Those who are criticizing Congressman Virgil Goode these days are engaging in moral preening, without any felt need of responsibility to study carefully both the actual contents of the belief-system too easily assumed to be a "religion" (and therefore, presumably, to be accorded the status of a Good Thing). It is assumed, furthermore, to be a "religion" just like, more or less, any other (because we are told or allow ourselves to believe that All Religions Stand for the Same Thing).
Nor is there any felt need to study the actual history of Jihad-conquest and of the subsequent treatment, according to well-elaborated rules that are to be found in the Shari'a (see Antoine Fattal, "Le status legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam" for the best compendium), of non-Muslims. There is, after all, a complete doctrine set out for Muslims, and the division of the world between Believer and Infidel remains central to Islam, and does not differ between Sunni and Shi'a, or for that matter, in any important way, among the four schools of Sunni jurisprudence.
Moral preening: we know, say the editorial writers of the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun. So sayeth Susan Estrich, still casting about for something else to say since her long-ago book on rape and flurry of brief fame for some world-conquering purchase on the universe: we know all about Islam. How do we know? Oh, we just know. And therefore we just know that Virgil Goode is a bigot, and we know that the people in France, Italy, England, Germany, and Holland who are worried to death about the colossal presence of Muslims have nothing to worry about. And we know that all those who do worry aloud about the islamization of the Western world -- such as Bassam Tibi, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina -- are bigots all, and so too is the scholar of the dhimmi condition Bat Ye'or, and Professor Bernard Lewis, and Professor Hans Jansen, and so many other of Europe's true scholars (as opposed to the apologists paid for by the Saudis and other Arabs). So too was the late Oriana Fallaci (wasn't she practically a Fascist? Wasn't her family part of Mussolini's crowd?), and Alain Finkielkraut, and Alain Besancon, and Pavel Kohout, and those crazed right-wing editors of Jyllands-Posten, and that crazed bigot Theo van Gogh, and all the others who have concluded that Jihad is something to be resisted. They are bigots all, although some have come to their conclusions about Jihad from their direct experience with large numbers of Muslim immigrants to the Lands of the Infidels (as Muslims call them). Others have come to these conclusions through their study of the canonical texts of Islam -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira. Still others have come to them through their study of the history of Muslim conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims. Finally, some have realized that Jihad is a menace through taking in, and making sense of, observable Muslim behavior in the southern Sudan, in Nigeria during the Biafra War caused by the "Jihad" against the Christians (as Col. Ojukwu noted in the Ahiara Declaration), in Thailand, and in Bangladesh and Pakistan (where life has led to a steady outward flow of Hindus and other non-Muslims escaping Muslim persecution and murder, while the Muslim population of India itself steadily rises both relatively and absolutely). They have observed the treatment of non-Muslims everywhere in Dar al-Islam. The states -- such as Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran -- that are most fanatically Muslim in their application of the Shari'a are the most dangerous for non-Muslims. Life is only better for non-Muslims in the handful of Muslim states that have mitigated the force of Shari’a, either through the benefits of Kemalism, as in Turkey, or because of the Soviet campaign against religious belief and the forced secularization of so many now-nominal Muslims, as in Kazakhstan (the other four "stans" are another matter).
No, none of this is studied, and a good deal more is ignored as well. Don't confuse us with facts. We are good Americans. Virgil Goode is a bad American. Only a Bad American -- the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun suddenly have draped themselves in the mantle of, and are channeling the voices of, Martin Dies and the House Un-American Activities Committee -- can conceivably worry about Islam or about Muslim immigration.
Just look at France, England, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Norway, Sweden. Look in particular at Malmo, and at Rotterdam. What's the problem? What's worrisome about any of that?
Would someone please track and post the critics of Rep. Goode's statements? I'm putting together a one-page summary of why Islam is antithetical to the United States Constitution and would like to send a copy of it to all of Rep. Goode's detractors. They can be media, political, Islamic and so on... I would appreciate it. I'll be sending this summary to Rep. Goode to show support, but I'll also be sending it to all my Federal and State Representitives and everyone else I can think of, including the media outlets and Rosie O'Donnell, among others.
Thank you.
I think I might be a bit of a neo-isolationist. Keep people out who don't believe in our values, but don't go mucking around in a part of the world we don't understand, where our meddling just makes things worse. Isolationism got a bad rep because of Hitler, but the threat from Islam is not one of a large army threatening to invade but of a more subtle cultural and demographic infiltration. So a move in the Fortress America direction may make sense. However, I can't quite join forces with Pat Buchanan, whom I respect very much, because I'm a secular humanist who takes this whole Judeo-Christian civilization thing with a considerable grain of salt. Our best values come from the rationalistic Greco-Roman tradition, and I part company with the nice Robert Spencer on this point. So I'm politically powerless and can only write in the comments sections of blogs.
Good points Hugh. They also need to read and understand bin Laden's fatwa and Ambassador Adja's. As you pointed out, Jefferson, John Adams and John Quincy Adams understood Muslim states and the Quran better than our leaders do now.
The Quran has a theory and legal analysis of war. It is on that basis, that Ambassador Adja in the 18th century and bin Laden in the 20th century said that America was at war with them.
It is on that basis that they both said they must capture or kill Americans, civiliar or military, whereever they could be found.
bin
Laden 1998 Fatwa
The start is the following:
" Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)";"
Bin Laden doesn't just say that the US in their Holy Lands in 1998. He starts with the Quran. The role of the Quran in his 1998 fatwa is usually ignored in analysis by experts.
"And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."
Its any Muslim country. That includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and presumably Spain, Greece, Bulgaria, etc.
It appears that bigots read before they speak.
A_Plague_on_Both_Houses
And dont forget to send me a copy of that also so i can send it on.
frodnum@taylorelectric.org
Wash times op ed how to win in Iraq
Can we in fact win in the Sunni triangle by increased force? Hugh has argued we shouldn't want to.
If we use the Quran to predict, we would say no. The Quran says that they will never accept US troops.
Of course, this isn't everything. We have had US troops in other parts of Iraq without this type of insurgency. But there, the Shiite leaders have not called for insurgency. Sunni leaders have called for insurgency in the Sunni triangle.
Does anyone have a link to his webpage so I can make a donation to his campaign fund?
My compliments to Rep. Goodie for his courage & common sense. It is so obvious that Muslim immigration to the USA should be severely restricted - the more Musliims the more Mulsim terrorists or terrorist supporters - and I think most Americans would approve severe restrictions. We have the right to determine who can come in by whatever criteria (it’s actually OUR country). Politicians, of course, will continue their insipid moral posturing and sell us down the river.
I case one thinks Muslims are likely to be as good American citizens as anyone else just check out this survey from Daniel Pipes recent newsletter:
“ 21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
Yes 161
No 123
Undecided 23
26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government's actions in the Muslim world?
YES 23
NO 274
UNDECIDED 10
27. Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government's actions in the Muslim world?
YES 134
NO 154
UNDECIDED 19
28. Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government's actions in the Muslim world?
Yes 73
No 211
Undecided 23
29. Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government's actions in the Muslim world?
Yes 51
No 231
Undecided 25
3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
Yes 208
No 79
Undecided 20
Comment: As in the second section, these views closely track ones found in the Middle East. Living in the United States and American citizenship have little or no effect on views.
Fourth, an all-important question about counterterrorism:
30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
Yes 234
No 39
Undecided 34
Comment: 24 percent of the respondents won't commit to stopping terrorism. By comparison, surveys of the whole British Muslim population (not just self-selected Islamists, as in this survey) find between 5 and 18 percent unwilling to help law enforcement prevent attacks.
Fifth and final section:
2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
Muslim first 214
American first 4
Both equally 86
Undecided 3
Comment: In the context of all the survey answers, with their profoundly negative views of the United States these replies suggest that being "a good American" is a virtually meaningless phrase to respondents. (September 9, 2006) “
- http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/682
The above survey in game theory terms creates expectations that Muslims will treat non-Muslims as the Quran says. This is not to make friends of them.
The Quran commands Muslims to kill or enslave non-Muslims when they step out of line. So if you start at peace with non-Muslims, and there is a random departure from peace by non-Muslims, then the Quran creates a state of war whose only outcome is death or subjugation.
Thus the Quran makes peace between Muslims and non-Muslims an unstable state. Any departure from peace means an escalation in war whose only resolution is total victory by one side or the other.
"In addition, they can win "hearts and minds" of local populations through civil affairs work and performance of psychological operations against enemies of the freely elected Iraqi Government. "
From
"To win in Iraq"
By Fred Gedrich and Paul E. Vallely
December 28, 2006
Can you win hearts and minds of a Muslim population as a Crusader army? The Quran says not unless some overriding Muslim authority sanctions that army there and the people accept it.
We don't have any recognized Islamic authority to be in Afghanistan nor in the Sunni Triangle. In both places, there is no peace. These are the House of War until some Islamic authority says otherwise.
So Hugh is right on this, we are wasting our time being in Iraq.
We can also use this to predict for Israel and the Palestinians. We predict no peace.
We can predict whether minorities can persist in Muslim lands. The answer is no.
Will rising Muslim populations stay at peace with hosts? The answer is no.
I wish Virgil Goode was my representative from Virginia. Instead, the Congressional representatives from Northern Virginia, where I live, actively seek out support from extremist mosques such as the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church.
As for the self-righteous Susie Estrich, she's got a nice gig as a token liberal commentator on Fox News. Not bad for having served as the campaign manager for Michael Dukakis's failed Presidential bid - remember the scene from (I think) one of the Naked Gun movies where the camera panned pictures of the Titanic, Hindenburg, and Michael Dukakis? She sounds so much like Carol Channing, that I'm waiting for her to make her grand entrance, singing "Hello Dolly." Also check out the cover to her book "Soulless" - a rebuttal to Ann Coulter's "Godless." Ann might be too thin, but Susie looks like a scag!
havekoranwilltravel - I have added your email to my list.
Instead, the Congressional representatives from Northern Virginia, where I live, actively seek out support from extremist mosques such as the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque in Falls Church.
Posted by: northernvirginiastan
I guess its a good thing that NoVA isn't a hotbed for islamic terrorist activity (I am being sarcastic)
I know a person who attended Stanford as an undergraduate and then Yale Law. After 9-11, this person went around to every Muslim she knew and apologized on behalf of her fellow countrymen's forthcoming intolerance.
I still haven't been able to decide if her reaction was genetic or environmental.
But she knows that she is a good American.
Pez wrote:
I know a person who attended Stanford as an undergraduate and then Yale Law. After 9-11, this person went around to every Muslim she knew and apologized on behalf of her fellow countrymen's forthcoming intolerance.
We have folks like her in Northern Virginiastan. Some guy went to the Muslim American Society (the U.S. arm of the Muslim Brotherhood) to say that we don't blame Muslims for 9/11. But it makes for heart-warming articles in the Bandar Beacon! :-)
Americans have died since 9-11 because of these apologies.
They undermined peace. They undermined our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They helped Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia cover up their role in 9-11.
They helped the 9-11 Commission put off the 9-11 Families and cover up Islam's role in the 9-11 attacks and genocides and wars from 622 AD to now.
What they did was genocide denial. Denying the Koran's role in genocide and war is genocide denial the same as denying that Mein Kampf has a role in the Holocaust.
The above-mentioned woman is paid by our tax dollars every two weeks.
America is inherently stable because of the majority of its Citizenry. As in naval architecture, it has a righting moment. The further the ship lists to one side or another, the more powerful the righting moment. If a ship capsizes, all bets are off.
But America will not capsize, as there are probably two hundred million solid people who live here. I hope that our current form of government can provide the righting moment to bring America back to equilibrium.
People like Robert and Hugh, advocating education about the teachings of the Qu’ran, deserve great credit for increasing the chances of a soft landing. Thank you.
I know a person who attended Stanford as an undergraduate and then Yale Law. After 9-11, this person went around to every Muslim she knew and apologized on behalf of her fellow countrymen's forthcoming intolerance.
Environmental... but... don't get me go... going... on fancy finis... finishing... schools. Ugh.