Squaring the Culture

"...and I will make justice the plumb line, and righteousness the level;
then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies,
and the waters will overflow the secret place."
Isaiah 28:17

11/26/2010 (9:17 am)

Pakistan Needs Our Prayers

Asia Bibi (pronounced “AH see ah”) was picking berries in a field with other women when she dipped a cup into a pail of water and took a drink. The other women, who were Muslim, refused to drink the water thereafter because Asia, who is Christian, had touched it. The women report that in the argument that followed, Asia said “Your Mohammed had worms in his mouth before he died,” an idiom apparently meaning that Mohammed was not a prophet.

For thus objecting to being snubbed by bigots, Asia Bibi has been sentenced to death by hanging.

The video is 2 minutes, 51 seconds long, plus a 30 second commercial on the front. My apologies for the commercial message, which I do not control. If you click on the little speaker in the video’s control bar, it will mute the sound.

According to CNN reports, Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, widower of the murdered Benazir Bhutto, has plans to pardon Asia Bibi if the nation’s High Court does not grant her request for mercy. Muslim leaders have threatened nationwide protests if he does. Zardari appears to be a man of some conviction, but it remains to be seen whether his tenure can survive nationwide riots, courtesy of The Religion of Peace.

I can think of few ways that the true nature of Islam could be broadcast more accurately than this. Asia Bibi’s entire village, supported by all the nation’s Islamic faithful, approve wholeheartedly of this murder. That’s what this is, of course: a threatened murder. No civilized human being can regard her acts as worthy of death; and an unjust law is no law at all.

Pray for Asia and her family, who are enduring this difficulty on our behalf. Pray, also, for Pakistani President Zardari, who appears poised to do the right thing. And pray, finally, that the world recognize that not all religions are the same, that some counsel peace while other counsel violence, injustice, and bigotry.

10/14/2010 (9:07 am)

3 Things You Probably Know Already About Islam…

…but I’m going to repost this fine video anyhow, because there may be somebody out there who has not caught up with this yet. This is a fine, powerful, and thorough explanation of relevant facts about Islam that explain why Islam is a threat to the West, and why what you’ve read in the press does not seem threatening. The voice is a British, synthesized voice (probably so no actor becomes the target of Jihadis) and the entire script gets reinforced by clever text images on the screen. It’s roughly 9 minutes long. Enjoy.

04/25/2010 (8:25 pm)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day


The Muslims are continuing to attempt to force everybody to adhere to their rules by threatening violence, as we all learned last week when Comedy Central bleeped portions of a South Park episode that upset Muslims.

Mind you, I don’t think it’s particularly nice to taunt or slur another man’s religion. However, it’s pretty common fodder for satire, my own religion has been the subject of truly villainous slurs for decades, and in a free society one must learn to take the negative opinions of opponents. Radical Islam, however, has no intention of fitting into a free society; they intend to take it over.

So, today a cartoonist in Seattle published a fascinating cartoon suggesting a national strategy to confound this clearly aberrant behavior by Muslims: she declared May 20 “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.” I guess they’ll just have to murder every cartoonist in the nation.

According to an interview with cartoonist Molly Norris reported on MyNorthwest.com, she didn’t think anybody would take her seriously, and was pretty much just making a joke. Here’s what she wrote:

I make cartoons about current, cultural events. I made a cartoon of a ‘poster’ entitled “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” with a nonexistent group’s name — Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor — drawn on the cartoon also. I did not intend for my cartoon to go viral. I did not intend to be the focus of any ‘group’. I practice the first amendment by drawing what I wish. This particular cartoon of a ‘poster’ seems to have struck a gigantic nerve, something I was totally unprepared for. I am going back to the drawing table now!

Maybe she didn’t mean it, but I think she’s got a great idea, so I’m going to talk to the cartoonists I know and see if they’ll go along. Pay attention, though, folks: the organization named in the original cartoon is fictitious. It does not exist.

PS: I see that Chris Muir, the cartoonist featured here on my site, has decided to depict the Prophet today. “…and a high chair for my wife.” You rock, Chris.

04/02/2010 (10:47 pm)

Homeland Security Meets White Guilt

The Obama administration on Thursday announced changes in their travel policy that abandons the test for extra screening based on nationality alone, and instead allows Homeland Security employees to use criteria educed from intelligence data to search travelers whose profile poses unusual risk, according to the Washington Post. Don’t look now, but the Obamites just embraced — are you ready for this? — profiling.

Knowing that the more extreme searches and precautions adopted in the wake of the Christmas Eve bomber incident would need to be altered before the onset of the summer travel season, the Obama administration introduced rules that will enable scanners to vastly reduce the number, but broadens the range of travelers to be stopped for extra searches. Screeners will be able to detain passengers whose characteristics match certain pieces of known intelligence.

Quoth the WaPo:

The official offered a hypothetical case to illustrate how the new system will work. If U.S. intelligence authorities learned about a terrorism suspect from Asia who had recently traveled to the Middle East, and they knew the suspect’s approximate age but not name or passport number, those fragments would be entered into a database and shared with commercial airline screeners abroad.

The screeners would be instructed to look for people with those traits and to pull them aside for extra searches, the official said, acknowledging that that in some cases, screeners will have to rely on their judgment as they consider the listed traits.

So if we know that a number of terrorists under surveillance happen to be, gee, I dunno, middle eastern men between the ages of 18 and 40, say…

I recall saying before President Obama took office that it was possible that reality would mug him regarding foreign policy and homeland security, and he would be forced to make policy in a more sensible way than his academic preconceptions would have advised him. This is what has taken place in his policy regarding Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. It now appears to be affecting homeland security. Certainly he knows that a 9/11-style disaster on his watch would cripple his party and his presidency, and he may even care to prevent that from happening for ordinary human reasons (no, I’m not certain that he feels much at that level, but he might).

My initial thought was to lampoon the Washington Post for reporting this without railing about the sheer inhumanity of a policy that allows profiling Muslims young men (among others.) Then I ran a search for articles published in the Post during the Bush years that took conservatives to task for counseling profiling by religion, gender, age, and race to focus on the groups from which nearly all the terrorists have come who have attacked America. I found this by William Raspberry, and this by Colbert King, and this by Eugene Robinson. And reading over them, I noticed something curious that they all had in common:

They were all written by blacks. Specifically, older black men, who might retain some personal experience of racial incidents from the 1960s.

Now, we’re all familiar with the Democratic party’s penchant for using victim shields as a means of stifling debate. We saw it best back when Ann Coulter dared to point out, in her book Godless, how left-leaning newscasters and talk show hosts used the victimhood of four wives of 9/11 victims to intimate that it was immoral and vicious to disagree with their hard-left rants about the Iraq war. Coulter was so impressed by the tactic that her next book, Guilty, recounted the many instances in which the left played the victim while victimizing others. And we’ve more recently seen the Kabuki theater surrounding national health insurance, wherein children and pitiable poor widows were trotted out to tell their heart-rending tales of oppression at the hands of heartless, vicious insurance demons. So it’s hardly a surprise that they’ve laid back and let black men take the point on arguing racial profiling.

Still, I can’t imagine that three separate black columnists took orders from some shadowy Sound Bite Central of the Democratic party. I think that at some level, it’s a natural response of black men who are sensitive to being singled out, to object to singling out anybody. And since it’s a natural response, it’s one we should treat with some respect.

Respect, yes, but not agreement. While I can certainly understand why William Raspberry might feel uneasy about TSA singling out people who look a certain way, his unease does not constitute a sound reason why we should not do it. This is not 1960, and we’re not engaging in an attempt at keeping racial groups pure; we’re protecting ourselves against an invasion.

The confusion between defense and racial prejudice suggests that much of the left’s opposition to sane homeland security measures can be traced to simple White Guilt — white people trying to prove their anti-racist bona fides. They apparently care a lot more about absolving themselves psychologically from oppressing blacks than they do about preventing lethal attacks against their fellow citizens. It’s depressing to consider how badly our culture has been whipped around by this sort of needy vanity. The West may not survive the vast expansion of personal vice; it illustrates the vital role played by good home life and stable families in maintaining civilization.

Obama’s concession to profiling marks a rare adult moment in his administration’s brief tenure. Maybe we’ll manage to survive the next 3 years without a truly major terrorist incident.

03/15/2010 (9:32 am)

The Gitmo Bar: How Deeply Compromised is the Holder DOJ?

Allow me to draw your attention to a fascinating and vital debate being waged among blog heavyweights on the right over what was originally called The Al Qaeda Seven, but has come to be more appropriately labeled The Gitmo Bar. The topic: does the fact that several attorneys in the Department of Justice defended Guantanamo detainees render them incompetent to prosecute the war against al Qaeda? Primary participants include former US Attorney Andy McCarthy pitted against PowerLine’s Paul Mirengoff, with side comments from Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthamer, Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, all against a backdrop of the usual poo-flinging from the left.

At this point, everybody in the debate agrees that the answer to that specific question is “No.” However, a number of players, championed by Andy McCarthy, are arguing that the core beliefs of some attorneys, beliefs that led them gladly to volunteer for the specific pro bono work of defending al Qaeda’s worst, so hamstrings them in the prosecution of the war against Islamic violence that their very presence in the Department of Justice endangers Americans — indeed, that President Obama’s ideological agreement with these attorneys renders his entire foreign policy impotent against Islam-inspired terrorism.

The debate was kicked off about two weeks ago in response to an advertisement produced by a public advocacy group called Keep America Safe, over the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder had appointed what he represented as seven attorneys to his staff who had performed “pro bono” legal work in defense of detainees at the prison at Guantanamo Bay. KAS was demanding that Holder release the names, claiming a public right to know. Here’s the ad to refresh your memories:

Paul Mirengoff, over at PowerLine, reacted to this badly, taking “al Qaeda seven” as a slur against a venerable legal tradition of defending unpopular clients. McCarthy responded by producing what I regard as the definitive statement about the issue in an editorial at the National Review:

Jihadists believe it is proper to massacre innocent people in order to compel the installation of sharia as a pathway to Islamicizing society. No one for a moment believes, or has suggested, that al-Qaeda’s American lawyers share that view. But jihadist terrorists, and Islamist ideology in general, also hold that the United States is the root of all evil in the world, that it is the beating heart of capitalist exploitation of society’s have-nots, and that it needs fundamental, transformative change.

This, as I argue in a book to be published this spring, is why Islam and the Left collaborate so seamlessly. They don’t agree on all the ends and means. In fact, Islamists don’t agree among themselves about means. But before they can impose their utopias, Islamists and the Left have a common enemy they need to take down: the American constitutional tradition of a society based on individual liberty, in which government is our servant, not our master. It is perfectly obvious that many progressive lawyers are drawn to the jihadist cause because of common views about the need to condemn American policies and radically alter the United States.

That doesn’t make any lawyer unfit to serve. It does, however, show us the fault line in the defining debate of our lifetime, the debate about what type of society we shall have. And that political context makes everyone’s record fair game. If lawyers choose to volunteer their services to the enemy in wartime, they are on the wrong side of that fault line, and no one should feel reluctant to say so.

The political context — what sort of government we choose to vote for in coming elections — is the first and largest concern, but not the only one. McCarthy in a later point in the discussion recalls American attorney Lynn Stewart, whose defense of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman included acts that a jury decided amounted to material aid of an enemy, resulting in her being disbarred and sent to prison. A review of that case reveals deep sympathies between the American hard left and Islamic radicalism that can apparently spill over into overt acts against the United States in wartime. If there exist attorneys with similar sympathies in the Justice Department, we need to know, and they need to go.

Ann Coulter, in her characteristically snippy dismissal of Mirengoff’s concern, highlights the apparent sympathy between al Qaeda and the American left by noting that these particular detainees were anything but unpopular, but in fact carried a sort of radical chic among top law firms that attracted 34 of the 50 largest firms in the nation to defend them, and gave progressive attorneys opportunities to congratulate each other over “speaking truth to power.” This odd-seeming affinity between progressives and radical Islam has been explored before: it was the subject of David Horowitz’s somewhat arcane book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, and also the subject of one of my earliest essays, back when this blog was just a personal Yahoo page.

The common link appears to be hatred for the Christian West. Progressivism and Islam each apparently believe that in order for its goals to be achieved, the Christian basis for Western civilization must be neutralized by undermining its devotion to individual liberty and conscience, and the economic vitality that these create. The irony lies in the clear divergence between the goals of progressivism and those of Islam, which are, in fact, competing religions. Each apparently believes that once the Christianity of the West has been dismissed, that they will easily defeat the other. So, for the time being, progressives, who believe in a collective consciousness under a secular, progressive state, are cooperating with violent Islamic fundamentalists, who believe in a collective consciousness under sharia law, enforced by a religious, Islamic state. (For the link between American fundamental liberty and Christianity, see here, here, and here.)

wryBobThis explains to some degree why it is that Western progressives choose to side with Islamic radicals against their fellow Westerners. There’s no immediately apparent reason why they ought to; they could just as easily have chosen to defend their Western, Christian neighbors against the common threat posed by Islam, which is both migrating and, in some forms, invading, and then later, once the Islamic threat had been vanquished, return to squabbling with the right over power in America. Instead, they chose their affinity to statism over their affinity to Westernness, and proceeded to cooperate with Islam in taking down Christianness in the West. This buttresses (but does not actually prove) my own thesis that these movements have a common source in Hell, and that ultimately, what they hate is the name of Christ and the liberty and prosperity that arise from welcoming His rule.

At any rate, the debate proceeded through another few rounds, with this thoughtful response from Mirengoff, this interjection from Jonah Goldberg, Saturday’s comment from McCarthy, Goldberg’s reply on Sunday, and McCarthy’s final comment on Sunday. Attorney Stephen Jones’ contribution (Jones defended Timothy McVeigh) in the Wall Street Journal is correctly dismissed as a red herring, since nobody disagrees that unpopular clients need representation, nor is anybody, least of all Keep America Safe, claiming that any lawyer who defends Guantanamo detainees is necessarily a member of al Qaeda.

McCarthy intimates that further revelations indicating potentially shocking sympathies between DOJ attorneys and their pro bono clients at Guantanamo are forthcoming. We should pay close attention.

The reaction of the Left to this serious and relevant intellectual discussion was singularly anti-intellectual, but sadly predictable. They picked up on Mirengoff’s disagreement, and used a disingenuously-manufactured sound bite to slander Liz Cheney, one of the founders of Keep America Safe. Sam Stein at Huffington Post called Mirengoff and asked him a leading question comparing Cheney to former US Senator Joseph McCarthy, recalling the (leftist-historian-enhanced) fright over Communism in the 1950. HuffPo’s editors then mischaracterized Mirengoff’s answer in the headline, “Conservatives Turn Against Liz Cheney — As Bad As McCarthy.” Mirengoff explained mildly that Stein had misused his words, but the left quickly flung their new talking point far and wide: using Google to query “Liz Cheney worse than McCarthy” results in 4.7 million hits on that combination of words:


Andy McCarthy (no relation to Joe) points out a crucial difference between right and left in this debate, one that highlights the reason that I am calling for national partition to separate ourselves from the progressives. Even the most extreme responses from the right — I classify my own call for partition as one of those — are political, and well within the ethical and legal mechanisms available to citizens of good character: we want to know who to vote for, we want to know how to petition the government, we ultimately want sound national defense policy. In stark contrast to this, the political left in America has engaged in an 8-year-long witch hunt against attorneys for the Bush administration that is far outside the bounds of civil society. The goal of this ongoing vendetta is to destroy the attorneys who counseled the President to construct the enhanced interrogation regime. They don’t care which mechanism they finally use to destroy them; they have attempted to ruin their reputations in their neighborhoods, take their jobs, end their careers, prosecute them in American courts, prosecute them in international courts. It was only by the intervention of a single, Democratic attorney with a sound professional ethic and the right position in the DOJ that attorneys John Yoo and John Bybee escaped prosecution by the Holder “Justice” Department. This entire, decade-long campaign aims to enforce a simple declaration: counsel your clients differently than progressive dogma dictates, and they will destroy your life. This is not the rule of law, it’s scorched earth. It’s mob justice, by thugs.

For what it’s worth, I agree that the phrase “al Qaeda Seven” is unfair. I also agree that Keep America Safe was correct in calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to release the names of attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees, which he did through a back door a few days later (the number is now 10, and counting.) And I agree that it is perfectly appropriate to examine precisely what the sympathies are of these attorneys whose prestigious firms took such delight in defending America’s enemies.

The debate over the Gitmo Bar included some interesting discussion regarding the distinction between Islam and Islamism (peaceful vs. violent jihad) that deserves some comment. I’ll leave that ’till tomorrow.

11/11/2009 (2:55 pm)

Not Brothers, Not Devils

taliban-womenIn the last 5 days it has become known that the Ft. Hood shooter was a Muslim, was in contact with al Qaeda, attended a mosque known for radical connections, posted on the Internet in favor of suicide bombers, and presented a slide show to the Army explaining the potentially lethal conflict Muslim American soldiers face when being deployed to Muslim nations. It is no longer possible to pretend that the Ft. Hood shooting incident does not plausibly represent a military clash between the United States and radical Islam, and still remain intellectually honest. There are complications in the affair, but that aspect has become clear.

Janet Napolitano, President Obama’s irresponsible choice to lead the Department of Homeland Security, considered that her most urgent response to the attack on Ft. Hood was to caution the nation against an anti-Muslim backlash. Dr. Phil expressed outrage when a guest, a representative of JAG (Judge Advocate General), the Army’s legal corps, denounced the doctor’s excuse-making as psychobabble and named Islamic Jihad as at least part of the attacker’s motives. The Army’s Chief of Staff, General Casey, refused to allow categorical comments about Islam, and declared that as horrific as the casualties were at Ft. Hood, for “diversity” to become a casualty would be far worse. President Obama stated the opposite of the truth in his speech yesterday at Ft. Hood:

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy. But this much we do know – no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice – in this world, and the next.

That no just and loving God would look upon this with favor, I grant. That no faith justifies these murderous acts, is simply wrong. Islam justifies these acts, and Muslim activists like Hasan expect reward, not punishment, having been taught from childhood that martyrdom in Jihad is a sure path to earning Allah’s favor.

Tawfik Hamid, a Muslim dissident intellectual who is attempting to produce a robust theology of peace within Islam, has explained at length that the violence that attends Islam is not an aberrantion, but rather represents the mainstream. Hamid himself claims to have been engaged in radical Jihad with an organization called Jamaah Islamiyah. In a well-publicized editorial in the Wall Street Journal back in April of 2007, Hamid explained:

…there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.

These “progressives” frequently cite the need to examine “root causes.” In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological “rootlets” of Islamism, the main tap root has a name–Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts.

It is not the case that every Muslim intends violence toward non-Muslims. It is, however, the case that wherever Islam prospers, violence and domination follows. TheReligionOfPeace.com has maintained a comprehensive list of Muslim violence around the world for several years now; similar lists documenting violence in the name of other religions would not need anywhere near the bandwidth. More to the point, the vast majority of Muslims do not object to these practices, but tolerate them in silence. Rather than view such acts as the errors of extremists, it appears that they view them as the obedience of the purest among them. Tawfik Hamid recommends,

Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered “moderates.”

America has a powerful tradition of religious liberty. This is as opposed to religious toleration, a distinction I explained a few weeks ago in a post called “Toleration and the Crown.” As conceived by our nation’s founders, the government simply has no right whatsoever to judge religious organizations, nor to speak into religious disputes. Those rights belong to the people and have never been ceded to the government. Thus, it cannot be the government’s task to single out a religion and declare, “This religion is not welcome here.”

Liberal America occasionally resorts to this fact to justify squeezing its eyes shut against the inherent danger of permitting Muslims to practice here in America as citizens of other religions have been permitted. This is a pretense. It is not just that liberals have showed contempt for the rights of Christian Americans to practice Christianity openly, finding imaginary Constitutional principles to prevent Christians from even speaking of their Christianity while ignoring those same “principles” when considering Muslims or Jews. It’s that they seem ideologically incapable even to acknowledge the danger of welcoming large sects intent on domination and subjugation. They warn against “anti-Muslim sentiment,” assiduously hunt for alternative motives, and ignore the religious justification for violent acts, rather than even consider the possibility that an enemy conceivably intent on conquest may have planted millions of loyal soldiers among us.

madrassa-child_sm1Nor is the blindness limited to liberal America, although progressive dogma is directly to blame. George W. Bush falsely declared Islam to be “a religion of peace,” rather than publicly acknowledge that Islam, after some 600 years of dormancy, is again threatening the nominally Christian West (I should say, the largely post-Christian West.) The Pentagon and the FBI have, in this incident, likewise shown themselves incompetent to identify, pursue, and isolate this self-proclaimed danger to America’s forces. To President Bush’s credit, he took appropriate action to prevent incidents like the Ft. Hood massacre from occurring in American territory; but the military is still failing to address the internal threat directly. They have been cowed into incoherence and incompetence by threats of progressive mob anger; they have become eunuchs to King Political Correctness.

Where religious liberty establishes a Constitutional and historical basis for embracing those who are different, certain religious groups have faced stiff opposition from Americans, and sometimes from American government. Adherents to the Latter-Day Saints church fled persecution in America proper and attempted to establish a theo-democratic state, albeit still connected to the United States, in a huge western territory they called “Deseret,” comprised of most of Utah, Nevada, and Arizona, and about half of California. Their establishment of ecclesiastical courts parallel to the US Federal court system calls to mind attempts to establish Sharia in mostly-Muslim enclaves in US cities. President Buchanan dispatched several thousand troops to remove Utah’s Governor Brigham Young in 1857 and replace him with a non-LDS appointee, after which the US was fortunate to avoid outright war in the Mormon territories. A Republican majority in Congress passed an anti-bigamy law in 1862 with the LDS church clearly in mind (polygamy was arguably as large a moral issue as slavery to the 1860s Republicans), but President Lincoln agreed not to enforce it against the Mormons in what some regard as a bribe to keep them out of the Civil War.

Catholics were also distrusted in America for many years. A common objection to John F. Kennedy’s presidential bid in 1960 was the concern that as a Catholic, he held greater loyalty to Rome than to Washington. That turned out to be among the least of the dangers posed by Kennedy’s presidency, and today few Americans would think to question the loyalty of Catholic Americans. But “papism” was a deep concern among American Protestants from before the American revolution, and continued in some form until the 1960s.

However, even the most frenetic and overwrought denunciations of Catholics never envisioned that they would take military action to conquer non-Catholic America, and the Mormons appeared mostly to want to be left alone. Islam is different. They are not coming to America to avoid persecution — Muslims are nearly always persecutors, not persecuted. Nor are they coming to establish their own, separate enclaves to live peaceably but separately. The core mission of Islam is evangelism and eventual domination; and they seem uncomfortably willing to engage in violence to achieve those ends. While Christianity expresses similar sentiments about evangelism, it aims to achieve influence by peaceful persuasion, not by conquest. The Crusades are 800 years past, and even those were attempts to free conquered lands from Islam, not specifically attempts to extend Christianity by conquest. Modern Muslims seem pleased to be conquering Europe without violence, but I see no indication that they’re unwilling to consider violence.

Is it correct to say that Muslims intend conquest by violence in America? It’s difficult to say. They certainly intend conquest, although for now Muslims seem content to fit into their communities. They seem peaceful on the average. Yet, the Ft. Hood incident is not isolated; similar plots have been foiled at Ft. Dix and a National Guard base in Newburgh, NY., and a recruiting station in Little Rock, AR was shot up just this year — and that’s just the incidents targeting the US military. As Victor Davis Hanson pointed out last Friday, there seems to be a minority pocket of Muslims who

…channel generic Islamist fantasies, so that we can assume that either formal terrorist plots or individual acts of murder will more or less occur here every three to six months.

I doubt that here in America we will see organized, Muslim militia like those led by Moqtada al Sadr in Iraq anytime soon, but we are already seeing repeated, isolated instances of Muslim rage directed against both military and civilian targets in America. It must, sadly, become a matter of policy for the US to acknowledge this legacy of violence that follows the emigration of Muslims, and to address it sensibly.

Surprisingly, one of the more sensible suggestions came from the Ft. Hood shooter himself, Nidal Hasan. In a presentation to US Army physicians in June 2007, Hasan observed the inherent conflict felt by Muslim soldiers when they’re dispatched to Muslim countries — some apparently fear that the US Army intends to “rape their women and kill their children,” and feel morally compelled to defend Islam rather than obey their Army orders. Hasan counseled an option for “conscientious objector” status for Muslim soldiers who receive orders to deploy to war zones in Muslim countries. Such an option seems a reasonable concession to the consciences of Muslims, and may even have prevented the Ft. Hood incident, though we cannot say for sure.

However, such a sensible recognition of conscience would not address the more fundamental conflict between Islamic intent and a free republic like the US. Tawfik Hamid again:

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand–but so far haven’t–that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media.

American libertarian values and Islamic law are fundamentally at odds. The mainstream of Muslim thought recognizes this and favors conquering America, overruling liberty, and imposing Sharia. The most fervent of Muslims seem actually to be capable of attempting this by violence. Rather than being marginalized like the few, violent extremist Christian cults, they appear to have the silent approval of the mainstream. This could change, if enough Muslim clerics articulated and taught a believable Muslim theology of peace, and publicly denounced Salafi violence. Until that happens, though, blithe toleration of Muslim immigration is suicide.

Though the US government lacks legal authority to interfere in Muslim matters within the US, it does possess the legal power to protect the peace and defend American borders. Thus, for the US government to address the threat posed by mainstream Islam, America needs deliberately to halt the immigration of Muslims into America until Islam demonstrates a shift in the direction of peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims. Meanwhile, the American military needs to recognize the inherent danger posed by Muslim soldiers in military units being sent to Muslim nations, and protect itself from further violence.

Any action along these lines must recognize the fundamental necessity that the government protect the religious liberty of citizens. I am calling for appropriate defense of the public peace, which is a legitimate governmental function, but it cannot be permitted to devolve into anti-religious policy. Even though the Salafis seem to have the approval of the Muslim mainstream, we as a nation must welcome peaceful expressions of Islamic faith, and do everything in our power to protect the civil liberties of those Muslims who live among us. Closing our borders to potential enemies is sensible policy, but we must give Muslims an option of embracing peaceful coexistence without abandoning Islam.

This will not happen before the US as a nation is willing to acknowledge the truth about Islam. Only by confronting the real conflict between Islam and the West can Muslims be led to embrace a less violent theology.

I highly recommend that readers review the writings of Tawfik Hamid, who is actively pursuing just such a shift in Islamic theology.

11/05/2009 (8:03 pm)

War Zone at Ft. Hood

A major shooting spree occurred at Ft. Hood in Killeen, Tx today that may have stunning repercussions throughout the nation. Twelve people were killed, including the main shooter, and another 31 were injured.

Notice the word “main” in that last sentence. There were at least two shooters, according to the report from KXAN in Austin, Tx.

The main shooter was Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center for six years before his transfer to Ft. Hood in July. Major Hasan was apparently about to be deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan. In addition to Major Hasan, who was killed, two men are in custody. Fort Hood remains locked down at this time; it looks like the police are trying to verify that all shooters have been cleared from the base.

In the video below, Fox News reports that Hasan was a convert to Islam. If true, and if the two other men in custody were connected with him, then this could be an embedded terror cell attacking a military base on US soil. The main shooter had two weapons, there may have been additional shooters, and the police are keeping the base locked down even though the main shooter is dead; it looks like the police suspect a coordinated, planned event.

Wait for the facts to roll in.

10/09/2009 (3:01 pm)


I found this in a collection of 15 Australian cartoons that apparently have never been printed by American publishers. I think it’s difficult for a cartoon to express more profoundly the current condition of Western civilization.


If you’re wondering why I might imagine the US upholding Western Civilization single-handed, and why I might implicate both liberalism and Islam in the suicide, perhaps it’s time for us to review an article I wrote about 20 months ago highlighting a couple of erudite Europeans’ observations about why the US is resisting the spread of Islam while Europe is not (Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen, but hails from the Czech Republic.) This information is still current, and extremely important. The short version is that Islam is a religion of conquest, and only a competing religion seems to have the energy to resist its spread; post-Christian hedonism has apparently leached out the West’s capacity to care, and also its capacity to reproduce at a level that will sustain civilization.

05/05/2009 (8:28 pm)

The End of the West

The following video tells the story in stark terms: the fertility rate of Europeans is so low that the decline of secular Europe is irreversible. All the growth in Europe comes from Muslim immigration. In just a few decades, Europe will be a Muslim continent. The same is occurring in North America, albeit more slowly. Unless Christians start evangelizing Muslims, the West will be overrun by Muslims in less than a century.

Perhaps the future of Christianity lies in the Far East. Who can say?

02/03/2009 (3:43 pm)

No Apology

One of my commenters pointed me toward this opinion column by Charles Krauthammer, and it’s powerful enough that I have to recommend it to all of you. Krauthammer comments on President Obama’s communique’ to the Muslim world, and makes the point that President Obama has every right to embellish his resume by calling himself “new,” but does not have the right to disparage his country. We should reach out to the Muslim world, but need offer no apology:

Is it “new” to acknowledge Muslim interests and show respect to the Muslim world? Obama doesn’t just think so, he said so again to millions in his al-Arabiya interview, insisting on the need to “restore” the “same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

Astonishing. In these most recent 20 years — the alleged winter of our disrespect of the Islamic world — America did not just respect Muslims, it bled for them. It engaged in five military campaigns, every one of which involved — and resulted in — the liberation of a Muslim people: Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

The two Balkan interventions — as well as the failed 1992-93 Somalia intervention to feed starving African Muslims (43 Americans were killed) — were humanitarian exercises of the highest order, there being no significant U.S. strategic interest at stake. In these 20 years, this nation has done more for suffering and oppressed Muslims than any nation, Muslim or non-Muslim, anywhere on Earth. Why are we apologizing?

I can’t improve on Krauthammer. Go read it for yourselves.

Older Posts »