Tarek Fatah

On the weekend I came across an article by Hugh Fitzgerald of Jihad Watch in which he mocked Senators John Kerry and Richard Lugar for daring to suggest that Pakistanis "are like us."

This mild exhibition of empathy towards  Pakistanis so riled up the good Mr. Fitzgerald that he blasted not just the two senators for having the the temerity to equate Americans and Pakistanis,  he suggested we not trust any Muslim until he or she renounces Islam.

The fact that Americans and Pakistanis are both human beings governed by democratically elected governments who seek to wipe out the scourge of Jihadi terrorism, and that both admit to having played a role in creating these monsters, was lost on Fitzgerald. The fact that two countries have been allies--militarily and politically--for two generations, mattered little to the writer. The fact that nearly a million Americans have Pakistani ancestry did not matter either. For him, since Pakistanis are Muslim therefore they cannot be "like us".

It seems for the crime of following their faith, Pakistanis need to be depicted as the children of Lucifer, nothing less.

So what, may I ask is the solution to the Islamist threat to world civilization?

It seems to me Hugh Fitzgerald would rather see us Muslims all disappear from the face of the earth; gone, all one thousand million of us. Not until that happens would the world see peace. So what is the 'final solution'? How does Mr. Fitzgerald propose to eliminate all one billion of us who are spread across the globe, from Mindanao in The Philippines to Trinidad in the Caribbean?

Where would you have us deported, Sir? Or would you suggest  a grand new Die Endlosung? What else can we liberal and progressive Muslims make off the endless depiction of Muslims, Pakistan and our faith Islam as the problem. It is claimed that Islam itself, not Islamism or its jihadi variation, is the problem. The fact that the Pakistani government and the people are fighting the jihadis is conveniently lost on the writer.

Fitzgerald criticizes both Republican Senator Lugar and Democrat John Kerry for defending what they said was the “fledgling democracy” in Pakistan. But he does not stop there. He goes further and suggests the two senators were defending Pakistan not on the merits of the case, but because they were charmed by the wife of Pakistan's Ambassador to the US, Pakistani member of parliament Farhanaz Ispahani.  He writes, "Perhaps the wiles and smiles of the Ispahani wife of Husain Haqqani got to him, at a Georgetown dinner ."

Fitzgerald  seems to be upset that it is Muslims like Ambassador Haqqani and Ms. Ispahani, and to a much lesser degree people like me, who are fighting the real fight against the Islamists. It seems he would rather we not challenge Islamists, but leave it the likes of those who wish to wage war against Islam itself.

The fact is Hugh Fitzgerald has no room for moderate Muslims whom he mocks with a relish. In November 2004, he wrote:

"The mere fact that Muslim numbers may grow in the Western world represents a permanent threat to Infidels. This is true even if some, or many, of those Muslims are "moderates" -- i.e., do not believe that Islam has some kind of divine right, and need, to expand until it covers the globe and swallows up dar al-harb. For if they are still to be counted in the Army of Islam, not as Deserters (Apostates) from that Army, their very existence in the Bilad al-kufr helps to swell Muslim ranks, and therefore perceived Muslim power. And even the "moderate" father may sire immoderate children or grandchildren ... And Muslim numbers, even with "moderates," increases the number of Muslim missionaries -- for every Muslim is a missionary -- whether conducting "Sharing Ramadan" Outreach in the schools (where a soft-voiced Pakistani woman is usually the soothing propagandist of choice), or Da'wa in a prison. The more Muslims there are, the more there will be -- and no one knows which "moderate" will end up distinctly non-moderate in his views, and then in his acts. And this brings up the most important problem: the impermanance of "moderate" attitudes. What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the "fanatics," if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a "renegade" or apostate, will at some point "revert" not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?"

Fitzgerald wants us moderate Muslims to "make a clean break with Islam," otherwise it seems we are to be included in what appears to be the making of the Muslim Final Solution.

No sir, I will not oblige your request and will not make a clean break with Islam, definitely not on your terms. I am a Muslim and have the right to my faith just as you have to yours. Period. If we are to fight the fascism of Jihadi terrorists and their lighter version in the Muslim Brotherhood, instead of attacking Islam, we need to attack the political ideology that accords supremacy of any race of religion.

However, that would require getting down and dirty with the victims of Jihadi terrorism, Muslims themselves. For Fitzgerald, that seems not to be an option. He would rather derive pleasure in attacking Islam and satiating his appetite for mocking a people already down on their luck than ensuring the monsetr created in the cold war is contained and the swamps where it breeds are drained. Even though Muslims in countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia and Pakistan have defeated Islamists in recent elections, in his warped view of Islamdom, Fitzgerald considers all of  suspect. He writes:

"In Pakistan the population is Muslim, almost everyone is Muslim, and the Taliban are merely an example of the impoverished who naturally use Islam as the vehicle for their rage and resentment ...Others are slyly expert in extracting money and more money and more weapons (and the more advanced that weaponry, the better) from the ever accommodating, endlessly trusting Americans. Even if those Americans now say they are beginning to have their doubts, they need only to talk to that smiling snake Ambassador Husain Haqqani, or attend a reception with his wife, one of the charming Ispahani girls (so very useful for the promotion of Pakistani interests, like other wives of other Muslim leaders), and well then -- of course you will solemnly say that in your grave and serious and thoughtful opinion, we simply must spend another $7.5 billion on Pakistan's "fledgling democracy" because, as you will tell the interviewer, "what is the option"? That you cannot think beyond that, cannot analyse the real nature of Pakistan based on the most important understanding of all, an understanding of Islam, it's meaning and menace, means you are unfit to be dealing with matters of foreign policy."

Fitzgerald does not end with his personal attacks on the Pakistani parliamentarian and her husband the Ambassador, he makes the claim that all Muslims are suspect, even those who oppose Islamism. He writes:

'What makes anyone think that someone who this week or month has definitely turned his back on Jihad, who will have nothing to do with those he calls the "fanatics," if he does not make a clean break with Islam, does not become a "renegade" or apostate, will at some point "revert" not to Islam, which he never left, but to a more devout form, in which he now subscribes to all of its tenets, and not merely to a few having to do with rites of individual worship?"

With friends like Hugh Fitzgerald the West does not need enemies. To make every Muslim on earth a terror suspect, you reveal a deep prejudice. Who knows, Tarek Fatah could very well be the head of an Al-Qaeda sleeper cell in Canada.

Fire up the boilers Fitzgerald and start loading the gas chambers. The final solution is near.