The blazingly magnificent Kathy Shaidle emailed me a few questions about my book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam is Subverting America without Guns or Bombs:
Is Islam itself the problem?Obviously "the problem" is rooted within Islamic texts and teachings that mandate warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. Ibn Warraq's observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true in light of the fact that there is no orthodox sect of Islam and no school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach the necessity to work toward the political dominance of Islamic law and the subjugation of unbelievers under that law. People have a great deal of trouble acknowledging this due to the fact that there are obviously many Muslims who are not working toward this goal in any way, and because American Muslim advocacy groups have so successfully tarred as "bigotry" any honest discussion of the contents of Islamic doctrine regarding unbelievers. But these unpleasant facts will not go away simply because they are unpleasant.
Is "moderate" Islam even possible?
Anything is possible. But "moderate" Islam as an Islamic theological and legal construct does not now exist, and would need to be invented. Can it be done? The record of history shows that it is never wise to say that something could never happen. But as it would involve the overturning or wholesale reevaluation of the fonts of Islamic authority that have existed since virtually the beginning of Islam, it is extremely unlikely.
What about genuinely concerned, patriotic and devout Muslims? Are they confused? Will they one day have to choose between religion and country?
They aren't necessarily confused. They may have grown up and learned their Islam in areas of the world -- Central Asia, Eastern Europe, West Africa -- where the Islam that has evolved historically simply did not emphasize jihad warfare (hot war or otherwise). Generations of Muslims in those areas and others grew up being quite sincere, devout, knowledgeable and observant without having any notion that they had any imperative to subjugate infidels -- and as the faith was presented to them and lived out around them, they didn't. Unfortunately, the Salafist movements are challenging precisely the people who grew up in such cultures, and challenging them by claiming to be the representatives of Islamic authenticity.
Will American Muslims one day have to choose? Not at all. Those who want Sharia in the United States have no problem professing love for their country. It is their love for America that makes them want to bring what they consider to be the law of God here. If the Muslim Brotherhood and its allied groups get their way, Muslims who accept and respect American Constitutional law and the non-establishment of religion may have to choose between religion and Constitution, but not between religion and country.
Is it too late to do what needs to be done? If so, why? Who is responsible for this malaise? Politicians or average citizens themselves or who exactly?
No, as long as America is not a Sharia state, and as long as we still have the freedom of speech and can speak openly about this threat, it is not too late. But the situation is very grave -- far graver than most people realize.
Of all your recommendations at the end of the book, probably the most controversial is the call to end Muslim immigration. Do you sense any support for such a drastic measure in either the legislatures or among the general public?
None whatsoever. But this is because neither the legislatures nor the general public realize why it would be necessary. Without understanding the expansionist and totalitarian nature of political Islam, and without understanding how it threatens the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and so much more that makes Western civilization good and valuable, such a call appears simply "racist" -- although Islamic jihad is not a race.
Which of your recommendations to you think are MOST likely to gain traction as policy?
The ones put forward by Representative Myrick of NC.
I saw this on Kathy's blog. Good stuff.
I love Sue Myrick. She's no-nonsense. I grin every time I vote for her.
Sue Myrick? Thanks to a GREATAMERICAN from an angryamerican!! (We should all be so intrepid!)
The question about emergence of a moderate islam Spenser answers by referring to Ibn Warraq:
“Ibn Warraq's observation that there are moderate Muslims, but no moderate Islam is absolutely true in light of the fact that there is no orthodox sect of Islam and no school of Islamic jurisprudence that does not teach the necessity to work toward the political dominance of Islamic law and the subjugation of unbelievers under that law. People have a great deal of trouble acknowledging this due to the fact that there are obviously many Muslims who are not working toward this goal in any way, and because American Muslim advocacy groups have so successfully tarred as "bigotry" any honest discussion of the contents of Islamic doctrine regarding unbelievers. …”
I prefer the shorter and very precise answer given by Bat Ye’or in an interview in 2005 entitled “Time of jihad”:
“I know moderate and brilliant Muslims, but I do not know of a school of thought, represented by teaching and publications, followed by millions of Muslims, called "moderate Islam.
Everyone hopes for a change, including Muslims. I never say "never."
Creation of a moderate form of Islam in the future is logically a possibility, but the built in obstacles in the Islamic foundation and teachings enabling a fixated power structure prohibits any true reforms of Islam. The history of Islam shows that tendencies toward a Reformation or Enlightenment are short lived and always quickly rooted out by the much stronger orthodox forces within Islam.
That is still the case in the present Clash of Civilizations.
#1. change has to come from within islam itself.
#2. the pigs are still trying to fly
#3. we are the only ones wishing it to happen on a large scale - not them, not the majority of what the left have termed as 'moderate', or 'peaceful'.
Some questions - How in the heck can islam change when it is based on such a book as the koran with all of its 'teachings', or what I like to put it as - battle tactics!
AND!!
When you got a guy who tells muslims that the Bible was corrupted and those who did that deed will go to hell (of course, they only have the ramblings of an illiterate pagan that asserted such a thing) and if they touch the mess that is the koran they will go to hell?
And these so called 'religious conferences' are just a joke in and of themselves. Religious tolerance. Do the Christians, Jews and others who go to these conferences even bother to crack open a koran and figure out why they are getting NOWHERE?!?! Oh, they get somewhere - THEY give up land, tolerance and their own selves, and their own people's safety, for the muslims while the muslims GIVE NOTHING except 'lip service' and their own children so they can get a paycheck from the saudis - or whoever is handing out the money because they donated a child to allah.
if this post sounds angry - well, that is how I feel. I am getting so tired of this junk that we have so called 'leaders' that are more into wanting to be liked than dealing with a group of people that want us dead, converted or subjugated. Oh... then they look at those 'virginal, coy little muslimettes' and wonder 'how could islam be so nasty? These women are just so...._____' well, you insert whatever goes through the men's minds and speaking as a woman, my first bet is on the order of a caveman's thoughts.
We worry about getting a church built here or there. Now tell me, who in their right mind would go to a church in Saudi Arabia if it were built? I would bet that they would be 'dead men/women walking'. Oh, the church would be there but the congregation would be either dead or too afraid to be seen walking into it.
Then there are the 'useful idiots' such as our Universities, our media, etc - I can't even get into that subject without knowing I would be typing pages of their stupid goings on.
Why should islam change? They are not held accountable for anything! The saudis just keep funding terrorism, we are afraid of Pakistan and Iran. And we have so many world's nations facing islam while each one doesn't trust the other or there is no talk that this is #1. a religious war, and #2. a world war.
Some individual Muslims may choose to be moderate in their outlook. Along their lives the same Muslim person may go through moderate as well as hard-line phases. These are personal choices individual Muslims make. Roughly speaking, the less a Muslim is "religious", the more likely to be moderate.
But moderate Islam is not possible, like a square circle is not possible. Islam has the conditioning of a mind towards fanaticism embedded in itself.
Rocky: "But moderate Islam is not possible, like a square circle is not possible. Islam has the conditioning of a mind towards fanaticism embedded in itself."
I have to disagree! What Islam is or is not depends on the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or more precisely about who has to power to make the interpretations and decide upon by what principles the interpretation should be made.
In principle Islam could be changed into a moderate non-violent form fully compatible with Western democracy. A square circle is not possible because of the definition of the words “square” and “circle” and the logical relationship between those words.
What the concept of Islam means is solely a matter of interpretation.
Let me give an example.
The Iranian ayatollah Jalal Ganj’i attacs the core in the Islamic fundamentalism and advocates a purely historical concept of the Qur’an. "If you really want to understand what the Quranic verses meant to Muhammad and his contemporary one must take the historical conditions at the time of the Prophet into consideration", Ganj’i claims. Otherwise you risk to understand the opposite of what the Qur’an tries to say. He also points out that each Quranic verse is an answer to a specific historic episode.
By this interpretation Ganj’i supply an elegant solution to the essential Muslim problem: How is it possible to unite the claim about the divine source of the verses with their – by modern standards – barbaric content? He points to a method to relativize the Quranic text whitout having to deny, that it explicitly reproduce the words of Allah.
The political implications of this interpretation are interesting. Ganj’i categorically denies, that the Qur’an should demand Islamic world dominance (Islamic supremacy) or that Islam is incompatible with freedom and democracy.
The only problem is that Ganj’i does not have several millions of Muslim followers and was driven from Iran by a more powerful ayatollah – Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution – together with several other non-fundamentalistic thinking clerics. Actually he swapped exile with Khomeini, now living in Paris, France. (Based on “Interview mit Ayatollah Jalal Ganj’i” in 2002).
So the problems of changing islam into a moderate modern form are not at a principial level, they are just practical in nature. The obstacles against change are of cause huge, and nobody can say if they can be overcome. It is up to the Muslims themselves to break the barriers preventing change.
The late Robert O. Collins, re the Sudan:
"The hudud punishments reached their climax with the execution of Mahmud Muhammad Taha. Since the 1950s Taha had advocated in public lectures, the press, and a dozen books the social, political, and religious reform of Islam. He...preached peaceful co-existence between the Arab states and Israel advocated equal rights for women, many of whom...eagerly joined his movement, the Republican Brothers. Banned from the national media Taha [and his followers] became familiar figures on the street corners and parks...peacefully passing out pamphlets and news-sheets to indulgent citizens who tolerated them with benign amusement as harmless people with principles.. After the imposition of Shari'a...Taha wrote a mild leaflet...demanding the repeal of Shari'a and the return of civil liberties. Numayri resolved to make an example of Taha...arrested, tried for apostasy, convicted, hanged at dawn."
The Sudanese were "appalled".
No matter how good they are, these people are surrounded and trapped. The power structure is just too strong.
We have tried and tried, but cannot help them. By trying to help, we are being dragged down into the mire of their religion. We can no longer risk our children's lives in bringing "refugees", only a few of whom are genuine, into our countries, and sending our soldiers and money into their countries. It is a hopeless quest.
Ipso Facto, even if Islam could be interpreted in a more moderate way - which it can't, it can only be ignored to some extent - it's just not an ideology that is worth salvaging. It is not a religion. It is a death cult. It has no morality, not does it have any real theology. Allah is amorphous, arbitrary, and has no connection to humans. All we know about Allah is that he has no concept of love, he's ridiculously insecure, he's evil, he's an Arab supremacist, he is incredibly cruel and he wants nobody to be happy.
Even if Islam weren't political - which it is, inherently so - that does not make it possible for it to modernize or for Muslims to assimilate into civilized societies. It has multiple levels of supremacism which are completely inextricable. For that reason, it can never co-exist with democracy. One cannot believe that Arabs are superior within a democracy. One cannot believe that non-Muslims have no rights, are inferior, or are to be subdued and extorted within a democracy. One certainly can't buy into any aspect of the the Islamic view of women - that must be discarded outright - within a democracy.
Then there's the more personal stuff. Sure, people can go through their 500 steps to please Allah in the can within a democracy, but they can't beat their children for not praying, force Arabic on them, or beat women or pimp little girls into incestuous Sharia sex slavery. They have to have full rights, which they never can within a democracy.
M. Zuhdi Jasser believes, wrongly, that Islam and democracy can coexist. He's crazy. In order to do this he:
1) Throws the notion of abrogation out the window, and with it 1300 years of Islamic scholarship, including the notion that the gates of itjihad are closed, which, in his littl eparallel universe, they are to everyone but him, apparently (which makes him supremacist and incompatible with democracy).
2) Ignores 99% of the Islamic texts but pushes the same 4, Meccan, abrogated verses which he twists so as to make them sound as if they don't conflict with democracy, which requires disregarding all tafsir dealing with them, again, because only he understands Islam, which he achieves by dismissing almost all of it to suit his worldview.
3) Throws out Muhammad entirely. I guess, anyway, since he never brings him up in his long, nonsensical taqiyya essays about Islam and democracy. One can't kill people who disagre woth you in a democracy, deprive women of their rights, extort minorities, or do anything Muhammad ever did in a democracy. Muhammad is way too inconvenient for Jasser to ever touch.
4) Defies what it says on page 1 of the Koran, which is that it is not to be questioned. Of course, in typically narcissistic, Islamic fashion, he thinks that only he is allowed to question it. His points of view are not to be challenged, which is why he debates Muslims instead of non-Muslims. He can argue his points with Muslims and play the good cop, but if an unbeliever were to argue with him they would tear him to shreds because we deal in logic and arguments which actually hold up among people who aren't so ignorant and deluded as to believe that the Earth is flat.
Islam is supremacist, cruel, unegalitarian, colonialist, and dictatorial. It can never exist in a democracy. It is not worth salvaging. Islam has not a single redeeming value. Not one topic, issue, or subject exists upon which Muslims and non-Muslims agree. Islam necessitates the lack of a legitimate education, complete milieu control, censorship of very imaginable type right down to not allowing women to laugh or expose their ears, segregation of multiple types, pedophilia, racism (even if you discard the slavery, Arab women can never marry non-Arabs), uber-sexism, and malignant narcissism. It cannot thrive among reasonably intelligent, psychologically sound people who deal in reality. It a cancer which we must excise. Once it has no host to parasitize it will cannibalize. That is the only solution.
Also, the Islamic texts are't just barbaric by modern standards. They were barbaric by the standards of people who lived thousands of years before the advent of Islam. The Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, or Jews would have found it deplorable. They were all literate people. They had huge libraries and universities. The Greeks and Romans had democracy. They all had art. Only the Aztecs were as sick and barbaric as the Muslims, and they had art and were far better to their women, so even they were more civilized in a way.
PG, Taha was also big on slavery, female genital mutilation, dhimmitude, and his insistence that little girls girls be pimped into incestuous, polygamous, Sharia sex slavery and live their lives in purdah as baby factories. How is that moderate?
What I cannot figure out is why no one is learning from history. How many more countries must they immigrate to and then make into a hole before we wake up?
The only time there was 'relative' peace is when there was a 'strong arm' type of control over them in their lands. Or they were driven out by their own means - war. Even that doesn't last because no sane person wants to be in war forever and ever. Look at India - even they didn't resort to the tactics that the jihads that they had against them did to their people. The Indians did not do to their civilians what the muslims did to theirs.
By us letting them insert sharia laws into the countries like Afganistan and Iraq - we just slapped ourselves in the face! Handing over money to the likes of Pakistan, the Palestinians, Egypt, etc - without telling them to change is just ridiculous. We are basically telling them that treating us like dhimmi is a-ok. Tell us how low we should bend so you can kick us in the behind before we wake up?!?
And our Universities are just pathetic. Those institutions of 'learning' are just money hungry organizations willing to sell their souls and our children to the highest bidder. And right now the saudis are bidding pretty high. They sold their souls to the Marxists for little to nothing and we shouldn't be surprised that they are now selling out to the likes of islam.
What we need is some kind of mass hypnosis, propaganda, or something to change their way of thinking that they should force their 'religion' on everyone - or make it so they know they will have to pay the consequences of their actions if they push it onto anyone who doesn't want it. And that is what most people haven't figured out would be. If they have a 'religion' that contols a human being so much so that it even controls how a person goes to the bathroom, or that a psychopath gets away with murder because all he has to say 'they sinned against allah', there is something fundamentally wrong with that. And it is not acceptable.
I will leave this thread with this thought on what the koran teaches about women - and I hope that some left wing idiot who thinks that they should be an apologist for islam is reading these posts:
Here we have a surah that tells muslim men that dirt is better than their own women. Women are unclean and polluted - worse than dirt. And we are even lower than that - that is only one surah in a koran full of hatred such as this.
Qur'an 4:43 "Believers, approach not prayers with a mind befogged or intoxicated until you understand what you utter. Nor when you are polluted, until after you have bathed. If you are ill, or on a journey, or come from answering the call of nature, or you have touched a woman, and you find no water, then take for yourselves clean dirt, and rub your faces and hands. Lo! Allah is Benign, Forgiving."
PG: "We have tried and tried, but cannot help them. By trying to help, we are being dragged down into the mire of their religion. We can no longer risk our children's lives in bringing "refugees", only a few of whom are genuine, into our countries, and sending our soldiers and money into their countries. It is a hopeless quest."
Nicely formulated. We are in complete agreement.
In my view Westeners are not more rationel than the Muslims, but we were lucky to have a religion preaching seperation of state and church - as Martin Luther pointed out in his teaching of the ‘TWO KINGDOMS’ or THE ‘TWO REGIMENTS’.
And secondly, Christianity never had enough power to effectively block scientific and philosophical enquiries, because the church had to share its power with the Kings. A power struggle the church lost when many kings sided with Luther to get a bigger piece of the cake.
Also the Christian God is not absolute transcendent as Allah. The world are constructed by rationel laws so God is a rationel being and the world reflects Gods nature. In Islam deductions from the laws and nature of the world to how the nature of Allah is can not be made, as it would deminish or limit the absolute freedom of Allah to act exactly as he pleases.
Just to make a very long and complex story short.
Someone said we must stop allowing islamic refugees into our countries because only a few of these "refugees" are genuine and I certainly agree. However, not only will we continue to import tens of thousands of "refugees", we will also continue to allow unrestricted muslim immigration. I have finally accepted the frightening and sickening fact that the West is being systematically and deliberately destroyed by the U.N. and the stupid, pathetic Western leaders who believe that it is our last best hope.
When Colin Powell recently advised Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk show hosts, he said that the only hope for the Republican party was to pay more attention to "minorities" and gain their support because in twenty years or less, today's majority will be the minority. That is the the goal, pure and simple. Our beautiful, special, one-of-a-kind nation is being transformed into another third-world garbage dump, thanks to the brilliant social engineers and the despicable United Nations.
If I could have one wish that would be unconditionally granted, I would wish for the U.N.to disappear, vanish, and go away forever. It is an insidious, vile organization that will eventually destroy everything that is good and decent in the world in its putative quest for world peace and an end to poverty and global warming. I heard on the news that SOS Rice was going to "ask" the U.N.'s permission to deal with the Somalian pirates; what a f&*ing joke!!!
Jdamn: You may well be right about Taha. I only read about him in the Robert O. Collins book and one by Francis Mading Deng. Can you tell me what I should read next? It is hard to get anything useful from Muslim Sudanese people because they like to see their own "reformers" in the brightest light. Maybe I was just making assumptions about him being a decent sort of chap because he had female fans. Yeah, I know, dumb.
Jdamn, I disagree with you about Islam only on the principal level, not about your excellent description of what Islam in essence is now and has been for more than a millennium.
Islam is a manmade ideology the truth of which is justified by reference to the commandment of an absolute transcendent almighty being. That’s why it is also a religion. Religions are not based upon rationality but subjective emotions or wishful thinking and such things can change over time.
Religions and ideologies do change over time – and even if the core texts of Islam is unchanged the Muslims have changed perspective over the centuries and formed societies different from the early caliphates.
What Islam is depends upon human beings and their interpretation of what they believe in. Humans can change their beliefs and perceptions because they in principle have a free will. If enough Muslims change their perception about what Islam is or should be then they could have the power to change the interpretations of the holy texts and form a new kind of mainstream Islam.
You claim that Islam can’t be interpreted in a more moderate way only be ignored to some extent and that it is a death cult, has no morality or any real theology. That Allah is amorphous, arbitrary, and has no connection to humans. All we know about Allah is that he has no concept of love, he's ridiculously insecure, he's evil, he's an Arab supremacist, he is incredibly cruel and he wants nobody to be happy.
This is your subjective interpretation of Islam based upon your definition of abstract concepts such as “morality”, “real theology”, “love”, “evil” and “happiness” etc.
But if your own values are not based upon rationality then we are talking about two belief systems (or cultural paradigms) defining the existential situation of man in a very different way. A paradigm is a concept of reality, which integrates symbols, meaningfulness, values, motives and justifications into a coherent system, which legitimise a certain moral order. Islam is such a system, and so are Christianity, Judaism and Western civilization.
I am not advocating for the concept of cultural or moral relativity, but just pointing out what follows from pure logic. The weakness of our civilization is that it has not been able to justify its values rationally. So strictly speaking our secular paradigm is also a belief system.
In fact Islam has been interpreted in a number of different ways through the history, that’s why different Islamic sects exists. Most of them only deviate slightly from mainstream Sunni Islam and are just as violent and supremacist, like the Shia version, but other sects renounce violence and Islamic supremacism. The only problem is that those peaceful sects have few followers and therefore no power. The followers are persecuted and designated as apostates by the majority.
So in the end it all comes down to who possess the power to interpretate the existential situation of man and make the religious texts comply with this interpretation. And for this reason Islam is extremely violent internally. No peaceful procedure of succession of power was established so since the death of the prophet different clans and groups have been fighting over the absolute power Muhammad once possessed. It is correctly labelled “sectarian violence” and is a trademark of Islam. Only one can rule and the other must obey. The most violent and ruthless were victorious and they justified the extreme means used upon a literal interpretation of the Qur'anic Verses and the Sunna as the will of Allah. They had no choice if they wanted to stay in power. That is why it is so difficult for the moderate non-violent Muslims to change things.
The Salafi movement is created out of fear for Islam to be transformed into a more modern and tolerant religion and they are prepared to use extreme measures of violence to return Islam to what it was during the time of the first caliphs. By definition the moderate Muslims are not prepared to use such extreme measures, otherwise they would not be moderate, and consequently they are losing the power they need in order to change Islam in a more peaceful direction.
That is the tragedy of Islam and what keeps it aggressive and the concept of Islamic supremacism makes it racist in the extreme. As an ideology Islam is closely related to such totalitarian ideologies as National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism. Those ideologies were obliterated in very different ways. The most aggressive of them – Nazism – had to be exterminated by brute force. The other tried to adapt to the reality of the world after the death of Stalin and accepted the principle of peaceful coexistence. Islam seems to be placed somewhere in between but closer to Nazism than to Marxism.
The Germans were unable to liberate themselves from Nazism. Only a stronger external force could do that. Similar to what was achieved in Iraq with the toppling of the Baath regime followed by free elections. But after the war the Germans could easily revert to democracy and the Western values. They did not loose their identity with the fall of nazism.
The Iraqi’s had only Islam to revert to so they created what I call an islamocracy a pseudo democratic system based on the concept that no laws can be passed that does not comply with the Qur’an and the Islamic tradition. It’s a small step in the right direction but as the Turkish example shows the fundamentalists will probably grind it down and turn it into an Islamic republic similar to Iran.
So Islam can change but it seems that 14 centuries is too short a period given the internal restraints and the present dhimmi attitude Western governments shows towards Muslims and Islam. That could however change in the future.
Isn’t that what we are trying to achieve through the free debate here in Jihad Watch?
Oh, PG, it's not just Sudanese Muslims who bring forth Taha as a shining example of a "true moderate." Daniel Pipes has done more to further this myth than anyone, but I'm convinced at this point that he doesn't believe in moderate Islam and does this just to prove it without saying the truth because he's employed in a Saudi Agenda department. The only real "reformers" are Irshad Manji, M. Juhdi Jasser, and others who either know nothing about Islam or who willfully ignore 99% of it. They're just Karen Armstrongs who were born into Islam and clearly suffer from a certain degree of Stockholm Syndrome. "Reform" movements in Islam always tend toward increased fundamentalism. Deobandism, Wahhabism, and Salafism were the only real "reform" movements within Islam. That's why Islam cannot be and is not worth being salvaged.
Ipso Facto, you wrote: "Religions are not based upon rationality but subjective emotions or wishful thinking and such things can change over time."
Religions are belief systems which revolve around theology and morality. Theology and morality are not subjective at all. Theology is the relationship between God and man. Islam has none. Morality is absolutely objective, timeless, and universal by its very nature. It is the Golden Rule. Islam has no Golden Rule. Islam has not a single moral teaching or practice. Islam has neither morality nor theology. It is not a religion.
Evil is also objective. It consists of willfully behaving toward others in an immoral fashion, i.e., against their wishes and the Golden Rule. Islam promotes evil and man's savage nature to the detriment of our better qualities and capabilities. It is evil, objectively so. It is predicated upon violating every single human right of every individual it can reach to the maximum extent that it is possible to do so. It is pure evil. There is no goodness to be found in Islam and if you believe otherwise I strongly suggest you reread those horrible texts trying to find any unabrogated goodness that applies universally, because if it doesn't apply universally then it is inherently immoral and evil.
Furthermore, religions may manifest themselves in guidelines for life, but never, by definition, in actual laws. Cults and political movements come with (totalitarian and narcissistic) laws. Religions serve as guidelines.
You also wrote: "As an ideology Islam is closely related to such totalitarian ideologies as National Socialism and Marxism-Leninism."
Yeah, and they were predicated on either a God who was like Allah - amorphous, narcissistic, evil, patently immoral, and supremacist - or atheism. No religion in there. Just death-cults. That's why becoming a Muslim is like joining the army. It's never about saving a soul. It's about building the force. Those douchehats who say "I want only to serve Allah" say it because they want worldy rewards, not because of any connection to anything higher. You could just as easily substitute "the Fuhrer" or "the Emperor" for Allah.
You also wrote: "The weakness of our civilization is that it has not been able to justify its values rationally."
On the contrary, our values absolutely hold up to objective morality. Jeffersonian democracy is the pinnacle of a moral society -- one in which everyone is free, independent, self-governing, responsible for him/herself, able to acquire property through hard work, and held to the same standards. It was the Enlightemnent values upon which the free world was founded that allowed for true self-determination, individual responsibility, equal rights for all, and every form of freedom which we know. Idiots may consider Brittney Spears to be immoral, but there is nothing immoral about watching her, and in any event, that is really reaching for something to demonstrate the immorality of our values, not that pop tarts are a value. It doesn't hurt anyone. That claim will never hold up to objective morality, and morality is always objective. Free-world society is the first, last, and only moral way of life. Morality is not subject to interpretation. Believing that is (1) completely false and a very ignorant perspective, and (2) a slippery slope because it throws objectivism to the wind. Morality cannot exist without objectivism because there can be only one moral standard -- the Golden Rule.
- West Africa is exclusively Muslim - there are hardly any non-Muslims who live in those places. Since Islam is dominant and supreme in these countries, from Gambia to Niger and there are hardly many infidels there, there aren't anybody to subjugate. Still, a major exception to this is there - in Nigeria, which disproves this argument about West African Muslims being tolerant.
- Central Asia - People here were forced Atheists under Soviet rule until 1991, and since then, all of them have been anti-Islamic dictatorships, which have to date held back Islamization. The claims that the Uzbeks, for instance, were only nominal Muslims, is therefore hollow, since how they behave under an anti-Islamic regime of (the ironically named) Islam Karimov, and how different it might be under a 'democratic' set-up is yet to be seen. The unrest in Ferghana valley, the most populated area in that country, is indicative of Uzbekistan unplugged. Similarly, Tajik and Turkmen people could likewise Islamize. The only country that may not Islamize is Kazakhstan, and that too only because it's 50% Russian, and Moscow won't let that happen.
- Eastern Europe - I'm assuming that you're talking about Yugoslavia and Albania here. Since, like in the Central Asian example, both these countries were atheist, extrapolating the forced atheism in these countries as indicative of a tolerance for Infidels is misleading. Once Muslims in Bosnia were no longer under any restraints from Yugoslavia, it was all out war against the Serbs. And the Albanians, who started with the Serbs, later went to fight the Macedonians as well. Their prior 'tolerance' had less to do with their Islam being secular, and more to do with them being under Communist rule
Another problem with your use of the above examples - what % of the US Mohammedans come from these places, as opposed to the Middle East, Pakistan, Malaysia and such places, where there demonstrably isn't such an apparent tradition of tolerance? Why do you use terms like 'Salafist', when there are Islamic dawa groups of all denominations - Sunni, Shia, Sufi and others? Would you call Hizbullah 'Salafist'? How about Jamaat Tablighi (Pakistan, UK)? Why not just step up and say 'Islamic dawa movements' instead, which would cover that whole spectrum? That would be accepting the taquiyya definition of country as that geographic spot on earth waiting to be consumed by Allah's faithful. Surely you can do better than that? Kathy's question, as I read it, was whether Muslims would have to choose between Islamic law vs American law. That's the only thing it could mean - how does one choose between what one believes, and where one lives? That's like having to choose between walking and chewing gum.Also, in this environment where there is at least a perceived conflict between the US and Islam, haven't American Muslims already chosen which side they are on? They are on the side of Islam. Otherwise, they wouldn't be highlighting the fact that they are Muslim, and thereby providing CAIR and other such groups bragging rights in including them in the US Muslim population that the latter represents, even if they don't have the conscience or the guts to jettison Islam altogether.
I think he was referring to older Muslims. The Islam we know is quite different from that of our parents, which is why it is hard to explain to older folks about Islam. 40 years ago the few Muslims who dwindled into the Free World did so to escape their hellholes, which were not nearly as hellhol-ish as they are today. They genuinely tried to assimiliate, adopt the Judeo-Christian work ethic, and live the American dream, which wasn't so hard because they weren't tauht to hate us and they were raised pretty much like we were. They weren't settlers who were here for jihad. They were the Ali Sinas and Nonie Darwishes of this world, the ones who could actually fool themselves into thinking that Islam was good and decent and who wrongly attributed a bunch of humanistic values to it. Sina thought that until he read the Koran as an adult. Had you told those Muslims that every Muslim woman would be hellbent on crapping out monsters and whoring her life away in exchange for a free ride and a tapeworm's epitaph for demographic jihad they wouldn't have believed you. If you had even told them that any of them, let alone ALL of them, would wear those disgusting hijabs just to creep us out they wouldn't have believed you. The niqab hadn't even been invented at that point (it came out the same year as Star Wars, modelled after Darth Vader, seriously). If you had told them that they would all isolate themselves in little enclaves which revolve around their HAMAS front groups or sleeper cells they wouldn't have believed you. If you had told them that they would try to parasitize and harass us as much as possible and generally do everything they could to make themselves intolerable they wouldn't have believed you. They were under Western, not Saudi, influence, and they were a far higher caliber of people. They were not the Muslims we know.
But Wahhabi oil money plus the Ikhwan did away with all that. No Muslim today can claim that there's anything good, decent, or worthwhile about Islam. Islam as they know it is the real deal. Muslims used to come here with good intentions. Now they're all here for jihad, or at least 95% of them, enough that anyone would be crazy to trust a single one of them. It is extremely rare that a Muslim country produces a decent human being today. The Shah's Iran and Sadat's Egypt are not the Iran and Egypt of today.
Also, West Africa's Islamization is fairly recent. Muslims are minorities - no more than 30% - in Cameroon, Ghana, Senegal, and few other nations. There were hardly any Muslims in Nigeria 30 years ago.