| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a significant voice on the issue of jihad in India. His book, The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad, is excellent. Here is a FrontPage interview with him:
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Moorthy Muthuswamy, an expert on terrorism in India. He grew up in India, where he had firsthand experience with political Islam and jihad. He moved to America in 1984 to pursue graduate studies. In 1992, he received a doctorate in nuclear physics from Stony Brook University, New York. Since 1999 he has extensively published ideas on neutralizing political Islam's terror war as it is imposed on unbelievers. He is the author of the new book, The Art of War on Terror: Triumphing over Political Islam and the Axis of Jihad.FP: Moorthy Muthuswamy, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Muthuswamy: Thank you for the opportunity.
FP: What inspired you to write this book?
Muthuswamy: India has been a longstanding victim of Islam-inspired terror. There has been a need to address this terror issue comprehensively. This is also a humanitarian problem. Already an impoverished nation, millions of Indian children are going hungry and getting malnourished due to economic bleeding imposed in the name of Islam.
Toward the second half of 1990s I began to publish on this issue mostly in the South Asian context. Since the 9/11 attacks, my focus has shifted to include America.
Even after six years into the anniversary of 9/11 attacks, we are still struggling to identify the enemy, let alone figure out how to defeat him. However, in my view, we may be closer to realizing, at last, the parameters of waging a successful war on terror. I wanted to bring it to the audience by writing this book.
FP: Who is our enemy in this terror war? What engenders this enemy? Who are the main backers of this enemy?
Muthuswamy: Our enemy is political Islam and a movement based upon it: the political Islamic movement. Political Islam holds that Islam should have a dominant say in governing the affairs of government. There are good reasons for this outlook, going back to Islamic scriptures.
Islamic trilogy, consisting of the Koran, Hadith and Sira, is the basis of political Islam. In the past few years sophisticated scientific analysis of the trilogy has been carried out. The Center for Study of Political Islam has published a series along these lines. Their analysis points to a very dominant political nature of the trilogy – i.e. domination of political deeds of Islam’s founder Mohammed – as opposed to spirituality. Hence it is very reasonable to conclude that political Islam is almost Islam.
In the context of the trilogy, inner political Islam prevents Muslims from acquiring new knowledge to create a better future for themselves; external political Islam commands them to wage a religious war (called jihad) with unbelievers until the whole humanity is converted to Islam.
Trilogy-based evidence and early Islamic history suggest that political Islam’s intent on absolute control of Muslim masses and channeling of their energies toward conquest gives an impression of an ideology that is primarily designed for extending the powerbase of Mohammed during his times and that of extended tribes of Saudis, non-Saudi Arab Muslims and non-Arab Muslims (in that order) subsequent to his death.
This strong political component also means that Islam may not be structurally amenable to reform or moderation. If one takes away this political component, there is no Islam.
Mosques not only bring trilogy to Muslim communities but they also function as social centers. Due to the political domination of the trilogy, clerics are naturally inclined toward political activism, including multi-front jihad directed at unbelievers. It is ascertained in my book that political Islam, through its socially networked nodes called mosques, is the swamp that creates mosquitoes called jihadis, radicals, militants and extremists, and importantly, gets Muslim populations to support them.We should view political Islam, not radical or militant Islam, as our main enemy.
Any movement based on the political ideology outlined in the trilogy has to have powerful and resourceful backers in order to be successful. Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan have powerful political Islamic movements within that fuel movements elsewhere – both in other Muslim majority nations and in nations with Muslim minorities. These three nations are called, Axis of Jihad in my book.
Saudi and Iranian funding for mosques can be seen as the most efficient way of advancing jihad, by funding nodes of social network in Muslim communities. Also, the axis of jihad nations or political Islamic movements in these nations has created powerful proxies – be it Al-Qaeda, Afghan Taliban (by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) or Hezbollah (by Iran).
In this context we can now identify the weakness in American strategy in the war on terror. America is trying to neutralize proxies and radicals while doing little to neutralize the axis of jihad and the global political Islamic movement. While I agree with the initial assault on Saddam’s regime and the Taliban, the continued occupation of Iraq – and even Afghanistan appear to be expensive, time-consuming and draining diversions.
We are now further identifying the enemy: a political ideology of conquest that inspires terror, mosques as the nodes that spawn jihad and axis of jihad as the main backer nations of the ideology and the nodes.
FP: Well, the continued “occupation” of Iraq has indeed brought many challenges, but the bottom line is that Iraq is today the jihadis’ central front in their war against the West. If we cut and run, we will embolden political Islam everywhere and the bloodbath that will follow may resemble another Southeast Asia after 1975 – and probably much worse.
Muthuswamy: Indeed, a pull-out from Iraq under the current conditions will embolden jihadis and their backers. However, if we work to increase the pressure points on jihadis and the political Islamic movement (discussed in the book), it will make our pull-out from Iraq less difficult and justifiable.
FP: Ok, well, we can continue a debate and discussion on this issue in another forum. The Iraq war is not our focus today my friend.
Tell us a bit about your problem-solving approach to the war on terror.
Muthuswamy: Because the political Islamic movement is driven by a conquest-oriented medieval ideology and outlook, it behaves like a “germ”. Dialogue or accommodation is simply not possible. Second, this movement is entrenched among Muslim populations and importantly, is networked, with multiple power centers or nodes. This means classical approach of predominantly using diplomacy and/or military force, along with aid is not effective. This may be the reason why our traditional Think Tanks are struggling to come up with a coherent policy response that our political leaders could rely on.
We are fighting this war with a number of preconceived notions. I have debunked many critical ones in my book. Let me mention a few (within the brackets are my retorts):
Democracy is the solution to radical Islam. (No, in order for functional democracies to take root, political Islam must first be neutralized.);
A widely practiced religion must have a strong moderate component. (No again, free wealth can create conditions for complete domination of extremism.);
The fight within Islam is between moderates and extremists. (No, the fight is between different extremist groups or schools of thought.);
We must use moderates in Islam to fight extremists. (We must use a fundamentally different approach: using science-based arguments to help liberate educated Muslims so that they are empowered to neutralize political Islamic movement from within.);
Ideology is the strong suit of Muslim radicals. (No, seen through common sense, derived from science, it is political Islam’s weak link.);
We can rely on moderate leaders in nations such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. (The de facto power in these nations are political Islamic movements, this makes these leaders ineffective in stopping these nations from being fountainheads of terror.);
Grievances drive Muslim populations into anger and towards terror. (No, most grievances are manufactured to channel Muslim energies towards jihad.).
FP: Can you talk a bit about science vs. political Islamic ideology?
Muthuswamy: Political Islamic ideology is found in the Islamic trilogy. Confronting this ideology with science is a no-lose proposition and has the most potential for driving a wedge between the political Islam and educated Muslims. This should also lead to loss of prestige of Muslim clerics and weakening of nodes of network that spawn jihad – the mosques.
Educated Muslims are the backbone of the political Islamic movement. Clearly, madarasa-only educated Muslims do not have the requisite knowledge to operate effectively in the modern world; the college educated ones do.
Due to physical threats, the trilogy couldn’t be put under microscope in Islamic nations and political correctness has done the same in Western nations. But the existential threat arising from political Islam calls for taking a critical look at the trilogy.
Here is a brief critical look.
The Koran was the first book of the trilogy to be put together, and that was done several decades after the death of Mohammed. In a Hadith it is said that Koranic verses were collected from bits of bone, stone, parchment, date palm leaves, and also from the memories of those who had memorized it.
Clearly, leaves, stones, bits of bone, and people’s memory are not reliable forms of note-taking or information storage when Mohammed delivered his “revelations”. This is common sense. For something as profound as God’s “revelations,” there shouldn’t be an iota of doubt about their authenticity. We can make a powerful assertion that available evidence makes the claim of associating these revelations with God not scientifically credible.
Second point to be noted: Immersed in a rudimentary and often flawed understanding of nature, the tribes Mohammed belonged to were not well-placed to identify phoney messengers of God or falsehood.
While this type of an ideological warfare can be seen as a must, it is a long-term approach. We do need near-term measures that increase the cost of waging jihad unbearable for its sponsors.
FP: Illuminate for us the ongoing jihad in India.
Muthuswamy: The answer to the question of what will likely happen to Europe and other nations as their resident Muslim populations rise faster than unbelievers becomes apparent by studying the ongoing jihad in India’s vicinity and in India itself.
During the last sixty years, from every Muslim majority area of South Asia – without exception – be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or from India’s own Kashmir valley, non-Muslims have been massively driven out to India. This occurred when the Muslim population there achieved political power through majority status. Also, laws and conditions have been put in place to deliberately marginalize non-Muslims. In almost all of these cases, mosques and the clerics played a major role in facilitating this “conquest”. In India the Muslim population percentage has increased from about 10 percent in 1951 to about 15 percent now. Even within 85 percent non-Muslim India, in some Muslim majority towns this phenomenon is getting repeated. These South Asian populations share language, food habits and culture but differ in religion. Clearly, these Muslim populations are influenced by political Islam.
Written orders were issued by Pakistan’s military high command to kill Hindus in the then East Pakistan in 1971. The largest religion-based genocide of the past fifty years was conducted as a result. Most of these expulsions and genocides occurred before 1972 – well before the large-scale infusion of petrodollars and Wahhabism.
Those who claim that oil money, Muslim “grievance” or “freedom fighting” are responsible for terror should think again. As noted earlier, political Islam’s fundamental emphasis on conquest is traced to the scripture level.
This data of non-Muslim expulsions from every Muslim majority area of South Asia implies that Muslims of this region do not believe in coexistence. This also points to intolerance among Indian Muslims (also substantiated in other ways). But due to their minority status they have not been able to completely impose their will on non-Muslim Indians. Still, Indian Muslim leaders have managed to lay siege to Indian democracy and have started to marginalize majority (to be discussed later) Hence, a fast-growing Muslim population within India can be seen as a looming genocidal threat to non-Muslim Indians.
With about half of worldwide Muslim population in South Asia, this damning conclusion couldn’t be set aside as a deviant. The implications of this analysis for regions and nations with fast-growing and radicalized Muslim populations can’t be understated. A more complete statistics discussed in my book can be useful in articulating and justifying far-reaching policy measures.
At the moment, India’s only Muslim majority state of Kashmir is embroiled in an insurgency. Material and other forms of support for this insurgency come not just from Pakistan but also from many Middle Eastern nations, including Saudi Arabia. While these Muslim nations find it convenient to support “freedom fighting” of Muslims, they choose to neglect non-Muslim ethnic cleansing from every Muslim majority area of South Asia. For instance, Pakistan-controlled part of Kashmir is virtually devoid of non-Muslims. This fits in with the idea of extending Islam’s frontiers at the expense of unbelievers.
Terror is just one avenue for conquering the land belonging to infidels. When Muslims are a minority different ways must be found. Special reservations for Muslims in jobs and educational institutions were demanded and extracted by intimidating ruling regimes in India. In the long run, these unfair reservations empowers Muslims at the expense of people belonging to other faiths, setting the stage for further annihilation of non-Muslim faiths in India.
Powerful clerics and Muslim community leaders “cautioned” the Indian government of violent attacks by “angry” Muslims if the reservation demands were not met. After all, Muslim masses have been told in mosques that their relative lack of representation in positions requiring education is no fault of their own; only government and the Hindu majority are to be blamed. This flawed perception of Muslim grievance has taken years to achieve and is part of the jihad buildup funded by several Middle East nations and Pakistan whose passion is unbeliever conquest.
The jihad-related data from India (and everywhere else) emphasizes the need to preempt jihad buildup at its infancy. The power structure of political Islam is based in mosques – the socially networked nodes. With its power so narrowly concentrated (Muslim masses are otherwise disorganized outside of mosques), mosques are also political Islam’s greatest weak link.
Political Islam’s contemporary record of unbeliever genocide, backed by scriptures, has no parallels with any other faith. Hence, as part of preemption, non-Muslim majority nations are well-within their rights to categorize any mosque or any Muslim religious institution that stocks or distributes material derived from Islamic trilogy as an enemy entity – and shut them down if needed. Even if a mosque appears outwardly moderate in a Western nation, by preaching trilogy dominated by political Islam, it is still stealthily building up jihad in local Muslim community! Of course, mosques in Muslim majority nations are overt about advancing jihad.
This way of going after the nodes that spawn jihad should also help liberate Muslim populations to alternate way of life or faith – i.e. help ensure religious freedom of Muslim populations repressed by a political ideology masquerading as a religion. Importantly, this tactic does not violate liberty of individual Muslims.
FP: How does India serve as a counterforce to jihad? What is the best policy the U.S. and the West should apply vis-à-vis India in this context?
Muthuswamy: In terms of population, location and size, India matches the extended global network of Muslim populations that are influenced by political Islam. When a non-white, non-Christian developing nation such as India claims to have been victimized at the hands of Islamic nations and movements, it is bound to create ideological difficulties for Islamists who have made Muslim grievance the bedrock upon which to build the jihad castle.
If America could help deliver a fatal blow to the former Soviet Union by backing Muslim nations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, why not back cornered Indians to fight political Islam and its sponsoring nations? Unlike a resurgent political Islamic movement, which has turned its guns on its former benefactor America, a resurgent India already sharing secular and democratic mode of governing is no threat to the Western civilization.
An integral part of this project can be neutralizing the influence of Deoband Islamic seminary in India. This seminary is the major force behind political Islamic movement and jihad in entire South Asia and Afghanistan. An India working to successfully neutralize political Islam within can do more. Sharing language and culture with Pakistan and Bangladesh, such an India could help to liberate these nations to alternate faiths or way of life. While these ideas may look far-fetched now, policy decisions should be geared toward rapidly building up India in order to create a new future.
Helping India is nothing other than helping to empower a West-friendly Hindu majority to mobilize and take on political Islamic movement, by building on the grievance majority has had in the hands of political Islam. This also involves aiding Hindu organizations and promoting able and strong leaders such as Narendra Modi of Bharathya Janata Party (BJP), which have the wherewithal to take on political Islam.
The current regime of ManMohan Singh-Sonia Gandhi has proven to be, through policies enacted, an unwitting friend of jihadists in India. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Sonia Gandhi’s Congress party, according to Indian intelligence, has been infiltrated by jihadists. Due to the policies enacted by Manmohan Singh’s government, jihadi infiltration into Indian institions is escalating, including its paramilitary forces. The window of opportunity to leverage 850 million beleagured non-Muslim Indians for a win-win situation is fast closing.
Nassim Taleb observes in his book, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (Random House, 2007) that “History does not crawl, it jumps”. He mentions how certain precipitous and unpredictable events changed the course of history or societies.
In other words, history or societies don’t change in predictable and small incremental steps. There is always this pattern: Certain unpredictable events affected significant percentage of a population leading to evolution of a society in a new direction. But the American response to 9/11 attacks can at best be seen as a predictable, incremental progression in dealing with the enemy. This approach, historically, as noted earlier, doesn’t work! American security, including its nuclear security, continues to be compromised by the presence of strong political Islamic movements in axis of jihad nations.
One could argue that with political Islamic movement in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan being the de facto powers there, and outside of the control of the national leadership and being entrenched, decisive strikes could be an unfortunate necessity. In other words, these strikes could become in the word’s of Nassim Taleb’s 2007 book, a “Black Swan” – the unexpected and devastating event that compel jihad-sponsoring populations that are part of the political Islamic movement to make a U-turn vis-à-vis terror support.
More so than any Western nation or even Israel, there is an important way a jihad victim state such as India can help deliver decisive near-term blows to political Islamic movements in some axis of jihad nations.
Using Muslim majority Kashmir as a jihad base extensive network of terror cells have been established in Muslim communities all throughout India. It is a matter of time India is hit in a major way, thanks to jihad buildup in India sponsored mainly by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Strikes on India’s nuclear reactors, oil refineries or call-center infrastructure, for instance, is bound to make devastating economic impact and make hundrends of milions more of its children go hungry, and destitute and set the stage for India’s ireversible destruction and eventual Islamization. Under international law every state, including India, has the right to strike back preemptively and devastatingly when faced with a blatant and long-pattern of genocide by an enemy.
Iran’s situation is different, with clerics in direct control there. America may have to execute military strikes to slow down its nuclear program. However, Iran does have a strong semi-secular nationalist political class, unlike Sunni Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. With this class and misgoverning by clerics, there exists potential for discrediting the standing of ruling mullahs as the first step towards neutralizing its terror and nuclear threats.
FP: Moorthy Muthuswamy, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Muthuswamy: It was an honor to be interviewed at Frontpage.
Posted by Robert at December 7, 2007 8:38 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
FP: Well, the continued “occupation” of Iraq has indeed brought many challenges, but the bottom line is that Iraq is today the jihadis’ central front in their war against the West. If we cut and run, we will embolden political Islam everywhere and the bloodbath that will follow may resemble another Southeast Asia after 1975 – and probably much worse.
Why does it have to be cut and run? Why can't you leave the country when you feel like it, and continue to make life hell for Islamic Jihad at every level therebye neutralizing the "emboldened" political Islamists. Having their trilogy banned and their schemes brought to light would quickly destroy the "emboldened" feeling of Islam. As for the bloodbath, why is that US's problem? Let Russia step in on behalf of the Muslims.
The Dr. Moorthy is correct in his analysis, but it will fall upon deaf ears. Marxists are hear and indoctrinating. Even conservatives dont' understand. Everything is going downhill, and too few have the insight to realize it, and take concrete steps to prevent the downfall.
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 7, 2007 9:39 AM
here !
Posted by: Sneakyzionistcrusader at December 7, 2007 9:40 AM
I have been to India in the last couple of years. It is a pleasure to go to a country where the United States is not hated. Even Bush is respected because he takes the war on terror seriously (whether or not you agree with the tactics, he does). In other countries you must be defensive. They need more first hand experience of jihad, though I do not wish it upon them.
Except on paper, I don't think separating Political Jihad from radical or extremist or inner Islam is possible. Rather, culturism would ask us to look at domestic and foreign Islam. Culturism lets majority cultures have rights domestically. If a country is Islamic we have no problem with that. But we, including India, are non-Islamic majority countries and have a right to protect ourselves as such.
Even if we wanted to violate culturist principles and go in and remove the Islam from Iran, it would be expensive, dangerous and futile. However, nuclear weapons are not a part of their traditional culture, we should take them out. If Pakistan thinks of retaliating we should back up our Hindu partner. As Dr. Muthuswamy says, we must take sides with those who support Western culture.
But Hindus as majority culture has a right to say "no" to the Deoband Islamic seminary in India. If they ask why the discrimination, we should roll our eyes and say why in Islamic countries? This is culturist common sense and we are employing it. As India has many Muslims that it is hard to say no, we should have much less political difficulty and note why.
Like Dr. Muthuswamy I think the building of mosques in non-Islamic states is an act of cultural aggression. Money should only be allowed into Western nations for investment. This is because once the mosque is built it will function as an breeder of moderate, jihadi, extreme, political and inner varieties of Islam simultaneously.
www.culturism.us
Posted by: jkp at December 7, 2007 9:42 AM
I think I'm going to fax this to my Congressman.
This article is probably the best anti-dote to the notion that our struggle with Jihad was brought on by ourselves and Bush.
If leaders can be made to see that India's jihad struggle is progressing just as our is perhaps the blinders will be removed?
at December 7, 2007 9:43 AM
"Political Islam’s contemporary record of unbeliever genocide, backed by scriptures, has no parallels with any other faith. Hence, as part of preemption, non-Muslim majority nations are well-within their rights to categorize any mosque or any Muslim religious institution that stocks or distributes material derived from Islamic trilogy as an enemy entity – and shut them down if needed. Even if a mosque appears outwardly moderate in a Western nation, by preaching trilogy dominated by political Islam, it is still stealthily building up jihad in local Muslim community!"
Well said, Dr. Muthuswamy! These points should be brought to the attention of every Western president or prime minister, every cabinet member, every congressman or member of Parliament or depute, and every governor, as well as every university dean, every newspaper editor, and every church head.
at December 7, 2007 9:56 AM
Not only send a copy of this article/interview to every member of Congress, especially the first Muslim Congressman (Minn), but to every university/college president and staff in this country. What was it that the University of Florida vice-president for whatever said about reinforcing negative stereotypes about Islam?
Posted by: HOV Dummy at December 7, 2007 10:12 AM
I firmly believe India is one of the most important countries in the world as far as resistance to Jihad goes. It's a growing, industrializing, democratic nation with a full understanding and knowledge of what it means to be victimized by Islam. And they are in the same danger we all are.
Sadly, the same PC forces at work in the West are active there too. But just as we Americans have to stand with Europe, we must stand with India.
A terrific and enlightening interview.
Posted by: Proud Infidel at December 7, 2007 10:13 AM
Mosques...as I said on another thread...'If you build it they will come', is how Islam spreads itself around. I don't think ending mosque building will end Islam, but it would slow down it's expansion. A big news source www.infopig.com
under it's various topics section has at the very bottom a link for mosques. Mosque news. Lots of news articles about mosques...
at December 7, 2007 10:30 AM
A science fiction vision...
If we come to extreme times (chunks of cities destroyed, etc.) and there is the political will to make islam illegal (a hard issue because of civil liberties), ex-muslims will be allowed to continue their life unmolested by state power only if they accept a generation or two of intrusive surveillance. If you teach your kids to respect Mohammed -- BAM! -- imprisonment or deportation.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 10:42 AM
"I don't think ending mosque building will end Islam, but it would slow down it's expansion."
This is Moorthy Muthuswamy.
I have pointed out that from a scientific analysis of both scriptures and based upon the contemporary outlook of Muslim populations, Islam is (almost) political Islam and it is a political ideology designed for conquest and genocide. Hence it couldn't be treated as a faith, but only as an enemy entity in non-Muslim majority nations.
It is obvious that mosque is the most dominant power structure of political Islam.
Without the presence of mosques in non-Muslim nations and the continued indoctrination carried out in it, Muslim masses will get unchecked exposure to "modernism". Modernism comes in the form of TV, movies, news media, "modern education" and of course, interaction with non-Muslims. Modernism is very appealing and infectious. This needs to be backed by discrediting the ideological basis of political Islam (discussed in the interview).
Under these circumstances, Muslim masses without access to mosques will no longer find political Islam appealing. As a result they will simply leave for alternate way of life or faiths. This will be the beginning of the end for political Islam in non-Muslim majority nations.
at December 7, 2007 11:00 AM
"there is the political will to make islam illegal (a hard issue because of civil liberties)"
Shutting down mosques on the grounds of being an "enemy entity", I don't believe, violates civil liberties!
Posted by: MoorthyM at December 7, 2007 11:05 AM
Moorthy,
I agree but most in the West arent ready for that harsh reality.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 11:08 AM
Ironic-this article appears one day after the 15th anniversary of the Hindu demolition of the jihadist Walmart (i.e. mosque) at Ayodhya. It seemed so awful to see back then but now this infidel knows better. THAT was a supreme act of anti-dhimmitude to say the least. Considering the destruction of infidel holy sites all over the world since then the Islamaniacs are lucky that Ayodhya hasn't been repeated.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 7, 2007 11:14 AM
"I don't think ending mosque building will end Islam, but it would slow down it's expansion."
-------------------------------------
Dr. Muthuswamy is absolutely correct. The mosque is an important element in Islamic imperialism. Limiting their influence is a tactical necessity.
In fact, if you look at every school of Islam that is centered on the mosque, they are all jihadist. In contrast, the one and only successful reform of Islam that has eliminated Jihad and Sharia oppression does not center on the mosque. These are the Ismailis who have Jamatkhanas instead of mosques.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 7, 2007 11:16 AM
"I agree but most in the West arent ready for that harsh reality."
May I say that it could be partly because of lack of data and analysis.
Center for the Study of Political Islam has carried out an unprecedented scientific analysis of the Islamic trilogy that point to a very dominant political nature of Islam. Now, we have data coming in, from India and others on the outlook of Muslim population towards unbelievers. Mr. Robert Spencer's latest book is also a very important contribution in this direction.
I do think that we can now articulate our views very effectively, to set the stage for policy to follow...
at December 7, 2007 11:18 AM
Moorthy,
If I know this, I am positive that our Western leaders know. Its more out of political correctness and an unwillingness to rock the boat. I even participated in a campaign to mail Robert Spencer's latest book and a DVD to all our Senators. As far as I know, no one has receieved any contact.
I could be wrong but Im afriad its going to get a lot worse before any Western leader will stand up and not afraid to say "enough is enough"
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 11:22 AM
John Adams,
I agree. This is an article every leader in the free world should read.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 11:44 AM
Jonah Goldberg on Islam:
from http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjIxNmMyMDQwNTg5OTUwMTNiYWYwZGZhZmFmNjA0MzA=
"This is why I think many people get too invested in the tenets of Muslim theology. Defenders of Islam, as well as apologists for terror, often say Islam means peace and point to this or that quote from the Koran. Opponents of Islam will often say that Islam is a religion of violence and conquest and point to a different part of the Koran. As a literary exercise, both sides have good arguments. But at the end of the day, Koranic exegesis will only get you so far. Ultimately, a religion is what its adherents do in its name.
"And for a significant minority of Muslims, it is simply the case that Islam is a religion of violence. How else are we supposed to react to a Sudanese mob chanting for the execution of a schoolteacher because she permitted her students to name a teddy bear Mohammed. The people who should be angry about this fact are the majority of Muslims who claim theirs is a religion of peace (and, it should be noted, some Muslims were indeed mortified by the spectacle)."
at December 7, 2007 12:14 PM
The mosque imperialism works two ways: proliferate mosques in non-islamic countries and prohibit them in muslim ones. The liberal non-islamic mindset is unable to comprehend the sucker deal it has been led into.
There are just two issues which I have with this excellent and brilliantly perceptive analysis.
First, science by itself will not counter political islam as long as it has the backing of social islam - the feeling of community or ummah, which offers its adherents a great sense of belonging, meaning, comfort and anchoring in an otherwise incomprehensible world with its chaotic and even unacceptable change.
The familiar has to be defended even at the cost of logic and common sense. Attempts to ridicule or point out the incongruities in islam may be counter productive,and may just end up with the muslims going into a defensive state of denial and blame on some infidel conspiracies or proxies - the West,CIA, Jews etc, if not outright rejection and hostility.
Secondly, I am not as sanguine about India, the ultra-Dhimmi state, if there is one. Save for outstandingly courageous exceptions like Modi of Gujerat, most of its politicians are clue-less about islam, having been brought up on the Gandhi-Nehru waffle about all religions being equal and leading to the same God etc. Almost all Indian states are vying to give unfair reserved quotas to muslims - in education, bank finance and government jobs, including police - in order to woo their precious votes.
Islam finds it very easy to play its cards well and completely to its own advantage alone, in a democracy and in a liberal society. Like a cat sharing a small closed room with pigeons.
Posted by: Dunk at December 7, 2007 12:24 PM
Oops, that should have been " proliferate mosques in non-islamic countries and prohibit Non-muslims from building their churches and temples in muslim ones"
Posted by: Dunk at December 7, 2007 12:28 PM
"First, science by itself will not counter political islam as long as it has the backing of social islam...
Secondly, I am not as sanguine about India, the ultra-Dhimmi state, if there is one...
These are very valid and perceptive points.
However, there are ways of getting around what you have pointed out. Three sections have been devoted to address these issues in my published book.
Posted by: MoorthyM at December 7, 2007 12:38 PM
oh! Moorthy Muthuswamy is here!
fine interview. i've let others know about it and (... financial sigh ...) might even spring for the book! thanks much.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 12:43 PM
This should be required reading for all our leaders in the West.
If we do not learn from India we might be doomed to the living hell they have been enduring for hundreds of years.
A wonderful interview and a brilliant analysis by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy.
Thank you.
at December 7, 2007 12:48 PM
About this idea of shutting down mosques ("enemy entities"). In day-to-day life (before an extreme situation occurs), of course there is a civil liberties implication. Do you wish to prevent Muslims from meeting in their homes, for "Koran study" and "Hadith happiness"? What would have to happen before such a restrictive policy became practical?
The situation that would make action possible may not occur. The smiling Muslims offer us hummus and continue to teach Islamic supremacy at home and at mosque.
A closing of mosques would at least alert the rest of the population to the reality that this "Religion of Peace" is something quite different, quite vile. But I don't see this happening. The best answer, I'm afraid, is a general restriction on immigration.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 12:58 PM
Interesting comments JKP.
As for Mr Muthuswamy, he hits the nail on the head when he writes
"If one takes away this political component, there is no Islam."
Why then, does he go out of his way to characterize Jihad as "political Islam"...instead of just referring to the danger as Islam?
Like so many of us - myself included when engaging Liberals in discourse about Islam and trying to reach them - this is a subtle form of self-censorship and psychological conditioning. Even the likes of Moorthy Muthuswami - at the very moment he accurately depicts Islam as existentially intolerance - feels compelled to make a non-existent distinction by tagging the word "political" onto the religion.
Posted by: Cornelius at December 7, 2007 1:01 PM
Mr. Muthuswamy is also on his way to becoming a major anti-jihad figure in the United States--and a most welcome one at that.
I have moved him to front rank in my personal list of anti-jihad heroes.
The more I read of his material, the more hopeful I am personally that America can defeat jihad.
Posted by: pythagoras at December 7, 2007 1:01 PM
"Do you wish to prevent Muslims from meeting in their homes, for "Koran study" and "Hadith happiness"? What would have to happen before such a restrictive policy became practical?"
Good Points!
I believe we can shut down Muslim religious institutions (as enemy entities) without violating liberty of individuals.
That may just be enough.
By doing that you are sending a message you are "downgrading" the so-called religion to a genocidal political ideology. As I have said you have to back it with an ideological warfare.
People do not want to be identified with losers. Many Muslims will get the message and take to alternate way of life.
Of course, there will be some old timers and others will still cling on to “study” groups on the Islamic trilogy. But the trend and time will no longer be in their favor! Without clerics in mosque-like settings, these groups will not be effective in spawning jihad or standing up for political Islam.
at December 7, 2007 1:10 PM
Cornelius,
I think the problem is that Islam is so many things that you can not categorize it. Islam is a religion, it is a political system, it is a nationality (Ummah), it is a culture, etc.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 1:12 PM
"Why then, does he go out of his way to characterize Jihad as "political Islam"...instead of just referring to the danger as Islam?"
I am not trying to be apologetic at all. Deception is not just Islam's founder's past time...
Posted by: MoorthyM at December 7, 2007 1:14 PM
"Deception is not just Islam founder's past time."
Funny.
A first step would be to remove Islam from the list of creeds that have special civil rights protection. Hugh Fitzgerald has noted here that the Supreme Court never ruled on what constitutes a "religion"; so perhaps first amendment protection could be removed.
At least we're talking about taking effective action at the level of social definition, moving from the false ("Islam is a Religion of Peace") to the true ("Islam is a Fifth Column").
at December 7, 2007 1:23 PM
"Hugh Fitzgerald has noted here that the Supreme Court never ruled on what constitutes a "religion"; so perhaps first amendment protection could be removed."
Thats what Im pushing. Its not a religion as we understand it. Nevermind the fact that the Constituion and Islam are not compatible.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 1:25 PM
Islam will prove to be the single most menacing ideology to defeat in the history of man. Marxism and fascism are strictly junior varsity totalitarian ideologies compared to Islam. This struggle, I am convinced, will go on into the indefinite future. Our great-grandchildren will be dealing with this the better part of a century from now. Meanwhile, non-Muslims worldwide need to cooperate against this Islamic menace as much as possible. A quiet achievement of the Bush Administration has been attaining the best relations America had had with India since its birth in 1947. Continued cooperation between India and America on a wide variety of fronts, including of course dealing with Islam's hegemonic goals, is an imperative as the world moves by fits and starts into a future made all the more uncertain and troubling by the world's most intolerant and depressing religion.
Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2007 1:38 PM
Wellington,
We do need India. This isnt just Islam vrs West, its Islam vrs civilization.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 1:48 PM
Dr Muthuswamy,
Kudos for thoughtful article. Islamists dodge criticism by using the bogie of racism, bigotry etc... If we could generate tremendous amount of academic research, including psycho analysis of situations in triolgy, it would provide a context in future to engage Islamists a civil debate. Challenge is to find a university that has the guts to take it. I am sure there are enough people to fund it. When cohorts of people like witzel perform willy nilly psycho analysis of Indian Gods, why they hesitate to look into Islam.
May be this is a good idea for people like Hugh or Horowitz to pursue. Establish a chair/department in a university to research into trilogy scientifically.
Posted by: Desi at December 7, 2007 1:56 PM
Elric 66: You're right. It's not just Islam versus the West but Islam versus civilization. I wonder when the Russians and Chinese will figure this out, though, and desist from petty tactical opposition to America and begin to see the broader, strategic situation the world is faced with.
Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2007 2:08 PM
THANK YOU DR.M for a MAJOR wake up call! Every point hits home. Time to destroy the "germs" - fast!!
Posted by: freetoBEfree at December 7, 2007 2:10 PM
"About this idea of shutting down mosques ("enemy entities"). In day-to-day life (before an extreme situation occurs), of course there is a civil liberties implication."
Posted by: StillBreathing
Yes there are civil liberties issues. But there are ways around these. For one thing, not all Western countries have as rigorous protection of religious choice as the U.S. Germany, I seem to remember, came down very hard on Scientology several years ago; it was branded a cult, not a religion. Also, Germany prohibits the promulgation of Nazi writings and propaganda. Well, there is an awful lot in the Islamic scriptures, and modern Islamic writing, that is virtually the same as Nazi teachings, so they could be attacked on that basis.
Even in the U.S. freedom of religion does not extend to violation of civil laws. Thus the Mormons had to give up polygamy in order for Utah to be admitted to the Union as a state. Also, U.S. law does not permit the "honor killing" of wayward daughters, sisters, or wives. Any organization that advocates should be guilty of incitement, and tried as an aider and abettor of anyone who actually commits this crime. Likewise in the matter of child abuse -- like the Moslem holiday where little boys have their scalps slashed by their mothers. The state is already empowered to take children from "unfit" homes, and arrest child-abusers. And again, any imam who preaches in favor of this should be tried as an aider and abettor. Nobody could claim it was anti-Moslem: remember what the U.S. government did to the Waco cult, who were accused (falsely, as it turned out) of child-abuse. The feds went in with machine guns, flame-throwing tanks, and helicopters, and killed 90 people. And the national news media and liberal talking heads said nothing. If that could be done to a fringe (very fringe) Christian group, it could be done to others. Then there is all the hate-propaganda to be found in many mosques, the exhortations to kill Christians and Jews and infidels in general, or to support that killing.
Oh, there are plenty of laws already on the books that could be used against the Moslem criminals. All that is needed is the political approval to use them.
at December 7, 2007 2:19 PM
A few more thoughts in regard to civil liberties questions:
In the U.S. it is Congress that decides the limits of the competence of the Supreme Court. All that is necessary is for Congress to pass a law stating that Islam is not to be considered a religion for purposes of the First Amendment, and that this law is not subject to Supreme Court review, and then for the President to sign it, or for Congress to over-ride a veto. Admittedly this would be a difficult task, but not insurmountable -- remember what was done to Japanese-American citizens in WW2, and to Italian-Americans and German-Americans as well.
at December 7, 2007 2:32 PM
Wellington,
I really wouldnt call Russia and China civilized but you are right that they have as much to lose as we do.
I honestly dont think anyone is thinking a long term stategy except Islam.
Posted by: Elric66 at December 7, 2007 2:34 PM
ebonystone,
Here is an article from today's news about Germany proposing a ban on Scientology:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071207/ap_on_re_eu/germany_scientology_1
"Germany's top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the U.S.-based Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and will seek to ban the group... The German government considers Scientology a commercial enterprise that takes advantage of vulnerable people... The ministers plan to task the nation's domestic intelligence agency to begin preparing the necessary information to ban Scientology in Germany. The agency has had Scientology under observation for a decade on allegations that it "threatens the peaceful democratic order" of the country..."
Islam's goals are certainly in conflict with the principles of the German constitution and islam certainly threatens the peaceful democratic order of Germany. But nothing is done about islam. The major difference is that there are millions of muslims currently in Germany, but only thousands of scientologists.
Posted by: del at December 7, 2007 2:46 PM
MOORTHYM: "I am not trying to be apologetic at all. Deception is not just Islam's founder's past time..."
RESPONSE: I appreciate what you are saying here, which is essentially - correct me if I'm wrong - that the time is not propitious to declare Islam itself as the enemy of humanity. Instead, we are better off targeting "political Islam" as a more manageable foe, thereby hoping to enlist the support of Western Liberals and Muslim moderates in what is still a worthy cause.
I don't necessarily disagree. I am a pragmatist. But I do wonder if making such obfuscating distinctions as "political Islam" will do little to mollify the enmity to our cause felt by a majority of Muslims, and succeed mainly in clouding the issue for us infidels, blunting the message most of us here at JW know to be a factual reality...that Islam in its essence...is antithetical to...and irreconcilable with...human freedom.
I'm not picking a fight here Mr Moorthy. I'm genuinely interested in what you and others have to say about this particular point. Is it wise or is it perhaps counter-productive to qualify our opposition to Islam by targeting only its political expression?
Posted by: Cornelius at December 7, 2007 3:13 PM
"All that is necessary is for Congress to pass a law stating that Islam is not to be considered a religion for purposes of the First Amendment, and that this law is not subject to Supreme Court review..."
The Constitution is the law under which other laws are made. What you're proposing would not be legal or accepted.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 3:15 PM
"Muthuswamy: In terms of population, location and size, India matches the extended global network of Muslim populations that are influenced by political Islam. When a non-white, non-Christian developing nation such as India claims to have been victimized at the hands of Islamic nations and movements, it is bound to create ideological difficulties for Islamists who have made Muslim grievance the bedrock upon which to build the jihad castle.
If America could help deliver a fatal blow to the former Soviet Union by backing Muslim nations against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, why not back cornered Indians to fight political Islam and its sponsoring nations? Unlike a resurgent political Islamic movement, which has turned its guns on its former benefactor America, a resurgent India already sharing secular and democratic mode of governing is no threat to the Western civilization."
-- from the interview above
The mind-set of many in this country who would prefer not to find out about, nor to be told, about the nature, and menace, of Islam, allows them to more easily shut their ears, if they can label those who offer that evidence, and that logic, if the person in question is from the benighted West -- even better if such a person can have pinned to his lapel a sign reading "right-wing" or "conservative." When Ayaan Hirsi Ali comes along, or Wafa Sultan, it becomes most difficult, most uncomfortable. And attempts are made to shut them out, or not to recognize their existence: it amazes, does it not, that not a single Democratic candidate has yet had a meeting with Ayaan Hirsi Ali, when such a meeting would send a signal that this "liberal" is perfectly capable of intelligent inquiry into the matter of Islam --and in any case, would or could be used to signal that this candidate, at least, can combine opposition to the war in Iraq with an awareness that the ideology of Islam needs to be investigated, shows every sign of not being benign, and has to be dealt with, but not in the naive and sentimental fashion, which rests on an avoidness of grasping the meaning, and facing the menace, of Islam.
An Indian, or Indian-American author, bearing such a name as Moorthy Muthuswamy, is more likely to be read, less easy to dismiss or affix a label to (though no doubt Muslim propagandists are even now getting in a shipment from Pakistan's ISI of labels that read "Hindu fanatic." And if that is what it takes, even to have such books circulating in the Pentagon and in Congress, fine.
This comment is not about the excellent work that Muthuswamy's book undoubtedly is, but rather to the way in which, in this silly age where the background of the author is given exaggerated attention, not only when it is a question of fiction (how many times have you seen those lists of "summer reading" on "contemporary women writers" handed out to high-school students for "summer reading" that will, even beyond the maddening category chosen, further divide the reading under the rubrics "Afro-American" and "Asian-American" and "Chicano" and, oh yes, I almost forgot, a category that is not labelled but can be called "Other."
The inattention to intrinsic literary merit, and instead the exaggerated attention to the author's supposed "identity" (overheard in English class at a private school, teacher to student in a class: "So, tell us Lily, as an Asian-American girl, how do you feel about Amy Tan?") is silly, transparent, grotesque -- and universal.
And it has spilled over, this practice of not being able to read and gauge intrinsic merit, into non-fiction works. Thus a book on the Middle East, that some might in advance wish to ignore or dismiss as "pro-Israel" (whatever that means), can be more easily dismissed by such people if the author bears a last name recognizably Jewish. (Names, however, do not indicate whether an author or authors may suffer from that mental pathology known as antisemitism, which finds an acceptable outlet in ahistorical treatments of Israel and "the Jewish lobby").
For such an audience, schooled to look at the author's picture and biography, as Muthuswamy notes, if studies of both the ideology (the texts and tenets, the doctrine) of Islam, and of the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslim peoples, come not only from those who are of the "white West" and apparently, dismissable for that reason, but from others, who come originally from elsewhere. Every time someone begins to tell you -- perhaps someone running for President -- that "Bush” or “this immoral war in Iraq, where our soldiers are dying on a daily basis” or “American foreing policy” explains Islamic hostility, a hostility rooted in texts that go back to the seventh (or possibly eighth century) and that explain, for the past 1350 years, quite accurately, the behavior of Muslims toward all non-Muslims, a behavior that predates the existence of the United States of America by more than a millennium.
Some will investigate Islam on their own, others must be forced or embarrassed or mocked into studying, the texts and tenets of Islam. And then embarrassed or mocked or forced to study the history of Islamic conquest of non-Muslim peoples and lands, and what happened to those peoples, in those lands, under Muslim rule. The more that one can point to Muslim mistreatment of non-Westerners – which means people in Asia, in Africa,and if they are Christians, are non-Western, especially black African Christians, or Hindus and Buddhists, and can note not only past massacres and destruction of Hindu and Buddhist monuments and libraries, but also present-day depredations, violence, persecution, murder – see the 400,000 400,000 Kashmiri Pandits forced out by Muslims, Hindus persecuted and murdered in both Pakistan and Bangladesh (leading, since Partition, to a steady decline in the Hindu percentage of the population of both places), the attacks on Buddhist monks, teachers, and farmers in southern Thailand, and the killing of nearly 2 million black non-Muslim Africans in the southern Sudan – the harder it becomes for those who would otherwise be quick to embrace the apologetics on behalf of Islam, to do so. For how can those Muslim groups, and grouplets, and the assorted Western hirelings, or those who naively or out of some deep inner conviction (hatred of the West, antisemitism that trumps other concerns, you name it) explain the 1350-year history of conquest, massacre, destruction of artifacts and monuments, suppression of art even by non-Muslims, suppression of all kinds of things that come from free and critical inquiry, that started 1350 years ago, and that go on today, where George Bush’s writ does not run, and there is not a single “neocon” or “right-wing converative” in conceivable sight.
at December 7, 2007 3:21 PM
Elric 66: My take on Russia and China is that they are civilized but without a key component that makes Western Civilization superior to all others. That component is a decided emphasis on the dignity and worth of the individual. The Jewish religious approach to comprehending the cosmos and man's place in it and the ancient Greek philosophical route exploring the same territory are the intellectual cornerstones of a civilization that developed democracy and the most decent and enlightened legal systems in man's history. Russia got some of this, but not nearly enough, and China is almost entirely devoid of this particular comprehension of the individual and thus built a collectivist society which persists to this day. Nonetheless, all, both West and non-West, should work in unison against Islamic domination of the world, one of Islam's principal goals. And you're right to think that only Islam is presently looking long term at things. We need to also.
Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2007 3:30 PM
"I really wouldnt call Russia and China civilized but you are right that they have as much to lose as we do."
Posted by: Elric66
------------------------------------
What do you mean? China's civilization is nearly three thousand years old. This is absurd. As for Russia, she is the direct heir of the Byzantine Civilization which was the transmitter of the ancient civilization of Greece to the modern world. Merely look at the high culture that comes out of both Russia and China, whether ballet, the arts, or the preservation of Western classical music which has all but died in the modern West.
In comparison it is legitimate to ask if the United States is civilized. Especially since its commercialized culture is, in most respects, the epitome of vulgar.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 7, 2007 3:37 PM
Unless of course, if you were referring to their takeover by Communism which is barbaric in the extreme.
Posted by: Provoslavni at December 7, 2007 3:43 PM
"I do wonder if making such obfuscating distinctions as "political Islam" will do little to mollify the enmity to our cause felt by a majority of Muslims, and succeed mainly in clouding the issue for us infidels, blunting the message most of us here at JW know to be a factual reality...that Islam in its essence...is antithetical to...and irreconcilable with...human freedom."
Cornelius:
The proof is the pudding.
I have suggested going after the very roots of political Islam. This also happens to be -- no coincidence -- the very roots of the "mother" of political Islam itself.
There is no clouding of the issues in terms of what the goals are...
When you know that what is called a religion is actually political ideology of conquest masquarading as a religion, you first need to identify it as a political ideology, then it makes it all the more less difficult to go after it. Hence it makes sense to talk about political Islam as our enemy.
Hugh:
I have discussed in my book why people from India and India itself make great assets in going after political Islam. We are in agreement here.
The data given (in my book) on the ongoing non-Muslim ethnic cleansing in ALL Muslim majority areas of South Asia is very important.
Because, it nails that coexistence is just not possible. If western, Israeli or Indian leaders use this data to justify far-reaching policy measures, it will be very difficult for jihadis and their sponsors to counter-argue.
The Center for the Study of Political Islam has already done very important research on the Islamic trilogy. I suggest that those of you interested to read Bill Warner's excellent interviews in Frontpage Magazine.
Posted by: MoorthyM at December 7, 2007 3:48 PM
The solution to ‘political Islam’ is very simple: Shut down all mosques.
These mosques are not religious centers but incubators of political aggression against our western way of life and freedoms. Muslims may practice their religion in the privacy of their own homes, but they may not be allowed to politicize their ideology into an active movement against our cultures and civilizations of the West. If they succeed in politicizing their ideology in Islamic nations, that is their internal problem, and whatever fall out from this politicization occurs there is their misfortune, for which we should not feel compelled to help them in any way, least of all with financial or humanitarian aid. Let their Shariaists figure it out on how to help their own. What we may not allow under any circumstances is the importation of this political ideology of Islam into our nations, whether under the guise of culturalism or under the door with tactics of soft and hard jihad, which includes da’wa, ideological deceits, legal actions to undermine the efficacy of our judicial system, and militant terrorism against our populations. The mosque is their focal center for these aggressive jihad tactics, so our battle against this new form of ideological war against our civilization and cultures must be fought first on mosque grounds. Decommission those already standing and prevent new ones from sprouting up.
We can stop jihad aggression quite easily and effectively once we recognize as a matter of policy that mosques are no different from the old Communist cells and/or Nazi headquarters used to influence simple minds to do their will and bidding inside our borders. We are being invaded from within by what tries to pass itself off as a ‘religion’ and hide under the shield of ‘religious freedom’. Islam as funded by the axis-jihadis is an aggressive invasion to overpower our free and elected constitutional governments with their power cult Arab imperialism, scheming and plotting from their power centers, the mosques. Until such time Muslims can effectively separate from their political actions the religious spirituality of their Islamic faith, we cannot protect their ‘religion’ under our constitutional laws protecting our religious freedom. Otherwise, they really leave us no choice but to shut down all mosques. The jihad ball is now in their court, let's see how they play it. But they must absolutely be made to obey our laws.
at December 7, 2007 3:52 PM
Folks might consider that one practical effect of shutting mosques is to create an underground, which would be even harder to track.
It is unbelievable that we need to consider "tracking " people whom we invite into the country.
No, it ain't in our minds. It's in our midst.
Posted by: StillBreathing at December 7, 2007 4:11 PM
Provoslavni: Russia and China did indeed build civilizations but I would strongly argue that the greatest contribution any civilization can make to humanity and posterity is the development, promotion and expansion of freedom. By this standard, China and Russia come up way short. And by this same standard, the Anglo-Saxon world, today best exemplified by the United States, outclasses all other civilizations across the world over the past millennium. Also, by this same benchmark, the Islamic world is woefully, pathetically inadequate, dismally so.
Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2007 4:24 PM
Battle of Tours,
Rmember its separation of church and state, not mosque and state.
at December 7, 2007 4:56 PM
Right culturist.
In the Shariaist mindset there never is any separation of mosque and state, since for them they are the same. That is already unconstitutional. Any activity to unite 'mosque and state' is already criminal per our laws. They can be shut down for this reason.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at December 7, 2007 5:10 PM
re. China (the Han Empire) and the Russian Federation.
Maoism was a horrible curse . Read Jung Chang's biography of Mao to encounter someone eerily resembling the Mohammed we know from "Truth About Muhammad"; also read her "Wild Swans" for a harrowing description of the way in which Mao and his followers systematically attacked and destroyed much that was good and beautiful in traditional Chinese culture (whole landscapes; tea-houses; gardens; literature - she describes her father weeping as he burned his books of classical Chinese literature). And pay particular attention to her description of her response to the ordinary landscape of suburban England, on her first visit there, as a young Chinese student, fresh from the spiritual and cultural desert of Mao's China.
Nevertheless: the Christian Church in China survived Mao. It lives. It grows - how it grows! Google 'Watchman Nee', or 'Gladys Aylward' (find her Memoirs, in which she describes the Communists' mass execution, by beheading, of Christian students at the University of Beijing - one of the martyrs that day was a tiny, slender, exquisite Chinese girl of aristocratic Chinese family, who did not flinch nor deny her Christian faith, even when faced with the executioner's sword).
There is still repression of varying levels, but I suspect that many local Party officials turn a discreet blind eye to the growth of churches, since they tend to produce sensible, level-headed, productive and peaceful people, and reduce the incidence of crime and alcoholism. Visit the United Bible Societies website and check out what they have to say about China. In the long run, the Gift of the Jews - the honouring of the particular person, recognition of the sanctity of human life - will, through the church, transform China. The church has touched and will transfigure all three traditional pillars of Chinese society - the peasant, the scholar, the merchant.
As for Russia: again, the Bible in the various vernaculars, not only Russian, but languages such as Tatar and Yakut, is catalysing a re-dedication, a re-conversion, of all the Russias. While the West has pulled the Bible out of high schools, last I heard, Russia was INTRODUCING IT as a study text ! In the long run, the Bible subverts collectivism, and problematises the dream of Empire. Pray for a Renaissance of Holy Mother Russia, not as a violent collective but as a healthy, living body. Nothing is impossible with God.
Look at Rublev's icon "The Trinity", also known as "The Hospitality of Abraham", to see a profound statement of the central truths of the Christian faith - made by a Russian icon painter of the 15th century. You will see there no denigration of the person, of the particular - rather, an endless open conversation of love between the Persons of the Godhead, into which the individual observer of the icon is invited to step, as guest. Pray that Russia may recover the truth of that vision - for then she will be healed.
The single most constructive thing any person can do to challenge 'collectivism' and also to combat, in the long term, the growth of Islam, is to donate, lavishly, to support the Bible Society in Russia and the Bible Society in China.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at December 7, 2007 5:18 PM
"The Constitution is the law under which other laws are made. What you're proposing would not be legal or accepted."
Posted by: StillBreathing
See U. S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2: ". . . In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
I.e. Congress can make exceptions and special regulations. I'm no lawyer or legal scholar, but I believe this clause has been used, although rarely.
at December 7, 2007 7:01 PM
In almost all of these cases, mosques and the clerics played a major role in facilitating this “conquest”.
Sita Ram Goel gave the following anectode about mosques (in "Hindu Temples - What Happened to Them" Vol.2, chapter 3):
A mosque, that was built in the Hindu city Prabhas Patan by Muslim traders, had two inscriptions, one in Sanskrit (for the Hindus to read), and one in Arabic (for the Muslims to read).
Goel lists some differences between the Arabic and Sanskrit inscription, the most glaring one being that the Arabic inscription prays that Allah may make it one of the cities of Islãm, and banish infidelity and idols from it. In other words, the Arabic inscription was praying for another Islamic invasion of Gujarat, while the Sanskrit inscription (written for the unsuspecting Hindus) was silent on this.
Posted by: eoim at December 7, 2007 7:06 PM
ebonystone: I am a lawyer and your reading of the Constitution is correct-----Congress can make laws which are not reviewable by the federal judiciary. Probably the best example here is when the Congress in March of 1868 disallowed the Supreme Court of the United States from reviewing cases arising under the Habeas Corpus Act passed the year before. The big obstacle here, though, is getting a Congress informed enough about Islam in the first place and then, in the second place, being possessed of enough guts to do something about the world's most invidious and deceptive totalitarian ideology, which will use and bastardize the First Amendment to eventually abolish the First Amendment. The rub is with politicians, not the Constitution. The former is the weak link, the latter is our route to protection from Sharia creep.
Posted by: Wellington at December 7, 2007 8:38 PM
If I had understood correctly, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 already singles out followers of political Islam for special "treatment", unlike followers of any other faith.
Here are some details (from my book):
The term “unlawful enemy combatant” means: (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents and is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or associated forces)...
Portions of the trilogy that instigate unprovoked violence against the non-Muslim citizens of the United States (and the track record of Muslim populations inspired by it) imply a requirement to purposefully and materially support hostilities against the United States. Also, there could be grounds for viewing these portions of the Islamic trilogy and their consequential track record around the world as constituting politically-motivated hate crime.
I am no lawyer. But it seems to me that variations of Military Commissions Act of 2006 can be used to shut mosques here in America.
Posted by: MoorthyM at December 7, 2007 9:09 PM
(Wellington, thank you. As you say, passage of such a law would be difficult.
But I think we probably have enough laws on the books to have a major effect. I've mentioned the child-abuse laws, and laws against inciting, and aiding and abetting. Others that might be useful are the RICO law, already used against the anti-abortionists I believe, and the tax laws -- which the IRS used against the Scientologists.
Then there is the recent case in northern California, where three burglars broke into a house, expecting to find cash and drugs. Instead they found an armed householder, who shot and killed two of them. Under an infrequently-used state law the third burglar was charged with murder. The law says something along the lines of: if one leads others into a potentially deadly situation, and death results, then one can be charged with murder, whether or not one was actually the one who did the killing. Apparently, there are many states with similar laws. Just think of an imam sending some of his followers off to Afghanistan to fight the infidel, and some of them (i.e. some of the imam's followers) are killed. In that case I would think the state could charge the imam with murcer.
at December 7, 2007 9:52 PM
sneakyzionistcrusader:
Marxism can be fairly easily debunked--even to those among the baby boom and post-baby boom generations that have been thoroughly brainwashed with (and by) it.
There ARE now plenty of Americans who are seeing through the Marxist ideologues (whose days as popular American iconoclasts may be numbered as a result). America, despite the interference by such influences as George Soros and the Hollywood Communist elites, is not western Europe--thank heaven. We actually do stand a chance of defeating jihad AND Marxism. Once Marxist is discredited in America we can focus more on taking out Islam (before it takes US out!).
The real culprit has been a breakdown of the education system in the United States--particularly in public schools (but, lately also in the high-priced universities). Restoring REAL education (as opposed to the PC brainwashing palmed off our kids as curriculum since about the mid-sixties) will help loosen the grip of Marxist (and Islamic) talons on the minds of America's youths. Of course it will take many years to undo the damage inflicted by PC Marxists in our education system. But the political will to tackle this problem is growing and people like Jim Horn who are experiencing huge upsurges in popularity via the media should (and is) facilitate progress in this area.
The United States rose to its status as a world power WITHOUT Marxist and Islamic political ideologies--how many kids in US public schools understand a fact as simple as that? (Hardly any, I'd bet). But such information CAN be taught once again through the US public school system!
I see signs indicating Americans want their country back from leftwingers. Ideology such as Marxism is antithetical to American civilization and there is a growing number of people who see that.
Posted by: pythagoras at December 8, 2007 1:52 PM
"Once Marxist is discredited in America we can focus more on taking out Islam (before it takes US out!)"
Pythagoras:
You have made some excellent observations.
I think the American public sees Islam as the real threat, not Marxists. I do agree that Marxists are not helpful in our dealings with jihadists.
However, I suspect our inability to deal with jihadists is due to lack of knowing the new enemy than anything else (we are still in knowledge buildup stage).
Going after jihadists requires a mobilized society. Marxists will then have to face the music -- of whether they are with us or with "them".
at December 8, 2007 3:27 PM
Dr. M is absolutely right in his assessment of political Islam and the role of mosques in propagating it. Shutting down the mosques, if at all possible, would be a great step forward in eradicating this insidious cult. But, will PC attitude of politicians allow that to happen?
I agree with the comment about India being an "ultra Dhimmi" state. We need(in India) people like Narendra Modi (Chief Minister of Gujarat state) who has dared to stand up to Islamic thugs despite a tremendous onslaught from the English language dhimmi press in India. I have been reading Dr. M for some time now. He is absolutely on the dot.
Posted by: IndianTiger at December 10, 2007 2:14 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)