. And after they got over the shock of seeing the black box thing laying in splinters on the ground, we would then (following their next terrorist act) obliterate one of those fancy mosques.
Perhaps Susan does not realize that collective punishment is a war crime (or perhaps that does not concern her).
EliasX thinks we should “rollback” the Muslims (in other words, repeat the expulsions carried out during the Crusades):
You omit one strategy that worked in the past vis-à-vis Muslim conquest and colonization: “rollback.” This happened in southern France and southern Italy, Spain, Sicily, central Europe, the Balkans, and Russia, not to mention during the Crusades. Thus, “expulsion” is a viable option for a society threatened with extinction or “subjugation.”
These comments are a typical day of Muslim-bashing at JihadWatch. Perhaps Newt Gingrich will think twice before bragging about Spencer’s endorsement. But remember, Spencer isn’t legally responsible for the rampant hate speech he provokes as per his disclaimer: “The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.”
In other words, Spencer wants to use his right to declare Islam an evil religion whose adherents “can only be at your feet or at your throat” but then he doesn’t want to take responsibility for his readers actually following his argument to its logical conclusion: hate crimes. In the name of free speech, he leaves comments on his website that directly call for violence against Muslims. But again, he’s not responsible… technically.
How else are concerned citizens able to protect their country from the imminent Islamic invasion being facilitated by the secret Moozlim President?