This is the French contribution to trouble in the Middle East - French Passports.

As the Muslim population of France (and of other countries of Western Europe) becomes even more significant, as Muslims rise through the ranks of the Defense du Territoire, and the Quai d'Orsay, and Agence France-Presse (where they already choose, frame, shoot, and provide captions to almost every photograph taken in "Palestine" and Iraq -- and thus help to mold the deepening anti-Israel, and anti-American, sentiments in Israel), as they become ever more important in the making of both foreign and domestic policy (just how strict or effective mmay be the measures of self-defense employed by the indigenous Infidels?), and, of course, rise in the ranks of the armed services, and some Muslims, though no doubt carefully vetted, get closer to control of French weaponry (and have opportunities to work on, and to convert, their fellow officers), many French will grow increasingly nervous, as they should have long ago.

There are generals in France deeply alarmed at this situation; they, however, must contend with Chirac, and Dominique de Villepin, and others who refuse to see the problem. At some point, military coups are not out of the question -- to save the country. The idea that France, that survived two world wars, should jettison its culture and its civilisation, because of some inhibitions and embarrasments and sentimental pieties about "all people" more or less wanting the same thing, to "live in peace" (etc.), which, combined with the seemingly impervious-to-reality Sartre-Paul Nizan-Francois Maspero tiersmondiste attitude that naturally favors, and protects Islam, and Muslims, from scrutiny (as do all the corruptions of French political leaders, some of whom, like Chirac, would if not in office be in jail) and disfavors the hapless and inarticulate, but far more sensible Americans, so easy for Europeans to dislike, apparently, and of course there remains the eternal target of the "Jews," now safely to be attacked "only" as Israelis or supporters of Israel, that to many Europeans, subject to the endless media stillicde of anti-Israel propaganda, as a pesky, and quite unnecessary country, ready to be thrown as a sacrificial lamb (at Eid al-Fitr, perhaps?) to the ravenous wolves of Arab Islam.

It will take not just a midnight ride by Revere and Dawes, but much more, to awaken the Western peoples. Every mite and soundbite helps. How easy it is, apparently, to shut people up, or even better cause them to shut themselves up, by insisting that noticing the basic tenets of Islam, and calling them to the attention of others, is somehow "racist." No one can quite explain how it is "racist" to note the content of a belief-system, to explain the origins and central tenets of that system, and the effect Islamic rule has had on non-Muslims,during the 1350 years of Muslim rule. Nor is it "racist" to note the impossibility of "reformation" within Islam, and the need to severely constrain its practice, which was the essence of the program put in place by Ataturk, and known as Kemalism. It is not "racist" (by now an utterly silly word, embarrassing to use in order to rebut the charge) to note that an ideology that is aggressive and hostile to all who do not subscribe to that ideology, and that insists on world domination, must be taken seriously, and its adherents regarded --as they would be if there only ten million of them and not a billion -- as members of a cult who must be permanently prevented from obtaining positions where they can inflict harm -- as military men, as pilots, as makers of policy -- on the non-Muslims among whom they now live.

When 10,000 passports are stolen in France, that is not a headache for France alone, but for all the members of the Western alliance, and even for non-Western countries (the Philippines, for example). At the moment that Western Alliance must worry most about the nuclear weapons (is it now 42?) of A. Q. Khan's Pakistan, a country whose people have only their Islamic identity to cling to, which is why they are as fervent as the Arabs in their Muslim identity--which is not as true of other non-Arab Muslims, such as Persians, Turks, Berbers, Kurds). They must also worry about, and plan to prevent, even by bombing on the model of the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor, the acquisition by Iran of nuclear weapons. This cannot wait upon a change in the Iranian regime, and would have to take place whatever regime were to come to power, for Iran cannot be counted on to permanently turn away from militant Islam, much less from Islam itself, and hence remains a permanent danger.

Now the arsenals of the non-Muslim coutnries of Europe can fall, into the hands of jihadis. They might be officers, enlisted men, pilots, security guards, drivers -- for though some Muslims, especially Berbers, have been useful inthe counter-terrorism efforts, neither the French nor anyone else can rely on their ability to permanently "turn" every Muslim. It has shown itself to be a belief-system far more comprehensive, and resistent, and resilient, than either Communism, the failures of which are evident in the economic conditions it creates, or Nazism, which is self-limited to "Aryans" and "honorary Aryans."

This is all by way of a warning, to all those commissions that will have to be formed, in not-so-distant decades, to examine what the makers of policy in these years knew (Dominique de Villepin, do not count on America to provide refuge for your children and grandchildren) or should have known. As of right now, whoever you are -- you should have known.

Who knows what may happen in the advanced and well-armed nations of Western Europe? Are there Muslim pilots in the French air force? Will there be? And in the British air force? What security level will Muslim officers be granted? Will there be a policy in place, or simply nudge-nudge-wink-wink designed to accomplish the same thing? Are these things to be discussed, in a sober manner, with attention to the doctrines of Islam, as explained not by apologists but by serious scholars -- Anne-Marie Delcambre comes to mind in France -- including "defectors" such as ex-Muslims (who deserve much more attention) -- or will something involving the greatest threat to the survival of Infidels, and their cilivization, go undiscussed, because it would be too impolite, too unpleasant, too awkward to do so?

It is not hard to imagine, at some point, the quiet and secret conversion of certain Infidels, whose mental and emotional weaknesses and need for the complete guide or grid to existence, a Total Explanation and Regulation of Everything, that Islam provides, who might form part of a conspiracy that would go unremarked by others, until too late. The psychically marginal, such as John Walker Lindh, or Richard Reid, or the socially or economically marginal (all those prison inmates) who convert to Islam, are transparent. But what of those who do not seem to fit that category, but are rendered suddenly vulnerable by a death in the family, divorce, a drop in the serotonin level, infidelity, any number of things that can upset the balance of one's mind, and that might make one heed the siren-song of da'wa, the Call to Islam. People can be willing to hide their true feelings and hatreds for decades (one Al Qaeda operative had no problem working at, and fitting in to, Mount Sinai Hospital, in Baltimore). One can smile, and have murder in one's heart. And how amusing to know that all these intolerable Infidels will some day pay for their many slights and sins, in a way that I (and here the Believer is filled with silent exultation at the thought of what terrible damage he, struggling on the path of Allah, may be able to finally inflict on these Infidels). People can wait, and wait, for many years, until the right moment comes.

We are all familiar, from gangster movies of the 1930s, to interviews in the newspapers this morning, with the surprise that does not surprise us: "but my boy was a good boy" and "he seemed like such a nice fella, always kept his yard clean, never had a harsh word, helpin' everyone out." All very amusing. But apply that to the situation of those who would attain to the Muslim Paradise (with its promised 72 virgins, or raisins, depending on your philological analysis). "Mo was a great guy, always a team-player, and a real family man. Just can't believe it." (Sentiments to that effect). Those who seem to have become completely integrated, as "moderate" Muslims, into society, who are cleanshaven, who may risk the sweet-and-sour pork or at least make fun of those strict Muslims who won't, who seem to have embraced the West entirely, who may be deeply involved in their work or their career, who seem the furthest thing from the "kind of Muslims" one must worry about.

This is what may be called the "Mike Hawash" problem, after the Intel computer engineeer in Portland, Oregon, the co-author of a standard computer text,earning $360,000 a year, happily married to his American wife, a pillar of his community, stoutly defended right up until his guilty plea by one of his bosses, an important Intel executive, who helped raise his bail, and noisily insisted with every fiber of his being that "Mike is innocent" of the charges. For reasons that need to be examined, at some point "Mike" Hawash, who had never given up on Islam entirely, returned to the faith with real passion. He grew a beard. He took to reading the Qur'an more frequently. And then, after September 11, he did not recoil in horror from Islam. No, instead he carefully made over the deed to his house to his wife. He made out a will. And then he set out, with others, intending to reach Afgfhanistan, hoping to fight alongside members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and to kill his fellow Americans. He is not alone. There are many such "surprises" to come. Statecraft involves the avoidance of such surprises; there should be no surprises. Hitler's behavior was no surprise to Churchill. It was Chamberlain, and the great mass of the British public, imperfectly instructed, and willingly deluded, who were so surprised. It was a very dear lesson, and not only the British, alas, had to pay for it.

What was it that happened to change Mike Hawash? Boredom at work? Disgust at the way his friends' children were behaving? Renewed filial piety after the death of a parent? Fury at what he perceived as "slights" to Islam or the thwarting of Muslim demands on Infidels on this or that corner of the globe? A sudden drop in his serotonin level? Depression? And for all of these, he had, in his background, the remedy, the consolation, the explanation that Islam provides its adherents.

The security risk posed by Muslims, and not only by those who are outwardly and visibly hostile (they are easier to monitor) is what France, and Great Britain, and Italy, and Spain, and of course other members of the Western alliance, aware that each of their countries possess very significant weapons (in some cases, nuclear weapons) cannot afford not to discuss. Such discussions will not take place, in any serious way, as long as those who have pursued three decades of appeasement, three decades of "Euro-Arab Dialogue" in which "North" and "South" (a vocabulary that the French have been assiduous in promoting, for it describes using innocuous points-of-the-compass terms (we are "North" of the Mediterranean, you are "South") to what is in fact an enormous cultural divide, a non-bridgeable abyss, between a hostile and aggrressibve Islam on the southern rim and a largely uncomprehending or passive Christianity, or post-Christianity (the Englightenment, skepticism, Spinoza and Hume), on the northern rim. The E.U. bureaucracy is full of the deluded, who have permitted, and indeed encouraged, for several decades both the unhindered move of millions of Muslims into Western Europe, with untellable consequences, including a permanent security nightmare, making the lives of the non-Muslims far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be. Those deluded "Euro-Arab Dialogue" leaders, with their criminal negligence -- Villepin, Chirac, many in the EU bureaucracy from Javier Solana to Chris Patten --must be exposed, their policies ridiculed, they themselves professionally marginalised so that the serious matter of protecting the peoples and polities of what is still the non-Muslim West can be undertaken by sober grownups (Donald Rumsfeld comes to mind), of whom this country, the United States, at the moment apparently possesses a greater number than does Europe, which will need help, as it did in the 1940s and 1950s, in coming to its senses. Instead of pretending that there is "no problem" with Islam itself, just with that "handful" of easily identifiable "extremists"(even if they scuttle about underground). There are many more who are not so easily identifiable, whose loyalaties must be permanently in question, given the clear call, in Islam, for loyalty only to one's fellow Muslims. Lives, millions of lives, are at stake; the true state of affairs, the real nature of Islamic doctrine and Muslim practices toward non-Muslims, through time and space, however unpleasant this all may be, and however unconforming or jarring the conclusions that must be reached may prove to be to the sentimental pieties of the age, this cannot be ignored or further delayed. And there is always what great many) -- of Islam.

And there remains, and always will remain, what one might call the "Manchurian Candidate" effect -- for some reason, at some point, a mild-mannered, outwardly amiable and easygoing, even seemingly completely secular Muslim, who has been born into the faith but appears to wear his religion lightly, suddenly -- without warning -- undergoes a deep renewal of the faith (think of Muhammad Atta, once an urban planner, of a middle-class, not particularly pious family, himself for a long time disinterested in religion; or think of Bin Laden, in the fleshpots of Beirut), and becomes eager to act on the most aggrressive and hostile tenets of Islam.

It is instructive for one to consider, for oneself, what professions could, at this point, reasonably remain open to Muslims, without undue worry of their effect on the physical and intellectual well-being of non-Muslims. What professions are these? Airline pilot? Nuclear or chemical engineer? Truck driver of Hazmat materials? Truck driver of anything? FBI Agent? CIA Agent? Army Intelligence? Army officer in charge of procurement, or logistics? Cook in the U.S. Senate? Journalist covering the Middle East? Writer of textbooks? Teacher of American or world history? Keep going, until you find something that would not worry you (I haven't managed to do so). It is no reply at all to say that "many Muslimis" are completely loyal, and that what is being considered here is an outrage. Islam itself stresses, in Qur'an and hadith,that loyalty must be given to, and only to, fellow Muslims. So if we are assured that many Muslims are "loyal to the United States" this must mean that they are violating central tenets, and attitudes, of Islam -- the Manichaean division of the world between Muslim and non-Muslim. And if they are, then they are being "bad" Muslims. Fine, that is all right with me -- but what is not acceptable is to pretend that one can be a good, believing Muslim, and still feel a real (not feigned or fleeting), loyalty to an Infidel nation-state.

The pity is that that some Muslims will in fact be trustworthy, will in fact be "bad" Muslims but not wish to admit it to themselves, much less to others. And we, the Infidels, have no reliable device for distinguishing these Muslims from the others, and they will have no doubt suffer (as "moderate" -- i.e. "unobservant" or "bad" Muslims will always suffer, but unless there is either, on the part of someone born into Islam, of a clear break with Islam, or a candid admission by that Believer of what Islam teaches about Infdidels, and a deliberate, open break with that teaching, not by denying its centrality in Qur'an and hadith but by forthrightly both recognizing the existence of such doctrines, and then rejecting them, which will make one a "bad" Muslim in the eyes of almost all other Muslims. This will leave, as "Islam," only that part which consists of the five rituals (the "Five Pillars") of individual worship; the rest is too hot, too dangerous, for Muslims, or the rest of the world, any longer to handle. If Muslims themselves, including the "moderates," insist on denying or omitting major elements of Islam, in violation of the clear texts, both Qur'an and hadith, and of 1350 years of Muslim history, and in the behavior of Muslims toward non-Muslims everywhere on the globe, from Nigeria to the Sudan to the Philippines, then they will have only themselves to blame for the suspicion in which they will be, and rightly, permanently held by all non-Muslims. And that will be particularly true as non-Muslims learn about the doctrines of taqiyya and kitman, which religiously sanction lying about one's own adherence to Islam, or the content of one's faith, in order to protect both oneself and the faith. In such circumstances, anything but the greatest mistrust, by Infidels, for Muslims, would be folly.
"War is deception," said Muhammad. The theft of those 10,000 blank French passports may seem to be an enormous and nightmarish loss. Compared to what is still to come, unless the considerations offered here are taken seriously, in Congress, in the Executive Branch, in the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon, in all the chanceries and secret services of the West, there will be much worse to come. The demographic conquest of the Infidel lands may not succeed, completely, but there can be sufficient infiltration of its miiltary and security services to enable Muslims to turn, upon Infidels, the very weapons which only the Infidel world, with the mental freedom that permits basic science, was capable of developing, unaided, in the first place.

There remains the American government, which still exhibits a certain sanity, though not everywhere and always (the invasion of Iraq was completely correct, but at present Iraq is, a misallocation of men, materiel, money, and political capital that should be applied elsewhere in the unending counter-Jihad). It can take the lead, by working to demoralize, and unseat, the well-placed promoters of the "Euro-Arab Dialogue" which has done such damage to Europeans. Under its aagis, a vast influx of Muslims, unhindered, has gone from "South" to "North"; Europe has allowed itself to become indignant over Israel's attempts, imperfectly articulated, to defend against the Jihad against it (of course, it is psychologically soothing, given Europe's history, to monstrously exaggerate the "crimes" of a Jewish state, by way of assuaging its own unease and guilt, and furthermore, it is psychologically soothing to believe that "only the matter of Palestine" stands in the way of a completely benign Muslim Arab world, working hand-in-hand with its European neighbors -- rather than face the real problem, which is the permanent and uncompromising state of hostility, required by Islam, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb). Europe contains many people who are more and more uneasy with their own leaders, with the Muslim popuilations in their midst, and with the direction of the EU's foreign policy. They see clearly that there has been careful exploitation, by the Islamintern (if a word may be minted), of such pre-existing mental conditions as anti-Americanism and antisemitism, to split Europe from America. That repair must be healed, but not on the terms that the Chircs and Solanas and Pattens and Mary Robinsons would wish -- it has to be healed by appealing to the those, within Europe, who are waiting for the intelligent articulation of the Muslim threat, and who otherwise may turn toward fascism, if liberalism cannot protect against Islam (which itself is, in its suppression of the individual and emphasis on the collective, eminently fascistic in its attitudes, atmospherics, and doctrines).

The United States government, foundations, the press, should all give much more attention to the testimonies of ex-Muslims. When will there be a major television program devoted to Ibn Warraq, or to others who can testify as to what led them to leave Islam, and what its tenets really are. Next month? Next year? Never? Who will devote a column, or many columns, to the webfsites of ex-Muslims, to their own stories of what is taught. Who will write a story about the 35,000 Turks who converted to Christianity last year, in the only Muslim country (outside of Central Asia) which permits such apostasy?

The Vatican, which once glorified those who died -- missionaries burned at the stake by the Hurons, for example -- in the work of propaganda fide, propagation of the faith, has done almost nothing, so fearful is it, among the Muslims of Europe. Perhaps they cannot be converted, but perhaps they can, and a massive effort should be made, for if they are not converted, they will remain a great threat to the lives of the non-Muslims among whom they have been permitted to live. And there is much else that can be done, to deal the growing security threat, which a roundup here, or there, of 5 or 10 or 20 "activists" (some of whom may helpfully blow themselves up) does little to diminish.

Lost passports in France are the least of it.

Hugh, a great piece, as usual. I do believe, however, that the problem is deeper than the failure of the current administration in France to simply understand the problem in the usual sense of the word.

Unfortunately, deep down in their psychoepistemology, they AGREE with far too much of what Islam has to say.

Herein lies the value of knowing a bunch about philosophy. We all, every one of us, have a philosophy, and that means every branch of it: Ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics.

Unfortunately, philosophy can come either by osmosis or through instruction, and it is no easier to study than plasma physics; it must be studied, and the rational separated from the irrational.

The different philosophies held by different peoples are what produce different results in everything from their personal lives to their roles in history.

Philosophy was responsible for the intellectual Golden Age of Greece, which was in turn responsible (it's a long story) for the so-called "Islamic Golden Age" (talk about hijacking!), it was responsible for the Dark Age, it was responsible for Islam, it was responsible for the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, it was responsible for the Nazis and Soviet Russia and North Korea and China, it was responsible for the Constitution of the United States, and it is responsible for what is happening in this country today, and the difficulties we are having in recognizing the true nature of the enemy.

hugh
any chance that you have written a book or are going to in the future

Gee whiz beave, I wonder what it will take for the world to accept the reality that Christianity is under attack. I dunno Wally, maybe a few nuclear blasts will open their eyes - or more murderous acts on the innocent by cowardly vermin terrorists. Hmm. I don't think so beave. Yeah... you're probably right. If what's gone on lately doesn't make them see, what could? Heck, let's just go out and play Wally. Ok beave, there’s nothing we can do huh.