DEARBORN -- The University of Michigan-Dearborn plans to spend $25,000 for foot-washing stations, making it easier for Muslim students to practice their religion but sparking questions about the separation of church and state.The university claims the stations are needed to accommodate Muslim students, who must ritually wash their bodies -- including the feet -- up to five times each day before prayers. But critics hit conservative blogs and radio airwaves Monday to argue public money shouldn't cover the cost. -- from this article
I have been in airport bathrooms when someone will come up, paying no attention to right or left, and start performing his wudu, while water flies all over the place as that person places his feet, one after the other, in the sink and washes them. While these -- to many -- nauseating public ablutions take place, most people hasten away without going near even the empty sinks.
There is no god-given right to come to other countries and inflict one's behavior, in fulfilling some kind of faith-based mandate, in public places. The nurses who were arrested for singing Christmas carols behind closed doors, in their own apartments in Western apartment complexes, in Saudi Arabia, were not inflicting this on anyone: it was the religious police checking up, as they do everywhere they can. But, for example, the slitting of a sheep's throat, and letting it bleed to death on the street, can and should be banned -- whether or not this is considered "part of Islam."
If Muslim students wish to have foot-washing sinks available, then they can certainly pay for them. After all, there is hardly a mosque or a madrasa in this country that does not receive, when it needs it, all kinds of financial support from those who, across the seas, batten on the unmerited oil trillions, and by this point have used, collectively, more than one hundred billion of it (the estimate for Saudi Arabia alone) to pay for mosques, madrasas, armies of Western hirelings, and propaganda of every sort.
A mere $25,000 shouldn't faze the Saudis. And you might argue that $25,000 is so little -- why not spend it ourselves? But it is a symbolic act, an act that will be, and is, taken by Muslims not as a kind act, an act of accommodation (as those behind it might naturally think, for they think in terms of sweet reason, and compromise, and all that), but instead is taken in quite a different spirit, as one more indication (see the postings at Jihad Watch of the commenter who calls herself “Naseem,” passim) that Islam Is On the March, that here and there, little by little, the Infidels are yielding. It is of great symbolic value to Muslims. And it will not result in gratitude, but merely in a swelling of the sense that obstacles, one by one, to the spread of Islam are being removed. And that, after all, is what Jihad is partly about: the removing of those obstacles, and of obstacles of all kinds wherever they are, so that Islam may spread and dominate, and eventually Muslims come to rule. The dismissal of this as merely an alarmist fantasy shows that the dismisser has not been paying attention -- not to the tenets of Islam, not to 1350 years of Islamic history and the subjugation of non-Muslims, and certainly not to what has happened, over just the last 2-3 decades, in the lands of Western Europe.
Every concession, every misuse of public funds, every Muslim employee of city or state government who has been permitted undiscovered or unpunished to be relentlessly pushing for special deals in order to promote Islam or to make sure that fellow Muslims are hired here, and here, and here -- all of this, every single act, needs to be noisily (and also quietly) opposed. (See that Boston Redevelopment Authority employee, working to get city-owned land sold in a sweetheart deal for a mosque, and see what else that employee did on his still-unexplained trip or trips to Saudi Arabia.) "We must fight them over here so we don't have to fight them over there" would be an apter description of what needs to be done, although in truth there is no place where such "fighting" (not necessarily of the conventional, military variety) will not have to take place.
We should end the war in Iraq, and fight them here, then we will have shown we know the enemy name , then push on from there.Asking for permission to build a "culture center" or sending a propaganda letter to the ED should get you deported
We shall fight them on the beaches of the Mediterranean, we shall fight them in the footbaths. Same fight.
Excellent. Thank you.
Isn't it "strange" that the Muslim students can't carry wide, shallow dishes in their backpacks, so that when they feel the need to wash their feet, all they'd need to do is whip them out, fill them with water, and put them on the floor? Once the feet have been properly cleansed, the dirty water could be dumped down the drain without feet having been near the sink. But no, these students expect the rest of the world to accomodate them.
According to the article, the ACLU says they won't get involved because the footbaths will be available to all, including non-Muslims. So, here are my top five infidel uses of a footbath. Feel free to submit your own:
1. Guide dog drinking fountain
2. Place to dispose bad beer or cheap wine. (You know how sometimes the stuff served at frat parties is practically undrinkable? Here’s a solution.)
3. Vomit station. (For those students who didn’t dump the bad alcohol before they drank it. Besides, suffering from a stomach virus is bad enough without having to lean over a germy, smelly commode.)
4. Spittoon for those students who dip snuff
5. Footbath –(Use as intended, to get the dog doo off the bottom of your flipflops.)
"And it will not result in gratitude, but merely in a swelling of the sense that obstacles, one by one, to the spread of Islam are being removed. And that, after all, is what Jihad is partly about: the removing of those obstacles, and of obstacles of all kinds wherever they are, so that Islam may spread and dominate, and eventually Muslims come to rule."
Muslims have, throughout their history always taken advantage of naive, opportunistic or outright treasonous members or groups amongst the infidels to remove obstacles to the spread of Islam. For a historical perspective see:
http://islamicexpansionanddecline.blogspot.com/2007/04/chapter-5-patterns-of-treason.html
CJ,
6. For leaving little business cards with "This footbath has been spit on by an infidel" printed in Arabic.
The ACLU is hypocritical since the obvious use of these proposed footbaths is religious. If Catholics asked that basins of holy water be put in bathrooms because they needed to cross themselves to purify their bodies after going, the ACLU would oppose it, even though non-Catholics could use the basins as well.
Intellectual inconsistencies like this abound among the secularist appeasers of Islam. Either you support secularism or you don't.
Thank you, Hugh, for another very well-written, thoughtful commentary. For many years, I lived in a town with a secular college. Yet, I can remember when the college closed its doors for "Good Friday," had an opening prayer at graduation ceremonies and asked local clergy for their input on tackling issues such as underage drinking and date rape. Those days, not so very long ago, are gone forever, made possible by administration and professors who were intent on removing any Judeo-Christian influences. While a cross on the wall of an office of a faculty or staff member would be severely punished, this college allows Muslim prayer rugs, compasses and prayer schedules in a special room in the university library. I would not be at all surprised if this institution would also install foot baths. In the past few years,(despite 9/11) their well-paying Saudi student population has increased greatly; keeping this wealthy crowd is important. That group has already demanded and received English classes for their wives, with the understanding that only female instructors will teach the classes. Fill in 'white' for Muslim....our wives are 'white' and so we demand that only 'white' instructors teach their classes. That demand would, rightfully, be met with outrage.
Does anyone know..will footbaths be available only for men's restrooms or will women's restrooms also have footbaths? If not, isn't that an gender equality issue?
Bathrooms in Saudi Arabia consist of one thing. A hole in the floor. Guilt must be a part of our genetic code.
They are here YoU have to! They are HerE! It says in the queran!! or we will die anyways!
Of coarse logically speaking who wants to tender those feet and then have them abuse them in activities such as football? Anything else they want? besides to kill us?
Posted by CJ: Isn't it "strange" that the Muslim students can't carry wide, shallow dishes in their backpacks, so that when they feel the need to wash their feet, all they'd need to do is whip them out, fill them with water, and put them on the floor? Once the feet have been properly cleansed, the dirty water could be dumped down the drain without feet having been near the sink. But no, these students expect the rest of the world to accomodate them.
A product who's time has come. Inflatable, plastic, foot wash sink's. Can be 'blown up' quickly, filled with water, feet washed, plastic sink is then drained and folded up for it's next use. Easilly fits in backpack or large pocket's. 'Allah' in Arabic could be embossed on bottom, so the footwash has that 'special' meaning. An almost perfect E-bay product...
"I kept running into my own ethnocentric cultural viewpoints when I was there,” she said.
like treating women as equals for example?
"ethnocentic cultural viewpoints" - dhimmi-think and double-think
Presumably the footbaths will be placed reasonably close to the dispensing machines (for box cutters, plastic explosives, etc.) to make for a quick, convenient stop.
As I have written here before, I know of the practices of "palestinian" students.
At a certain school which will remain nameless, the paleos would leave a coffee can behind the commode, and when they needed to wudu (or doodoo cleanup), they would whip out the coffee can and pour water from the commode all over the place. This made the custodians furious and there was a confrontation, the paleos yelled something about "it's our religion".
Folks, I still don't understand why these cavemen are in our schools. They shouldn't have any education past the qur'an, it is supposed to be the end all of all imformation...I've been told by moslems that the science in the qur'an is mind blowing. Heh heh
information ↑
Posted by: interestinconundrum
the paleos would leave a coffee can behind the commode, and when they needed to wudu (or doodoo cleanup), they would whip out the coffee can and pour water from the commode all over the place
I had an enraged Zulu to cope with years back. A Muslim colleague had been using his coffee mug for wudu. He kept saying "boss, I'm going to kill him, boss, I'm going to kill him"
Hugh: "We must fight them over here so we don't have to fight them over there" would be an apter description of what needs to be done, although in truth there is no place where such "fighting" (not necessarily of the conventional, military variety) will not have to take place."
Driving to work the other morning I listened to a caller on a local talk radio show ("Brad and Brit") explain that "Islam is the problem" (he explained the 3-fold choice for infidels in sura 9:29). I was somewhat surprised that he knew about that, then smiled when he said that folks ought to read a book called PIG to Islam by some guy named Spencer. Brad said - yeah Robert Spencer - we've had him on the show before!. But then Brad proceeded to say something to the effect of "But if you say Islam is the problem, what are we gonna do - fight 1 billion Muslims?" and the caller didn’t have an answer to that and so the topic moved on to something else.
I hear this line all the time (if you say the problem is Islam, then we’re going to have to fight 1 billion Muslims). I don’t have a cell phone but If I could have called in I would have pointed out that Islam has been Islam for 1400 years and yet just a few decades ago the average westerner could go about his life pretty much undisturbed by Islam for the simple reason that we had virtually no Muslims living in the west. So obviously no – acknowledging that Islam is the problem doesn’t translate to having to fight 1 billion Muslims. Rather recognizing that Islam is the problem would return us to the status quo of centuries when we DIDN'T have to fight 1 billion Muslims precisely because people DID understand that Islam was the problem and so recognized the wisdom of keeping Muslims out of the west. The rest of it could be left up to the military as needed. Moreover, I would have added that Islam being what it is, Muslims are actually obligated by their religion to work to spread Islam the more they are in a position of strength to do so but if absolutely unable to do so, then their religion permits them to remain quiescent. Therefore, we need to work towards making it impossible for them to spread their religion and one way to do that is to keep them out of the west. That’s what worked before when people understood that Islam is the problem! Now paradoxically, the refusal to recognize that Islam is the problem is precisely what will guarantee that we will be fighting 1 billion Muslims! That’s what I would have said and no doubt other points could be added as well. But it would be helpful if enough people had pre thought -out responses on hand to these sorts of statements so they wouldn’t be caught off guard in such situations.
Of course, now things have moved beyond that point because people forgot that Islam is the problem and they let large numbers of Muslims into the west. But the principle still stands. We must make it impossible for those who are already here to spread their religion in any way. Since they are in a position of weakness, their religion will allow them to accept that to some extent just as their parents and grandparents who migrated to the west and were in an even greater position of weakness were able to accept it. Plus, they understand the principle because that is exactly what their home countries do - make it impossible for infidels to spread their religions!
I recall reading with some surprise an interview with a pretty radical Muslim in Denmark quite some time ago in which he acknowledged that if the Danes decided to throw him out of the country that was their choice. He could understand their right to do that. He was sort of saying - hey - you're the ones who are permitting us to do what we are doing so naturally we are going to do it! Just like that old scorpion hitching the ride on the frog parable, the guy was essentially saying - hey - I'm a scorpion! What do you expect??
..elsewhere in dhimmiland(the U.K.) a muslim cabbie suspended for refusing to carry blind
persons aid dog..
oops..just saw doggie tale in earlier thread..
"The nurses who were arrested for singing Christmas carols behind closed doors, in their own apartments in Western apartment complexes, in Saudi Arabia..."
Interesting ... any link to this news?
From Hugh's article above:
"...for example, the slitting of a sheep's throat, and letting it bleed to death on the street, can and should be banned -- whether or not this is considered "part of Islam."
Remember Segolene Royal, who warned the French that Muslims would riot in case Sarkozy was elected instead of her befuddled far left movement?
This is what we're up against:
Segolene Royal accused Szarkozy to be 'a far right extremist' because he objected to the slaughter of sheep in the banlieus,
“An example: twice — so it wasn’t a momentary lapse — he (Sarkozy) denounced the slaughter of sheep in baths by certain Muslims for the festival of Eid. That, it’s odious, it’s the vocabulary of the extreme Right.”
???
Did your get that? If you happen to disagree with the revolting practice of halal butchery in the bathrooms of the Banlieu’s or in Paris proper you can consider yourself an ‘Extremely Far Right Extremist”- shame on you! You must be Islamophobic!
http://sheikyermami.com/2007/02/26/extremely-far-right-extremist-just-like-islamophobic/
ok, start telling all of the little catholic, christian, buddhist, hindu, methodist, and what ever other religion students you can think of to sue the school for a baptism, confessional booth, snake handling rooms and what ever else for religious purposes. After all of the law suits and hassles, they might just drop it.. but who knows?
Great post Caroline.
When I have spoken to my father about various things Islamic and the danger to the West of allowing so much Muslim immigration, he immediately tuned out, saying "Well, what are we going to do, kill all the Muslims", refusing to discuss the matter further.
So many people are in denial in the West.
Why can't we just look at Islam rationally, as our ancestors did for generations?
They understood the need of separation of Islam and Western Civilization as far as practicable.
Winston Churchill would have been horrified at the prospect of inviting Islam into his beloved Great Britain.
The trouble appears to stem, at least in part, from the enormous pressures of burgeoning populations in Islamic countries(and we in the West are constantly being pressed to provide many of these Islamic countries with charity, worsening the problems for the infidel of the worldwide Islamic population explosion), as well as pressure from within the West from the multiculturalists and socialists, some with malevolent intent I believe, for a one-big-family-of-man utopia.
Arab petrodollars funding the spread of the jihad propaganda into our schools and media and other institutions is another contributing factor to this general blindness in the West.
is_LAME - not a bad suggestion but unless all those groups are prepared to back up their demands with violence and other forms of intimidation, like Muslims obviously are, their demands are going to fall on deaf ears. That isn't to suggest that any such groups SHOULD back up their demands with violence. It's just to note that the threat of violence gives Muslims a leg up over others when they make their demands. And that's the world we are now apparently going to live in. A world controlled by the likes of the mafia. Brought about by people who apparently think that just saying NO is more cruel than a society conceded altogether to those who would freely resort to intimidation and violence.
From the news report linked above:
'The Detroit chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union isn't getting involved, arguing the foot baths are secular since non-Muslims could use them, said spokeswoman Rana Elmir.
...
'The Internet has created the fuss at U-M Dearborn, argued Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
'"To my knowledge, none of the students or staff have made any complaints about the foot-washing area," Walid said.'
I presume that Mr Walid will cordially invite non-Muslims to use this exciting new, 'secular' washing facility.
In fact, I think he should invite Jewish and Christian groups to join Muslims in a multi-faith foot-bathing ceremony. Promote inter-faith understanding and all that jazz?
I do like the way the ACLU has referred to the foot-bath as 'secular'.
Yeah, Rana, it is a secular foot-bath in the same way that the Koran is a 'secular' book and anyone can read it.
By the way, if the sweaty football boys use it to rinse their jock-straps, will they be committing a 'hate crime'?
Those foot baths will be secular until a fight breaks out when two non-Muslims are washing out their sweaty tee-shirts and six Muslims come in to demand that they leave the foot bath area so the Muslims can perform their religious rituals before a scheduled prayer time. Or,how about some objections when a couple of Muslims put a little lamb in the foot baths, run the water and slit its throat for a Friday night get-together? Trouble is coming...I'm just not sure when..I know where...the local foot bath in the airport or university rest room.
Who paid for this???
Stony Brook University in Stony Brook NY
foot wash and a prayer room for Muslim students...
Stony Brook University..
Founded in 1957, one of the State University of New York’s four University Centers
Here is a link to Stony Brook Muslim Students'
Association - SBU MSA. video file ..showing Muslim accommodations on campus.
http://www.stonybrookmsa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=30
Mike_W: "When I have spoken to my father about various things Islamic and the danger to the West of allowing so much Muslim immigration, he immediately tuned out, saying "Well, what are we going to do, kill all the Muslims", refusing to discuss the matter further. So many people are in denial in the West."
Mike - exactly. This is what so many people say. I've encountered it personally many times. The anecdote from the radio show was merely a common example of what is a really prevalent form of thinking.
I'm not sure it's so much denial as a kind of fatigue and resignation and laziness because maybe they think that at this point nothing can be done about it and they've never been exposed to any concrete, alternative ideas about what can be done and they're too lazy or uncaring or tired to think through what can be done about it. And most probably, they've been so brainwashed into political correctness that they assume that even discussing the matter rationally makes them that bugaboo thing - a racist!
But things may change in the wake of the debate over this failed immigration bill. For the first time since I can remember, many public figures stepped forward and dared to suggest that we actually have the moral right to decide who is to be welcomed to come live with us in our home! Other people like the Japanese and even the Mexicans themselves, let alone Muslims, have never had a moral issue in asking those questions about their own societies. They have always taken it as a given that they should be able to make those decisions. But it's been a long time since we westerners felt no shame in asking those questions, especially with an unrelenting public media campaign designed to prevent us from asking those kinds of rational questions, at the risk of being branded a racist.
But once a certain line is crossed in which westerners feel comfortable in doing what every other society on earth feels comfortable in doing, namely deciding on their limits in terms of whom they would welcome into their home - then we won't ask those kinds of dumb questions anymore - dumb questions like "what are we going to do - kill all the Muslims?"
That's the kind of question that occurs to someone who has never even considered the possibility that he actually has the right as a citizen to decide who is going to come into his country - his home- without being called a racist for actually having the chutzpah to consider the issue of his own survival.
Off topic:
Fatwa seeks to stem Muslim flight from PA
Ummah News Links
Caroline
I have also heard similar response when Islam is identified as the problem. The fact that there are 1 billion ( or whatever large number fits) does not change the fact that it is the problem. Becuase Brad, or whoever else replies with the " but there are so many of them we cannot fix such a problem" simply cannot fathom the extent of the problem does not make the statement false.
Another response is, "so what do we do, exterminate a billion muslims?" . I've never supported that and I doubt that are any sane and rational persons who would.
The solution may be found in the idea of "Separationism". A few weeks ago on JW , Robert and Hugh took issue with a writer named John Derbyshire who attributed some plan to pay muslims to return to their country of origin as part of a bigger plan labelled "Seperationism" and also attributed the origin of this term to Robert.
I find the term "Seperationism" originated at this site, by the site's author: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html
Auster states the elements as:
# Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
# But we cannot destroy Islam.
# Nor can we democratize Islam.
# Nor can we assimilate Islam.
# Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam.
I believe "Seperationism" as its elements are set forth above is worthy of more debate and discussion. I have yet to see any opinion by Robert or Hugh about "Seperationism", other than to disavow anything to do with using or originating this term, although I am very interested in knowing whether they would support any "Separationism" movement, should , hypothetically, a political candidate favor such a movement. I think there is support for all elements contained in their writings and cannot see why they would not support it.
Fitzgerald: No public funds for Islamic footbaths
Amen to that, Brother Hugh.
Footbaths? Not allowed in public restrooms; use handy wipes. Not acceptable? Then go home or to a friend’s house and do it there. Inconvenient? Then perhaps you should reconsider whether you are compatible with western society. Or rather, WE should reconsider.
In regard to the common question mentioned above, “So what are we going to do, kill all the Muslims?” Another way to respond to that question is to point out the recent Pew poll indicating that 26% or more of Muslims in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 29 support suicide bombing in defense of Islam. Ask, “Would you agree that we should at least try to identify those individuals and expel them from our country?”
I think that many more people would be open to this proposal on national-security grounds and it can serve as a foot in the door to eventual “Separationism”, in whole or in part, as mentioned by Leave Iraq Now. Once people realize that it’s the right thing to do to deport that 26% at least, then we can ask about the even greater percentage that idolize Bin Laden.
Just add a little yellow food coloring to every such basin's water until it achieves the proper urinary puissance.
It will look "suspiciously tainted" and ward off expansionist infil-traitors.
Although a small maul would do even better.
(A hammer to the idol, not the idolator.)
Time to stop tolerating the intolerable.
Let them pay for their own superstitions.
Preferably in dusty downtown Mecca.
Visualize this:
Bubba and Joe Bob made arrangements to travel to Michigan. They are desperate to relieve themselves after a long trip. They see a footwashing basin in the reastroom and the following conversation takes place:
Joe Bob says, "Hey Bubba, looky at the shiney new-fangled pisser"
"Yeah, I think it's called a yornal or somethin." replies Bubba.
All we hear is: "Aaaaahhhh!"
I am calling up Stony Brook on Monday and find out what the hell is going on? Why do people in this country tolerate this? WE have already had enough attacks by Muslims on truly innocent people? Send them home!
"Footbaths? Not allowed in public restrooms; use handy wipes. Not acceptable? Then go home or to a friend’s house and do it there. Inconvenient? Then perhaps you should reconsider whether you are compatible with western society. Or rather, WE should reconsider."
But that's the whole point. None of this has anything to do with religion or good hygiene. It has everything to do with intimidation and forcing non-Muslims to get used to the idea of being forced to do things the Islamic way. They demand payment, well what the heck is this? They scream and whine and cry "racism" whenever they don't get their way and THEY KNOW THAT DOING SO WORKS! That's why this is so effective and why they are going to keep on doing it and why our friends and family members stick their heads in the sand and pretend like there is nothing that can be done, because Muslims deliberately make them uncomfortable with their demands and they don't want to deal with them.
But those of us here who understand what we will lose if we don't stand up to them NOW are making headway. More people know what I'm talking about when I discuss the effects of Islam and Muslims on our society than they did even a year ago. And while there will always be blank or pained looks by people who have never thought of Islam before when we bring it up, there are a lot more out there, and the numbers are growing, of people who are sick to death of the unfairness of this sort of thing. If we focus on the disparity of services and freebies between the average Joe American and the whining Muslim population, it will not be too hard of a stretch for people to start to understand the idea that someone done 'em wrong. And that's where you can start to make them understand.
Isabella - there can be no doubt that people are catching on about Islam. I was amazed at the hundreds of responses to this article posted at DW a few days ago, virtually all of them reading like a typical JW thread (although now I see that they disabled the comments for now, the negative reaction was apparently so overwhelming):
http://www.timeout.com/london/features/2993.html
Leave Iraq Now - Re "separationism" - it's quite obvious that Robert and Hugh have major issues with the label (not to mention the author of the label) but IMHO a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet...
Isabella;
The last sentence of mine, which you quoted above, should have read as, “Or rather, WE should reconsider [if those people are compatible with western society].”
I only mention this because your response started with the word, “But”, which makes me wonder if perhaps you thought I was suggesting that we, ourselves, should reconsider opposition to footbaths, which wasn’t my intention.
I agree with the points you made in your response. Clearly washing five times a day in preparation for prayers is a religious activity, which can’t be financed with public money in the U.S.. People shouldn’t be using sinks or toilets for those purposes either and should face penalties for doing so, similar to if they were peeing in the sink or smoking.
If Muslims try to claim that it ISN’T a religious activity, then they should just skip that process or use handy wipes and stop bitching.
Certainly the footbath controversy is just another tool that Muslims are using to try to elevate themselves above Infidels through special privilege.
Note: I’ve been using the term “footbath” in my posts in a generic fashion and most of the time I wasn’t referring to special foot-washing basins.
Caroline
The rhetorical question your talk show hosts, as well as Mike_W's dad raised, seems to be the reason that a lot of people, particularly on the Right, who normally wouldn't be PC, are into what Robert described in the book The Truth about Muhammad as buying into polite fictions. As a result, you see the resistance to accepting Islam as the root of the problem, as opposed to some fictional variant of Islam, such as 'Islamo-Fascism' or 'Islamic-Fundamentalism' - the follow through action - one which many of us here recognize, but dare not post due to our unwillingness to have ourselves banned - being something few are willing to contemplate.
I however disagree with you that 'separation', in the way you or Isabella describe above, is even possible at this stage, since the cat is out of the bag. In other words, the Arabs are sitting on a wealth stream that would make Amway/Quixtar distributors Islamic-green with envy - and once anybody has that sort of cash, few are willing to ignore them. Therefore, the situation, as it existed in the first half of the 20th century, when most Muslims in the sub-continent and the East Indies were under European colonial rule, while Arab states were in their formative years, is unlikely to be re-created bloodlessly since:
- Petroleum is the fuel of the world's economy, and energy prices pretty much carry the world currency markets. When energy prices go through the roof, so does transportation, and thereby overall cost of doing business. Right now, there is little on the horizon - be it bio-diesel, solar, coal, et al - that threatens to displace Islamic fuels as the main transportation fuel worldwide, no matter how promising the research looks, at least in the scale needed;
- Even if such alternatives did exist and were developed, it would take the Arabs a while to run out of their cash, even given their splurging ways. They would still have enough cash to throw into worldwide mosques and madrassahs, fund various jihads and still have cash left over to blow in Monte Carlo and Vegas, as well as buy their various villas in Marbella and other places that Hugh is so familiar with, and I'm not.
I also have a theory that while a segment of Western leaders are familiar with Jihad - something that one can't help notice given that almost every GOP presidential candidate alludes to it in the debates - they all still seem unfamiliar with the non-violent jihad (and I don't mean 'inner struggle') - prison dawa, demographics, anti-Islamophobic lawsuits, infiltration, Islamization-on-Infidel-marriages, et al.I have a theory (and it's just that) that if they (including the general public at large - Right and Left and Center, not just the JW readership) grasped what we here grasp, everybody would be out howling for not only a ban on further Muslim immigration to Infidel lands, but also mass deportations of not only foreign born Muslims but 2nd and subsequent generations Muslims. In addition, in such a situation, Islam would be classified as a hostile ideology like Communism or Nazism, rather than a religion, and wouldn't enjoy first amendment religious protections that it currently does.
Islamic ablution-seeker's lament: "I complained and whined because there was no foot-bath provided for me at the many American venues I frequent--until I saw another brother in Islam who had no feet (after complaining and whining for the same reason.)"
All I have to say on this is:
When you bust your buns because of"foot basins" and Islamic splattering water all over. Sue the heck out of them for personal injury. Then sue the third party who allows these "foot basins" in public places.
I don't go to public places to wash my feet five times a day. I wash my feet at home before I leave.
The Islamic's have such crazy way's. Do they have any time for a fun filled hour with out washing their stinky feet?
IP - What you are in effect saying is that while separationism may be logically correct, it's outdated as an actual solution to the problem, given the realities of 21st century geopolitics, not to mention the human greed factor of all those western elites who are willing to take all those petrodollars on the way to selling out the west. Separationism is basically an idealistic 20th century anachronism.
Well then let me rephrase the issue that "Brad" and Mike_W's father raised. Rather than asking the question, What are we going to do, kill 1 billion Muslims?, maybe we should realistically raise the issue instead of killing the much fewer number of western elites who are standing in the way of returning to the status quo of separationism, whether due to their utopian multicultural fantasies or to their outright greed in accepting Saudi petro dollars? Once those elites are dispensed with, the rest of us could proceed with implementing separationism!
No doubt it sounds crazy (and this post will probably be deleted - I wouldn't blame them) - but it isn't entirely crazy to consider the abstract possibility that saving western civilization might not ultimately come down to some sort of actual violent revolution against the elite architects of this utopian fantasy of western-Islamic integration, which the Islamic side is bound to dominate in the end. The goal of such a limited revolution would be to merely return to separationism. The goal wouldn't be dominance. As fantastical as this sounds, I could imagine such a scenario unfolding. Noone wants to fight a billion Muslims. Separationism is the obvious way to avoid that prospect. But if the elites make it impossible to separate, then obviously it would be a whole lot easier to fight those elites to get them out of the way in order to implement the only rational solution to the problem, which is separation.
Caroline
Like I said, if people grasped the entire scope of what it is we're up against, as well as the non-violent ways they conduct their campaign, I'd wager that they'd at least consider going to war with that billion Muslims, even if it means having to evaporating Lahore, Karachi, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Cairo, Qum, Mecca, Medina, and a whole host of other cities.
I also disagree with your notion that these 'elites' operate in a vacuum: obviously, they see that they can gain the support of the Muslim and pro-Muslim section of the electorate without losing a compensating magnitude of the anti-Muslim electorate. Reason? A majority of people aren't where we are, which is recognition of not only the threat of Jihad (which at this point, all GOP candidates are paying at least lip service to). But if they did, I doubt that separatism would even be necessary. Just as WWII ended with not just Nazism being removed from all German conquered lands, but from Germany itself, similarly, if this sort of a confrontation did come to pass, you'd see not just the West, but Islamic lands de-Islamized, and that too by force. For one thing, it's not merely the greed: it's legitimate for countries to go to war when they're being economically strangulated: morality of nations aren't the same as morality of individuals.
Also, when you state 'separatism', do you mean deportation - Benes decree style, or do you mean Muslims being constrained in their own ghettos, with Western societies simply having no interaction with them?
Bad sentence construction
Reason? A majority of people aren't where we are, which is recognition of not only the threat of Jihad (which at this point, all GOP candidates are paying at least lip service to), but also the implications of Western societies Islamizing, which is nothing like, say, the US transforming from an overwhelmingly Protestant nation to a nation that's now 50% Catholic. While the prospect of the US becoming a Catholic majority nation does not bring up images of the US constition being replaced by a Spanish Inquisition type of system, the prospect of the US ever becoming a Muslim majority nation would inevitably lead to either a civil war, or a constitutional convention that would totally replace the Bill of Rights with Shariah law.
In 1923 under the provisions of Treaty of Lausanne the obligatory exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey happened.Christians of Turkey were obliged to move in Greece and Muslims of Greece were obliged to move in Turkey.
The Treaty of Lausanne has the signature of all the Great Powers of the era including the United States,even of Japan.But it was another era.
Now this exchange of populations is considered anathema and is called by a new term much more appalling: ethnic cleansing.
We are in the era of globalization.Separationism goes against the basic tenets of globalization and contemporary politicians will never accept it.
Globalization makes certain that the problem of Islam will become the problem of all mankind.
If you see a footbath - make sure to use it no matter what you think of it. And if you are descriminated against - then put up a big fuss about it because segregation of public facilities should be banned. What if we banned black people from use of something - they would certainly put up a fuss about it!
Caroline;
I think it’s pretty clear to most people these days that we no longer have a representative government in America. The three branches of our government all show signs of deep-seated corruption. For example, the ruling by the Supreme Court regarding eminent domain, which clearly is in opposition to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was a decision in favor of wealthy land developers and tax collectors and against “We the People”.
The other two branches of government, Executive and Congress, recently met behind closed doors with special interest groups, apparently including La Raza, drafting up amnesty legislation and skipping the standard legislative process. They then proceeded in their effort to ram it down our throats in spite of the fact that a vast majority of American’s are in opposition to it. Now they’re back behind closed doors trying to wheel and deal, trading favors for support, to try to pull-off their amnesty in the face of overwhelming opposition by the people they are charged with representing. They all swore an oath to that affect upon taking office.
As evidence, (from Rasmussen Reports):
“We live in a world where most Americans believe that most Members of Congress will sell their vote for cash or a campaign contribution. Only 16% believe the legislators’ votes are not for sale. By a nearly 5-to-1 margin, voters believe that Members of Congress are more interested in their own careers and agenda rather than the public good.”
/end excerpt
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/why_the_senate_immigration_bill_failed
Unfortunately, American’s have seemingly become so apathetic about the process that they have gradually come to accept it. I often think that as long as their favorite T.V. shows continue to be broadcast and push the envelop of accepted social boundaries, they will not care to, or know how to, steer this country back on the right course. It will require organization, money and time and perhaps the blood of patriots--- too much effort for most these days. It’s much easier to simply not watch the news, and then all of the problems in the world magically melt away.
This same apathy, I think, has carried over into other aspects of our fellow citizens lives. Where once we would have turned to our newspapers or switched on the radio to learn about the ideology of our enemies in response to an attack like 9/11, now people have to work much harder and seek out the truth online. However, many people still have little or no interest in the Internet in general, and of those that do, many are more interested in conspiracy theories or Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Oh, and porn of course.
Our press, (some say the 4th branch of our government, what a joke), is also corrupt; or at least has fallen victim to nihilistic multi-cultural philosophy. Public schools have been indoctrinating children into this philosophy for many decades now, and perhaps the abysmal state of our nations press is our just reward.
So the problem becomes, how do we wake people up to these forces that are acting in concert to destroy western civilization?
One possibility, as I see it, is a true leader in the traditional sense: a president, (and a supportive Congress), who will tell the American people the truth and not couch it in nihilistic double-speak; somebody whom people trust with the wellbeing of our nation.
A second possibility, unfortunately, are additional Jihad attacks that scare the people into the realization that their lives, (television, job, family… too often in that order), may come crashing down around them.
Until there is catalyst for change, any notion of separationism is premature and will be resisted by the masses as just another form of extremism. It will be dismissed out of hand and is liable to close people’s minds to the truth.
If the jihadi’s really want to provoke America into action, they should target the means by which people receive their television signal. This would cause a visceral reaction that our government and remaining media could no longer ignore. : )
Caroline, I can understand your frustration. I share it and I’m sure a lot of others do as well, but until there is a sufficient cause to motivate the general public, all we can do is wait, learn and spread the word. Eventually, there will be a catalyst and all of the fractures in the West will fade and we will find sufficient unity. Alternatively, time will pass and the Jihadi’s will stay their hand and watch us self-destruct. Trutherism and the open-borders fiasco are prime examples of self-destruction in action.
In the mean time, I think the most important thing we can accomplish is to try and stop, or at least frustrate, the peaceful jihad, the assimilation and eventual demise of our society.
BTW, I should mention that I didn’t see the original conversation regarding separationism and am not clear on its specific meaning or the apparent controversy surrounding the term.
I'll look into it tomorrow... er, today later when I wake up.
Dang, see what happens when I go to bed instead of hanging out with you guys all night long? But seriously:
Floating Rock, I was mostly thinking out loud and enjoying some of that down home irritation that I mentioned about the realization that yet ANOTHER group in our fine country is whining about some perceived mistreatment, which they know is B.S. but heck if they don't get their way when they engage in it. The "But" probably came in because I worked hard yesterday, it's been a busy week, I'm tired and it was late. And you are right that Muslims use the "religiousity" part to validate their complaints. But I think that there are higher ups in their system that don't give a rat's butt about the religion, just the world domination. Look at the post above from this morning about Al-Qada threatening Baghdad's Christians with jizya, conversion or death. Classic Muslim demands. I think more than inflicting this sort of thing on non-Muslims as a religious duty, many Muslims use the religious part as an excuse to treat other people like garbage because they are so miserable in Islam that they want everyone to suffer just like they do. I know it is religiously motivated but it's their base human passions and lack of self restraint that keeps the nightmare going, I think.
"I however disagree with you that 'separation', in the way you or Isabella describe above, is even possible at this stage, since the cat is out of the bag."
Infidel Pride, I'm not sure I said anything about separationism. I don't think it would work anyway. If we live inside the house and the fire ants live outside but continue to multiply at an alarming rate then eventually they will come inside the house and we'll have no place to rest our weary heads. I believe Muslims when they say they want to subjugate me and make me be a Muslim, and as a Catholic, I know I wouldn't have any choice but to flee or accept death, and I'm not up for that yet! But I believe that for me, the war has already started, since I know I will lose my business if Muslims ever get their way here in the U.S. and I will also lose my Catholic children to the nightmares of living as a Muslim. Totally unacceptable. I did not spend the last two decades raising my children to love the true God and to think for themselves so that "Allah's" minions could overwhelm my country and my culture to cahnge us from a supposedly free society to a state of total misery and bondage. That's why the footbaths are so offensive to me, not just because it P.O.'s me off that I have to pay for yet ANOTHER special interest groups latest demand to be treated with more consideration than the rest of us, but because I understand only too clearly who Allah is, what he is about and what giving Muslims this special right will mean to the rest of us down the road. We don't have to separate; we have to say no to footbaths.
Hi Caroline,
Yeah, remember when we were doing this last year and the year before, and I felt like I was banging my head against the wall trying to get people to understand wht these guys were up to. But thanks to the Muslims themselves, we areserved up fresh examples daily of what life under Islam would be for the rest of us and since I planted the seeds a couple years ago, the people in my orbit are standing up and taking notice and telling me that they see what I'm talking about. And they're not sticking their heads in the sand but getting really angry. And I think anger can be used to channel energy into fighting this thing effectively. I am not willing to count the American people out yet, even thought I know that I myself can get lazy sometimes. I think deep down, every American that has enjoyed the freedom that we have will think twice, once confronted, about giving it up for the inferior and oh so flawed system that is Islam. The trick is to get them to confront the concept now before the bullets start flying.
Infidel pride says:
"I however disagree with you that 'separation', in the way you or Isabella describe above, is even possible at this stage, since the cat is out of the bag."
but a few paragraphs later says:
"I have a theory (and it's just that) that if they (including the general public at large - Right and Left and Center, not just the JW readership) grasped what we here grasp, everybody would be out howling for not only a ban on further Muslim immigration to Infidel lands, but also mass deportations of not only foreign born Muslims but 2nd and subsequent generations Muslims. In addition, in such a situation, Islam would be classified as a hostile ideology like Communism or Nazism, rather than a religion, and wouldn't enjoy first amendment religious protections that it currently does."
While Infidel Pride says Separation is not possible at this stage, his theory argues that some form of it will, or should, be adopted in the future.
Athenian says
"We are in the era of globalization. Separationism goes against the basic tenets of globalization and contemporary politicians will never accept it. Globalization makes certain that the problem of Islam will become the problem of all mankind."
Athenian , have you given up? Do you accept defeat? Sounds like you do. You offer no alternate idea. Just "Separation won't work, we are doomed. End of story".
I do not accept defeat. JW/DW does a great job of pointing out the threat of Jihad. I find little to disagree with in Robert's and Hugh's (and Marisol and Greg and Jay's) analysis. It is my opinion that the end goal of Separationism is simply a logical conclusion to be made from that analysis. It is possible solution to the problem of the spread of global jihad and is worthy of more discussion.
The comments against separation all seem to repeat the idea that "it won't work". Well, I agree that it is unlikely any politician will ever publically announce support for Separationism anytime soon. But that doesn't make the theory and idea of Separationism less valid. To those that oppose it or would dismiss it outright why don't you first look at these elements SEPARATELY again and state your opinion why any one of these statements are false:
1. Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.
2. But we cannot destroy Islam.
3. Nor can we democratize Islam.
4. Nor can we assimilate Islam.
5. Therefore the only way to make ourselves safe from Islam is to separate ourselves from Islam
I do not think many here will question the correctness of #1 thru #4.
When #5 can be acheived is open to question.
I think it is acheivable over time.
The question that should be debated is whether #5 is the logical conclusion after accepting #1-#4 as true.
Leave Iraq Now
Reading the Lawrence Auster link you provided, I see that his definition of 'separatism' is equivalent of what we consider deportation and an end to Muslim immigration. My understanding of the term was and is different: I understood it as meaning that while we prevent any new Muslim entrants, we (realistically for the short term at least) can't do much about 2nd and subsequent generation Muslims already here, as well as converts, and that we try and minimize that damage by minimizing any and all contact with them.
Really, I don't support separation - either my own understanding of the term, or Auster's definition of it. I support elimination of Islam, and an absolute ban on the practise of Islam anywhere worldwide, just as Nazism was banned post WWII. I support ultimately a military campaign that would either split up Iran, or convert that entire country to Zoroastrianism. I support the elimination of Islam throughout the Arab Mid East, and hand over power in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to Copts, Maronites and Assyrians. I support not only what many Israelis call the 'Transfer' solution (i.e. expelling all Muslims from the Judea, Samaria and Gaza), but also the Israelis being handed over Medina (since that was originally a Jewish city) and Aden (Queen of Sheba fame). I support Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei being forcibly re-converted to Hinduism. I support de-Islamizing Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turan, and annexing the first 2 countries, and a good portion of Afghanistan to India, and the remaining countries as a Zoroastrian or Buddhist Turanian Republic. I support converting the Barbers of North Africa to Christianity and handing them over power from Libya to Gambia, and enriching them by buying the oil and natural gas that is available from Libya and Algeria. I also support splitting the European portion of Turkey between Bulgaria and Greece (Bulgaria gets Constantinople), and converting the Kurds to either Christianity, Judaism or Zoroastrianism, and splitting Eastern Anatolia between Armenia and Kurdistan. All that the Turks would have left would be the Anatolian peninsula. Oh, and Serbia not only keeps Kosovo, but also gets Bosnia and Albania as well - and with it, a coastline to the Adriatic Sea.
I know all this sounds even more fantastic than separatism, but so did the idea in the 80s that any superpower could 'win' the Cold War. While a lot of the territorial re-definitions may sound radical, remember that after WWII, Poland was physically shifted Westwards to the benefit of the Soviets, and the expense of the Germans. Konigsburg, the city famous for those 7 bridges, became Kaliningrad, and is today a Russian enclave with Lithuania and Belarus in between. Point of the above is that Islam is globally abolished, and different countries have their own jobs cut out for them in executing this process. And the beauty of all this is that oil sales would help a lot of them jump start real economies, and become productive countries on their own. And persecuted Infidel minorities everywhere will at long last have their countries back.
So no, I'm not for separatism. I'm for conquest.
IP- I too "support" the idea of "conquering" Islam and would urge all the re-conversions and new boundary markers you suggest. That would require exerting control over too many muslims over too many square miles. Would not isolation and containment of Islam be easier way to stop the global jihad?
Element #2 of Seprationism states that: Islam cannot be destroyed. This I believe. In order to achive your goals islam would have to be destroyed by conquest and is an unattainable goal.
In my mind any Separation of the west from Islam includes such ideas as isolation and containment.
Global jihad will continue as long as oil revenues continue. Islam is a parasite on the west's rump. Cut off the oil revenue and Islam has no lifeblood to suck dry. It will collapse and die of its own inability to breath much like the USSR died from stagnation and a policy of containment.
Separate. Isolate. Contain.
Works for me.
Leave Iraq Now
I don't believe that #2's unattainable. Just look at the numbers distribution. The Indian sub-continent has between 0.4-0.5b Muslims, in an apocalyptic scenario, the US and India could take on Pakistan with nukes, while India could overrun Bangladesh, and following that, ban the practice of Islam. Then you have Indonesia and Malaysia, which have some 0.3b Muslims, and these countries have been colonized before by the Dutch and the Brits; in this case, an attack that destroys their entire military and most of their mosques etc should do the trick: Christians, Buddhists and Hindus in the East Indies should then be able to capture power.
After that, encourage the other wars in the Middle East that are so often discussed here, and the entire ummah will be a mess. And of course, if petroleum is made irrelevant as a transportation fuel, or alternatively, if the US captures all the world's oil supplies located in the ummah, and then rations and prices it according to how pro-US the rest of the world is, you'll see things fall in place. Of course, to do that, the military of all these countries - Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, et al will have to be obliterated; once that happens, and if the Infidels in all these countries are strengthened, you'll see a rapid shift in power.
It's all doable. What people in power need are the comprehension of this threat, and the will to do what it takes.
Its no surprise that the first university to embracce the next level of Dhimmitude is U of M, and that they did so in Dearbornistan. I am U of M law school grad who lives within 30 minutes of Dearborn. When Debbie Slussel first reported this story, I got so mad I actually started to think about how to vandalize the bathrooms.
What the U of M "useful idiot" lefties don't understand is that they will be the first ones to lose their heads.
IP - what you propose is so radical as to make the idea of deportation or population transfer look like an invitation to tea. I think most people would support some sort of population transfer as the most extreme solution before they would endorse such a global military solution as you propose. First of all, just stopping Muslim immigration to the US would pretty much take care of the problem here without ever having to deport (or arrest) anyone but those determined to be preaching jihad or the overthrow of the constitution with shariah law (sedition). There's maybe 2.5 million Muslims here. After observing Europe's problems there is simply no excuse for us to keep the door open to further Muslim immigration. Europe has a bigger problem but Auster has pointed out that one can implement a policy of carrots (like Sarkozy's recent proposal to pay immigrants to leave) and sticks to effect an out-migration (obviously after stopping immigration altogether). But overall the easiest thing to do is essentially what you once proposed - reverse the dhimmi status onto Muslims and make it so difficult for them to practice their religion that they would be obligated by their own religion to migrate back to dar al-Islam. Then keep them there and use military solutions as needed. Isn't that a whole heck of a lot easier - and don't you think the average person would be more likely to support such a solution - than wiping out half the armies in the world, redrawing numerous territorial borders, killing millions of people and so on?
what's to stop anyone from relieving themselves in the foot baths?
...I still like the idea of Muslims carrying their own collapsible pails....they can wash the little footsies at their own convenience ...just open collapsible pail and add a little water for the ceremonial foot rinse...they could do so in a location set aside as a sidewalk for small desinated area...Muslims would be responsible for keeping the designated area clean and free of trash....(remember the old smoking areas behind the school?)...