July 15, 2005

Sadly, Islam Is The Problem

I hate to write the headline above. It is my great joy to know a number of Muslims who I love like they are my own family. They are good people. They are animated with a sense of decency that I fully believe is part and parcel of Islam. But even as I acknowledge that part and celebrate it, I cannot help but recognize the darker side of that faith. It is that darker, metastasized form of Islam that threatens Western Civilization, and which must be excised like the cancer that it is. But we have thus far lacked the will to do so, for fear of denigrating Islam and offending Muslims.

Diana West notes the problem and its genesis in the multicultural ethic that has taken hold of our society. All cultures are equally good, we are assured. It is a polite lie that we have all paid lip-service to, not wanting to be seen as racist or religiously bigotted. But in doing so we have given the terrorists who threaten our culture the very cover they need to operate in our society, to injure and kill our fellow citizens. West states that it is islam that has become a threat to our way of life.

Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables, or "extremistly" advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who's to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten.

A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against "expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism" (another one of those amorphous terms) because "many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith." Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times' Simon Jenkins wrote, "The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident."

In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action — stopping immigration from jiahd-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence, expelling their imams, just for starters — means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that's the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death — as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law — the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.

Dare i draw some dangerous parallels here? The Catholic Church has recently gone through a great time of trial as it has dealt with the sins of a relatively few priests and their superiors -- should we have refrained from naming the problem for fear of offending Catholics? Fundamentalist Mormon sects have forced young girls into polygamous marriages to men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers -- should the problem be ignored for fear of offending members of the LDS church who shun these practices but might take offense at the examination of the roots of their faith?Should we turn a blind eyeto Israeli spying on the US and the groups that facilitate it out of a fear of stirring up the anti-Semitic "dual loyalty" canard? I think the answer to those questions is clear -- why do we treat Islam differently in the face of the terrorist threat which is daily exposed on our shores and in Great Britain?

The time has long since come for us to quit the monkeying around and to take up the serious business of defending our country and Western Civilization from the enemy among us. We must act in a manner that allows to most effectively find the terrorists. who would kill us. I've noted this before.

The time has come (and is, indeed, long past) to begin intensive monitoring of mosques and Muslim institutions, organizations, and "charities" in this country, for they are the places in which the enemy operates. And if that inconveniences innocent Muslims who are loyal to this country, that is just too damn bad, for the enemy operates among them.

There is much in islam that we can admire and commend as good. But we must not let the silly notions of multiculturalism allow that which is evil in Islam overcome and destroy us.

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 818 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Sadly religion is the problem.

Posted by: at Fri Jul 15 13:02:37 2005 (aHbua)

2 Once again, the nameless coward strikes again.

But i will ask you this -- in the world as it exists today, what religion is responsible for well over 95% of terrorist activity?

And in the 20th century, what belief system was responsible for more murders than every other cause combined? Oh, that is right -- ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM, and its Socialist cousin the Nazis came in a close second.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jul 15 16:51:29 2005 (IA36c)

3 Rightly so. Also,when it comes down to extremists, it's the Islamofacists! You don't see Christians, Buddhas, Catholics running around with bomb vests strapped to their bodies.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jul 16 14:31:43 2005 (v4QB6)

4 Sadly, it's people with blinkered vision like you which are the problem.

First of all, your "95% of terrorist activity" statistics is pulled straight out the back of your pants. As many American academics have noted, the US government itself has engaged in massive amounts of terrorism itself, by it's own definition. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese nuked, whole villages in Vietnam raped and murdered, the backing of fascist elements in South America, propping up dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, supporting the theft of the Palestinian's land ... the list is long, and so is the number of dead, innocent civilians, which far, far exceeds by orders of magnitude the number killed by the "Islamic" terrorists, who are repudiated by all mainstream theologians. (See this article by a Cambridge professor.

Now, "Western civilization"-- isn't this the same civilization that oppressed much of the world through racist colonization, killed 6 million Jews, enslaved or oppressed black people until fairly recently (1970s in the US, 1990s in South Africa), legally regarded women as propery until ~100 years ago, pretty much wiped out the indigenous population of two continents (North and South America) and stole their land, recently massacred 8000 unarmed Muslims (more than all the terrorist attacks of the past few years combined) in Srebenica, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first (as the US does) even though it has signed a treaty obliging them to dismantle all of them? These are all atrocities carried out in the name of European+American Christianity, *often with mainstream support*. Communism and fascism are also products of "Western civilization", don't forget. The fact is, the Islamic world, though it is in awful shape these days (thanks both to local problems and our interference), overall has a far better track record than we Westerners do.

The other important thing to remember is that you can't neatly divide the world in them and us, into "Western civilization" and "Muslims". Western civilization wouldn't be what it is without many of the institutions and ideas established in the Muslim world. Universities, hospitals, the bank cheque, etc. etc. And today, the West is itself about 10% Muslim in terms of its own makeup.

Sorry man, but you're far, far, far too simplistic...

Posted by: acrobat at Sat Jul 16 17:40:35 2005 (HsX+o)

5 Well, I think that our new friend acrobat falls in the "with the terrorists" column. Not one word of condemnation of Islamist jihadi swine, just of the Judeo-Christian West.

Frankly, I doubt that acrobat actually read past my title -- otherwise he/she/it would recognize that I am talking about that cancerous element within Islam that is engaged in jihad. After all, I made a point of saying there is much to be admired in Islam and many more good folks than Islamist juhadi swine.

So I have to tell you, acrobat, that there is nothing so simplistic as reading no farther than the title of a post before making a so-called response.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 16 17:52:07 2005 (jwhgU)

6 Only an idiot uses the "with the terrorists" categorization, assuming that anyone against them is "with the terrorists". I don't need to condemn them in every message I post, any more than you have to condemn Christian child molesters or David Koresh or Tim McVeigh or George Bush in all of your posts. It's irrelevant to the point at hand. Certainly, I believe people of any faith who kill innocent civilians deserve the harshest penalty possible, whether they use bombs strapped to their chests or F-16s.

I stately clearly that *all* mainstream theologians, who have a rigorous education on the subject, repudiate them. I read your whole post, and the thrust of it is reflected in the title: that there is something intrinsically Islamic about violence against civilians, something that isn't present in "Western" civilization. As the historical record shows, this is clearly false, as is the idea that there is a mutually exclusive relationship between "us" and "them". There are obviously many wonderful things about our Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization. I don't buy into the false and dangerous dichotomy that you pose.

Posted by: acrobat at Sat Jul 16 18:15:16 2005 (HsX+o)

7 1) Thank you for admitting you didn't read past the title.

2) Thank you for proving my point -- you still have not actually disavowed the Islamist juhadi swine yourself, so the reasonable conclusion is that you cannot do so, no matter how many times you tell me what other folks have done.

3) Condemn Geowrge Bush -- for what? Unless it is that he fails to make it clear who the enemy is by refusing to label this as a Crusade against Jihadist rather than the War on Terror.

4) I read the book, and I fundamentally disagree with it. We spent several centuries fighting off the Islamic hordes that attempted to wipe out Christianity. The sort of embrace the author proposes is nothing short of the suicide of Western Civilization.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 16 18:42:50 2005 (jwhgU)

8 1) "I read your whole post, and the thrust of it is reflected in the title" -- this is an admission that I didn't read past the title? Jesus, did you even complete high school?

2) "I believe people of any faith who kill innocent civilians deserve the harshest penalty possible, whether they use bombs strapped to their chests or F-16s." -- again, where's your reading comprehension? Do I have to condemn them in eighth-grader terms?? Is it not enough to say *anyone* -- Muslim, Christian, atheist, or otherwise -- who kills innocent civilians deserves death or life-imprisonment? *You* are the one who refused to unequivocally condemn the taking of all innocent life, not I.

3) For gutting the American education system, paving the way for future ill-informed bloggers like yourself. And countless other things which you can read about on the Internet...

4) A little paranoid, are we? No one has tried to wipe out Christianity; the Muslim world has long lived peacefully with Christian minorities (Saudi Arabia the modern exception, which I condemn), whereas Europe for many centuries just killed or drove out the non-Christians. There was this sad little event called the Inquisition, remember, and after that Christian Europe proceeded with the genocide of two whole continents... funny that we now call it the "West"! Stealing the land from the Native Americans, killing them, force-converting the survivors, molesting the children up until very recently.

And not a peep of condemnation out of you...!

Posted by: acrobat at Sat Jul 16 19:03:08 2005 (HsX+o)

9 1) Clearly you lied -- for the thrust of my post was that most Muslims are good and decent people, but there is something in the religion that makes the Islamist jihadi swine indistinguishablle from the decent sort, even to those of the decent sort. Oh, and by the way -- not only did I complete high school, but i teach high school history.

2) Your moral equivalency argument is a failure to condemn terrorism. You lack the capacity to make a simple declarative statement that condemns your fellow Muslims.

3) Ah -- changing the subject and hurling personal insults -- typical of your ilk.

4) Yeah, as long as we Christians are good little dhimmis who accept a second class status in society, you live peacefully with us. Now we won't get into the fact that Islam wiped out the Christian majorities in most of those regions through jihad.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jul 17 05:36:37 2005 (Yy6Eg)

10 1) That's exactly my point: "something in the religion", which is clearly wrong. And the mass atrocities perpetuated by *mainstream Christian societies* points to something far worse, it could be strongly argued-- though I have the good sense to know that this terrible track record doesn't mean that there is "something in the religion" that's fundamentally sinister.

2) No it is not. I condemn it outright. But I don't buy into your double standard that allows Westerners to kill innocent people either. Jesus would never accept the killing of innocents in any circumstances, but perhaps he's guilty of "moral equivalence" too.

4) You're the one pushing for second-class status here, calling for invasive reducement of civil liberties for American Muslims. The dhimmi system, as you know, was far more tolerant than the European policy of forceconvert-kill-drive them out. And the populations of Muslim lands were obviously not 'wiped out'-- they all have their indigenous populations. The Turks, Persians, Africans, Bosnians, Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc. Muslims were not killed and replaced with Arabs. In fact, most of the Muslim world was won over quite peacefully, through contact with Muslim merchants, or through the adoption of Islam by conquerors who had butchered Muslim populations (as did the Mongols). Contrast that with the Americas where the Natives really were largely 'wiped out' and replaced with European stock. Two entire continents(!)

Posted by: acrobat at Sun Jul 17 06:17:01 2005 (HsX+o)

11 No, I offer no call for second-class citizenship. I made a call for a reasonable course of action designed to MONITOR organizations of the type that have been used as terrorist fronts, fundraising mechanisma and recruiting operations. I'm not advocating restricting the rights of Muslims in the least -- merely suggesting that the laws in place designed to protect this country against the Islamist jihadi swine be used to protect Americans.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sun Jul 17 06:33:32 2005 (Yy6Eg)

12 Bottom line, it's the purposeful and wanton act of killing innocent people because they "deserved" it is what's deserving of condemnation no matter what nationality.

Oh, the dhimmi system?
http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

It was just as vile as the rest of the past' atrocities. The focus is the here and now.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sun Jul 17 06:37:59 2005 (9MNKU)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0057, elapsed 0.013 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0088 seconds, 41 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]