If you see this text then you need to update your flash player.

Print this pagePrint this page.

Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas
by Theodore Dalrymple
Defending The West:
by Ibn Warraq
Nations, Language and Citizenship:
by Norman Berdichevsky
Romancing Opiates
by Theodore Dalrymple
Which Koran?
by Ibn Warraq
Our Culture, What's Left of It
by Theodore Dalrymple
What The Koran Really Says
by Ibn Warraq
Life at the Bottom
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Origins of the Koran
by Ibn Warraq
Why I Am Not Muslim
by Ibn Warraq
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky
Leaving Islam
Edited by Ibn Warraq
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Kumar at Frontpage II

Frontpage: Vijay Kumar, is an émigré from India who is seeking the Republican nomination in a Tennessee primary Congressional race set for August. He is running on an anti-Sharia platform. Visit his website at kumarforcongress.com.

(...)

FP: Is America missing something in its approach to the terror war?

Kumar: Yes, there has to be more focus on fighting the ideology of radical Islam. This is a philosophical crisis, a conflict between ideas, a conflict between reason and dogmatism.

FP: What is the best way to fight an idea?

KUMAR: Well, first you have to do what any first year military cadet is taught. And that is to define who the enemy is. They are not terrorists. They are not “the evil doers.” As a government we started off calling them everything but what they were. The enemy is Islamic totalitarianism -- Universal Jihad. Whether you are talking about Serbia, Kashmir, Chechnya, Thailand, or Israel -- all these peoples are resisting one thing and one thing only, Universal Jihad. The problem is when a nation or a leader does not get the idea before it consumes its resources or becomes demographically overwhelmed, as is the case in all of the nations who are suffering now.

The thing to understand about Universal Jihad within Islam is that they love to believe in pluralism in Europe, in the United States, in India and in all infidel lands -- they insist upon tolerance. But when it comes to places like Saudi Arabia, where they have total control, they deny basic human value to non-Muslims, and even non-Arab Muslims like a Pakistani Muslim immigrant to Saudi Arabia.

FP: What would you recommend for U.S. policy?

Kumar: American foreign policy must first begin demanding that countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan allow the same human rights to others within their societies which they enjoy when engaging the Western world. Otherwise these nations cannot be given favor, economically or otherwise, as partners in the civilized world community.

Our foreign policy at the moment rewards and funds Jihadist ideologies, therefore emboldening the idea rather than us standing upon the principles that we claim to believe.

FP: Who are our enemies?

Kumar: I would say that the true axis of evil is Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These three have been the primary exporters of Jihadists throughout the world.

But the most important thing is that we have to admit that demographic conquest is the most permanent form of conquest. Therefore, we must support all nations currently struggling with radical Islamic footholds within their societies. The reality is that no place in the world where radical Islam has gained demographic dominance, has it ever been extricated. And it has been its goal for over 1400 years to aggressively spread and multiply by birth or by sword. America needs to openly face up to this reality.

The Islamists are clever. They begin by first exporting their surplus population to free and open societies. Then those immigrants begin to demand ideological tolerance and conformity to their views and then use the democratic process to change the laws. Then what laws they cannot change, is followed by civil disobedience, then unrest, then Jihad, but is was always Jihad even from the innocuous beginning.

We have seen Islamic unrest in Denmark, in France, and in England and the pattern can be clearly seen. In Copenhagen, there are places where a woman cannot even walk alone on the street. There are similar Islamic enclaves in the Netherlands and in England. In England, if an Englishman marries a second woman he goes to jail, but a Pakistani can legally immigrate with his two wives, practice Sharia, and even go on welfare and it is ok.

We have to learn from the failed experiment of Europe. A large portion of Muslim immigrants have absolutely no interest in assimilating into their host societies. Tolerance in a western culture that fails to require assimilation is an open door to internal demographic annihilation. My point is that in all of history, there is a post Communist society, there is a post Nazi society, but never a post Islamic society. Wherever Jihad has displaced a society, it has remained.

We are at a point in history that domestic and foreign policy are now inextricably tied together because of immigration which it should be the foreign policy of any free society to first address the issue of internal assimilation of existing immigrants. Then, we need to enforce human rights compatibility between the U.S. and nations with citizens wishing to immigrate.

FP: What is your stand, then, on America’s immigration policy?

Kumar: We should stop immigration from any nation that practices any form of Sharia. I am not, of course, referring to instances where, let us say, dissidents, refugees or others are fleeing Sharia, want to free themselves from it, are threatened by it etc. I am referring to those who believe in Sharia and want to impose it on the host society to which they come. It is useless for America to have laws and an ideology but then allow people to come into the country who fundamentally disagree with the very ideal of America and want to destroy it. The first moral responsibility of any nation is to protect its way of life as chosen by its citizenry.

FP: What is it that led you to run for public office?

Kumar: I love this country. I did not love this country instantly. I was a leftist. To me my love for this country was like the experience of Paul on Damascus Road. That is the only analogy I can give you. It did not happen instantly. This is one of the few countries that treats human beings like human beings. It does not ask you of your caste or culture or who was your grandfather and what did he do. I did not have to present a family resume to be accepted here. Of course there are elements of racism here as it is a part of human nature but as an overall society, it is not cliché that America is truly a land of opportunity. But this society, when it makes mistakes, it allows for correction. Under other regimes, mistakes are placed under the carpet. Mistakes become blunders and blunders become theology.

I am running for Congress not because of a personal need for power. I tried already to talk to our existing politicians but, sadly, they do not appear to see the danger as I see it. Now it is up to the American people to look at my message, and decide what is right. I am just the vehicle of the message. If there was another messenger from my district representing these concerns in Congress, I would not be running. All I am asking of every American is to defend democracy, freedom, liberty and pluralism....

Posted on 8:20 AM by Rebecca Bynum
Comments
No comments yet.
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
31       

RSS Site Feed
RSS Feed