As long as there are Muslims among us, there will always be Sudden Jihad Syndrome
posts a very instructive story
by Antoine de Saint-Exupery about a Muslim chieftain in the Sahara, a long-time friend and ally of the French, who suddenly murdered in their sleep the French officers who were staying with him.
As I’ve said many times, it doesn’t matter if Muslims are “peaceful” or how long they have been “peaceful.” So long as they remain Muslims, even just nominal Muslims, they may at any time rediscover their true identity and faith as Muslims and recommence jihad, at happened with this chieftain.
Also, as Saint-Exupery eloquently brings out, when they have their Islamic re-awakening, the fact that they have been friendly to infidels all these years may make them feel more guilty for having betrayed the faith and more set on killing the infidels.
We have brought millions of our potential murderers into our countries. For ten years my mantra has been: “Muslims do not belong in significant numbers in any Western country, period.” Who else in the West will say that? - end of initial entry -
Scott B. writes:
A recent Mark Steyn post at The Corner, quoting a pre-PC work of fiction—a Flashman novel—made a similar point:
I wrote here yesterday about the accelerating campaign of “green-on-blue” violence—that’s to say, NATO-trained, NATO-paid Afghans turning on their Western “allies” and killing them. A handful of readers reminded me of this passage from George MacDonald Fraser’s very first Flashman novel, set 170 years ago in the First Anglo-Afghan War:
Personally, I find it implausible that the majority of these cases involve Muslim friends of Westerners suddenly discovering their inner jihadist, and so turning on their former pals. I’ve certainly read of cases of sudden jihad syndrome that followed upon a conversion experience, where a formerly Westernized Muslim becomes a strict fundamentalist prior to his attack, but my impression is that such a radical transformation is the exception.
This I will say for the Afghan—he is a treacherous, evil brute when he wants to be, but while he is your friend he is a first-rate fellow. The point is, you must judge to a second when he is going to cease to be friendly. There is seldom any warning.
Isn’t it more likely that the Muslims who do this kind of thing are fully aware, all along, of their obligation to advance Islam however and wherever the opportunity arises, but at the same time understand they are under no such obligation so long as a jihadist attack would be impractical or counter-productive?
I would say a similar two-facedness can be seen in the way that Muslims can be very effusive and generous hosts to Western guests (given that their honor/shame culture demands it) while at the same time being contributors to Islamic charities, i.e. anti-Western jihadist organizations. (An instructive collection of articles concerning Islamic charities here.)
I’ve almost lost count of the times I’ve spoken with British businessmen who—it turns out during the course of conversation—worked in Dubai or other Middle Eastern countries, and there’s not a one that didn’t stress how wonderfully warm and friendly the rich Arabs they did business with were to them. I read once, but no longer recall the source, that the people of Dubai donate more per capita to Muslim charities/jihadist organizations than do those of any other nation. I see no reason to doubt that these mostly wealthy contributors to the jihadist cause comprise the very class that so many British businessmen regularly engage with, yet it does not even cross these businessmen’s minds (at least not the ones I challenged) that this friendliness could be deeply disingenuous.
Very interesting. That Fraser quote is dynamite.
However, on a side point, notice how Steyn would have readers believe that he was always against Muslim nation building. He lacks the minimal intellectual responsibility to tell us that he once—in 2002, 2003, 2004—with triumphalist enthusiasm supported the entire nation-building project, and laughingly dismissed those who thought it wouldn’t work. It would be nice if he would tell us when and why his opinion changed. But not he nor any neocon has that minimal intellectual honesty.
Scott B. continues:
… though somehow I can’t imagine Mark Steyn, who implies in this post that we should spurn PC and recognize the Afghan character for what it is, would go so far as to speak this simple truth about Muslims in general:
1. There’s a scriptural obligation upon Muslims to advance Islam through aggressive jihad.
2. However much apologists for Islam might try to deny that the Koran means what it plainly means, many of the most renowned Islamic scholars themselves spelled out, again and again over the course of more than a millenium, that making aggressive war against the infidel was indeed the meaning of jihad, and that Muslims who were killed during jihadist attacks would be martyrs deserving of a most exalted place in paradise.
3. Given points 1 and 2, there are always going to be a significant number of Muslims who are ready to sign on for jihad.
4. However, so long as the opportunity doesn’t arise for a feasibly effective attack, such jihad-ready Muslims are, again scripturally, permitted to bide their time, awaiting the call, and to carry on in the meantime cordial relations with infidels, especially in situations where cultural etiquette strongly requires a facade of friendship. E.g. “Let us smile to the face of some people while our hearts curse them.” Al-Hassan said: “Doing taqiyya is acceptable till the day of judgment.”
5. Therefore, there is nothing mysterious about Sudden Jihad Syndrome—it’s entirely explainable in light of mainstream Islamic teachings, and thus wholly predictable as a continued future occurrence so long as we attempt to engage with Muslims, en masse, at home or abroad.
To prevent misunderstanding, when I wrote, “Who else in the West will say that?”, that was not to boast of the fact that I say it, but to express my feeling of aloneness and frustration that there aren’t more people saying it.
Simon P. writes:
While working in Afghanistan last year as a civilian contractor, I heard a similar story about an Afghan killing his American trainer. This was before I saw these stories making the news. The family of the American was told that he had been killed in combat when in reality he had been shot in the back of the head by an ally. This was not a case of the Taliban infiltrating the Afghan forces. The Afghan killer was simply upset that his American trainer had shouted at him, and he decided to kill him. I would not share this story if I thought it was only a rumor. I heard it from a coworker who was a personal friend of the man who was killed.
Daniel F. writes:
You mentioned that Mark Steyn dishonestly berates our nation-building boondoggle in Afghanistan, without acknowledging that he formerly supported this venture. [LA replies: To be precise, I did not say that his berating of nation-building was dishonest; I said his perennial failure to mention his past opposite position on nation-building is dishonest, as well as his failures ever to admit his changes on any position he has taken and subsequently changed.]
I prefer Steyn to Bill Kristol, who continues to bang the drums for “victory” in Afghanistan, apparently having learned nothing from the last 10 years. Here’s an example of Kristol’s wisdom on this matter. [LA replies: While Kristol is of course one of the most egregious promoters of the democracy project, in this brief blog entry he does not bang the drums for victory in Afghanistan but simply reproves Romney for failing, in his acceptance speech, to utter a word of appreciation for our 68,000 soldiers who are in combat in that country.]
Daniel F. replies:
Your point is well taken in correcting my statement that Kristol’s wrongheadedness is demonstrated by that particular blog post. On reflection, Kristol is right that, regardless of whether or not we should be in Afghanistan anymore, Romney should have included some words of appreciation for our military personnel engaged over there.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 03, 2012 02:35 PM | Send