Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky



















Monday, 26 November 2012

Matt Hill: The Idiot Who Knows Nothing About, And Doesn't Want To Know A Thing About, Islam

Here are Matt Hill's vaporings in The Telegraph about how "Netanyahu" and "Hamas" both "need each other" in order to perpetuate an easily solvable "problem." Because of Islam there is a world-without-end  Jihad against Israel, which in turn necessitates awar of self-defense by Israel, an Infidel nation-state smack in the middle of Dar al-Islam, for as long as Muslims are taught that their central duty is to wage Jihad, so that the world, which rightly belongs to Allah and to the "best of peoples," that is the as-yet-unislamized world of Dar al-Harb, is subject everywhere (and not just "the West Bank" and "Gaza" as Matt Hill dreamily and dopily appears to believe, or pretends to believe) to domination by Islam, and Muslims rule, everywhere.

Here are Matt Hill's vaporings in The Telegraph on why there is, in the simple-minded view of the simpleton Matt Hill,  a simple "solution" to the Jihad against Israel exists, and he, Matt Hill, is here to set us all straight, we who have ignored, like the gaping onlookers in Hogarth's print of Columbus making an egg stand upright, the most obvious point, as Matt Hill sees it, that there are no "irreconcilable differences" between the parties. And so there aren't, just as long as one ignores reality, as long as one ignores the tenets and teachings and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and pretends that it is just a little quarrel over cadastral affairs, a resolvable dispute merely over dunams of land.

I won't bother to discuss Matt Hill's complacent ignorance of history, including that of the League of Nations' Mandate for Palestine, or his amazing misdescription of the Armistice Lines of 1949 as "internationally recognized" boundary lines. He's an idiot, and I suspect he's about 25 years old, because his bland unawareness of this history is of a kind I now associate with the very young. But on that point - his age -- I could be wrong. He may be much older, and not quite the idiot he appears but, rather, a deep sympathizer with, and promoter of, the Arab cause. Those who know more about him are encouraged to share their knowledge of him.

But again, here's what Matt Hill misses, as he apparently has not looked at what's happening in northern Nigeria, or in Kenya, or in southern Sudan, or what happened in New York at the World Trade Center, , or Madrid at the Atocha Station, or in Moscow at the theatre, or in Mumbai, or in thousands of other places, far from Israel, such as Northern Nigeria and the Southern Sudan, where Muslims have waged war, conducted Jihad, on non-Muslims (or in some cases, Arabs -- as the best of Muslims, have waged war on non-Arab, and therefore inferior, Muslims, as with the Kurds in Iraq or now in Syria, being attacked and murdered by the local Arabs, or the black African Muslims in Darfur who were murdered, by the hundreds of thousands, by Muslims who thought of themselves as Arabs and therefore superior -- Islam, remember, is a vehicle for Arab supremacism). 

It's Islam, Islam, Islam. It's a Jihad against Israel. It has no end. The only "solution" is that of deterrence, of an Israel that remains so overwhelmingly more powerful, militarily, that the Arabs and Muslims will not be able to wage open war, by violent means on it. That is what keeps, more or less, the peace between Arabs and Jews. And that's the only thing now, or in the future, that will ever keep that peace.

Matt Hill describes his "solution" which depends on us all pretending we can continue to igore Islam. How can we, when every day brings fresh news of Jihad, local Jihads whose sum is the world-wide Jihad, and when we can now see, up close, the attitudes and behavior of Muslims who have so foolishly been allowed to settle deep within the countries of Westeern Europe, behind what Islam teaches them are essentially the enemy lines, the lines of the House of War or Da al-Harb? Does Matt Hill think we haven't eyes to see? He may be an idiot, but many others, including those who only recently started to figure out Islam, because the behavior of Muslims world-wide made it impossible to continue to ignore the subject of Islam, are not quite so ignorant or so stupid. 

How much of his nonsense are we expected to endure, and who permitted Matt Hill, unsupervised and still in his swaddling clothes,  to squirt his meconium all over the the pages, of The Telegraph?

Posted on 11/26/2012 1:17 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Comments
26 Nov 2012
Send an emailMikeWood

Thank you for putting that so well. I just came across Matt Hill's sputum in the Telegraph and could hardly believe someone of such callow naivety had been allowed to write for them. But then the ignorance about Islam is still very widespread, even among editors.



26 Nov 2012
Christina McIntosh

 What got me was not the dismally predictable article itself, so much as the Comments attached themselves to it.

220 of them.

About 2 out of 3 were either out and out Jew-hating Muslims, or else two species of non-Muslim actively aiding the Jihad against the Jews, as a result of 1/ being a naive fool who actually believes Arab/ Muslim nonsense and lies about the Poooor Persecuted 'Palestinians' [tm] or 2/ being an active Jew-hater of the non-Muslim variety (or varieties, there are subspecies).  All of those were far, far uglier than the article itself, but it is telling that such ugliness was summoned up - shall we say, invoked or evoked? - by the article, like demons responding to a suitable incantation.

On the other side, pitting their wits and their superior knowledge of history - and of Islam, Islam, Islam - against the malevolent (Muslim or non-Muslim) and against the Useful Idiot, were a valiant minority of the Righteous.



5 Dec 2012
Send an emailMatt Hill

Hi, Matt Hill here.

Thanks for this. I particularly enjoyed some of your stylistic flourishes - 'squirt his meconium' was my especially good!

Just one question. If the problem is Islam, or indeed 'Islam, Islam, Islam', then how do you explain the fact that two countries which were once at war with Israel - Egypt and Jordan - have since signed peace treaties with it, both involving recognition of Israel and the resolution of territorial disputes?

Thanks for reading and for sharing my article.



5 Dec 2012
Hugh Fitzgerald

A "peace treaty" made by Muslims with non-Muslims is not the same thing as "peace." These are different things. The principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda (that is, treaties are to be obeyed) may seem, to someone in the Western world, so obvious that when, in courses in international law -- I well remember the astonishment of my classmates when Prof. Stanley Hoffman discussed the origin and development of the principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda, for they did not understand that this principle was not simply a given, rather than what it was, a key development in the Western tradition of public international law.

Western, but not Muslim. For in Islam the model of treaty-making with non-Muslims is the agreement made by Muhammad at Hudaibiyya in 628 A.D. with the Meccans. Mr. Hill, and othes, can find out the details of that agreement by googling "Hudaibiyya" and can find disussions of it at many Musilm sites, and in such scholarly works as Majid Khadduri's study "War and Peace in Islam." 

It is incumbent upon Muslims never to make a permanent peace treaty with non-Muslims, but it is perfectly okay to make a "Hudna" or "truce treaty" in order to obtain some benefit, and then, when the time is right, to break that hudna. Egypt wanted Israel to give up the entire Sinai, which by force of arms Israel had won in the Six-Day War. It was by no means necessary for Israel to do so; countries are free to retain territory won in wars of self-defense, and the map of Europe today reflects clearly that, and even more than that, simply that at times, given history, the winner of a war, or a country that is on the winning side, pockets territory. Think, for example, not only of all the territorial adjustments made after World War II, but of Italy's being awarded what is now the Alto Adige and formerly was Austrian Sudtirol. By its "peace treaty" with Israel, Egypt managed to get back, in three tranches, all of the Sinai, together with sixteen billion dollars (in 1978 dollars, which would be far more in 2012) in Israeli improvements and infrastructure. This infrastructure included three advanced airfields, the resort of Sham el-Sheikh (now a hard-currency money-make for Egypt), oilfields,and roads. In return, all Egypt was asked to do was to encourage friendly relations, and discourage hostile ones, through such modest acts as allowing Israelis to participate in book and film fairs, encouraging tourism between the countries, ending the non-stop anti-Israel (and antisemitic) campaigns in the carefuly controlled Egyptian press, and so on.  Egypt  remember, had in 1956 been handed back the Sinai, in return for promises by Nasser about freedom of shipping through the Suez Canal and, especailly, the Straits of Tiran, and a promise not to send Egyptian troops into the Sinai -- all of which promises were broken, the latter two in mid-May when, to hysterical Cairene crowds, Nasser promised he would soon destroy Israel, demanded of U Thant the removal of the U.N. peacekeepers, and declared a blockade of the Straits of Tiran).

It was Carter and Brzezinski who pressured the emotional, and inffective Begin to give away the store, and he did. Once the Sinai was safely back in Egyptian hands (the very Sinai which, some may not realize, only became part of Egypt in the 1920s (see, for example, the map and comment by Colonel Meinertzhagen in his celebrated Diary), the Egyptians proceeded to break every one of those solemn commitments. Mubarak even refused, though invited dozens of times, to set foot in Israel, though he did go once -- to Rabin's funeral.

As to the "hudna" with Jordan, the Jordanians under King Hussein found it to their advantage to come to a modus vivendi with Israel. He, King Hussein, whose power reseted on the Bedouin tribes, had no wish to have the Arabs now under Israel's control to be thrust back under Jordanian control. He wanted agreements on water, and on trade, and above all, he wanted American aid and Most-Favored-Nation status, and by signing a "truce treaty" got all of thos things. Does anyone think that "truce treaty" will last a minute if and when those who take Islam to heart manage to overturn the Hashemite rule in Jordan?

Again, those who think that those "peace treaties" signed by two Muslim states, in order to obtain immediate and tangible benefits (land, American aid, and so on) are seen by Muslims as solemn commitments simply have failed -- so many do not even see it as their responsiblity to find out what is so easy to find out through a week or two of solid study -- what the Treaty of Hudaibiyya means, and what exactly Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira teach about the duty of Jihad. Let me sum that duty of up: Jihad is the duty, collective and sometimes individual, incumbent on Muslims to work toward the goal of ensuring that the entire world, which belongs to Allah and to the "best of peoples" (the Believers) comes under the domination of Islam and Muslims rule, everywhere. This goal can be furthered by various instruments: qital or conventional combat, terrorism(see Qur'an 9.29 and 9.5 and dozens of other Jihad verses), propaganda ("pen, tongue"), money, and the latest instrument,made possible by the ignorance of so many in the Western elies, of demoraphic conquest from within.

Perhaps Mr. Hill, and others, will decide he really ought to make Islam his study if he wishes to make pronouncements about Muslim states, and those against whom a relentless Jihad is most obviously waged. For, along with global warming and the rise in the Gini coefficient seemingly inexorably toward an intolerable level, the other great matter of the age is this very Jihad, and the continued failure to understand it -- even as it is being so obvioulsly waged, with news coming in daily,  in Burma and Sudan, in Nigeria and Kenya, in Mumbai and at the Parliament Building in Delhi,  in the banlieues of France, in the Atocha metro and the Moscow theatre, in a cathedral in Bologna and in rural Tuscany, along canals in Amsterdam, and in Hamlet Towers in London, and elsewhere, too, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, and all other non-Muslims remain, and will always remain, its targets. Just look around.



6 Dec 2012
Send an emailMatt Hill

Thanks for your reply Hugh.

I'll leave aside the question of how seriously we should take the Israeli peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt. I'll just note that they have held pretty firm for some 20 and 35 years, respectively. When I talk about Israeli-Palestinian peace, I'm talking about an arrangement similar to those - however duplicitous or grudging you may think them. I'm advocating an agreement not to wage war, not a contract of brotherly love.

I'll be taking the bus through Tower Hamelts on my way to work as usual today - I'll report back on any signs of Jihad!

Thanks for reading.

Matt Hill



18 Dec 2012
A J Head

To note "any signs of Jihad" would require one to not have one's head up one's ass as a starter.



18 Dec 2012
A J Head

To note "any signs of Jihad" would require one to not have one's head up one's ass as a starter.




Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30    

Subscribe
Via: email  RSS