The war in Kashmir is not a war over Kashmir. Kashmir is only the current demand. In the end, it is a war to recapture India for Islam. India, like Spain (think of all those Al-Andalus Streets, as many as there are Haifa Streets, and Al-Quds Streets, and Palestine Hotels, in so many Arab countries), like Sicily, must be recaptured and re-incorporated into Dar al-Islam. The war in Israel is likewise not a war over Israel. It is all part of the same overall effort, to recapture what belongs by right to the Dar al-Islam.

But don’t take heart from that, if you live in Italy or France or England. Don’t wipe your brow and say “phew, glad we were never part of Dar al-Islam!” The whole world must become part of Dar al-Islam. Sooner or later, that is what is required. Any triumph now, over India or Israel, over the Christians in Biafra or the Buddhists in southern Thailand, any Jizyah paid in the form of “foreign aid,” any demands met in the form of changes in the practice of Western freedoms (such as the attempt to prevent the full exercise of free speech and to silence, through threats, not only the Danes and the Dutch but all of us, preventing us from any critical scrutiny or even discussion of Islam) — all that simply whets the appetite of Believers.

The bland Muslim assumption that Muslims can continue to live, and conduct Da’wa and demographic conquest, without being thwarted, constrained, removed from the lands of the Infidels altogether, must be put paid to. That will only happen if a sufficient number of Infidels, whatever their differences, simply set out to study, without presuppositions or willful denial, the history of the doctrine and practice of Islam.

If even the sinister taqiyya-master Tariq Ramadan now wishes to emphasize temporary “playing by the political rules” and “exploitation of the system” — in order to achieve the same goals as others try to achieve by bombing subways and trains and theatres and schools — that means that the growing awareness of what Islam is all about is beginning to have an effect.

Western governments have it backwards. They seem to think that the more we avoid the subject of Islam, the more we try to win Muslim hearts and Muslim minds, the more we yield to Muslim demands or show ourselves willing to change our own laws, customs, understandings to accommodate Muslims, the smoother things will be. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Neither Muslim hearts nor Muslim minds are winnable, not as long as those hearts and minds are truly given to Islam. It is only by showing a command of what Islam is all about, an unwillingness to be fooled at any step, a cool and permanent suspicion and wariness that the personal affability of this or that Muslim will be unable to melt, that Infidels will be able to make the Jihad of Da”wa and demographic conquest begin to falter. Implacable opposition to the instruments of Jihad, and not merely to the least effective instrument of it, terrorism, will force Muslims in both the Lands of the Infidels, and elsewhere, to take into account as they never have felt they had to before, the reaction of educated and vigilant Infidels, who are far beyond their own governments in their comprehension.

Fear of the position of Muslims, or of the ability of Muslims even to maintain a position in the Western world, should dampen the most obvious instrument of Jihad — terrorism. And that may die down, but that will only be a tactic, designed to permit the continued spread of Islam through Da’wa and demographic conquest, unconstrained. That is a worry. And the worry is greater because of the general mediocrity of those who presume to instruct and to protect us, all over the Western world.

How much evidence, and of how many different kinds, from different places, with Saudis in Bosnia, and Yemenis in Indonesia, and muhajiroun running around all over Europe, will it take to get people to pay careful attention to, assemble in their own minds, and comprehend, what is going on, and why? Simply ask: what does Islam teach? (This is not the same thing as what taqiyya-and-kitman or filial-piety Muslims necessarily tell you). Is there reason to think that Islam is not quite like other religions, that possibly it is also a geopolitical ideology, and that its tenets — Jihad above all — are actually taken quite seriously by a great number (and not a “tiny handful”) of its Believers? And that those few who are not fully aware of its bloodier teachings, when they discover them, are more likely to accept than to reject them? And does the theory of Islam accord with the practice? And how shall we find out, if not by studying what went on in 1350 years of the history of Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims? How else can we possibly judge?

One more bit of evidence: Muslims in London pay for violent Jihad against India, a country devastated by Islamic conquest. See K. S. Lal, see Sarkar, see Srivastava, see Elliott and Dowson’s anthology. These happen to have been people from the subcontinent. But they could have been Saudis. Or Kuwaitis. Or Yemenis. All they had to be, to support attacks on India in Kashmir, was Muslim.