California: Officers learn Muslim culture

"The Muslim community needs law enforcement to protect them from the backlash, while police officials want the cooperation of the community in its investigations, said Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman at CAIR's national headquarters. Outreach efforts need to be happening from both sides, she said.
"In order to build trust, you need to show sincere efforts to learn about the community," she said. ..."

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" about their community.

ONLY IN CALAFORNIA!!!

CAIR and other apologists constantly refer to "misunderstandings" about Islam. What misunderstandings? Precisely what don't we understand that needs to be corrected?

Why can't police officers be informed of websites, such as www.secularislam.org and www.faithfreedom.org, where they will have the perspective offered by ex-Muslims, or Muslims who reject all but the rituals of individual worship (the Five Pillars) for, out of filial piety, nostalgia, or feelings that blend the two, continue to find solace in those rituals, but detest, and are willing to expose to Infidels, what the rest of it is all about.

If there is anywhere a police officer reading this posting, perhaps you can figure out how to alert members, without incurring the wrath of the thought-police who will not brook any real investigation into Islam, of the existence of these websites.

And then, of course, there is this website to keep one abreast of news items, only some of which ever make it into the American press, and there so often in a distorted fashion, or plausibly given an interpretive twist that obscures the real meaning of them. A good example is the headline in today's New York Times describing the attacks in Saudi Arabia as "Attacks on Westerners." They were no such thing. Muslims from the West were not being attacked. Non-Muslims from anywhere, including Christians from Lebanon, were the target. It was an attack on Infidels, and the attackers carefully asked those who spoke Arabic (those Lebanese) whether they were "Muslims or Infidels." That was all that mattered. So why, one wants to know, did the New York Times yet again engage in deception, and prevent a clear understanding of what is going on, by NOT forthrightly putting as its headline "Attaks on non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia" or better still, "Attacks on Infidels in Saudi Arabia."

The only reason, indeed, that we know about this careful separation of Infidels and Muslims is because there happen to have been present, as witnesses, people who spoke Arabic who were not Muslim -- those same Lebanese. Had they not been there, the Western Infidels would not have known. And you can be sure that the Saudis and other ARab Muslims would have carefully refrained from letting Westrrn media know that detail -- they want to make sure that everyone thinks they are targetted as well, that this "has nothing to do with Islam" as assorted princes and princelings and PRk men keep telling us about every outrage, every murder, every mutilation and dragging of bodies by one Muslim group after another, in incident after incident. "This has nothing to do with Islam."

That is how the reporting now gets done. The truth comes out only when there happens to be someone around who cannot be fooled. The abysmal quality of the Times' coverage can be seen in story after story. There was the reporter, for example, who dutifully wrote about the inculcaton of hatred for non-Muslims in Saudi schools, without showing any awareness that this was not simply a matter of "Wahhabi extremists" (that absurd phrase); inculcation of hatred for all non-Muslims, and prayers for their destruction, are staples of Islam everywhere. Did that particular reporter bother to study Edward Lane's An Account of the Customs and Manners of the Modern Egyptians which, though written in 1839, is one of the best sources for knowledge of the daily life in Egypt. He will find bloodcurdling prayers for the destruction of all non-Muslims, said daily by all the little Muslim schoolboys in non-Wahhabi, famously "easygoing" (how do these silly epithets get affixed as tightly as a stewardess' smile? How?) Egyptians.

The deal made by the Saudis to get back the hostages, and to let all three of the hostage-takers light out for the territories, scot-free, should tell us a good deal about their 1) competence and 2) the real feelings of many Saudis.

Attacks on the Saudi royal family and its courtiers are made precisely because their obvious corruption and depravity (do you really think that what goes on in all those palaces escapes the notice of the help? those girls? that liquor? those debauches? what about those yachts that pick up by the boatload Western putane off the coast of southern Spain, once the wives and children have been safely off-loaded? The Arab help sees what is going on, and compares what it thinks is just accoreding to Islam, and draws its own conclusions), and because they are Muslims, they do not describe this as "corruption" but as "un-Islamic" and therefore, the work of "Infidels." What is bad must be described using the grid that Islam provides; all bad things become "Infidel" in nature. And everything the Infidels do, similarly, is "bad" because it is done by Infidels, for their own insidious purposes.

If Infidels rescued Bosnian Muslims and the Muslims of Kosovo, and think that deserves a syllable of gratitude from those Muslims who take Islam seriously, they are flatly wrong. If any Infidels think that the vast sums that are being poured into Iraq for its Extreme Makeover at American taxpayers' groaning expense, and the risking of lives of many, including Reservists and National Guard troops who did not bargain for this sort of thing -- risking their lives to help people who will pocket the help, and continue to try to murder them -- when they signed that little paper), will win them favor from Iraqis (yes, I know about those crowds of cute little boys receiving soccer balls -- they have not yet been fully indoctrined, but soon enough their Muslim elders will help to "interpret" away the many kindnesses of the American soldiers as diaboloical tricks by the Infidels, the owns who are Shaytan's little helpers, always whispering, whispering, their siren-song of Infidel evil and oroffered apostasy.

The incompetence or collusion of Saudi authorities, like the recent discovery of the network of Iraqi agents who had bought many high Egyptian officials, and consequently, Egyptian military secrets (and those of the United States which were entrusted, idiotically, to the likes of Mubarak and his fellow stratokleptocrats), points up one thing: no Muslim state, not one, can be allowed advanced weaponry. By accident or design, those things will fall into the hands of those intent on using them against Infidels. Nothing more than rifles and jeeps should be permitted.

Again, I hope everyone involved in law enforcement will be alerted as to the existence of this and similar websites. No matter how much, in public, you must pretend to listen to the taqiyya or kitman of CAIR, in private you have to begin to educate yourselves, just as American soldiers and officers, I have reason to know, are beginning to educate themselves in Iraq about the real nature of Islam. And when they come back, they will form a nucleus within the army of those who will not allow themselves to be satisfied with platitudes and apologetics. That may be one of the best things to come out of the war: the education of an entire officer corps.

If you are communicating with a soldier, send him to www.jihadwatch.org. Let him begin to learn, and to help others learn. If you have a neighbor who is in the police, send him this website. Do not keep what you have learned to yourself. Make every occasion -- the visit to the post office, the drycleaners, the tailor -- an occasion to turn the pleasantries into a discussion of Iraq, or the election, or anything, and then begin to talk about Islam, and about the websites and books you have found most helpful, and how everyone knows that our leaders are refusing to speak clearly, for obvious reasons, on this matter. Every time you do this you are helping to protect yourself and your children.

Notice how the Muslim customs that police officers are supposed to accept actually help Muslims deceive and conceal, if by some small chance these loyal citizens, just might be doing something illegal.

We have to allow Muslim women to conceal their identity because of their "religious" beliefs while non-Muslims women have no rights of privacy and are told they have to go along with full and public disclosure so that driver's license can be used by law enforcement to enforce crime.

Guess we are second class citizens now.

From the article: Elk Grove Police Lt. Barbara Bravos, who worked with CAIR's Sacramento Valley chapter to arrange the training, said it is important that officers are attuned to different cultural and religious practices.

What is the malfunction here with Muslims living in America? Follow and obey U.S. Constitutional law, or go back home to your beloved Sharia. Ahhnold needs to be made fully aware of this, and I'd be shocked if he isn't already, since he's a Republican.

Someone ought to E-mail that Police Station and let them know that they're wasting their time with trying to understand these liars. Religion has nothing to do with adhering to our laws. This is getting to be quite sickening.

Here is Ms. Bravos' e-mail address: BBravos@elkgrovepd.com Please let me know if anyone e-mails her and educates her about the organization she put this seminar together with. I have to go, but I'll be back on later. If no one sends her any e-mails, I'l do it later.

Thanks...

D.C.

One additional query: is CAIR paid for with taxpayers' money? Is this organization, devoted to promoting a Muslim agenda, and staffed solely by Muslims, entitled to such? If it is paid, is there not just a teeny-weeny little problem of the Establishment Clause?

A tiny tap, a polite Virginia remonstrance from the James Madison Brigade, will not be enough to deal with this situation.

The ACLU, so stout a defender of the separation of church and state, is likely to be hopeless here. (ACLU, surprise us -- please!). Depending on the state, the ACLU chapters are more or less defenders and promoters of Arab and Muslim interests. The naive, especially if they are of a certain age, may still be contributing to the ACLU because they do not realize how much it it has changed, in personnel and in attitude. Many still labor under the misapprehension that outside it is 1954 and Joseph McCarthy is the main threat to our collective existence. They should do a little tour d'horizon of the universe, and they will find that the main threat to their physical existence, to free speech in the Western world, to skeptical inquiry, to real pluralism, is the belief-system of Islam itself, and its most loyal adherents. But the ACLU is now a jobs program for those who are deeply, truly, madly out of love with America and The System (sorry: "Amerika") and who find the ACLU as a perfect cover, and one with a salary to boot, for their activities, so seemingly highminded, so truly sinister when it comes to the kiind of things I am discussing here. Few are sufficiently aware of the islamisant, anti-American, antisemitic apparatchiki who have been allowed to infiltrate the ACLU. One thinks of Nancy Murray of the Boston office, or Matt Bowles, a National Field Coordinator. The latter's idea of free speech is to organize the shouting-down of speaker Daniel Pipes (pictures of Bowles ready to go into operation, and a story about him, can be found at Pipes' website); the former goes to every neighborhood village and town in Massachusetts, beguiling the unwary, enrolling the indignant, telling them that the Gestapo is coming, and "we will all suffer" terribly if the Patriot Act stays in place. You can find her absurd catalogue of putative horrors -- some birdwatchers who were questioned (and why not? where were they birdwatching? Hanscom Field? Logan Airport? near the natural gas terminal in Everett or the nuclear reactor in Plymouth?), a few Lexington High School students questioned, a lone Sri Lankan who was shocked, shocked, that when he applied for work abroad a few questions were asked, and a lady whose last name is "Khan" deploring the fact that this might, in this bloody day and Jihadist age, might be cause for any extra scrutiny. That pathetic list of outrages is what keeps Nancy Murray going, or rather, what keeps her going is her fifteen-year record of stout support of the PLO and Yassir Arafat, and her viciousness about Israel. It is now a family industry, a kind of heirloom of hate, passed down to her daughter Rebecca Murray, stout defender of Arafat, with her body, at the Muqata in Ramallah. Google "Rebecca Murray" as well as "Nancy Murray." Inform yourself about this brave ACLU defender of "our freedoms" and ask yourself if someone who favors Arafat can conceivably understand what Western freedoms really mean? And just how dear to her, anyway, can human rights, as understood inthe West, possibly be, if she promotes the murderous despotism of Yassir Arafat, and the Jihad against Israel?

The ACLU, like Amnesty International under Irene Khan (a Shirin-Ebadi clone, denying the relevance of Islamic teachings to the mistreatment of women and non-Muslims under Islam, though she is perfecty willing to identify that such mistreatment exists, attributing it sweetly to "cultural factors." How stupid does she think we are?), Human Rights Watch under the execrable Kenneth Roth, the UN Human Rights Commission with Libya and Syria rooling the roost -- good god, forget about all of them. The only organization of that type which one can still take seriously is Freedom House.

Oh yes, and there is one other group that promotes human rights in the world. It is the American government, and its economic and military power. It is the American government alone that strikes fear into the Sudanese Arabs and caused them to sign -- for what it is worth -- a peace agreement with the southerners they have been murdering. It is the American government alone that has caused Musharraf to attempt to rein in the ISI and the more vicious Muslim groups. It is the American government alone that caused Qaddafy to think hard about the difficulty he would have constructing his various weapons, and the likelihood that the United States would not fall the various schemes designed to hide his intentions (that Great Man-Made River Project), that would bomb Libya as LIbya, Qaddafy remembered, had been bombed before. He was sick of the Arab squabbling, and decided to embrace (and he can change on a dime) Libya First. It is the American government alone, and not the UN -- which will never, and can never, given both the infiltration at the highest level of Muslims and islamisant sympathisers such as Edweard Mortimer, and the Muslim countries that vote as a bloc to prevent any investigation of the treatment of non-Muslims in Muslim countries -- that is responsible for getting the government of Sudan to make any agreement with the southerners. While the mighty empire of Israel, that vast colonial aggression against the ancient, unique civilization of the "Palestinian people" (with their own language, religion, and customs that so immediately distinguish them from all their Arab neighbors), uses up more than 1/4 of the U.N.'s time, the U.N. will never find time to discuss the forced conversation of Christians in Ramadi, or the destruction of Mandean libraries, by newly-empowered Muslims in Iraq. It will never raise the issue of the persecution and murder of Copts in Egypt. It will never raise the issue of the sexual slavery into which many non-Muslim women are forced in Saudi Arabia (surely the biggest uninvestigated story of the past few decades). It will never investigate the destruction of 2,300 churches (some say as many as 5,000) in Indonesia alone, in 2003. The U.N. did nothing to save the Bamiyan Buddhas, though a small expeditionary force could have done so, and easily. In the last 30 years, the U.N. has been helpless to deal with Muslim attacks on non-Muslim peoples and polities. The only occasion, on which the U.N. passed a resolution against a predominantly Muslim state, were those passed after Saddam Hussein had invaded Kuwait. And in that case the usual Muslim/non-Muslim categories dissolved, for two important Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, felt directly threatened. And that is the entire extent of what the U.N. can do; Muslims can act with impunity, unless the American government, and any others prepared to undertake the same measures (and how few they are, so effective has Muslim infiltration of the media, and of international groups, been -- especially in Western Europe), acts.

When one reads about some U.N. vote, in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, where the votes against Israel are usually on the order of 189 to 2, with a few abstentions, one is prompted to ask aloud of those ambassadors from civilized, or quasi-civilized lands, whether they can, when they return home to their New York apartments that night, and perhaps, mimicking Jean-Paul Belmondo in a famous scene in Breathless, looking closely at themselves in the mirror, how can they stand it? How can they bear to be participants in such hypocrisy and stupidity? Do they really believe the Arab propaganda? Is there something in the very atmosphere of the U.N. that causes people to lose their moral sense? And even if they are forced to follow orders from the foreign ministries at home, do they never protest? Never think to try to change those policies? Never seek to understand what is really going on in the endless siege of Israel? Never once try to identify with the Israelis, whose state was created because the civilized nations of the world, with men such as Clemenceau and Lloyd George, thought that it was, on the whole, the right and proper thing to do -- and the League of Nations regarded all of western Palestine, fro the Jordan to the sea, as the very least that could be set aside (when the Mandatory Power, Great Britain, unilaterally declared that the mandatory provisions regarding Jewish immigration and settlement would not apply to the area east of the Jordan, the Mandates Commission was horrified -- curious that no one bothers to consult, or make public, their remarks at the time). Do you look at yourself in the mirror, grimacing in the Belmondo manner, and reassure yourself about the day's events: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." Are you proud of having joined the pack of wolves as they snapped at Israel, trying to bring it down to go in for the final kill? Or do you really believe that this war on Israel is really about "two tiny peoples, blah blah blah"? Exactly how stupid, or unseeing, are you? Do you ever -- you ambassadors from Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France, Poland, Hungary, Spain, and so on-- ever think about Islamic teachings as the basis for the permanent refusal to permit Israel to exist, whatever its size? And if it is its existence that matters, not its dimensions, then surely the Israelis should choose those dimensions that will both make their own defense strongest, and also make the other side believe those defenses are at their strongest. For only darura, necessity, keeps Arab states from attacking. The only thing keeping the peace in the MIddle East between the Muslim Arabs and the Jewish state, is fear by the Arabs of the consequences, and the ability of their leaders to note that Israel still is more powerful. But if that state is reduced in size, it is not only Israel that will suffer, but the Arab leaders who may not really wish to go to war. For, with a reduced and seemingly vulnerable Israel, they will no longer have the excuse (for the few who might want one) of darura. The very pressure put on Israel to further retreat is in fact leading not to peace but to war. There is no "two-state solution" -- and how can there be? What would Muhammad say -- yes, it's okay for the Infidels to have their own state, where the shari'a does not apply, and they are free to live as they wish, on land that was once part of dar al-Islam? Nonsense. Double nonsense.

Were I a schoolboy, and in my school at every assembly there was a denunciation by 188 of my 189 classmates, of the one small scholarly schoolboy, sitting in the third row on the right, who seemed to want only to be left in peace to study, and who was constantly being harassed and bullied and threatened by a gang of 22 of the most unpleasant and violent of my classmates (who, let it be said, did not confine their aggression to that one schoolboy), I would behave as the American ambassador so often behaves, refusing to agree to the bullying, the lynch-mob mentality, the pious lies uttered and repeated and blandly accepted, about the "threat" coming from this single small boy, supposedly directed at those 22 bullies. Not to take that boy's side would have been intolerable. I couldn't stand it. But a great many of you ambassadors, and the Chris Pattens and Mary Robinsons of this great wide wonderful world we live in, find no difficulty in beating up, and beating up, that boy (and I won't go in to that boy's tortured, difficult life, or what happened to so many of his relatives, through time and space). How do you stand it, weeek after week, month after month, year after year, the nonsense and corruption and timewasting and hypocrisy and stupidity and paralysis and stench of failure on the East River? I couldn't stand it.

I see that I have gone like the Liffey in Finnegans Wake round and about, from CAIR in sunny California to come to rest at the deplorable UN. It may seem to be a posting a batons rompus. But I won't apologize too vigorously. The appeasement of Muslim demands, by the police employing CAIR "tutors" on Islam and "cultural diversity," and by the UN in dancing to the Arab League's ululations, are connected. Tout se tient. But to those who consider this undue prolixity, let me say what I think Steve Martin suggested one should say to the IRS if you haven't filed your taxes in ten years: Sorry!

I wish that I could be as eloquent and congenial as Hugh. Please, though, spread the word on every possible occasion. It's only common sense to tailor your message to your audience as not every listener can be reached in the same way. The future of our country and that of our children is depending on our efforts.

I think that all muslims living in America should have to take mandatory infidel sensitivity training.

it is a compete idiotic idea to train your police in muslim anything. maybe if the united states woke up and saw the light that the muslim is takeing control over everything, maybe the muslim should learn our way of life not us learning theirs.

This is absolutly true. My husband had to take "sensitivity" training which was mostly geared to female muslims and how not to offend them. Its not just police either, our good friend is an EMT and they have also gone through "sensivity" training and were told to always be careful when the victim was a muslim woman and the EMT was a man...if possible it should be a woman EMT that looks after the woman muslim if a male looks after her then he should be careful not to offend her...and our friend was told that some muslim women would actually bleed to death before letting a male attend to her to save her honor...and thats in the west even.
I can say that the police officers he works with arent happy about having to give one certain group special treatment, the muslims arent winning any popularity contests with their constant whining about "unfairness"...my husband said that there are many in that community that resent having to follow the laws of the country, they feel immune somehow. Funny when they took a citizenship pledge they took this oath:

Current "Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship" of Canada

"I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Guess it didnt mean anything to them....

We MUST write to OPPOSE this bill!! IF THIS BILL PASSES, WE'RE HUNG!

"Amnesty International supports the "End Racial Profiling Act of 2004" (S.2132 and H.R.3847), also known as ERPA. Racial profiling is not only a violation of the basic tenets of the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law and treaties, it has also proven to be an ineffective method of law enforcement. ERPA offers critical protection from police profiling based on race, religion, national origin and ethnicity. "

This is the letter I have written to my reps/senators. PLEASE DO THE SAME!!

http://www.house.gov/writer ep/welcome.shtml
http://www.senate.gov/gener al/contact_information/sena tors_cfm.cfm

Dear Senator/Representative:

I strongly oppose the "End Racial Profiling Act of 2004"(S.2132 and H.R.3847), also known as ERPA, introduced on February 26, 2004 in the Senate by Senator Feingold, and in the House by Congressman Conyers. I strongly urge you to oppose this bill! The use of profiling in law enforcement is essential considering the clime of today's terrorist cells forming all across America and is a necessary and effective tool for law enforcement. To do otherwise would be tantamount to hamstringing our law enforcement officers!

"The Department of Justice 2003 guidelines and the initiatives of at least two dozen states regarding ERPA would institute a general prohibition on profiling based on race, religion, ethnicity or national origin by federal, state or local law enforcement. It would create a process by which law enforcement can receive, investigate and respond to complaints of 'racial profiling' and also would call on the Attorney General to submit yearly reports to Congress to monitor progress."

Can you imagine what it would be like to suspect covert terrorist activity in one's community, make a call to law enforcement, and be told that because of a recently passed law- ERPA- 'we cannot investigate'!? And the slippery slope to that would be that the caller could quite possibly be placed under 'suspicion as a hate crimes perpetrator'!?

The supporters of ERPA argue that "since September 11th, 2001 law enforcement has used racial profiling to target Arab-American, Muslim-American, and South Asian-American communities. Under the U.S. Constitution and international treaties, every person has the fundamental right to equal protection under the law regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin."

Our Constitution and legal/legislative system must NOT be systematically abused and manipulated to allow muslim/islamics, and their sympathizer operatives, who swear fealty to the Qoran instead of America, to dictate our law enforcement policies! They are adherents of a religion whose plainly stated goal is the destruction of America whom they also refer to as the 'great satan'. ERPA is in effect a gag that will prevent Americans from speaking out against this as well completely tying the hands of our law enforcement officials! Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Interestingly enough here is the oath that new US citizens must take....must be hard for the muslims to keep a straight face while saying these words:

The Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I wonder how many policemen will get killed in the line of duty while trying to be "sensitive" to Muslims? Like what if the Muslim is not opening the door because he's getting an AK-47 out of the closet, not a hijab for the wifey?

Depending on what the police are there for they may not wait for her to slip into her costume...if the call warrents it they will break in the door...and if they catch a glimpse of mrs akbars hair or nose I am certain that we will hear about it on the 6 oclock news...because what a scandal that will be....lets get real...we have all seen cops...sometimes they dont even wait till a person gets dressed...sometimes the officers life depends on those extra few seconds...not to mention what weapons can be hidden in their loose clothing...also mrs akbar will be patted down...they will call a female officer if one is available but if not too bad.
One other solution is to send in the female dog...certainly it is ok for the german sheppard to see her sans hajib.

"Without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion." Hmm, presumably,if one takes the oath, and it is proven that one did so while knowingly having mental reservations or purposes of evasion, the oath is worthless, the one hoping to become a citizen is lying, and the citizenship can, and should be, revoked. Now of course there are those, from all backgrounds, who might have some mental reservations or purposes of evasions.

But Islam, and Muslims, present quite a differnt problem. Islam presents itself not only as a system of individual worship, with assorted rituals and requirements and rigmarole (the Five Pillars). No, it is much more than that, a Total System of Belief. And at the heart of Islam is the constant injunction to offer loyalty only to the umma al-islamiyya, to the Community of Islam. Loyalty can be to fellow Muslims, never to Infidels. Indeed the Qur'an and hadith are full of statements about how there cannot be friendship with Christians and Jews, who "are friends only with each other." There must be nothing but hostility offered all non-Muslims. They cannot be greeted first; they cannot have their holidays recognized (a "Merry Christmas" would violate Islam), they simply must be opposed -- except insofar as they can be lied to for the purposes of protecting the faith, and promoting its interests and, by extension, those of the Believers. That is taqiyya (or kitman).

Given the overwhelming textual evidence for this -- it would be fascinating to ask Muslims if they believe they can be loyal to the Infidel nation-state -- it seems to me there is a bit of a problem here. I maintain that NO Muslim who is fully Muslim can possibly offer his allegiance to the United States, or indeed to any infidel sovereignty, without "mental reservation" and "purpose of evasion." It simply cannot be done.

Now it is obvious what some Muslims might say. They would say: Yes, I support the United States. And they would not add, but they woudl be thinking to themselves: I support the United States, and the best thing for the United States, and its Infidels, is to be converted to Islam. For from Islam comes the Truth, comes Peace, comes all Sheer Wonderfulness. And so they will be able, with considerable aplomb and self-assurance, to tell one and all that yes, of course, I am as loyal to this country, which is "ours too" as anyone. But it cannot be meant. Or it can be meant -- but only by those born into Islam who no longer take it seriously. And here is the problem: we have no way to distinguish the True Believer from the Not-Entirely-True Believer. Furthermore, at any moment, someone who has been born into Islam, but not taken it too seriously, may have a crisis that leads to a sudden embrace of the Faith. Mike Hawash, that easygoing Intel engineer, on whose behalf so many friends swore up and down that he could not possibly have done the things he was charged with (attempting to go to Afghanistan to fight his fellow Americans, on behalf of Al Qaeda and the Taliban) -- right up until the moment he pled guilty, and admitted to everything. Some kind of crisis had led him to begin to renew his interest in Islam. He grew a beard. He read the Qur'an with greater intensity and frequency. Islamic belief can be likened, in such believers, to a dormant virus -- a kind of herpes -- that may never be set off, and then again, it may. We just don't know. We have no way of knowing. It could be a personal crisis. It could be some incident in the world. How can we, poor Infidels, know any better than, say, the Saudi authorities -- who seem unable to root out those in their own security services who take their religion even more seriously than do members of the Saudi government?

One cannot simply avoid this problem. It has to be considered, and discussed rationally. Can a believing Muslim, given what everyone who is not an apologist, whether Muslim or non-Muslim (Esposito, Sells, etc.), knows is contained in Qur'an, hadith, and runs through every Qur'anic commentator, every theologian, all of Muslim history. And one can find example after example of the clear expression of this. It was not for nothing that the Germans, during World War I, appealed to Indian Muslims to foment a Jihad against the English. The slaughter of Hindus during the Moplah Insurrection, in 1921, expressed Muslim dissatisfactoin with the collapse, as yet not made formal by Ataturk, of the Khalifa, the Caliphate. Can one believe that a real, full-blooded Muslim can possibly place loyalty to the nation-state over loyalty to fellow Muslims? It simply can't be done.

And if it cannot be done, if Muslims cannot take the oath of allegiance, to the U.S., to Great Britain, to Canada, and possibly mean it, then it seems that their citizenship can be revoked. For we cannot allow people who inevitably must be lying when they take that oath to become citizens, especially since from here on out, forever, we Infidels will be in a war of self-defense against a world-wide Jihad. It may die down, it may be quiescent for a while, but it will keep coming back whenever Muslims, anywhere, believe that they possess the wherewithal and the strength to conduct it. They cannot do otherwise. That is what their belief-system requires of them. How can mere Infidels, or mere Muslim mortals, change the words of the Qur'an and hadith, and therefore change the demands made on them by Allah and their Faith? It can't be done.

Perhaps Muslims will explain how they can fully subscribe to the oath, and can explalin why we Infidels should ignore what we know is contained in their own guiding texts. It will be fascinating to see the possible explanations, and protestations of loyalty, and expressed willingness to fight, on behalf of the American government, in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or anywhere that government decides, to defeat the Jihad, Americans must. With no mental reservation, or purpose of evasion.