"What we've seen in the recent past, I think, is an indication of one of the things that we're going to have to be most concerned about in the future, this self-radicalization of American citizens or people who reside in the United States. They have too often come under the influence of people who have misinterpreted Islam." - a statement by Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States
Eric Holder would no doubt be appalled if he learned of someone teaching Constitutional Law at an American university who, it turned out, had never bothered to read the Dred Scott case, nor Loving v. Virginia, nor Shelley v. Kraemer, nor Brown v. Bd. of Education, nor a whole host of other cases involving race, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
But he, Eric Holder, presumes to make pronouncements about Islam, and to tell us that those Muslims who are involved in acts or attempted acts or planned acts of terrorism are misinterpreting Islam. He ignores the fact that all of them have always had, or recently or not so recently acquired, a deep faith in Islam. That faith is not modified by calculations of self-interest (as with many Muslims now living in the West who must act one way until such time as they feel their numbers and power have increased sufficiently). Nor is it modified by custom or nuance, or a prudential choice to support Jihad through other methods that at this point will be less likely to attract the attention and the alarm of unwary or lazy Infidels, such as deployment of the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa (targeting in particular the psychically and economically marginal) and, especially in Western Europe, demographic conquest.
Could Eric Holder, or for that matter his own boss, Barack Obama, who would also no doubt be appalled if someone were to teach, to presume to teach, American Constitutional Law without that knowledge of Dred Scott, Loving v. Virginia, Shelley v. Kraemer, Brown v. Bd. of Education, and another two dozen important cases, tell us exactly in what ways -- quoting from the texts of Islam - the jihadis are misinterpreting Islam? How is Mr. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab misinterpreting Islam? How, for that matter, is Nasrallah of Hizballah, or Meshaal of Hamas, or the leaders or members of Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Jaish-e-Muhammad, or Al Qaeda (merely the most ambitious and most attention-getting of Muslim terrorist groups, of which there are hundreds, along with thousands of groupouscules and millions of individuals, all of whom take what Islam teaches very much to heart) all "misinterpreting Islam"?
We are told this over and over. We are never given a single bit of proof, not a single interpolated or apocryphal passage, attributed to the Qur'an, Hadith, Sira. We are never told even of a single Hadith, upon which reliance has been put by Muslim terrorists, that they have improperly assigned a higher rank of authenticity (according to the most respected muhaddithin) than it deserves. We are given not a single shred of evidence, textual or otherwise, to support the idea that there has been a "misinterpretation" of Islam.
Eric Holder can keep repeating this stuff, and so can others, so can Barack Obama, for example, until the cows come home. But the more those who presume to protect and instruct us show that they expect us to be satisfied, and that they themselves are apparently satisfied, with soothing banalities and assertions that are easily shown to be baseless, they lose our trust. The very people they claim to lead and to protect stop trusting them. And when we stand in line for hours for new security measures, and when we see, with our own eyes, the absurdity of all the obvious non-Muslims, including the very young and the very old, who are called out of line for extra checks, that are tiresome for everyone but nevertheless performed, using up valuable man hours of the security services, only in order to prove...well, to prove what? That non-Muslims should be checked, too, though we all know what we are looking for is Muslim terrorists, committing acts of terrorism because of what Islam inculcates -- the duty of Jihad to remove all barriers to the spread and then the dominance of Islam. They differ from other Muslims only in that they have decided to both participate in Jihad directly rather than indirectly, through financial, diplomatic, propagandistic, or moral support. They have chosen to use violence as their instrument of Jihad, for they see terrorism not as we do, but as acceptable qitaal, military combat, their modus operandi justified by the fact that given Infidel superiority in weapons technology, the odds have to be evened through terrorism.
No one is asking Eric Holder, or anyone else in the Administration, to take off a few months to study at Leiden, or Aix-en-Provence (two of the universities that Arab money and Muslim personnel have not yet managed to take over and transform in the Islamic and Middle Eastern areas). No one expects him to have read deeply in Ignaz Goldziher, Snouck Hurgronje, Joseph Schacht, Henri Lammens, or several dozen other great Western scholars of Islam whose works do not date, for Islam has not changed. But we do expect from him a justified diffidence, a hesitation to make pronouncements about Islam that are palpably absurd, and worrisome to all those who do know something, when he states that the problem are those who "misunderstand Islam."
Among Muslims, the problem for Infidels is not those who "misinterpret Islam" but those who do not, who understand its letter and spirit all too well and, what is most important, are willing to act directly on what Islam inculcates, and not to be timid, not to be distracted, not to allow calculations of self-interest to interfere (as when one does not wish to endanger one's position in the world and, especially, in the Infidel world where one may be living). In that Infidel world, of course, one may also have calculated that there are far cleverer ways to conduct Jihad below the current radar systems of the Infidels. For what are the sinister tariq-ramadans doing if not conducting Jihad, in a much more dangerous fashion, one might think, as they try to confuse Infidels, and whip up indignation against those who, like Geert Wilders, merely try to tell some unvarnished and disturbing truths. Yet more and more people in Western Europe, despite the propaganda campaigns conducted on behalf of Islam not only by Muslims but by their own political and media elites, have come to conclusions about Islam. They have come to them slowly, reluctantly, often unwillingly. And these conclusions then result in such measures as the Swiss referendum that expressed an overwhelming desire by people to ban minarets, but also, one can be sure, to limit the presence and power of Islam in a dozen other ways. And that Swiss ban is supported, public opinion polls tell us, overwhelmingly by people in France, Great Britain, and elsewhere.
Eric Holder can utter all the falsehoods he wishes. He will merely become someone who loses the trust of those whose trust he needs. That does not refer to those in political life who continue to ignore or misstate the matter, and who lack the wit to figure out ways to discuss the matter, if not head on, at least with the kind of semaphoring language of metonymy that some mastered long ago, possibly by sitting still in class -- which at this point Eric Holder might learn to do. Or if not, then to at least he should remember the too-quoted line that nonetheless will have to do: "Whereof we do not know, thereof we should not speak." As my music teacher used to say in a different context: Listen to Ludwig.
And there is a larger lesson, not for Holder alone, but for all those who talk about the "public trust." Let's talk about something else: the public mistrust. When the public, on issues of life and death, begins to recognize that it is not being talked to straight by those who govern, and who claim that they govern because they know best how to protect and how to instruct the citizenry, they lose faith in the government. When the public sees that members of the governing class are not telling the truth, but still worse, are actively misrepresenting the nature of the threat and acting as apologists for Islam, the ideology whose promptings explain Muslim terrorism and terrorists, they lose faith in the government. They become worried, fearful, disheartened. A few may seek other explanations, conspiracy theories that they would not succumb to if they could still have, or thought they could have, faith in the intelligence and knowledge of the governing classes. Eric Holder is one example.
But there are many others. We wonder why the words "Islam" and "Muslim" are still not to be used, and why phrases - self-evidently unhelpful, such as "violent extremists," are used instead. "Extremists" about what? Tell us. Stop making us try to guess or still worse, trying to make us not guess, but to be satisfied with such empty formulations that tell us nothing, that help us understand nothing.
And then there are other things. Most of the people in this country fly, or have close relatives who fly, and so most of the country has a direct experience of airports today. And those who fly, and those who may not themselves fly but see off those who do, or hear their stories of airport waiting and woe, are well aware of this nonsense of patting-down nuns and great-grandmothers in wheelchairs and subjecting, even ostentatiously subjecting, non-Muslims to intensive searches when we all know that, since resources are limited, the time spent in such searches of non-Muslims is time not spent in searching Muslim passengers. And it is they, to the extent that they can be identified (and there was no doubt about Farouk Abdulwhatshisname), who should be the object of intensive searching. For we all know that it is Muslim terrorism, terrorism committed by Muslims and by no one else, that is the worry.
When we go to the airport, we endure the needless searches that are conducted, one assumes, only to avoid accusations from Muslim groups and Muslim individuals that they have been selected for special treatment. We share our fury and our ridicule with others. For all sensible people know that of course Muslim travelers should be selected for special searches. For it makes sense to allocate the resource of searching - a finite, even a scarce resource - to the searching of Muslims, and anyone who claims to be offended is a fool, or a danger to us, or both.
Such a policy can continue. We can even have security guards wearing hijabs, which does nothing but make most of us even more alarmed, for we take or mistake those hijab-wearing guards not as a heartwarming display of trust, a public demonstration of the "very values that we hold dear" blah blah that "the enemy hates us for" (nonsense, of course). Not at all. Most of us find the spectacle depressing and worrisome as all get out, for we believe - wrongly or rightly - that this is an outward and visible sign of an inward, crazed, nearly suicidal, and stupid attachment to the idea that one cannot distinguish, or that any intelligent distinguishing constitutes inadmissible discrimination.
Eric Holder can keep telling us, if he wishes, that the people we must worry about are those who "misinterpret Islam' - even though he offers not a shred of evidence, not a single passage, to prove such "misinterpretation." The TSA can continue to pat down non-Muslims and, as a consequence, have fewer resources devoted to two tasks: figuring out who is likely a Muslim (based on name, country or place of origin, previous travel - trips to Yemen, say, or Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Pakistan, should raise eyebrows sky-high), and then making sure that all those who are Muslims quite sensibly are given much greater scrutiny than non-Muslims. Barack Obama can keep prating of "violent extremists" but never telling us more about what those "violent extremists" are "extremists" of. But when we hear these words, when we listen to these solemn speeches, when we endure these misplaced security searches, what happens is that our trust, our faith in our own government, goes down, and down, and down.
And that is not something that people in a mass democracy can, or should, be expected to endure or, as quite a few in the current administration, appropriating lincolnian phrases whenever they can, long endure. Those who whose most important tasks include those of protecting and instructing us have to stop thinking they can mislead their own citizens, 99% of whom are non-Muslim, in order to avoid offending the 1% who are Muslim, or out of some ill-thought-out Machiavellianism, to avoid offending Muslims in Dar al-Islam. So we tiptoe timidly around so much, we avoid recognizing, much less discussing or still less confronting, the Muslim threat to Europe, the historic heart of the West, and we continue to allow ourselves to describe as "staunch allies" such meretricious and sinister places as Saudi Arabia, fearful of giving offense to those who night and day spend feverishly to spread Islam and ensure its dominance even in our lands.
We have to stop describing as part of "our values" what is merely a cripplingly inhibiting fear of offending Muslims. We must let them think we know what Islam inculcates and are now prepared to construct policies designed not to deal not merely with this or that terrorist group, but with the Camp of Islam, with all those who by identifying themselves as Muslims can reasonably be treated as adherents of an ideology that we have every right to be alarmed about - the ideology of Islam. Public trust in the capacity of those who claim to protect us adequately, once lost, is hard to regain. We are not quite there, but almost.
Good, sharp analysis Hugh.
Today in the Daily Mail Online were no less than EIGHT headlines involving Muslims, none of them were positive - although some, such as the Albanian gunman in Finland are not obviously Muslim.
Will people notice? And will they start distrusting our leaders? And more importantly, will they do anything about it? We are not only a cowed and fearful nation, but also a nation that is placing much hope in the forthcoming General Election, so the public's hand will be stayed for a while - perhaps as much as two or three years. What will happen then? Anything? Or will the gogglebox just show more Britain's-Got-X-Factor-Strictly-Come-Brother-Jungle-Talent shows?
Indeed, Mr. Holder is naive about Islam. It's *almost* unfair to single him out, however, as his perception unfortunately represents the mainstream, establishment view of Islam held by politicians & civil servants in Washington, D.C.
Think about George W. Bush for a moment. He's fairly conservative, he's Christian, and he became a foreign policy hawk shortly into his administration, and was relatively clear-eyed about the threats that face the U.S. Yet even he persisted in believing what Holder believes--that Islam is peaceful and that violent Islamists don't represent true Islam.
What I'm saying is that when we can't even convince a pro-America, pro-Christ, anti-terror conservative like George Bush to cross-over to the "jihad watcher camp," what hope can we possibly have to persuade self-deluding leftists like Eric Holder?
Howdy y'all and good to read some positive opinions; but if you want to know what a real practicing Muslim is, you have to ask a Christian Arab, yes, I do mean Arab, not all Arabs are Muslims, there are a good number of us Christians in the Arab amd Muslim world too, and we experience first hand their loving, peaceful religion day in and day. Wake up America and President Obama and smell the PEACE!!!!!
It's strange that most of the time, it's non-Moslems like Holder and his ilk, who don't know the first thing about Islam, who are telling us how it's so misunderstood. Meanwhile, Moslems -- raised and even well-educated in their faith -- like Osama, al-Zawahiri, and the Ayatollah --are perfectly willing to spell things out: they want to conquer and/or convert us, and destroy our civilization.
The mirror-image of Holder et al is the gang of Moslem authorities -- whose knowledge of Judaiism and Christianity derives from Mohammed's half-digested understanding of some small parts of the Old and New Testaments -- who tell us that Moses and Jesus were really prophets of Islam, but that Jews and Christians have perverted and distorted their messages. The ignorance of the Holders matches the ignorance of the ayatollahs.
It's strange that most of the time, it's non-Moslems like Holder and his ilk, who don't know the first thing about Islam, who are telling us how it's so misunderstood. Meanwhile, Moslems -- raised and even well-educated in their faith -- like Osama, al-Zawahiri, and the Ayatollah --are perfectly willing to spell things out: they want to conquer and/or convert us, and destroy our civilization.
The mirror-image of Holder et al is the gang of Moslem authorities -- whose knowledge of Judaiism and Christianity derives from Mohammed's half-digested understanding of some small parts of the Old and New Testaments -- who tell us that Moses and Jesus were really prophets of Islam, but that Jews and Christians have perverted and distorted their messages. The ignorance of the Holders matches the ignorance of the ayatollahs.
Good essay, Hugh. I like the optimism in it, that the folks are increasingly getting tired of the same old nostrums uttered about Islam by the powers that be. My own mother is a fine example here. Five or six years ago she told me that I was too harsh on Islam, that the entire religion couldn't be as bad as I said it was. Now, she completely agrees with me and just says things like "the whole damn religion is sick." My mother's in her eighties. Way to go Mom.
Well, one thing's for certain and that is that if America is going to reverse things, put Islam, all of the damn religion, on the defensive, it will not do so with an Eric Holder type as Attorney General or a Barack Obama type as President. This is a given. Meanwhile, we'll have to suffer these excuses for leaders for a few years yet, by which time Islam will have demonstrated thousands upon thousands of more times just how awful it is. And to the extent that this occurs, and it will occur (already this New Year we have had young Muslims going savage in France burning over a thousand cars, an attempt on the life of one of those Danish cartoonists and a vivid demonstration that Islam and volleyball are incompatible), more and more people will take note of the spiritual fascism in our midst. Holder is already an anachronism, so is Obama, but they're too clueless to realize this of course. No soup for them. Next!
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 allowed all men to own property, to make contracts, to be protected from extra-legal violence: protection in persons, liberties, properties. And so capitalism marched on, to our current state of prosperity.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was far more restrictive of personal choices and was passed to ensure equality of opportunity and the creation of a single people. You cannot refuse to sell your house to a black man.
A anti-jihadist goal should be to remove "Islam" from the creeds protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You should be able to refuse to sell your house to a Muslim; and you should be able to discriminate against them and, especially, to use profiling techniques in all situations.
Cchristianarab makes an excellent point. Why does our government continue to rely on "experts" on Islam who patently practice taquiyya or kitmann to pacify or natural suspicions about an organization which has killed over 270 million people in its Jihad against humanity over the past 1400 years? Surely we should be utilizing the non-Muslim refugees from Dar-es-Islam who know first hand the tactics and strategies of the Jihda.
This is slightly off topic, but I am currently reading an excellent book about the diaspora of Baghdad's Arab Jewish population from 1904 to the current day. "Last Days in Babylon", written by Marina Benjamin, ISBN 1-4165-7204-X. Just a tease, but were you aware that in the late 1800s, Jews made up a third of the cities population? And that this population dominated Baghdad's economy? And that the British invasion in World War I resulted in the flowering of that Jewish civilization. Alas, the British withdrew and the descent back to barbarism began.
The United States should learn from this lesson, when we withdraw, all the work we have done will blow away in the wind of the Jihad.
Eric Holder can keep repeating this stuff, and so can others, so can Barack Obama, for example, until the cows come home. But the more those who presume to protect and instruct us show that they expect us to be satisfied, and that they themselves are apparently satisfied, with soothing banalities and assertions that are easily shown to be baseless, they lose our trust. The very people they claim to lead and to protect stop trusting them.
.......................
What is the primary purpose of a legitimately elected democratic government? *To keep their citizens safe.*
Except in the most narrow of cases—such as tackling individual Jihad terrorists trying to blow up a plane, individual citizens in a modern democracy cannot take up arms against their enemies.
If they did, it would eventually result in anarchy, or a Dark Ages patchwork of local strongmen or gangs ranged against each other. It would look like—well, like Somalia, or Afghanistan outside of Kabul.
So civilized people logically rely on their democratically-elected governments to keep them safe. This is right and proper. But if those governments do little or nothing to keep their citizens safe, or—worse yet—actively follow policies virtually guaranteed to endanger their own people? What then?
The primacy of keeping one's citizens safe—is this something the Obama administration understands—really understands? Likely not—oh, there's healthcare, and massive, unsustainable bailouts, and even "cash for clunkers".
Whatever one's views on such policies, pro or con, they are meaningless if the populace is not safe, and has no confidence, or expectation, that the government's keeping them safe is even a priority.
Shelley v. Kraemer and cases following, such as Katzenbach v. McClung, show that state action can now be located, or teased out, almost anywhere, and if the legislation in question doesn't rely on the Equal Protection Clause , the Commerce Clause (which was invoked in Katzenbach v. McClung to reach Ollie's Barbecue) has been upheld as the legitimate source of Federal power. The Commerce Clause -- don't leave home, if you live in Georgetown, without it.
There is no list of specific "creeds" protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Invocation of the Equal Protection Clause triggers strict scrutiny, the highest level of review. The government needs to have an exceedingly important and convincing justification for any legislatioin that treats different groups differently.
Here is that exceedingly important and convincing justification: National Security.
SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS
We should also be concerned that apparently our so-called transparent president has signed (under the radar) executive order 12425 that is also undermining our constitutional Rights as Americans. This order gives more rights to Interpol than even our own FBI has in America. The implications are far reaching and they clearly reflect this Presidents leftist agenda that is becoming abundantly clear everyday with the actions being taken by AG Holder in the past months.
Please read this article in Townhall this morning and its serious implications to American Sovereignty:
"Obama Executive Order Alters Your Legal Protections"
http://townhall.com/columnists/FloydandMaryBethBrown/2010/01/01/obama_executive_order_alters_your_legal_protections
Spot on article, Hugh. I do a fair amount of air travel (including some internationally) and always become depressed at having to be subjected to the ridiculous farce of going through security, sometimes numerous times if the trip involves multiple connections. I have witnessed the very situations you describe, of grandmothers and nuns and wheelchair-bound invalids being inconvenienced by special attention from TSA agents. It is very sad to watch. But every time I witness this I feel a growing anger within me of the wrongheadedness of the whole approach. In casual discussions with fellow travelers I find a similar growing exasperation and anger. Everyone knows the problem is with Muslims, and everyone I talk to enthusiastically supports the idea of active profiling to single out for special attention the one demographic group that is the source of 99% of the problems (well, almost everyone supports it - a few multicultural idealists don't mind inconveniencing and offending 100 people in order to avoid offending one).
To American Delight: I think the comparison of George W. Bush to Eric Holder is unfair. Although both could be accused of ignorance with regard to Islam, I'm not sure it was within Bush's capacity to undertake a program of study of the kind Hugh describes above that would have led him understand the historical and social nuances of Islam and its relevance to today's world. Holder, on the other hand, as well as Obama and many of his other appointees, do have this capacity. The fact that they have not bothered to educate themselves in these matters before speaking about them, or are willing to ignore evidence before them in the pursuit of some larger global social agenda, makes them all distinctly different from Bush. Bush's heart was in the right place, despite his naivete about Islam and his inability to conceptualize and articulate what his heart told him, and he was an unabashed patriot. Compare this with Obama's crowd. The hearts of Obama and his coterie are manifestly in the wrong places on this, which is the principal difference with Bush. Since the brain tends to follow the heart, and will invent rationalizations as needed for justification, the O-Team cannot be expected to get this right.
So the practical issue at hand is to move from Hugh's "semaphoring language of metonymy", which those of us who've had to navigate these treacherous waters of political correctness for the last 8 years have of necessity developed, into an unassailable discourse that rigorously identifies and condemns (that is, outlaws) the jihadist and supremacist elements of Islam, one that will withstand judicial analysis and First Amendment challenges. A starting point might be establishing that there are two Islams, one religious and one political. (I understand that Muslims do not and cannot make the distinction -- it is up to us to so do.) The religious is a matter of conscience and merits first amendment protection. The political is subversive, seditious and expressly states its desire to overthrow the West, and so must be outlawed.
Who will begin devising such a language? Is it you, Hugh? You are skilled in your craft with a commanding mastery of the legal and culural and political issues. Or is there another path to this goal? It does not seem prudent to wait for the current generation of political "leadership" to be worn down through our suffering to the point of acquiescence in the necessity.
The word "Jihad" is useful as a stand-in for Islam. Begin to say that while Islam itself may be okay (say this reluctantly, wanly, unenthusiastically, pro-forma-ly), but that of course all those who want to engage, directly or indireclty, in the Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread and then the dominance of Islam constitute a permanent threat to our legal and political institutions, and such activities cannot and will not be tolerated. It will not be a case of banning or working against those who choose the instrument of Jihad, but whatever the instrument, the goal of Jihad is unacceptable.
Start there. With "jihad" for "Islam." Part for whole.
Mr. Hugh-
The "learning curve" you once referred to was only a few years ago being climbed by a few. However, the number of ordinary people now walking on the curve looks like a parade of Recovering-Dhimmis not drinking Taqyiia anymore. Even the supremacist language of Islam is now well known by many ordinary people. Soon, that language will become slang, and people at the work-place will tell someone to "Cut the Taqyiia. Stop the BS."
For you and Spencer the whole thing must be a real bore as you stand on top of the learning-curve. But soon laughter will be on your side and people will dance in response to "Islam is not supremacist" etc...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzTsQAI-9Hk&feature=fvw
The greatest protection Americans have in combatting Islam is the First Amendment and the greatest protection Islam has in America is the First Amendment. A legal paradox to be sure but a real one. Very real.
As far as the purpose of our government being to "keep us safe," I wouldn't formulate it that way. I think we allow government to exist in order to secure and maintain our natural rights.
A police state could keep me physically "safe" while still trampling on some or all of my individual liberties.
The object of jihadi Islam is to trample on my liberties by forcing my conversion, subjugating me personally & financially, or murdering me. A government that truly protects my rights would keep that from happening.
"I understand that Muslims do not and cannot make the distinction -- it is up to us to so do." You have just hit the wall. Why would they accept or tolerate such a division of their faith imposed upon them by an unbeliever? You would be talking to yourself, or at best to people who would not be considered Moslems in their own community. Do Tibetan Buddhists accept the Chinese government's selection of their spiritual leaders, which would be the closest equivalent to what you are proposing?
Everyday Islam is in the news and not in a good way. The most recent incident is an attempt by a jihadi to kill an elderly cartoonist over a five year old cartoon. People are getting fed up with the lies and excuses by our "leaders" for a violent degenerate "religion". Rasmussen released a poll showing 58% of Americans support waterboarding of the panty bomber, most say he belongs in Gitmo. This despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to portray waterboarding as "torture" and Gitmo as "evil".Most of the world is non-Muslim and life can be made unpleasant and uncomfortable for Muslims in the West. Much as Muslims make life unbearable for non-Muslims in Islamic countries. The internet has made the world a very small place and many people are coming to understand the true nature of Islam.
"I think we allow government to exist in order to secure and maintain our natural rights."
You mean something along the lines of the following?: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Continuing my previous post:
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
I wonder how many Iranians are familiar with these words in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, and understand that the sentiments are arguably even more applicable to them that they were to the Eighteenth Century English colonialists in North America. (And to notice, too, that nowhere is Mohammad or the Qur'an or Allah either mentioned or even alluded to as being the source of the inalienable rights we are all born with. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote these words, as president actively fought and destroyed the Muslim Barbary pirates after learning about the Islamic justifications for slave raiding contained in the Qur'an, which action was largely responsible for the formation of the U.S. Navy. Would that we had a Jefferson among our leaders today!)
What is wrong with Eric Holder?
He's a law school graduate and AG of the U.S. - yet, concerning Islam, he's an IDIOT. What is wrong with his brain?
American Delight wrote:
As far as the purpose of our government being to "keep us safe," I wouldn't formulate it that way. I think we allow government to exist in order to secure and maintain our natural rights.
A police state could keep me physically "safe" while still trampling on some or all of my individual liberties.
The object of jihadi Islam is to trample on my liberties by forcing my conversion, subjugating me personally & financially, or murdering me. A government that truly protects my rights would keep that from happening.
.....................
To American Delight and Eastview: yes, this is a better way of putting it—I was certainly not suggesting the establishment of a police state! (In any case, police states, in the end, do little to protect their people from depredations, especially their own)
I'm battling a nasty flu bug right now, and am not perhaps at my most articulate.
Happy New Year to you both!
I have a question of Hugh. He states that "as with many Muslims now living in the West who must act one way until such time as they feel their numbers and power have increased sufficiently). I have read this before and believe that it's true for many of the really radical Islamists; however, is this true consistently throughout time and since the inception of Islam? Consider Turkey and Indonesia. These countries were quite liberal for awhile even though Islam was by far the dominant religion there.
From all that I have read, there is a sweeping radicalization finding expression in all facets of Islamic life. I am just hoping that it dies a natural death at the hands of the saner, more peaceful Muslims. Surely there must be some out there?
Christian Arab, thanks for your comments. Most Arabs in the United States, for instance, *are Christians*—a fact that I imagine would surprise most Americans. Muslims tend to be much louder.
One of the best—although very harrowing—accounts of the Christian Arab community is Brigitte Gabriel's "Because They Hate".
I would be interested in hearing about your experiences and your take on things, Christian Arab, and I'm sure others here would, as well. Are you living in the West, or in what is (mis)called the "Muslim world"?
It sounds like the latter, in which case I wish you and yours a safe new year.
In regard to Islam's protection under the First Amendment, it should be noted that several times in the Republic's history, the Constitution and its Amendments have been circumvented by the government, without dissent from the courts; and with great popular support. During WW1, the Sedition Acts were passed: hundreds of anti-war critics were jailed, anti-war newspapers were shut down, the Post Office refused to carry anti-war periodicals, the War Production Board withheld supplies of newsprint from anti-war papers, etc. During WW2, hundreds of thousands of American citizens of Japanese, Italian, and German descent were held in detention camps and had their property seized. In both cases, these were the actions of a liberal-left government -- Woody Wilson's, and FDR's.
There was also the passage of the 18th Amendment, which clearly violated the civil rights of Americans. As an Amendment, it was beyond the touch of the federal courts.
The 18th Amendment is a particularly useful example of the type of thing that can be done. It did not prohibit the drinking of alcoholic beverages, only the import, manufacture, transport, and sale of them. An analogous anti-Islam amendment need not prohibit belief in Islam, only the public display of Islam. I.e. no mosques, no minarets, no madrassas, no public Islamic holidays or festivals, etc. Sort of the mirror-image of Saudi Arabia's policy toward all religions other than Islam.
Of course, the passage of a constitutional amendment is a time-consuming thing. So that's all the more reason to get started on it ASAP.
I think Holder's ignorance, whether willful or not, is driven by something far more insidious than naivete.
The "Islamophobia" canard, UN Resolution 62/154, the Interpol exemptions...
We've already seen passage of a Sedition Act through the auspices of Int'l Law, and the target of this law is you, Jihad Watchers.
Not quite there yet? I think not. I'm there. I know I'm there and have been for a long time. Holder reveals himself in his relocation and prosecution of Gitmo detainees in US civilian court. When all charges are dismissed against these fiends he will be satisfied. His law firm represents a bunch of them.
An insightful post, Hugh.
"But he, Eric Holder, presumes to make pronouncements about Islam, and to tell us that those Muslims who are involved in acts or attempted acts or planned acts of terrorism are misinterpreting Islam."
Hugh, this is the American secular liberal's belief that he is above and beyond the fray of theological polemic and dispute that plague us "lesser breeds without the law"; and hence he arrogates to himself the right to police our consciences from the outside, telling Muslims that they should start behaving like the peaceful religion they supposedly really are. We Christians have been hearing the same tune from them for quite some time now.
And, even if the bulk of the 'Ummah were to wake up tomorrow, decide they needed a truce with the Great Shaitan, and deliver us Osama Bin Laden's head in a basket, they would probably still feel pretty resentful towards the likes of Holder, who presumes to tell them what their religion is.
This is why Uncle Kepha's program for Islamic reform is to remind all and sundry that Jesus Christ is the way to God the Father, and that the Gospel is a door through which Muslims (and others) are invited to pass to enter a new life, and not a club over their heads. Should God be merciful to our most undeserving world and answer our prayers and our churches be to small to accommodate another billion, well, we'll just have to build a few more.
If Islam becomes a different kind of Islam, that's something I will leave to the Muslims themselves.
Christian Arab:
Welcome from a non-Arab Christian. Some of us are aware that most Arab-Americans are indeed the descendants of Lebanese, Syrian, and other Christian immigrants. I also understand that the host of this blog is an Antiochene Catholic.
I fear, ebonystone, that it will take several more Islamic barbarisms, probably including one or two that will eclipse 9/11 in results, before any Constitutional measures, or even legal measures, are taken to clip the wings of that albatross which is Islam. Islam's greatest strength in America is that it can pose as a religion. It makes no difference if some think it not really a religion after all. It has enough characteristics to meet First Amendment protection this way. And so there will have to be a collective realization, including on the part of the American judiciary, that the Constitution is not a suicide pact where Islam is concerned.
I predict Islam will push and push and push until such a recognition becomes commonplace. Then it will be all over for Islam in America. But that day is not just around the corner. It is still long off and many, many tragedies will occur in the USA before that day arrives, courtesy of the world's worst religion. It will almost certainly be even bloodier in Western Europe before Islam is expelled from that area once and for all.
Spot on, Shmadoff.
"I think Holder's ignorance, whether willful or not, is driven by something far more insidious than naivete."
Agreed. America, or any other western country for that matter, cannot afford any more Holders, Holderisms, or Obama-bastards.
The penalty for treason is death.
A POSPOTUS who believes the "constitution is deeply flawed" is not worthy of the presidency. The Marxist Muslim at the helm must be seen as the usurper and destroyer he is. And the whores that rode in with him need to be indicted, tried and punished along with him.
I don't know if it will ever come to that, but there's always hopenchange.....
All posts relating to the jihadist attack have been deleted from annarbor.com(where the attack occured) and been replaced with 911 conspiracy theory.
"I fear, ebonystone, that it will take several more Islamic barbarisms, probably including one or two that will eclipse 9/11 in results, before any Constitutional measures, or even legal measures, are taken to clip the wings of that albatross which is Islam."
I agree. If the detonator had not failed, and Flight 253 had been blown up, and all the passengers died, there would be a huge and well-deserved backlash against Islam and Muslims right now. Especially coming right after Ft. Hood. That's what I think. But, the detonator did fail, and no one died, so people don't have to bother themselves.
When the next attack doesn't fail, however, Islam and Muslims are going to be in a lot of trouble.
"I fear, ebonystone, that it will take several more Islamic barbarisms, probably including one or two that will eclipse 9/11 in results, before any Constitutional measures, or even legal measures, are taken to clip the wings of that albatross which is Islam."
I agree. If the detonator had not failed, and Flight 253 had been blown up, and all the passengers died, there would be a huge and well-deserved backlash against Islam and Muslims right now. Especially coming right after Ft. Hood. That's what I think. But, the detonator did fail, and no one died, so people don't have to bother themselves.
When the next attack doesn't fail, however, Islam and Muslims are going to be in a lot of trouble.
Good job, Hugh.
Eric Holder was and still is about as corrupt as they come and I am sure he has a trick or two up his sleave with this upcoming trial in NYC.
Obama hand-picked Holder for a very good reason. It's the same reason he hand-picked Sonya Sotomayor.
I disagree.
It is important to understand Islam as Muslims understand it. To Muslims Islam is a total system that includes religious ritual, dietary restrictions, and political law.
We free people in the west would be making a mistake to compartmentalize Islam into something it is not.
It is even more important to recognize when apologists for Islam do this, it is a deception.
Islam creates a mind set that is foreign to the Western culture. Muslims are not taught tolerance of other faiths, cultures, and people, unbelievers are called "Kuffar", there is little to no assimilation into the cultures of Dar al Harb.
This is just a small part of what we must confront. It is best to not pretend that Islamic law, Sharia, can ever be separated from Islam itself. The spread of Islam and Sharia is a command from Islam's inventor Mohamed.
Eastview,
Thank you for posting that bit of the Declaration of Independence. Some of the most beautiful and powerful words ever combined, they make me so proud and grateful that I was born here in the USA, and remind me to always be grateful for the blessings bestowed on me and my people by the Divine Creator.
"I predict Islam will push and push and push until such a recognition becomes commonplace. Then it will be all over for Islam in America. But that day is not just around the corner."
I agree that this will happen eventually. The average American's I talk to regardless of political party, see Islam for what it really is.
It is unfortunate that our politicians remain self-muzzled when it comes to the ultimate goal of Islam and the danger it poses for us.
The criticism of political correctness endangering us is helping people speak more clearly when naming our self declared enemy. This is a start.
Depending on what happens in the coming years can make that change happen quickly.
Islam is a religion whose intentions are good
Oh Lord Please dont let Islam be misunderstood
Thank you Americandelight and welcome Christianarab. We need another voice like Bridgette Gabriel. I will pose a question to the readers. Is it by design or convenience that the vast majority of foreign jihad attempts are aimed at the North East? No place in America should be more revolting to a devout muslim than San Francisco or Berkley.
Why is there such a seemingly hands-off attitude there? I have family and friends in the area and they seem almost to feel detached from the fear of attacks.
Yes Janet Napolitano "The system worked" , Obama gets it , Cair gets it, Janet gets it, but 3 million dumbed down Americans don't !
Islam is the world's largest growing religion and great changes don't come without birth pains.
No statement was so widely misunderstood as the secretary of Home Land Sec. Janet Napolitano, so much so that she was forced to detract the statement a few days later.
Yes Janet I get it the system worked ! today a week after the Christmas day alleged attack we are more afraid of flying than we were before and we enjoy less freedom than we did the morning of the 24th...
the state has more control over our lives than it did the morning of the 24th and so on with every successive attempt to whittle away our freedoms little by little, piece by piece and so on successively until even the freedom to criticize what we don't understand is whittled away/
Today after the more strict controls and more invasive methods employed by DHS we can truthfully say that the Muslim system to whittle away our basic rights and freedoms upon with our nation us built are being dismantled piece by piece, yes Janet the system is worked and somewhere in his office OBL chalked one up for Islam and the people of the west who just 'DON'T GET IT' lost ground once more in their struggle to keep their culture,freedoms and rights.
It's will be only a matter of time until we see signs 'Sharia Law Optional just like we see "Spanish spoken here' signs, all in the name of diversity, why is it that 300,000.000 million Americans just don't get it?
Yes Janet Napolitano "The system worked" , Obama gets it , Cair gets it, Janet gets it, but 3 million dumbed down Americans don't !
Islam is the world's largest growing religion and great changes don't come without birth pains.
No statement was so widely misunderstood as the secretary of Home Land Sec. Janet Napolitano, so much so that she was forced to detract the statement a few days later.
Yes Janet I get it the system worked ! today a week after the Christmas day alleged attack we are more afraid of flying than we were before and we enjoy less freedom than we did the morning of the 24th...
the state has more control over our lives than it did the morning of the 24th and so on with every successive attempt to whittle away our freedoms little by little, piece by piece and so on successively until even the freedom to criticize what we don't understand is whittled away/
Today after the more strict controls and more invasive methods employed by DHS we can truthfully say that the Muslim system to whittle away our basic rights and freedoms upon with our nation us built are being dismantled piece by piece, yes Janet the system is worked and somewhere in his office OBL chalked one up for Islam and the people of the west who just 'DON'T GET IT' lost ground once more in their struggle to keep their culture,freedoms and rights.
It's will be only a matter of time until we see signs 'Sharia Law Optional just like we see "Spanish spoken here' signs, all in the name of diversity, why is it that 300,000.000 million Americans just don't get it?
I think the reason Berkeley, as well as Hollywood, is spared is that for the time being the groups to which you refer are too valuable as useful idiots. They serve at least two useful purposes. First, and most importantly, they are very prolific breeding grounds for Fifth columnists intent on undermining the West. And second, they provide easily identifiable Sodom and Gomorrah-like examples of the effects of large scale, un-Islamic immorality for the instruction of the faithful. But, like the Iranian communists who helped overthrow the Shah, they would suffer the same fate if the Islamists they unwittingly aid ever came to power.
Eric Holder is a Muslim. He is truly displaying support for his faith, hence lying to the infidels. If he is not a muslim, he is denying reality, and should be committed.
Thanks, rico. I think that jihad has surfaced throughout the U.S., not just in the northeast. I'm thinking of the Ft. Hood (Texas) shootings, the Los Angeles airport El Al shooting several years back, and the North Carolina jihadist cell that was busted last year.
But I concede your point that the more spectacular attacks seem to have befallen the DC-New York corridor. Maybe it has something to do with those being centers of governmental & financial power (and they have higher Jewish populations), but I'm not sure...
Gravenimage--not the swine kind of flu, I hope?
And even on flu meds you are easily more articulate and lucid than most people, so no worries there!
Get well soon and happy new year to y'all too.
i'm still very skeptical of anybody waking up to the jihadist threat we face. everybody i talk to steadfastly remain to be clueless-blissfully ignorant, regaurdless of how manyy facts i present to them. i'm not giving up, of course. i (we) cannot afford to give up. it's just very frustrating. for the life of me, i cannot underestand how/why anybody would ignore such blatant facts. i give them links, i tell them whats in the koran, hadith, sira, etc..i provide links, books and other resources. i tell them, "you don't need to take my word for it, just please, study the sources, learn the information and come to your own conclusions. just please, educate yourselves. this is the most important issue we are facing." .....but, still, i get shrugging of shoulders, rolling of eyes, "every religion is the same", "...only a tiny minority...", etc....ugh. ...i've done and tried everything to convince them that we are in danger from muslims...from jihad (both the violent jihad and the subtle jihad), but to no avail..i've done everything but physically slap the sense into them. lol.....sigh
Just keep trying, mate.
Water on stone.
Hugh got my point, and gave us the precise answer in his post of January 2, 2010 immediately below mine.
Use "jihad" as a synecdoche for Islam.
You are correct -- they would never accept such a distinction, and certainly not from an infidel, and would instead insist (coherently, from their worldview) that such a distinction cannot exist.
That's the problem. For us, such a distinction must exist.
And so it is precisely talking to ourselves, that is, the selves among us who like George Bush refuse to acknowledge the incorrigibility of The Religion of Peace but who must act to keep us safe -- it is those to whom we must speak this metonym so they can resolve their cognitive dissonance between "Freedom of Religion" and the "freedom" to blow oneself up on a commuter train in favor of suppressing the movement, the animus, the operation of those who refuse to "tolerate such a division of their faith."
"It is important to understand Islam as Muslims understand it."
You are exactly right. The difficulty arises precisely in that our political class does not understand Islam as Muslims understand it.
But they may never. And we don't need them to in any case.
There is another way, not about Muslims and their understanding of Islam.
What we must do is call Islam "jihad," a category which enables us to thaw out from the frozen, inapplicable misunderstanding of Islam as The Religion of Peace current among our political leadership, the true "misunderstanders of Islam," and replace it with a rhetoric acceptable to Western ears which our leaders can invoke freely without inciting opposition. In this way we may protect ourselves. As long as our leadership is frozen with fear of offending religious believers or trampling religious liberty, we are at risk.
But if we speak to ourselves using a non-evasive terminology which accurately identifies the locus and nature of the threat, but which doesn't trigger the accusations of panphobias and irraciocinate racisms and the hatred du jour, we can act effectivly against the enemy.
The Apologists can then say what they want, but it will fail to persuade because we've called true true, and false false, and jihad Armed Insurrection and islamic supremacism Treasonous Sedition and we don't particularly care what the Apologists have to say in defense of conducting war against us.
In other words, let's not confront it on their terms. We don't give a damn what compartmentalization they allow or disallow. That way lies the madness, because there is no reconciliation of the Islamic and the Western mind. Let's reiterate, like Geert Wilders, the Western values we're defending and argue the case on our terms, not theirs.
At that point, we've got bigger guns, smarter systems and greater resources, and we win.
We just need to set ourselves free to do so. Free from the stifling political correctness. Free from the category error of Islam as religion. Islam is a religion like Nazism is a political party.