I'll just go ahead and envision all the possible responses from the true believers of multiculturalism.

a) 40% is not a majority, so this is meaningless.
b) Media Conspiracy.
c) Muslims are brutally repressed, they must fight back. Down with Israel.
d) Bush.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 31, 2006 8:34 AM

Well Islam is begining to show its true colors

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 31, 2006 8:52 AM

100% of all Muslims are insructed that they have a duty to participate in Jihad, either individually, or in some cases as a collective. The Jihad in which an inidividual Muslim participates in order to assure the constant expansion of Islam, the removal of all barriers to its rightful spread and rightful dominance, and to the ultimate rule by Muslims over all non-Muslims (who may, if they satisfy certain conditions -- the conditions of submission to a permanent status of degradation, humiliation, and physical insecurity, the status of being a dhimmi, part of the ahl al-dhimma, or "People of the Pact" -- and who, as dhimmis, may nonetheless remain alive, and even allowed in the case of some (the Christians and Jews) be permitted to practice their religion under certain specified limitations. That is a duty of all Muslims. Some may choose to ignore it -- we call such people "moderate" Muslims but in fact they are "bad" Muslims. Some may not be fully aware of their duties, though in the age of mass dissemination by Islmaic groups, of propaganda and of the contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, it is harder and harder to find such blissfully unaware, illiterate Muslim villagers, of the colorful Hadji-Murat style. Some may for the moment, in the particular place they happen to be living in -- say, the United States -- deem it prudent to deny the existence of such a duty, or to pretend that the word "Jihad" is not what Islamic scholars, jurisconsults, have always taken that word to mean, and they adduce one of the Hadith that is not to be found in any of the authoritative collections by the most respected muhaddithin, and want to convince us, via the armstrongs and espositos of this world, that the word "Jihad" as Al-Ghazali, as Ibn Khaldun, as the leaders of the four Sunni schools of jurisprudence, as the most important Shi'a clerics, as everyone over 1350 years in Islam has understood Jihad -- is not really what Jihad means. And they want further to have us ignore all the scholarship on this subject by Western scholars -- so many examples of which scholarship are helpfully collected in the recent anthology "The Legacy of Jihad."

But if the duty is imposed on all Muslims, some may think that they can fulfill that duty not by killing Infidels but by working to "remove the barriers" to the spread of Islam in other ways. To work to change the legal and political institutions of Infidel nation-states, so that any laws that are inimical to the letter and spirit of Islam -- which itself flatly contradicts the very idea of the importance of the individual, just as it does the entire system of inidividual rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, free exercise of religion, and so much else, to be found both in the American Constitution, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim states did not and could not adhere to (see the important study of Reza Afshari, showing how Islamic teachings and Western human rights ar incompatible)but instead concocted an "Islamic" version that is completely devoid of most of the key guarantees in the Universal Delcaration of Rights (Infidel version).

What should Infidels do? Should they continue to admit into their midst those whom every opinion poll (and if opinion polls of Muslims in this respect mislead, you can be sure they mislead only one way, especially when Muslims in the West are polled -- they will always understand the real hostility and willingness to participate in violent Jihad, for Muslims are well-versed in lying for the sake of the Faith, and there is even a specific doctrine, that of "taqiyya," which describes the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of dissimulation about the Believer's Faith that originates in the Shi'a desire to avoid death at the hands of Sunnis, but is now used to avoid alarming Infidels.

If those willing to engage in violence are "only" 40%, as in this poll taken among those famously "soft" and "syncretistic" Indonesian Muslims, so much more easygoing, we are led to believe, than the much more fanatical Arabs and those who are Arab-wannabees whose identity has been reduced entirely to Islam and only Islam (such as so many in Pakistan, a country formed of, by, and for Muslims, though Mohammad Ali Jinnah himself was a far more worldly Muslim -- he drank wine, for god's sake -- than any of his successors in Pakistan), then what should Infidels do? Do you think we should continue to allow in people who, at the very least, pose a considerable threat to all Infidels? Should, for example, Hindus and Jews in England, or in the United States, be entitled to not having a distinct group that does not wish them well, that is likely to make their lives much more dangerous, to pose an actual and immediate physical threat as their numbers incresae, be allowed in to either country? Is there any duty to protect those who are at this point the special focus of Muslim rage -- or are governments in the Western world, the same ones that immmediately quarantine tens of millions of head of cattle if there is even one or two casese of mad-cow disease, for the statistical likelihood of harm is apparently judged too great to risk, nonetheless going to admit a population, identifiable by its belief-system, a belief-system which makes them, or "only 40%" of them, or "only 10%" of them, a physical threat to Infidels, and "only 90%" or so, we can be sure, would refuse to help promote the Jihad in non-violent ways.

What duties do the governments of the nation-states of the Western world -- or for that matter of the non-Western but non-Muslim world -have to protect their legal, political, and cultural institutions, their protection of individual rights so inimical to Islam, their free and skeptical inquiry, so inimical to Islam, their limitless means of artistic expression, so inimical to Islam. Do they, do our rulers, do those whose duty it is to protect and instruct us, fulfill that duty at the moment? Or are they failing everywhere in the Western world?

Posted by: Hugh at July 31, 2006 9:08 AM

Our enemies grow more numerous and dangerous, as our own societies become more weak and fat and ignorant.

It's only a matter of time before the worst scenarios we can imagine today become a bloody reality. Who will we blame then? What new internal enemies will we construct in order to continue the lunacy of ignoring the Islamic threat worldwide?

The United States is being "watered-down" with illegals who care nothing about U.S. history and barely speak our language -- so they obviously care even less about the future of European descendant Americans and will not be apt to listen to our shouts from the rooftops. It couldn't be happening at a worse time.

In addition, corporate greed keeps oil needs higher than they should be, while at the same time fostering regimes like those in power in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Egypt and smaller, rich Arab nations. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see the billionaires try to place another Bush (Jeb) into the White House soon.

We are in serious trouble as a nation, but the world is in even deeper trouble if we crumble.

Prepare to fight.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 31, 2006 10:48 AM

I stopped believing the conventional wisdom that Indonesia is a 'moderate' Islamic nation several years ago. I can see I was right. Indonesians have tragically fallen into the abyss of the 'real' Islam. Maybe forever. As I have said before, Islam is a one-way trip to hell for humanity.

It should, however, be remembered that Indonesia was never really considered to be a completely Islamicized country, which seemed to indicate that there was hope this beautiful island chain could serve as a model for positive things Islam could achieve. We now can see that this was a myth of the type that helped land the western democracies in the perilous waters they have found themselves in presently. There is NEVER hope for Muslims. (And the Kuran proves it).

But,Indonesia today has come closer to complete Islamicization. I don't know if the west could have prevented it from doing so, possibly not. But "Honest Reporting's" new film on Islam, "OBSESSION" pretty well removes the last remaining fig leaf from Indonesia today. Even Buddhist structures are being brutally destroyed by a people whose ancestors built the Borobudur, the world's greatest Buddhist edifice.

Very sad and terrible indeed.

Posted by: pythagoras at July 31, 2006 3:20 PM

have you noiced, Islam destroys every territory it possesses. All Islam countries are full of strife and poverty. Death and injustice prevail and why people surcumb to this nonsense is beyond me. Islam must be destroyed and the evil text the Qu'ran eradicated from earth.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 31, 2006 3:30 PM

Islam truly does destroy everything. Take the Palestinians, please! - they have nothing now, all that has been given to them, then ... they destroyed the UN building, you know that place that disburses billions to the Pals as jizya from the West. There is no US infrastructure there, no embassy, no nothing to attack. Nothing from Australia, pretty much nothing from Britian, nothing there except the headquarters of the UN, literally the lifeline for all the jizya to the Parasistic Palestinians, and then... they destroy that too. Go figure. Who woulda thunk it?

Posted by: John Sobieski at August 1, 2006 12:32 AM

I've never been to Indonesia but I remember hearing it was a beautiful country. Laid-back, a great vacation destination, back in the day. But not now, since Islam has taken over. Islam destoys everything it touches. It cannot exist with any other religion, it must be dominate. God weeps for these people. Islam is darkness, oppression.

Posted by: watcher at August 1, 2006 3:40 AM