Conference: The Jihad Against the West: The Real Threat and the Right Response

It will be interesting to hear CAIR's response to this "hateful, racist" conference. But more interesting, is if there is silence from CAIR. It will be a signal that CAIR's attempts at pro-Islam propaganda is getting overwhelmed by the shear number of incidents happening lately to educate the West to Islam's true nature. "May there be many more" indeed.

"The newspapers that published the Muhammad cartoons should have been protected, and the principles involved defended."

...and those who rioted and burned and made death threats deported.

In school, we were taught the government is supposed to protect us. But in life, we are taught that the government protects itself. The government sacrifices us and our future for its short term present survival in power.

The government is the perfection of myopia. Who was punished for torture? The troops at the bottom. The policy was written by Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals like John Yoo, but only the grunts go to jail. In their trials, Yoo is seldom even mentioned, and never had to testify. He is busy with his speaking engagements, or representing powerful interests from who knows what countries.

Who protects us? If we are middle class, we think we are safe because of the government. We wonder about poor communities with more violence. Why isn't more money spent to protect them? The answer is that it isn't government that protects a community, its the people who live in it. Government is only a tiny part of protection.

Government has abaondoned us on immigration. Government praises those who kill us, and builds a Red Crescent Memorial for them and dedicates 9-11 to praising immigration and, in effect, saying we are bigots who had to die on 9-11 so that immigration could continue.

The response to 1993 WTC attacks was immigration, as was the 2001 attacks. Government says that another terrorist act is a certainty, and then pushes the immigration that will make it a certainty.

Bush, Kennedy and McCain call Americans bigots behind their back if not to their face. When we speak up for our job security, physical security and speech security, they call us bigots. They have only contempt for us to let them stay in power and treat us as they do.

We have to speak up in every forum and in every way open to us. We have to write our Congressman and Senator, but first look up their votes on immigration at Americans for Better Immigration and similar sites and tell them what we found. We have to respectfully point out they don't respect us or our interests.

We have to post at MSM websites like Washington Post, or ones like this one, or others. We have to donate funds, we have to show up in person at town meetings, we have to speak up to the MSM that they don't tell the truth about what is being done to us. We have to let them know we aren't fools and we aren't going to take this anymore.

It may interest some of you that The Ayn Rand Institute has a videotaped panel discussion with Yaron Brook and Daniel Pipes. Just go to aynrand.org and register to access it. (Both the registration and the video is for free.)

It will be interesting to hear CAIR's response to this "hateful, racist" conference. But more interesting, is if there is silence from CAIR. It will be a signal that CAIR's attempts at pro-Islam propaganda is getting overwhelmed by the shear number of incidents happening lately to educate the West to Islam's true nature. "May there be many more" indeed.

Posted by: Xero G at October 21, 2006 05:00 PM

I hope the part about the Islamic propaganda being overwhelmed is the case. Nonetheless, Iblis Hooper will be out and about screeching as usual. Still, the more conferences, the better.

"Brook is saying right now that when lives are threatened for speaking freely, the government should protect them. The newspapers that published the Muhammad cartoons should have been protected, and the principles involved defended. Instead, the government punted."

It's true. When we treat beliefs as fact we demonstrate how primitive we remain, that we are not far from the superstitions of the past, superstitions that people like Voltaire warned are always lurking in humans, and which will be used to silence free speech, which is the unlimited right to express opinions and ideas based on reason. The cartoons were not threats of violence, they expressed ideas but those ideas were "offensive" to Islamic belief-system believers, so the Muslim belief-system thought-police came with their demands that non-Muslims treat their beliefs as fact or they would do violence to the unbelievers.

The cartoons are ideas and opinions based on reason. No unbeliever should be required to respect another person's beliefs as fact. Many people think the Islamic belief system is a mental illness and that it is offensive to have demented beliefs forced on non-believers. Muslim beliefs should be entirely a private Muslim matter and any demand that beliefs be treated as fact should be treated as mental illness. The cartoon rage people should have been arrested and placed under psychiatric observation. People who demand that beliefs be treated as facts are mentally ill. In the not too distant future, those who demand that non-believers treat Muslim beliefs as fact will be comitted to mental hospitals. They belong in mental hospitals.

I suspect there are many people who are offended that Muslim beliefs have to be treated as fact by demented Cartoon Rage types. We are not far from a time when people are going to begin demanding that people (particularly Muslims) who attempt to force their belief-system on others should be treated as mentally ill. It is obvious: people who treat belief-systems as fact, who demand that others conform to their beliefs (Muslim or otherwise) are mentally ill. This is common sense. Beliefs are not facts.

The newspapers that published the Muhammad cartoons should have been protected, and the principles involved defended. Instead, the government punted."-

This is what I consider a serious error made by any Western government that they did not defend our principles that we value and share. It is also the first step that we have taken to accept 'indirectly' part of the Sharia laws, the part which calls for no bad mouthing about Mohd, i.e. we are threatened in our own countries by the followers of a utterly wacky cult generally known as 'ROP/ISLAM/TERRORISTS/' if we want to frankly discuss about it and its originator.

Government has abaondoned us...

Old Atlantic, you are so right. This is the Permanent Government. The ones too good for us.

The ones too good for Social Security. Like the pinkos running the USSR, they have their own personal exclusive financial reserve for retirement, like an exclusive whiskey. Not for mere mortals outlined in the Constitution. More for those from Yale and Harvard. The corrupt side of the equation.

I've just returned from the conference and heard Robert and Dr. Pipes and since the the original Revolution there has not been so much Truth spoken in Boston.

Robert was like a great jazz guitarist. He wonderfully laid down the themes in his presentation but he shined and reached new levels in improvisation (in the question and answer period.)

Robert and Pipes also melted a couple of young Marxists from a local university with their answers.

It was the best time I've spent in a long time.

The threat is clearly spelled out in the Qu’ran. It has become enabled by oil money and the fact that in 2006, anyone with $500 and twelve hours to burn, can go anywhere they want in the world. Things will never be the same.

We need to respond by raising awareness. And pushing our elected officials to take a tough stand on the issue. Here are blurbs from the three foremost Presidential Candidates for 2008. I make no pretense of being unbiased. Regardless of who is nominated/elected, we as individuals should press the candidates about their position on the issue as the election unfolds. Not to be 'mean', but to benefit, in the end, everyone.

John McCain:
It is not a clash of civilizations. I believe, as I hope all Americans would believe, that no matter where people live, no matter their history or religious beliefs or the size of their GDP, all people share the desire to be free; -John McCain at 2006 New School Commencement

http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=NewsCenter.ViewPressRelease&Content_id=1735

Mit Romney:
He (Romney) also spoke about gathering intelligence at mosques "that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror.Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping?" he asked. "Are we following what's going on? Are we seeing who's coming in, who's coming out? Are we eavesdropping, carrying out surveillance on those individuals from places that sponsor domestic terror?" –Romney at Heritage Foundation

http://www.citizensoldier.org/romneywarning.html

Hillary Clinton:
"I (Hillary) think what you're referring to," she said, "is that over the course of the last seven years as part of the administration's efforts to open lines of communication and build bridges with Muslim Americans and Muslim leaders from all over the world, many, many people have been invited to the White House. I have been part of some of those events. I have hosted some of them. –Hillary Defending Fundraising

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=65000531

Briars - I'm sooooooo jealous!

Limes - it's a no brainer between the three.

MotherElasticSheeeeettt - you now have permission to flush yourself.

Hi Robert if you feel scared or alone.
Please listen to this Christian Roman/Byzantine Orhodox hymn..so you know what Islam destroys.
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/sounds/greekch.ra

It's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.
But it does good to the heart of anyone listening.
People have come before us who suffered the same problems.

You are like one of the knights of Malta 300 of whom defeated a vastly superior force of Ottoman Turks.
May God Bless you.

From the Ayn Rand Institute website:

The Terrorists' Motivation: Islam
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
By: Edwin A. Locke and Alex Epstein

Their attempt to practice religion consistently explains the terrorists' actions.

It is now five years since September 11, 2001--and since that horrific day we have witnessed numerous additional attacks by Islamic terrorists against the West. In the face of a seemingly never-ending supply of suicidal killers, many still do not understand the motivation of the terrorists. Commentators are eager to offer a bevy of pseudo-explanations--poverty, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.--while ignoring the motivation the terrorists themselves openly proclaim: Islam.

The near silence about the true role of Islam in motivating Islamic terrorists has two main causes: multiculturalism and religion. Multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal and therefore none may criticize another; intellectuals and politicians are therefore reluctant to declare the obvious superiority of Western culture to Islamic culture. And the strong commitment to religion of many Americans, especially conservatives, makes them reluctant to indict a religion as the cause of a massive evil. But if we are to identify the fundamental cause of the terrorists' actions, we must understand at least two fundamental premises of the religion they kill for.

First, Islam, like all religions, rejects reason as a means of gaining knowledge and guiding action; it holds that all important truths are grasped by faith in supernatural beings and sacred texts. The Koran explicitly states that knowledge comes from revelation, not thinking. (Christianity in pure form entails a similar rejection of reason, but it has been heavily diluted and secularized since the Renaissance.) Islam advocates the subordination of every sphere of life to religious dogma, including the legal system, politics, economics, and family life; the word "Islam" means literally: submission. The individual is not supposed to think independently but to selflessly subordinate himself to the dictates of his religion and its theocratic representatives. We have seen this before in the West--it was called the Dark Ages.

Second, as with any religion that seeks converts, a derivative tenet of Islam is that it should be imposed by force (you cannot convince someone of the non-rational). The Koran is replete with calls to take up arms in its name: "fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them . . . those who reject our signs we shall soon cast into the fire . . . those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads . . . as to the deviators, they are the fuel of hell."

These ideas easily lead to fanaticism and terrorism. In fact, what is often referred to as the "fanaticism" of many Muslims is explicitly endorsed by their religion. Consider the following characteristics of religious fanatics. The fanatic demands unquestioning obedience to religious dogma--so does Islam. The fanatic cannot be reasoned with, because he rejects reason--so does Islam. The fanatic eagerly embraces any call to impose his dogma by force on those who will not adopt it voluntarily--so does Islam.

The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion.

It is true that many Muslims who live in the West (like most Christians) reject religious fanaticism and are law-abiding and even loyal citizens, but this is because they have accepted some Western values, including respect for reason, a belief in individual rights, and the need for a separation between church and state. It is only to the extent that they depart from their religion--and from a society that imposes it--that they achieve prosperity, freedom, and peace.

In the last year, there has been more and more of a call for a "War of Ideas"--an intellectual campaign to win the "hearts and minds" of the Arab world that will discourage and discredit Islamic terrorism. Unfortunately, the centerpiece of this campaign so far has been to appeal to Muslims with claims that Islam is perfectly consistent with Western ideals, and inconsistent with terrorism. America has,with little success, groveled to so-called moderate Muslim leaders to strongly repudiate terrorism. (Those leaders have focused little energy on damning Islamic fanaticism, and much on the alleged sins of the U.S. government.) Such a campaign cannot work, since insofar as these "moderates" accept Islam, they cannot convincingly oppose violence in its name. A true "War of Ideas" would be one in which we proclaim loudly and with moral certainty the secular values we stand for: reason, rights, freedom, material prosperity, and personal happiness on this earth.

Edwin A. Locke, a professor emeritus of management at the University of Maryland at College Park, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, Calif. Alex Epstein is a junior fellow at ARI.

In the name of god.

Sadly i have to admit as a muslim, that they have over reacted to these cartoons even in Iran. I am against burning, potraits, flags, embassys or anything. Maybe a peaceful demonstration yes. But not like that at all.

As Ayatollah sistani said this is the work of some muslims who provoked such cartoons, perhaps if they have revised their actions this would have never happened.

I am sure that we all agree, for the good of all mankind, we need to vigorously defend our civilization against the ideology that produces jihad.

We in the west have been stymied in this effort because of our inability as a society to recognize that Islam, as it behaves globally, does not distinguish between religious ideas and political ideas. The deliberate propaganda (dawa) and deception (taqiyya) by the Muslim apologists are therefore quite effective in confusing us into inaction.

Generally, Muslims use our good will and freedoms as weapons against us. In particular, they inflict political paralysis through deceptive wordplay: They make deceptive statements like “Islam forbids violence,” for instance, when they really mean that violence is forbidden only against other pious Muslims but okay against infidels. They say that “Islam is a religion of peace,” where, to them, the term “peace” means the peace that comes only after the entire population of the earth has been conquered and forced to submit to absolute Islamic rule.

We have to fight back using wordplay also, but wordplay based on the historical truth and some loose conceptual ties to some of the typical Muslim dawa. Robert’s recent book on Mohammed provides the key clue on how to do this.

Here, simply, is what we must do: In all our communications and actions, we must SEPARATE the definitions of Islam and Mohammedanism.

[Note that I am not trying here to proselytize for Christianity—it is just that Christianity fits the bill here, because the Muslims consider Jesus to be an Islamic prophet. They don’t think of Buddha that way, for example; otherwise, I would be using Buddha in this proposal. Also, I think it would be good to fold in more of Moses and the Jews in here somehow, but that is an exercise for another time, perhaps.]

We must broadcast globally the following point of view--that “Islam” means, as it started out long ago to mean, followers of the Muslim prophet Jesus (Isa). In our promulgated official understanding, “Islam” does not mean “submission” to the corrupted, violent, and self-serving warrior doctrines of Mohammed. Rather, “Islam” is the combination of “Isa” plus “salam.” Isa (Jesus) was the Prince of Peace, and salam is the Islamic word for peace (Note that the Muslims never tire, in their endless dawa, of telling us about the salam thing). So yes, “true Islam” is a “Religion of Peace,” and by the way, it is, at root, the same religion we call “Christianity” in the West. However, the holy book of “true Islam” is actually the New Testament, not the Koran.

After being shunned in Mecca, the sometime merchant Mohammed, jealous of Isa, blasphemously declared himself a prophet, superior to Isa and Moses, and fooled everyone into joining his personal quest for power and sex. He took the teachings of Isa, and added violence, misogyny, and intolerance for others. Thus, he turned Islam upside down, introducing mortal sins into Islamic doctrine, as if these attitudes were somehow noble.

So our message to the Islamic world is that true Islam—the teachings of Isa and Moses--is constructive and good. Mohammedanism—the teachings of the deceiver Mohammed—is destructive and bad.

Here is why this point of view is potentially so useful and practical.

1. As has been observed on this web site many times before, piecemeal reform of Islam, by excluding certain Hadiths, or reinterpreting certain Koranic verses (suras), won’t work. One would have to throw out almost everything. And one of the doctrines says that the Koran is the literal Word of God—so reinterpreting is not permitted in any case. This latter restriction is just another one of the “Mohammedan” ideas, so clearly concocted to serve Mohammed himself.

So what is a moderate Muslim to do? Where can he go with his faith? To adapt to the modern world, he either has to become an apostate to Islam and face punishment by assassination from fellow Muslims, or accept absolutely everything in the Koran and Hadiths.

Well, positing that Islam is really a sect of Christianity by another name gives the Muslims a way out!

In our counter-dawa campaign, we have to convince them they need only reject “Mohammedanism.” They do not have to become “apostates” to Islam itself. True, rejecting Mohammedanism means tossing out lots of stuff, like the Koran, the Hadith, and sharia law, but all of that is built on Mohammed’s fully documented corruption of the faith (see Robert’s book, for instance). Muslims everywhere are inspired by religion—they wish to live righteously, and that is good and noble. Rejecting Mohammedanism means dumping the vices that Mohammed added to Islam--the self-serving quest for unbridled power and unrestrained sex--and returning to the roots of Islam—the peaceful and tolerant teachings of Isa.

2. What does this point of view do for us in the west?

Today, we find that we cannot erect laws to restrain Islam, because it is a religion, and we have freedom of religion enshrined in our constitution. And so it should be.

But there is nothing to stop us from legally restraining “Mohammedanism,” which we can say with confidence, is not a religion (Sura 8, the chapter in the Koran on how to distribute loot, is enough to prove that for me). Mohammedanism embodies all the “bad parts” appended onto Islam by the false prophet—violence, intolerance, misogyny, etc. Mohammedanism embodies egregious violations of civil rights and fundamental freedoms, freedoms that our constitution, at its very foundation, protects.

Therefore, we can leave “true Islam” alone, and ban “Mohammedanism.” Indeed, it is our constitutional duty to do so.

Without abrogating existing law or amending the Constitution, we may write immigration laws that exclude “Mohammedanism” from our shores. During an immigration interview, we ask the prospective future citizen “what does verse 33:21 of the Koran mean to you? If he says it means “Mohammed lived the perfect life, and should be emulated in every way,” then that person does not immigrate—period.

The “Mohammedan test” becomes the means by which we distinguish between moderate Muslims and the others. Moderates unreservedly reject Mohammed as an exemplar of personal behavior. The others are jihadists. Those who lie about it are also jihadists, and subject to administrative and/or criminal punishment, as appropriate. Anyone who insists on taking an oath on Mohammed’s Koran instead of the Bible, is also a jihadist.

With similar laws and regulations, we can quite properly keep Mohammedans off the police force, out of the military and security services, and out of any public office. Mohammed did not accept separation of church and state, or the rule of secular law, or equal protection under the law, or consent of the governed, and neither do his followers. Followers of the example of Mohammed are indeed a security threat in any public office of the land. We must deal with this truth.

With similar laws and regulations, we can quite properly keep Mohammedans from holding academic positions, and stop them from preaching sedition in mosques. There is no problem with “true Muslims” preaching the peace of the true Islam—the doctrines of Isa. But the Mohammedans, when they reveal their spots, get decertified and deported. Mosques and madrassas that teach Mohammedanism get shut down, without apology.

If the ACLU challenges any of these new laws and regulations, they will have to posit that Mohammedanism is an inseparable part of the religion of Islam. At that time, we produce Robert’s book (and other source documentation, of course), and Mohammed’s vile historical record is then exposed in the national press in a giant “Scopes Monkey Trial” for all to see. We demonstrate how Mohammedanism means religious tyranny for our nation and severe and unacceptable limitation of constitutional freedoms for all citizens. In short, the ACLU either exposes itself as the traitorous enemy of freedom it is, or it loses the case by default.

3. Another benefit of conceptually separating Islam and Mohammedanism is that it gives us in the west not just a passive defense capability, but an ideological offense capability.

As long as we permit the conflation of Islam and Mohammedanism to persist, we in the west artificially limit our range of responses in dealing with the Islamic world. As Mohammedanism continues to grow without ideological challenge, eventually we will either have to quarantine all Muslim countries in self defense, or, after appeasement fails, wage massive total warfare on them—the “pyramid of skulls” approach. Neither of these outcomes is appealing to our peaceful and generous nature. Neither is necessary if we confront and defeat the ideology.

If we separate the two ideas of Islam and Mohammedanism, we can take action now rather than wait to be slowly drawn into a draconian and endless bi-polar global conflict.

We will be able to take actions like the following:

Translate the New Testament into Arabic (and other languages), slap a cover on it with the title “True Islam” (Isa plus salam), include in it a preface with a refutation of the false “Mohammedanism,” and distribute it everywhere (by air drop, if necessary).

Set up radio transmitters and web sites to broadcast this message across the globe, much like radio free Europe during the Cold War. Keep repeating the message over and over. Undermine the power mad imams, clerics, and ayatollahs by presenting a hopeful alternative, based on historical truths and the rejection of Mohammedan thought.

Confidently speak and write about our official policy towards Islamic thinking for the benefit all foreigners, in all venues, including the U.N. and other international organizations, for them to see, to hear, and to understand--that we accept true Muslims, but never Mohammedans—and why.

Unabashedly tell countries whom we offer financial or other help that we will not support them should they ever put sharia law, which is based on Mohammedanism and not on the true Islam, into their constitutions or other legal constructs—and why.

4. There is a final domestic benefit of separating the concepts of Islam and Mohammedanism. Doing so provides a “fig leaf” for our misinformed politicians, who have for decades been declaring that “Islam is a noble religion of peace.” We know that if Islam is defined to include any Mohammedan concepts at all, then that phrase is clearly ignorant and utterly false.

If, on the other hand, we strip out Mohammedanism from the definition of true Islam, our politicians can say “See, that is what I meant all along! That nasty Mohammedanism—political Islam—had hijacked a noble religion of peace, just as I, in my great wisdom, always asserted. I was always so thoughtful and informed, but nobody would listen to me. I was so misunderstood.” Our “leaders” can thereby avoid political embarrassment, and move forward confidently taking practical legal actions in our defense.

If we do not provide such a fig leaf, we will never, ever get the politicians to join the good fight, barring a nuclear attack on the homeland. That’s the kind of fig leaf we should not wait for.

5. To summarize: Conceptually separating Mohammedanism from Islam does the following:

It helps Muslims who genuinely want to reform by giving them a place to go in their faith (back to the true Islam, the teachings of Isa and Moses), while retaining some dignity (they were deceived by a manipulator, a common tragedy in history);

It provides us in the west and elsewhere with a practical means to identify and isolate extremists and keep them out of our lands (the sura 33:21 test—do you believe all that uswa hasana al-insan al-kamil stuff?—if so, you are an extremist);

It creates the foundation for an effective ideological counter-attack to undermine the jihadists globally (promulgate that the false Koran is basically a Mohammedan monstrous corruption of the New Testament--the true basis of their faith, Islam, which is merely a sect or minor offshoot of Christianity);

And finally, it gives our politicians a path to evolve policy and law from where they are now—based on fuzzy untruths and wishful thinking—to something effective and practical for protecting our civilization, without having to attack a “great and noble religion,” and without forcing PR-conscious politicians to publicly admit their previous ignorance on the matter.

Makes sence to me. A nice face-saving fall back position for well-meaning apologists and politicians who are waking up.

Good luck with the ACLU doing anything that strengthens America. But they would be (further) exposed for what they are.

Enjoyed the essay. Lets get a couple more conservative Supreme Court Justices on the bench and make it stick.

Stendec that is one magnum opus and I have to wait some time until I can digest it all.

But perhaps you are offering the only exit point for Muslims, that is considering my view , which is "moderate or die".

Knowing Muslims as I do I will be very surprised if what you say is possible as it will be taken as just another AngloZionist conspiracy. But it does open and escape route and for that I thank you as I am not happy with my stance but see it only as the lesser evil.

Since this conference happened in the Ayn Rand institute, it brings up some intriguing questions.

Over the years, philosophically, I've evolved into a Right wing libertarian (even though I normally support the GOP). (Also, while I'm not an Athiest, the Ayn Rand brand of Athiesm, as opposed to the Marxist version, is the one I'd be most comfortable with as a Hindu Agnostic.) As a result, most of my personal views are in line with theirs, on subjects such as Civil liberties, Free markets, Laissez-faire, Liberty, Individualism, Non-aggression, Private property, Self-ownership and Free trade.

Question is - if one were to apply these otherwise noble principles when it comes to Islam, one could in various avenues be committing suicide. For instance, on Civil Liberties, I am normally opposed to an intrusive government. But if that intrusion means that Jihadists are monitored, I'd have to suspend that priciple of mine so that it's easier to crack down on them. Similarly, I believe in Private property, but if that means that billions of petro-dollars are going to fund thousands of mosques in every city in the US, I'd bite my lip, hold my nose and support Eminent Domain. Another thing the Libertarians hold dear is religious freedom: would they be willing to make an exception of that when it comes to Islam?

On the flip side, we all know that Islam is solidly against Civil liberties, Free markets, Laissez-faire, Liberty, Individualism, Non-aggression, Private property, Self-ownership and Free trade. So, despite the argument that most Libertarian principles would have to be put on hold while combatting Islam, most Libertarians could at least credibly claim that if they didn't and Islam prevailed, Libertianism as a philosophy would be effectively dead. Also, given how both Dems and the GOP have been missing this, I'm wondering whether the 3rd party - the Libertarians - might be useful in this campaign?

So the question I have is - given that this is probably a Libertarian leaning institute, did the question of how this conflict between Libertarian principles and the practical measures that would need to be taken to confront Islam - come up?

Infidel Pride,

Yes, the question did come up, and Yaron Brook answered it. Basically he said that some restrictions on individual freedoms are acceptable IF:

1. It is a situation of war, and has been declared as such;

2. The objectives of the war are clearly defined from the start, so we can tell when the war ends;

3. There are mechanisms to make sure the restrictions are repealed after the war is over.

I'd have to point out that the Ayn Rand institute is not libertarian, but objectivist. Their economic policies may be similar, but they seem to be much more comfortable with the use of force for self-defense. At least that's the impression I got from Yaron Brook's and John Lewis' talks.

By the way, Mr. spencer, congratulations on the excellent talk.

Martin, thanks for your answers

Briars,
I thought I was not envious. I was wrong.

The people seem to be getting the message but it looks like we have even bigger problems.
WEST POINT, N.Y. Muslims at the U-S Military Academy numbered just two in 2001. This year, there are 32. Now West Point is opening its first space dedicated to Muslims, a worship hall complete with a pulpit facing Mecca.
Wow, these dhimmis really don’t get it. They are a blot on the glorious history of Americas Armed Forces. Benedict Arnold would have been very proud. You can have a conference on jihad against America but someone should tell General Moron USA, the facts of life.

MisIslamist writes:
"But perhaps you are offering the only exit point for Muslims, that is considering my view , which is "moderate or die". "

That's not far from my own position, which is
convert (to anything non Islamic) or leave to
whatever Islamic place (there are many) you
would rather be.

As far as the fact that this attitude doesn't play well with a libertarian view of the world,
I think that's too bad (really!) but it also
shows a major flaw with libertarian/Randian
streams of thought. Viewed from a Darwinian
perspective, the Islamic meme is equipped to
overcome the libertarian one, and even the
Western nation state one, if it has already been
weakened by the multicultural meme. I don't mean
to say that a multicultural nation can't be a
good thing, but there have to be enough shared
values in the disparate cultures for the entire
thing to hold together. Some cultures are just
rotten, in particular, Islamic ones. Ali Sina's
excellent point about the missing "Golden Rule"
in Islam is applicable here.

To fix the problem, what is needed is to ditch
(what remote_control calls) the
PC/multiculturalist template and to pound in the
idea of reciprocity.

Given that I value reciprocity, my idea is that
an event of similar shock value to 9/11 must be
performed on the Islamic world. Tom Tancredo had
the right idea, but I think we don't need to wait for another attack. We have this on account.

Martin,
I think it is important to make a distinction between procedural rights (i.e. civil rights) and individual rights (right of life, liberty, and property). The former are designed to protect individual rights, thus if they act contrary to their original purpose they ought to be changed for the period that this is true. The thing is, that civil rights are not an a-contextual absolute, they do not apply in every context. Now, I believe it is not the individual rights of Americans which Yaron Brook believes may properly be temporarily suspended, but rather procedural rights.

root_cause,
There is no reason why peaceable Muslims should not be allowed to practice their religion. Such a Muslim is little different from a modern Jew or Christian, in that they do not take their religious teachings literally. Furthermore I don't see how conversion would change anything, as they could still hold their previous religious convictions. Not to mention you would be violating their rights, and not even in self-defense.

By my way of thinking, Mohammdedanism is the "not religious" part of Islam--the political part, if you will. So defending ourselves by legally attacking Mohammedanism denies no one any religious rights. That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

The PC crowd cannot successfully defend Mohammedanism as distinct from Islam. But if we should simply attack Islam without making any distinctions, the PC brownshirts can, with little effort or thought, successfuly tar us all as bigoted "Islamophobes," thereby paralyzing our defenses--as they have been doing for decades now.

"Shaking off" the PC mindset will take a major disaster to befall us, like a nuclear attack. I do not wish to wait for that. Let's develop a practical vocabulary that puts the bad guys on the ideological defensive, instead of us.

That's Mohammedanism not "Mohammdedanism."

There is a very interesting analysis contained in a book review of "Islamic Imperialism: A History" by Efraim Karsh. The reviewer is Bruce Thornton.

This conscicely explains the basis and motivation of Islam's war against Western Civilization and the West's failure to comprehend and confront the enemy. The review is at an Ayn Rand related site. This is the link: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1797-Islamic_imperialism.aspx

Alexandros,

Bruce S. Thornton is a favorite commentator of mine. He often posts his articles, including the excellent one you cited, at the Victor Davis Hanson website:

victorhanson.com

It was through the influence of his writings there that I eventually came across the JW/DW site.

That Bruce Thornton review is all pith and juice, and I didn't have to spit out any unwanted seeds, as I usually do with other analyses of the Problem of Islam (and the corollary Problem of PC).

Demosthenes354,

Yes, I guess "procedural rights" would be a good expression in this context. But note that I said individual *freedoms*, and not individual *rights*. Anyway, your distinction is appropriate.

Yaron Brook said he doen't think the preconditions for suspending those procedural rights were satisfied in this case. That is, according to Bush, we are in a vaguely declared, vaguely defined, more or less permanent war. That's not the way to go.

As an attendee of this weekends lectures (I heard John Lewis, Robert Spencer, and Dr. Daniel Pipes).. I was struck by the diverse opinions across the intellectual spectrum the three men espoused..

Prof. Lewis was for me, the most surprising speaker..
From criticizing our lack of a nuclear response in 1950 Korea, (he rightly pointed out that China & the USSR had no response in the early 50's had we decided to nuke Pyongyang), to advocating bombing the Mullahs out of power in Iran, as well as advocating the use of Nukes on the Ka'aba in Mecca as an appropriate response to any further 9/11 attacks against the west, it's safe to say most in the audience were surprised to hear this point of view from a self-stated, non-conservative, professor of history.

Mr. Spencer dazzled the audience with his masterful knowledge of the Qu'ran and ahadithe.
He railed against Western Guilt, pointed out the lack of racism in the conflict by pointing out (CAIR's)Ibrahim Hoopers fair skin and blue eyes, the black skin of the victims of religious genocide in Darfur and East Africa..
He cited Thomas Sowell's essay 'The true history of slavery' in Mr. Sowell's latest book, a collection of essays, entitled "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" to high-light how the western world, in particular Great Britain and America, were primarily responsible for ending institutional slavery in most of the world.. The noted exception being the Muslim world where slavery is still a fairly common practice..

His leftist critics, given their apparent unfamiliarity with his works and Islam in general, were convincingly silenced when he stated his opposition to the Iraq War..

Dr. Pipes for me was a dissappointment..
As he stated several times he is a theoracist and his agruments supporting his position are cerebral.. His overall point was that there are three camps of mainstream thinking when it comes to the conflict we find ourselves involved in:
1. terrorist are the enemy
2. Islam itself is the enemy
3. Radicals in Islam are the enemy
He puts himself in camp 3..

While I may agree with him, in theory, that yes, ultimately it is true the Ummah will be responsible to change what's wrong with contemporary Islam.. This line of thinking ignores the fact that currently there are no major moderate Islamic groups actively pursuing reform from within Islam itself..Nor to the best of my knowledge, any conference on reform (like the one we had at Worms a few years back) to help guide Isalm into modernity..

Theory is all well and good but as always it pales in the light of the sun..
Yes it is up to Muslims to reform Islam for Islam is to have a future..the not so theoretical question is what to do if they don't?