Mosques in Iraq have been sites where forces gather to fire on American soldiers. They have been weapons depots. They have been repositories for explosives used in roadside bombings. Not once, not a hundred times, but thousands of times.
In the "Palestinian"-occupied territories, mosques fulfill the same function. They are also places to which "Palestinians" have run when being pursued by Israelis.
In Bangladesh, mosques have been natural centers of anti-Hindu agitation, and one can find online the pictures of a hapless Hindu pleading for his life, as he is beaten to death by Muslim worshippers apparently whipped up by a particularly effective imam in a particularly bloodthirsty khutba.
In Italy, in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, the police and other security services have found mosques with false ceilings, in which counterfeit passports and other useful documents have been found. They have found guns, grenades, devices for making explosives. All of this -- in mosques.
Why shouldn't mosques be under surveillance? Why shouldn't every last khutba be taped? Why shouldn't there be agents taping those who attend those mosques where it is discovered that certain things are said, or done, when mosques have such a record as this? There is no distinction in Islam between religion and politics. Islam is all-encompassing. Infidels must stop being mesmerized by the word "religion" and understand this.
Of course, one need not require a mosque to be whipped up to want to kill a passing Infidel. One need not need a mosque in which to plot or plan. One need not have a mosque in which to hide false papers and weapons. Of course not. So monitoring mosques, or demanding that madrasas show what they teach (what happened to the demand for the textbooks, and syllabi used, in that Saudi Academy near Washington, D.C.?), is only part of what must be done.
The disruption to any conceivable achieved or achievable social cohesion or harmony, when adherents of Islam, are present in large numbers, is great and is permanent. For how, in Infidel lands, without undoing ultimately our own legal and political institutions, and abandoning the solicitousness for individual rights, can we deal with and possibly adjust to this presence? How can we, since they have no intention of adjusting Islam to accommodate anyone else? They are taught to believe in the right of Islam to dominate everywhere, and of their duty to ensure that that comes about, by removing all barriers to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam. How can we deal with them when they are present in large numbers, and are allowed to demand, and receive, even from the security services, outward shows of appeasement and accommodation?
Islam was created to rule. It is the faith of conquerors, and it justifies and promotes conquest by them. Islam was designed not to be one among many faiths, not merely to hold out the promise of a surer path to some Paradise than that provided by other faiths, but to prevail, so that its writ may run everywhere on the earth, so that everywhere Islam dominates, and Muslims rule everywhere. The fact that some clever propaganda of the "I Am A Muslim" type appears on YouTube, designed to convince the unwary that Muslims are just the all-American boy next door, establishes nothing. Carefully left out is any discussion of what is in the head of that boy-next-door, of what Islam inculcates and what he presumably believes, or that it is right for us to assume he believes, from what the texts provide, and from the tenets derived from those texts, and the attitudes derived from those tenets. What does all this tell him to believe, cause him to believe?
Islam can be likened to a permanently immiscible liquid. It cannot mix with Non-Islam, anywhere, without bad results for the Non-Muslims. There are 1350 years of history to demonstrate that. Even now, with Muslims constituting 1% of the population (and half of those being non-orthodox "Black Muslims") there are textbook publishers who have rewritten history, and state school boards that have not only accepted but demanded such a rewriting to placate Muslims. And the already ignorant American young are presented with a deliberately false view of Islam and of Islamic conquest. They are not given the understanding necessary to withstand Islam's propagandists, and the rich profusion of what they offer -- the distraction, irrelevancies, the gobbledygook, the nonsense, and especially, the lies, lies, lies -- will have its effect.
And the cost of dealing with all this? Or, to bring the post back to where it began, the cost of monitoring mosques and madrasas? What is the cost of guarding every airport, train and bus station, the cost in man-hours for every Infidel to show up an extra hour early, the security rigmarole, the guards at Christian and Jewish schools or churches or synagogues, the cost of guarding speakers, the extra cost now of guarding bridges, and roads, and government buildings, and historic sites? All of them are conceivable targets for Muslims who, as all Muslims are instructed to, wish to further the goals of Jihad, but choose, unlike those who do so through Da'wa and demographic conquest, to do so using the instrument of violence. The cost of guarding non-Muslims, all over the Western world, their houses of worship, their schools, their means of transportation, keeps going up. And the cost of monitoring Muslims, their mosques, their madrasas, their stores and meeting-places, keeps going up.
What is the cost of this? One writer estimates that every additional Muslim in this country costs $100,000 a year, every year, to the taxpayers -- the Infidel taxpayers. Suppose his figure is off? So what? There is some considerable amount, we all know, that everywhere in the Western world has to be spent, and will have to be spent in larger and larger amounts, merely to monitor the Muslim population. That is because of what is believed by that population, what, that is, is to be found in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira.
Is it impossible for Infidels to take this in? And is it impossible for them to then construct an immigration policy that, taking that into account, will make the great privilege of living in their own lands, lands whose art, whose science, whose political and legal structure, are all flatly contradicted by Islam, no longer available to those who, in calling themselves Muslims, tell us that we are justified in assuming, when they so call themselves, that they believe in what is contained in the texts, texts that we are free to investigate for ourselves, and discover their -- for us, for our future -- permanent and disturbing significance?
Good post, Hugh.
"one need not require a mosque to be whipped up to want to kill a passing Infidel"
Very true, but I notice many cases of Islamic violence - protests demanding the slaughter of Gillian Gibbons, the beating death of Vimal Patak on a mosque doorstep, etc - happens immediately following sermons.
If ever there was a 'faith' exactly opposite of everything good and meaningful about religion, Islam is it.
"In Italy, in France, in Great Britain, in Germany, the police and other security services have found mosques with false ceilings, in which counterfeit passports and other useful documents have been found. They have found guns, grenades, devices for making explosives. All of this -- in mosques."
...and just why would you allow mosques to be built in your neighborhood?,,,Ban Muslim Immigration...
"In Bangladesh, mosques have been natural centers of anti-Hindu agitation, and one can find online the pictures of a hapless Hindu pleading for his life, as he is beaten to death by Muslim worshippers apparently whipped up by a particularly effective imam in a particularly bloodthirsty khutba".-Hugh
The history of the Muslim invasion-conquest of India looks like Pizarro in Peru. These ideological-"religious" rationalizations for Imperialism (as opposed to commercial based imperialism) are lethal to indigenous cultures, indigenous peoples.
All of history is in this pattern (everywhere), but some attacks on indigenous cultures are more horrific than others. It was a bad day when Pizarro showed up in Peru, it was a bad day when the Muslims showed up in India. India would be better off if it were all Hindu. The Muslims have created a nightmare there as some of the descendants of the conquered bow to the gas station.
“Why shouldn't mosques be under surveillance?”
Let's pretend for a moment that surveillance is already going on within certain mosques.
What would cause the authorities to respond to vitriol or hate speech especially as it comes from the (un)holy book? Would the FBI not simply wait until an act of violence is imminent (in their view) so as to stop the "big one" from happening? Won’t they wait until the last possible moment to act on a threat in order to connect Abdul to Tariq to Fakir and hope for even bigger fish? Do they even know what to listen for? What good is it to have audio and video and literature full of hatred and violence relevant to a 21st century Jihad when it is protected by Saudi-funded lawyers who sometimes spend their whole lives exploiting loopholes in our constitution and legal system?
Exsgtbrown gets more to the root of the problem: the mere existence of such structures within freedom-loving and hard fought for lands.
-XRDC
Yes, the victims of 9/11 would not have died in vain if we had broken the back of the Moslem infrastructure in the US -- but we had a Saudi stooge in the White House.
I don't see why we owe them anything but safe passage home, and all their organizational assets seized (besides lawsuits against their personal property, if involved in terror.)
Islam delende est
If only there was an effective way to get incisive messages like Hugh's to more people.
Islam cannot make an inch of progress in the non-Muslim world without our allowing it. We are currently not only allowing it, we are encouraging their subversiveness. I fear it will be a long, slow descent into worse conditions until enough learning and psychological resistance is built up, there is a trigger event and we start electing leaders who will make the tough decisions they should be making now.
This unfortunately translates to "voting against what you fear" rather than voting for the progress you really want.
This touches on an issue I've thought about a great deal. How do you fight a war of ideas in a country that allows freedom of expression. Let me give a scenario:
Suppose that over a 3 month period we have a string of violent incidents involving Muslims killing non-Muslims. Suppose that it then turns out that all perpetrators attend the same radical mosque. Then, we have surveillance audio of the Imam of that mosque teaching his people that the US is Satan, that non-Muslims are filthy, that suicide bombers in Israel are heroes. He makes vague statements about "burning America down" but never actually sets out a specific order or plan. Is that Imam going to be held criminally responsible? I fear that we are going to start seeing issues like this in the US, UK, and Australia. I'm a big defender of free speech, so I'm not sure how I feel about such a situation. Look for a significant supreme court case on such an issue in the near future.
Monte Gardner said:
"Suppose that over a 3 month period we have a string of violent incidents involving Muslims killing non-Muslims. (The way the media covers up the identities of such people makes me wonder if anyone would know about it at all)
Suppose that it then turns out that all perpetrators attend the same radical mosque. (That would be a coincidence, or a fact left out of any public reporting)
Then, we have surveillance audio of the Imam of that mosque teaching his people that the US is Satan, that non-Muslims are filthy, that suicide bombers in Israel are heroes. (We have such preachers of hate in our universities, now, and many brave and intrepid students have videotaped them, and nothing has happened to those profs)
He makes vague statements about "burning America down" but never actually sets out a specific order or plan. (Again, universities are doing a whizbang job of it now, and there is a vague amount of vague burning of things, vaguely speaking.)
Is that Imam going to be held criminally responsible? (He will be declared a victim of Islamophobia, and a sympathetic press will show up at his house to film his veiled wife weeping at 11, and you can bet Hugh and Robert are gonna get sued, somewhere, sometime, somehow.)
I fear that we are going to start seeing issues like this in the US, UK, and Australia. I'm a big defender of free speech, so I'm not sure how I feel about such a situation. Look for a significant supreme court case on such an issue in the near future. (We'll be damned if we defend ourselves and our culture, and we'll be doomed if we don't)
Hugh, I agree with your message, but your grammar is horrible. That last run-on sentence was jaw-dropping unbelievable. Also, shorter sentences are more effective in communicating ideas.