The ancient war.

The existence of an unassimilable Muslim population must be faced squarely. Flordman's descriptions of the hellish situation in Sweden caused by unassimilable Muslims and France's recent troubles demand at least that there be an immediate freeze on further immigration from Muslim lands and that what immigration is eventually permitted be conditioned on a solemn oath to

• forswear forever the advocacy of sharia,
• forswear jihad and Wahhabism as false and evil doctrines,
• affirm infidels as moral equals of Muslims,
• deny the concept of najis^[1] as applicable to infidels,
• accept the equality of women, and
• accept apostasy from Islam as a valid personal choice.

For starters.

Those who make false statements on immigration papers can be pursued as vigorously as those who concealed their Nazi pasts were.

Yet another warning:

There is no "war of civilizations" today . . . . No, it is simply the ancient war of Islam against all non-Muslims. If that war has here and there died down, even for centuries, it is only because the forces of Islam lacked an enemy they could defeat. It was not for want of trying -- for a thousand years Muslim raiders went up and down the coasts of Europe, and in Africa, for a thousand years, seized black African pagans for enslavement. Its conquest of India was a Muslim Jihad.

. . . The war against Israel is a classic Jihad, only since 1967 more or less tarted up as a "nationalist" crusade so as to win Western affection . . . . The war to kill Christians in Indonesia, to persecute the Copts in Egypt, to murder or mass-murder the non-Muslims in the southern Sudan, to murder a million Christians in the Biafran War (1967-1969) are all examples of Jihad.

It was not that Jihad somehow went away. It is just that we, the non-Muslims, failed to recognize what was going on. We failed, and many fail still, to see the ideological roots of Muslim behavior -- a behavior that is remarkably similar in time and space in its treatment of non-Muslims. It would be surprising were it otherwise, for the texts, Qur'an and hadith and sira, have remained the same, in time and space. What would surprise would be if Infidels were treated differently, say, in conquered India from the way they were treated in conquered Persia, or Mesopotamia. Everywhere, the choices: immediate death, immediate conversion, or dhimmitude were the only possibilities. And if today the Muslim populations in Western Europe and North America pay lip service to pluralism, it is only in order to take advantage of that pluralism until such time as they feel strong enough to pull off the mask, and deal with Infidels as their belief-system tells them to believe with Infidels. Those who, like Gilles Kepel, appear to believe that some other evelopment, some "new Euro-Islam," will emerge, should be asked to explain just how.^[2] 

"Notes
^[1] "The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis [filth]."
^[2] Fitzgerald: Learning from history is not a bad idea." By Hugh Fitzgerald, Dhimmiwatch, 11/8/05 (emphasis added).