Way back in the summer of 2006, I was guest-blogging at Michelle Malkin's website and wrote a post called "Jihad and Dhimmitude: A Real-Life Test Case."
I am re-posting excerpts below as the world once again reels and deals quite badly inside the vortex of another jihad-dhimmitude cycle, this time triggered by the Sydney jihad hostage siege. As is always the case, the threat from murdering Muslims -- more jihad -- is exponentially compounded by what follows -- deeper dhimmitude.
Here is the pattern as observed in 2006:
... Above all else, understanding jihad and dhimmitude is crucial to understanding what we call the war on terror.
Jihad, of course, means “holy war.” Many Muslims will tell you that it also means “inner struggle,” which is nice and everything, but it’s “holy war” that we, in the non-Muslim world, have to deal with.
Dhimmitude is what follows every successful jihad–if, that is, you happen to be a non-Muslim “dhimmi” who finds himself living under Islamic rule. The term, coined by historian Bat Ye’or, defines a culture of fearful inferiority – legal, social and religious –inhabited by non-Muslims according to sharia, or Islamic law. What is particularly alarming about dhimmitude, as Bat Ye’or has also chronicled, is that this same pattern of deference to Islam has imprinted itself even in non-Islamic countries. Just think back to the craven reaction to Cartoon Rage when most Western media outlets submitted to Islamic religious law (dhimmitude) out of fear of attack (jihad) by not publishing the Mohammed cartoons. ...
We can now watch as a new progression of jihad-to-dhimmitude potentially unfolds by taking a look at what’s going on this week [August 2006] in Great Britain.
Last week, we had the disrupted Airplane Plot–an act of jihad averted. We had the ensuing police round-up of Muslim Britons. We had, and have, intense public panic, and an ongoing rupture in “normal” life–in a way, almost as if the plot had gone off as planned.
Then what? I would argue that what’s going on in GB today may be seen as an attempt by British Muslim leaders to use the ongoing threat of jihad by British Muslim terrorists to intensify Islamic influence, which necessarily deepens non-Muslim British dhimmitude.
What you could (and should) call Mainstream British Islam – as represented by 38 British Muslim groups, three of the four Muslim MPs, and three of the four Muslim members of the House of Lords – took out full-page newspaper ads over the past weekend to declare in an open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair that it was British foreign policy in the Middle East that provided “ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.” In other words, as Liberal Democrats deputy leader Vince Cable put it, the letter’s message might “give some comfort to the kind of people who say: ‘Well, change your foreign policy or we’ll blow you up‘”.
The missive didn’t go over too well with British officials. As Home Secretary John Reid told the BBC, “”No government worth its salt would … be supported by the British people if our foreign policy or any other aspect of policy was being dictated by terrorists. That is not the British way, it is antithetical to our very central values. We decide things in this country by democracy, not under the threat of terrorism.”
(Not sure what happened to him.)
It is true that only 2.7 percent of the British population is, in fact, Muslim, but it is also true that some large segment of British Muslims would like to live under sharia, and that some other large segment actually supports the Other Side in the war on terror.
In the wake of the Airplane Plot, The Independent reported today that Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott will meet with Muslim Labor MPs who are demanding “a change in Government foreign policy in the Middle East.”
In the wake of the Airplane Plot, the same story reported that Ruth Kelly, who is something official called the Secretary of State for Communities, met yesterday with British Muslim leaders. They called on the government to sanction sharia for British Muslims in matters of family law and marriage as a means of preventing Muslims from becoming what are rather quaintly known as “extremists.” Of course, if sharia isn’t extreme, what is?
So here we are. Britain narrowly averts another 9/11 that was to have been caused by British Muslim terrorists, and British Muslim leaders take the opportuity to press forward a political agenda (ending GB-US cooperation abroad, and urging the adoption of sharia at home) that could only please the terrorists. What happens next will tell us how deeply into dhimmitude Great Britain really is.
Eight and a half years later, the answer is very deep and seemingly irreversible, and not just because British law now officially incorporates aspects of sharia.
I wouldn't expect to see this model exactly replicated in Australia, but the pattern whereby yet another manifestation of Islamic violence against the non-Muslim majority is met with efforts to appease -- submit to -- the Muslim minority is already far-advanced, following well-oiled multicultural tracks.
In this latest case, the Muslim on his jihad, Man Haron Monis, murdered under the banner of jihad displayed on the cafe window, but, the Big Lie goes, he and his actions had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam -- he was "crazy," a "lone wolf" (such a ridiculous concept), no one knew him, how could this have happened? As a result of this cycle, I would expect to see the "halal" food debate, highly contentious at this time im Australia, increasingly go Islam's way, as the wider non-Muslim Australian nation expresses a kind of self-abnegating gratitude for basic expressions of abhorence for Monis' rampage from Muslim leaders -- even as these same leaders deny and obfuscate its pure Islamic roots and sanction. With some funeral appearances, some flowers and some flowery talk, Muslim victimhood is assured and Islamization continues even as Australia buries its dead.
Former FBI agent John Guandolo highlights four points of instructive interest to note as the Sydney news cycle passes through its phases:
(1) the language used by all sides to describe the perpetrator – Man Haron Monis (a Jihadi);
(2) attempts by the media to differentiate Monis from the broader Muslim community which claims he was completely “unknown” to them;
(3) what Monis said and did, which is being interpreted through a Western lense instead of the Islamic lens (Sharia);
(4) the immediate response from the Islamic community in Australia, which is calling for more concessions from Australia for Muslims at the same time one of it’s own killed people in the non-Muslim community.
This last note is the exact same response we always see around the world when a Muslim kills a soldier in Arkansas, beheads people anywhere, blows up a bomb in Boston, shoots and kills soldiers at Fort Hood, or any of a number of other events in recent memory. Muslims kill, then demand more concessions and call for protection from the oncoming “backlash” which, oddly enough, never comes.
But it serves the umma's purpose.