A minor quibble in detail:

Mohammed had 19 wives, married a nine-year-old when he was 54, and took part in murder and rape. (These points, Robert Spencer notes at jihadwatch.com, "can be readily established from early texts written by pious Muslims.")

Shouldn't that read "six" year old --> &/or adding the detail that the marriage was consumated when she was "nine"?

Posted by: justamomof4 at January 18, 2008 7:04 AM

"Those whom the gods would destroy, first they make crazy"?

I think there is a major conceptual problem in that Americans don't realize that the laws in Islamic countries stem from the religion, they aren't separate from the religion. Here, the law protects us from religion, there the law "protects" you from lack of religion.

Still, that conceptual problem should only exist for the masses. The intellectual elite ought to be able to understand the difference.

It makes me wonder what the "culture" in "multiculturalism" is supposed to be. One would think that the legal code of a foreign culture would be one of the things that make up its "culture" and is therefore worthy of study on the part of the multiculturalists, if only to empirically validate their "all cultures are equal" hypothesis. I guess all "culture" really means in their mindset is dancing festivals, music, food and brightly-colored clothing. Our superficiality will be our undoing.

Posted by: venividivici at January 18, 2008 7:25 AM

Yet another sign that the entire Afghan mission has been a colossal waste of lives, money, and time. Tell me again why we're there?

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at January 18, 2008 8:01 AM

The bottom line is, we liberated them from oppression so they could establish their own oppressive regimes.

What other outcome would we have expected? Islam is the real source of oppression in any of these societies, whether there controlled by the Taliban or a "democratically elected" government.

The same Islamic rot is going to infect both of them.

Posted by: rational at January 18, 2008 8:34 AM

Bless this wonderful babe.

Out of the mouth of babes...

Posted by: dgene at January 18, 2008 8:44 AM

I think it is time repeat the famous quote from William Eaton:

"Considered as a nation, they are deplorably wretched, because they have no property in the soil to inspire an ambition to cultivate it. They are abject slaves to the despotism of their government, and they are humiliated by tyranny, the worst of all tyrannies, the despotism of priestcraft. They live in more solemn fear of the frowns of a bigot who has been dead and rotten above a thousand years, than of the living despot whose frown would cost them their lives... The ignorance, superstitious tradition and civil and religious tyranny, which depress the human mind here, exclude improvement of every kind…" - William Eaton, US Consul to Tunis, 1799

We can keep removing the "living despot(s)" from places like Iraq and Afganistan forever, but that will not remove the "dead bigot" who really runs those lands.

Democracy in Iraq or Afganistan, without a western style bill of rights, is a defeat. The level of violence has nothing to do with it. If this war is about ideas and values, then we have lost those battles. We have given control over to the very groups, Islamic political parties, who are the real enemy. They are the very reason we had a 9-11....

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 18, 2008 8:57 AM

greatcometof1577...Dead bigots are no fun at all.
I should know, I have dated several...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 18, 2008 9:41 AM

Duh Swami,

Eeeeeuuuwwwww!

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at January 18, 2008 9:52 AM

justamom says -
"Shouldn't that read "six" year old --> &/or adding the detail that the marriage was consumated when she was "nine"?"

I'm tired of everyone assuming Mohammed was pure and chaste aith Aysha for three whole years. Yes, he didn't consummate the marriage but surely as is common usage today with Arab children he 'fondled and was fondled'. I mean why feed the tyke and not get SOMETHING out of it.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at January 18, 2008 9:54 AM

The American press has more to worry about, like the day-to-day horse race between the presidential candidates. Daily tracking polls are their god. It's funny because they're the ones whose livelihoods will be destroyed when the Sharia is implemented here. Then there's the interrogation tapes that were made and destroyed years ago. Congress took testimony from Michael Hayden, who wasn't at the CIA at either point.
It's easier to focus on the minutiae and pretend that Islam won't hurt us. It frees us from taking any action. When Americans are worried about their own financial future, they have no time to worry about Islam. This also lets Congress off the hook.

Our government's continued inattention to this problem is why "the free world" will not remain that way for very long.

Posted by: PMK at January 18, 2008 10:00 AM

Islam=religion=state. End of story. The statement works in both directions. Sticking one's head in the sand merely means the bullet, or sword, that kills you won't spoil your hairdo.

Posted by: spinoneone at January 18, 2008 10:33 AM

At this rate, we deserve to be lose. And if I hear one more "conservative" talk show host when discussing Islam/Jihadism, etc., say, by no means am I implying that Islam is a bad religion or whatever, I am going to scream. If the Muslims in this country received 1/1000th of the scorn, scrutiny and criticism that Romney and Huckabee have for their religious beliefs, well, it won't happen.

I hear the same at work: so-called liberals (with their self-professed open minds) too quick to condemn Randy Weaver of Ruby Ridge fame, Waco, neo-Nazis in Idaho, etc as a bunch of fanatics, but as I point out to them. It was Muslims who hijacked four pasenger jets and brought us 9/11. It was Muslims who attacked the Twin TOwers the first. Muslims who blew up our two embassies in East Africa. Muslims who attacked the USS COle. Muslims who invaded our embassy in Tehran.
and so on ...

Posted by: HOV Dummy at January 18, 2008 10:50 AM

As I've said repeatedly, de-Islamization is a prerequisite for establishing democracy. That's because Islam infringes on individual rights, which are the key to a real democracy. An electoral infrastructure does not ensure democracy.
Not only do our leaders not understand Islam, but they also don't understand democracy.

Posted by: jewdog at January 18, 2008 11:20 AM

What is most troubling about the Neo-Con strategy for trying to turn these various dictatorships in the Muslim world into little democracies, is not that the strategy won't work (for all the reasons mentioned above), but that it is really the ONLY RATIONAL strategy we have at our disposal. Afghanistan, left to its own devices, would be quickly consumed by the Taliban regime and the Al Quaeda training centers would be back up and running, plotting our next 9/11. Were the U.S. to disengage from ALL of the Muslim-dominated countries, or, were we to follow the leftarded formula of trying to "give them jobs and education" (at massive expense and to zero effect), we could not really effect the outcome--which is the pre-determined march of the Islamic radicals toward consolidation of power in huge areas of the world. This is all most troubling. Basically, there is very little we can do about it until that very dark day, at some point in the future, where we have to decide WHO we are, WHO our friends are, and likely go to war.
If anyone has a way out of his, I'd sure like to hear it.

Posted by: JohnAdams at January 18, 2008 11:37 AM

OT/

venovidivici, you've been suckered by the left: the bill of rights was written to protect the citizenry...including the religious and churches...FROM the government by protecting their inalienable rights. Not the other way around.

Religious freedom was guaranteed to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church like the European governments had at the time. If I remember correctly, a couple of states had a state church at the time the Constitution was written.

The separation of church and state that Jefferson wrote about IN A LETTER TO A CHURCH was to assure the Baptist church that the federal government would not interfere with their method of worship.

The Bill of Rights says nothing about separation of church and state it only states that the federal gov't can't establish a national church and can't prohibit any free exercise of anyone's religious expression. (One of the first acts of Congress was to provide funding for Bibles for a missionary outreach.)

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at January 18, 2008 11:47 AM

John Adams said:

What is most troubling about the Neo-Con strategy for trying to turn these various dictatorships in the Muslim world into little democracies, is not that the strategy won't work (for all the reasons mentioned above), but that it is really the ONLY RATIONAL strategy we have at our disposal....

.... stuff deleted

If anyone has a way out of his, I'd sure like to hear it.
++++++++++

We've been here before. Well not me personally as I wasn't even born but freedom loving people of the world:

There was an intermingling of Religion and State in Imperial Japan around 1940's. After a long struggle, the freedom loving people were able to defeat them and impose a separation between religion and state with excellent benefits for all involved.

What should have been done in Afghanistan and Iraq wa to IMPOSE, (yes you heard right) separation of religion and state. Those constitutions based on a religion (Islam) were a grave error.

When people complain that due to the culture, etc, there is a need to put a religion first in the government the response should be: given the attacks of religious fanatics we cannot do that. Your constitution cannot give preference to any religion.

The government should not give aid to any one religion in Afghanistan/Iraq. In particular, the one that was used as an excuse to attack us.

Posted by: 2pacshakur at January 18, 2008 12:57 PM

It makes me wonder what the "culture" in "multiculturalism" is supposed to be.
Posted by: venividivici

Simple comparison...

Take a culture from cheese and a culture from sewage and combine the two... the resulting "culture" is... the lowest common denominator... SEWAGE.

Posted by: senor doeboy at January 18, 2008 1:04 PM

2pacshakur said

What should have been done in Afghanistan and Iraq wa to IMPOSE, (yes you heard right) separation of religion and state. Those constitutions based on a religion (Islam) were a grave error.

Suppose we imposed separation of religion and state. Throw in an imposed equal rights amendment, maybe an imposed law against forced arranged marriages, and an imposed law protecting free speech. And then we left. How long do you suppose it would take them to remove those imposed laws?

Suppose we stayed and enforced those laws, so they could not be removed. How? Would we have observers in all their government meetings all across the country, to make sure they never discussed how to remove those laws? Those laws that were forced on them by the filthy kufirs, in direct opposition to their millenia-old perfect laws of Allah? How many troops would we have to keep there, and for how long, to try to stop the inflow of jihadis from all over the ummah? Because you know that it is incumbent on all Muslims worldwide to fight a defensive jihad against non-Muslims who invade a Muslim country, right?

Suppose we somehow found a way to impose those laws and stop the Afghans from removing them. Why? Why would we be spending our time and money to stop the Afghans (and Iraqis) from living the way they want to live, the way they've always lived for the past 1400 years? Would it be out of the kindness of our infidel hearts, to help these poor "good friends" out of their poverty and illiteracy and tribal warfare? Why? Because of all they've done for us?

I don't understand this thinking, which is the thinking of the Administration and the majority of our population. I just don't get it. Our only goal after 9/11 should have been to brutally punish the people who supported that attack, and to reduce their ability to carry out a repeat occurance. We have done neither. In fact we are doing the opposite.

We shouldn't be "helping" the Afghans by imposing our values on them. We should be stopping them from coming into our country. We should be killing OBL and his supporters in Waziristan and Pakistan and Afghanistan. We should be destroying whatever weapon stockpiles they accumulate, including, in the case of Pakistan, their nuclear weapon stockpiles. We should be teaching our own citizens what motivates the Afghans to act the way they do.

It seems so obvious and simple, but this Administration doesn't get it, and none of the current Presidential candidates get it either.

Posted by: special_guest at January 18, 2008 1:36 PM

Oh, but Diane West's article is superb. She has written many spot-on articles recently. It gives a little bit of hope.

Posted by: special_guest at January 18, 2008 1:40 PM

Where Americans have died, not just to de-fang jihadist threats but to "democratize" Islamic populations, freedom of speech is against the law.

The repugnancy clauses in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan — the clauses that say that no law shall be made that is repugnant to islam — were instituted under the watchful gaze of Zalmay Khalilizad, the Muslim U.S. Ambassador to each at the time the constitutions were adopted.

Women's rights activists BEGGED the United States not to let this happen, but, of course, what the hell does that matter?

Now Zalmay is U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Great. Just great. What other little Islamic favor can he do for us?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 1:59 PM

West's Death of the Grown-up is spectacular.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at January 18, 2008 2:00 PM

special_guest

I agree. That is what I would have done.

However, if we are going to invade (which we ended up doing), we should at least have imposed our values on them. Bush has done the worst of all options: We invaded, then we let them keep their own values (and paying with blood and money for the pleasure of supporting those values).

Hell, if OBL had any brains, he should be happy we are bringing democracy to the Islamic world...he can be the next president of Pakistan or at least have a fighting chance of winning an election.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 18, 2008 2:30 PM

"Mr. Coughlin's meticulously researched legal brief not only links Islamic law to Islamic terrorism, but also demonstrates the professional negligence involved in ignoring Islamic law when devising strategies against Islamic terrorism."

Coughlin's thesis, which may be seen at

http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

does not just link Islamic law to Islamic terrorism but conclusively shows, drawing on Islamic sources, that the former is at the very core of the latter. As he notes,

"The same theories of Islamic law that designate Allah as the exclusive lawgiver also define jihad as a right of Allah that is a right of pure worship creating obligations for all Muslims. For Hanafi jurists, jihad is 'fixed' in the inner sphere as a non-optional rule of Islam. Elements of the rule of Islamic law (hukm shar’i) interact with each other to give rise to liabilities and obligations to obey laws divinely created and hence, immutable."

Moreover,

"As the purpose of Nyazee’s monograph is to explore ways ijtihad can be used to apply Islamic law to all aspects of modern Islamic society, his conclusion that the rights of Allah are beyond the scope of ijtihad has consequences for Current Approach advocates who claim ijtihad as a tool to modify jihad’s status. This is true not only because 'rights of Allah' are a part of the fixed inner sphere of Islamic law, but also because jihad is beyond the reasoning of man and hence substantially outside the scope of ijtihad. Hence, the general rule on ijtihad is that it can be used to “reason to a conclusion” in the flexible realm of man-made law but cannot do so in the fixed sphere of Allah’s. To do so would be to put the reasoning of man ahead of the rights of Allah. This is impermissible. When 'extremists' accurately cite Islamic law on jihad, they are referencing a body of law that is beyond the jurisdiction of man and hence outside the scope of ijtihad. This should be borne in mind when assessing the validity of Current Approach arguments that claim ijtihad can counter the legal claims of the jihadis."

Hence,

"A properly oriented IPB [Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield] process would show that the classical authorities cannot be relied on to constrain the enemy’s doctrine. This may explain why the Current Approach is silent on those authorities."

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at January 18, 2008 3:03 PM

It took a while for some in the mass-media to get this far in recognizing one obvious aspect of the folly in Iraq and in Afghanistan -- making these countries safe for Shari'a -- and it will take a more time before mass-media journalists begin to write what they should have been writing all along (and ought never to have been enthusiasts of remaining in Iraq beyond the time it took to remove the regime, and to scour the country for major weapons, and weapons projects).

What one longs for is the clear recognition, or even the discussion will do, of how absurd are the stated goals in Iraq -- bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East, absurd if one understands the nature of Islam, and absurd if one realizes how the entire effort -- nearly 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, and more than one trillion dollars already spent or committed -- has yet to have been explained. Not a single member of the government has told us exactly how, exactly in what way, keeping Iraq together, preventing Sunni-Shi'a violence, bringing a semblance of unity to a place within the Muslim world where the eruption or continuance of internecine strife or warfare, from the point of view of those who recognize the without-end (in time), and world-wide (in space), the Jihad to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then dominance of Islam, time-dimension, and world-wide space-dimension, makes all kinds of sense.

A policy which seeks to attain unattainable goals, but which, in their non-attaining, can certainly eat up American resources (finite, after all), squander lives, squander money, squander materiel, squander morale, civilian and military (or, where have all the captains gone, long time passing?), and that no one can quite explain, continues to get off mostly scot-free.

And while Republicans stand loyally by this idiotic policy (and think they can continue to do so, and win the Presidency), Democrats attack the war in Iraq for all the wrong reasons. The first candidate to begin to talk sense and nothing but sense, the first candidate to use not only the word "Jihadist" but to discuss the word "Jihad" and what it means, and to discuss other related words, such as "dhimmi," will be the one who, on foreign policy grounds, deserve to be supported. The candidate who insists on a national effort to diminish the use of ol -- even if the reasons given have to do with the environment -- will objectively be working to reduce the Money Weapon that is the main instrument today, and tomorrow, of Jihad. The candidate who carefully states that "we have done enough in Iraq" and "now it is time for the Iraqis to show that they care about their own country" (there doesn't have to be any discussion, not by candidates, of those ethnic and sectarian fissures, but word can get out that people "in Washington" have concluded that the Americans and others "defending themselves against Jihad" do not "any longer see the avoidance of hostilities, at whatever level, in Iraq, in a fight for money and power, as necessarily something that must be avoided at all costs." Leave it, demurely, at that.

And leave Iraq, not demurely, with that.

And then turn attention where it most belongs. No, not to the idiotic "two-state solution." All that meddling, all that fussing, all those meetings and shuttling and handshakes and photo ops, with the constant pressuring of Israel, and those endless Jizyah-payments by Infidel governments to the local Arabs (the "Palestinians") whose rich cousins in the Gulf can certainly afford to support them, for a year, on what they take in in a morning, or an afternoon, should stop.

Where should attention be focussed? At this point, mainly on Western Europe, and the unprecedented threat now posed by the policy, negligent and dangerous, of allowing millions of Muslims, over the past three decades, to settle deep behind what the Muslims themselves have been taught to regard as enemy lines.

Sooner, or later, this view of Tarbaby Iraq will be widely understood. It will all seem so obvious, so inevitable. But for some reason, it has taken four years just to get as far as we have gotten, when sense, rather than nonsense, appears here, and there, in the mass media. Each little tessera fits into a larger mosaic, and eventually the whole picture will be clear, and imbecility may -- oh god, anything is possible -- go out of fashion.

Posted by: Hugh at January 18, 2008 3:08 PM

greatcometof1577 said

However, if we are going to invade (which we ended up doing), we should at least have imposed our values on them.

Invading Afghanistan made sense; they were harboring OBL and AQ. Invading Iraq made no sense (I thought it did at the time, since we were assured that it was "slam dunk" to find Iraqi WMD's there).

But even if we invade, I don't see what we're trying to accomplish by imposing our values on them.

#1: It's hard to impose values on someone when those values are antithetical to everything they've believed in for the past 1400 years. It's even harder when that someone sees you as being at the same level as feces, and sees their own values as being the verbatim values of their Allah.

#2: Why should we spend our money and our soldiers' lives trying to improve the lives of the very people who assisted in murdering 3000 of our citizens? The very people who continue to approve of and support OBL?

I believe in working for the good of society; I'm not a pure laissez faire libertarian. But we've taken the concept to its ludicrous extreme. We now think of the entire world as "our society". We are trying to help people who are killing us for trying to help them. It has become a farce. At every step of the way in Dar al-Islam, we should be asking ourselves, "What's in it for me?". What benefit do we get from an affluent and powerful Afghanistan (or Iraq, or Pakistan, or "Palestine")? Because I'm all done caring how well those countries are doing. I'm much, MUCH more interested in how our country is doing. I can think of much better ways for us to spend $1 trillion+, better in terms of better for us.

I don't think the people of Afghanistan deserve to have our values imposed on them. I think they deserve exactly the values they choose. Let them enjoy the glorious results.

Allah will provide, not the infidels, inshallah.

Posted by: special_guest at January 18, 2008 4:40 PM

special_guest said:

Suppose we imposed separation of religion and state. Throw in an imposed equal rights amendment, maybe an imposed law against forced arranged marriages, and an imposed law protecting free speech. And then we left. How long do you suppose it would take them to remove those imposed laws?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
identical arguments could be said about Japan after 1945 regarding the divine origin of the Emperor (a religious dogma)

I'm not saying impose as in "making everyone believe in democratic values" [not likely in the short term] but imposing as "making sure the government does not get involved in religious issues" [such as putting preferences in their constitutions for a particular religion].

If someone willingly subjects themselves to moral degradation in the name of religion as long as it doesn't affect anybody else is not our business. But if someone enshrines in the constitution preferences for some religion particularly one which was used to attack us, there should be an issue.

It is as if after 1945 we accept a Japanese constitution saying that the Emperor is God and anybody acting on behalf of the Emperor should be obeyed without questioning on religious grounds (even if it is a Second Pearl Harbor).

The Japanese were free to believe whatever they wanted. The Japanese government was not free to use religion to pursue the agenda of a cunning minority (Japanese supremacy).

To me, the Afghanis, Iraqi's, Saudi Arabians should be free to believe whatever they want but their governments should not be allowed to use religion to pursue the agenda of a cunning minority (Islamic supremacy).

I know... I'm dreaming.

Posted by: 2pacshakur at January 18, 2008 5:15 PM

This is all sour grapes on Diana's part. George W. Bush is a great president. A true hero! Ask or listen to radio talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.

These two patriots will tell you about the greatness of this president. When I listen to Sean Hannity, most of his callers begin with, "You are a great American!"

Sean Hannity is a great American who believes in President Bush. Who is Diana West to question a giant like Sean Hannity?

Then there is Rush Limbaugh; "Mr. Big!" Rush Limbaugh swears by George W. Bush and his war on terrorism. Rush Limbaugh's callers say "ditto Rush" and "mega ditto!"

We know Mr. Limbaugh supported the Dubai ports buy-out and mocked his listeners who expressed concern but so what? Isn't the important thing winning? And we Republican are indeed winning! Diana West is a sore loser.

Posted by: monk at January 18, 2008 6:57 PM

If you go liberate a pack of skunks, and then tell them to elect one of their own as their leader, don't be surprised if you end up with one that stinks.

Democracy cannot rule where blatant evil (Islam) is the highest cultural (& religious) standard in the minds of its deceived citizens.

It is foolish to think otherwise.

Conquer & Subjugation, on the other hand, remains the better option.

Posted by: angryeagle at January 18, 2008 7:27 PM

Hi Morgaan Sinclair,

"The repugnancy clauses in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan ...were instituted under the watchful gaze of Zalmay Khalilizad, the Muslim U.S. Ambassador to each at the time the constitutions were adopted."

Excellent point! Now who decided to put Zalmay in these crucial positions? Bush, or the Saudis? Who made the decisions that the USA would fight for an islamicized Afghanistan and Iraq?

Magooey

Posted by: magooey at January 18, 2008 7:59 PM

special_guest

I agree..

It is a mute point...it was just a hypothetical argument that will never happen.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at January 18, 2008 8:13 PM

JohnAdams, you ask, "If anyone has a way out of his, I'd sure like to hear it.

We should, as Hugh has often suggested and as the Israelis used to be good at actually doing, "divide, and let them conquer each other".

Our government has no business "bringing democracy" to any other body politic; it's to defend it's own citizens from harm. Period. Too bad the politicians of today have lost sight of that; we will pay a dear price for it.

Posted by: Vee at January 19, 2008 3:06 PM