"We can’t fight a religion. So if it’s reduced to a religion, then we lack the tools to protect ourselves."

Humbug! The West fought Islam for 13 of the last 14 centuries, although not always with success. Only in the last century did we stop fighting it. We had the tools to protect ourselves then, but we gave them away. It would be easy enough to bring them back.
Here are two "tools":
1. Independence from OPEC oil. Increase our own oil (and natural gas) supplies by exploiting, along with our NAFTA partners, North American oil and gas resources -- in the Arctic, in the Saskatchewan and western U.S. tar sands, in the Williston Basin, in the Gulf, amd elsewhere.
Decrease our oil consumption by laying an increased tax on gasoline and diesel, and use the funds to build or expand modern electric rapid-transit systems in all the larger metropolitan areas. Get the electricity from nuclear plants. Also promote research into getting economically competitive oil and gas from non-conventional sources, namely oil shale and methane hydrides. By "promote" I emphatically do not mean a gov't crash program -- these usually turn out more crash than program. Rather it could take the form of tax breaks for companies researching these technologies.
The benefits from reducing OPEC imports by just one million bbl/day would be tremendous. At $140/bbl, our trade deficit would be reduced by $50 Billion/yr. And the Islamic fanatic of OPEC would have that much less to finance their operations. And we ought to be able to do a lot better than one million/day.
2. Scrap our present immigration policies and go back to the previous system. Impose a virtual prohibition on Islamic immigration. The U.S. was a lot better place in the 40's and 50's under restricted immigration, than it has been since then. Of course I don't mean to imply that massive 3rd-world immigration is the cause of all of our problems since the 60's, but it's one of them.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 19, 2008 11:33 AM

"Islamism" is not a helpful invention; apostates from Islam, Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ibn Warraq, treat it dismissively. It represents an attempt to somehow appeal to Muslims, those thought of as "moderate" possibly because they remain largely ignorant of the texts of Islam, or because they simply try to put it out of their heads. In a world where all we had to worry about were Muslims, because Infidels understood thoroughly the nature of Islam, its meaning and menace, then perhaps -- just perhaps -- a word such as "Islamism" might be accceptable. In a world, however, when most non-Muslims have no real idea what Islam's texts contain, or the nature of its commandments and prohobitions, or the inculcated view that there is a state of permanent war (though not always open warfare) between Believers and Infidels, and that it is the duty of Believers to work, using whatever instruments are available and effective, to engage -- sometimes as a collective, sometimes individually -- to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then to the dominance, of Islam, in that world, that is the real world in which we now live, use of the term "Islamism" is unhelpful and can even, as it sows further confusion, be downright dangerous. I fail to see any evidence, even, whatever the damage it does to Infidel understanding, of any help it provides to Muslims who wish to reject what Islam, as a politics and as a geopolitics (for Islam is a Total Belief-System, not merely a collection of rituals of worship) insists upon.

Indeed, if one not only must keep in mind, as the first priority, the right education of Infidels, and wishes for them not only to understand the texts, tenets, attitudes, atmospherics of Islam, but also to be able to connect the political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures of Muslim states and societies and even families, with Islam itself, a mitigating concept such as "Islamism" stands in the way, makes things more difficult by obstructing a clear view.

Posted by: Hugh at July 19, 2008 11:38 AM

I've just read Hugh's comments, and taken a look at the thread following this -- about Pakistani fantasies of the trouble in Pakistan being the result of a conspiracy between the U.S. and India. These have suggested a couple more "tools" we can use to defend ourselves. Again these are tools we once used, but then gave up.
3. (with a tip of the hat to Hugh) Give our citizens a proper education about Islam -- its brutality and violence, its bigotry and hatred, its history of invasion and slaughter. Once people understand what is really at stake, they will be more willing to support strong measures.
4. Stop squandering billions of dollars/year on "aid" to Islamic countries. We could use the savings to increase the rapid-transit expenditures. Jimmy-the-Dhimmi wanted to link foreign aid to human rights. Good idea; there's scarcely a single Islamic country that allows anything approaching full civil rights, so cut off aid to all of them. And reduce our financial support for the U.N., which has become simply a rubber stamp for the Islamic agenda.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 19, 2008 11:56 AM

In using the word "Islamist" Pipes does not deny that the very texts and theological underpinning of Islam are the problem. However, he does have a point with respect to the what we can do in light of the First Amendment.

The US government cannot constitutionally discriminate between different religious beliefs, but it can act on the basis of actions and even ideologies (although as the Cold War shows, using purely ideological distinctions will be resisted and pounced upon by the chattering classes in a way that is difficult to deal with). When the U.S. government goes after cult groups, the government action is triggered not by mere belief but by violations of law. The challenge with Islam is that it is the largest cult in the world, so you have people who are a member of the group with plausible deniability with respect to specific actions by the persons engaging in the conduct.

I disagree with Pipes because I think he tends downplay (but not deny) in certain venues that the problem is the core texts. We need to have more people need to look at the "religious" texts and educate themselves, and reading this interview will not inspire someone to do so.

However, as a matter of Constitutional law, I think he is right.

That is why public policy should focus on things like preventing Sharia law, enforcing the prohibition against polygammy, limiting immigration based on geography, and NOT bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims in the US when doing so represents a clear double standard.

Now, private actors like Jihad Watch who are not limited by the First Amendment need to continue doing what they are doing.

I thank God that I came across this website during in 2006 and finally had my eyes opened. 5 years after 9/11, but I finally made it.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Dr. Daniel Pipes is a highly educated and very decent human being who has done great work for years in warning the West about radical Islam, but I think he errs when maintianing that there is a good Islam out there. I also think he is wrong when he says we can't fight a religion. Why not? It will be very difficult to do so but why not? Dr. Pipes puts forward an assumption and then treats with it axiomatically.

Pipes mentioned that we fought Fascism and Communism successfully, and that's true, but we never pretended that there was anything good in these systems of thought, that pacifist fascists and Marxists were our there and just fine. What his disinclination to take on an entire religion really betokens is that Islam is the most formdiable totalitarianism of all time, in part precisely because it does hide behind its religious veil.

I'm afraid Dr. Pipes' approach will leave the West particuarly vulnerable in one area and that is that it would make it far more likely that we will continue to allow Muslims to immigrate to the West in the belief that these are the "good" Muslims who are coming here. Bad idea because while not all Muslims are radical, Islam itself is and thus all Muslims should remain suspect-------forever.

Posted by: Wellington at July 19, 2008 1:18 PM

I think this is my first comment on Jihad Watch but I've been a regular reader for a while now. I think it's hard to overestimate the importance of this site and the work Robert and his colleagues do.

And so many posters here, as well. Over time I've come to really respect so many of you for your intelligence and knowledge. It's a shame, isn't it, that anonymity's the norm but, in this case at least, it seems sadly prudent. *sigh*

I agree that Pipes is a great, smart and brave force for truth and has done immeasurably good work for a long, long time. I also agree, though, that his effort to join into the endless quibble over Islam vis-a-vis Islamism (or any of its variants) is misguided. It is what it is. Islam's not just both a religion and a political philosophy; it's a political philosophy backed up with the force of an oppressive religious dogma. The sum is much greater -- and worse -- than the whole of its parts. It must be confronted in its entirety because that is how those who invoke it against us see it and have all along.

Besides, the Muslims whom Pipes offers as non-threatening examples are mere splinter groups in the greater scheme of things. Essentially, the circles of this Venn diagram overlap very, very closely. Indeed, as I said, for those who threaten us, they're one and the same.

Posted by: Yup at July 19, 2008 3:35 PM

We certainly can fight a religion. A place to start: deny islam religious stature in the West.
Instead, grant islam the legal stature of some pathogen ... dengue fever, malaria, typhus.

Then, eradicate it.

Posted by: HotSpur at July 19, 2008 5:04 PM

I profess great admiration for Dr. Pipes, but I sometimes find his take on the relationship between Islamism and Islam a bit disturbing. I accept his statement that "Radical Islam is the problem and Moderate Muslims are the answer" modulo his own qualifications that "Radical Islam" is itself a problematic term, and that "moderate Muslims" are hard to define, and perhaps are only an emerging category of people anyway.

He clearly understands the history of Islam but yet declares that "Islamism" is only a recent phenomenon. The only sense in which I can parse this meaningfully is that he must mean the term "Islamism" and the modern expression of the movement, as worked out by Qutb and al Banna. He certainly cannot mean that the fundamental goals and ideology of Islamism, and the oppressive behaviors of Islamists, have not been around since Mohammed, who was the first Islamist/Radical Muslim/Islamic extremist.

We have to cut Pipes some slack because he is so connected in terms of policy. He's a lone, sane voice in a world of politics so often dominated by madness, and has to be careful in what terms he speaks. One has to understand these statements in context. What he does is carefully articulate his ideas so as not to unnecessarily alienate people he hopes to convince -- not something that JW'ers, in general, are particularly good at. Though I also admire Mr Spencer's ability to articulate clearly and always take the high road; I'm not speaking of him specifically.

In any case I don't think it would be helpful to drive a wedge between the Spencer articulation of the problem and the Pipes articulation. Though they sound different and use different language, they really do tell the same story and end up in the same place. I think this is a Peter/Paul thing.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at July 19, 2008 5:13 PM

These are tactics and strategies for Infidels, to parse Islam into Islamism (awhile back everything was dutifully blamed on the ever "exotic" Wahhabism) and find a way to legally and morally cope with something which in reality is truly alien. Much the same is true for "Political Islam", a term meaningful to kaffirs and meaningless to most Muslims. Regardless of how we choose to define the struggle, "Islamists" out there regard it as a war of religon, period.
Nevertheless, we have to have a strategy that can effectively contain and reduce the threat from Islam, now. Islamofascism, poltical Islam, isolating Jihad & Shari'a supremacism as a political doctrine the civilized world can reject
without rejecting "Islam" the religion, are tactics, can be even seen as a tactic to force "moderation" on that part of the Muslim world who wishes to side with the values of civilization and not Surah Nine. Of course, that could only happen if such a rejection were actually made!

Posted by: Nick Danger at July 19, 2008 5:34 PM

I have a great deal of respect for Pipes, who I think is a very good thinker and writer.

But I think his view on this is too rosy.

If there were a strong political secularist movement within the mohammedan cultures now, or at any other time in the past, there might be some evidence for his assertion.

But as matters stand, all the evidence points to the conclusion that political totalitariansim - specifically Sharia totalitarianism -- is baked into basic mohammedan thinking, and always has been. It's an all or nothing proposition.

That there are individuals within the mohammedan cultures that don't understand this, or don't believe it, or simply don't care really makes no meaningful difference.

All the available evidence suggests that theocratic totalitarianism always was and still is an intrinsic part of mohammedanism -- i.e. that the jihaddi bastards are right.

Apparently Mr. Pipes thinks they're wrong. But I haven't seen much evidence that any significant body, with any real weight in human affairs, within mohammedan culture thinks they're wrong. That anybody with real weight takes Mr. Pipes position, that mohammedanism is compatible with real political secularism and pluralism.

Is it possible to compose such an ideology? Sure!

Would it possible to promote and popularize such an ideology? Hmmmm ... well, maybe.

I such haven't seen anything to suggest that such an ideology is anything but a happy-sounding western conjecture.

But to be fair, maybe that is Pipes intention. Maybe he thinks that if he keeps restating the possibility, that somebody with the sayso and the mojo will notice and make it actually happen.

Posted by: joeblough at July 19, 2008 5:52 PM

And by the way, the near total destruction of religiosity in Western and Asian culture is PROOF, that for better or worse it certainly is possible to make war on a religion. Indeed to nearly eradicate a religion.

We've done it to our own, we can do it to theirs.

Posted by: joeblough at July 19, 2008 5:56 PM

And I will add that the fact that religiosity can be eradicated is all the more reason for the religious and irreligious among the resistance to make common cause, common understanding and civil relations.

It can be done!

Posted by: joeblough at July 19, 2008 6:14 PM

Pipes claims that we already know how to defeat ideologies, but we don't. The Soviet Union disintegrated, but socialist ideas are as strong as ever in North America and still gaining. Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic nominee, and is popular throughout the world, based on a strong socialist platform. The Islamic ideology may ultimately be easier to counter since to subscribe to it requires people to make an explicit conversion to a religion. By contrast, one can absorb socialist ideas without really thinking about how they conflict with one's other principles. The idea of a Christian Socialist may make sense to some people, but even the most oblique doublethinker could not resolve the notion of a Christian Muslim.

I think continued education is key to any strategy of survival for kafir cultures. A critical mass of kafirs must learn that Islam is not a "religion of peace". Making distinctions between Islam and made-up words like "Islamism" is not helpful.

Posted by: K. Uffar at July 19, 2008 6:14 PM

Daniel Pipes' argument (or at least what it implies) seems to be that we can't fight Islam because it's too big and anyway it would unethical for us to do so (it would make us "crusaders" and we can't have that!), so let's whittle the enemy down to a more manageable size by creating an artificial "Islamism". Sorta like declaring, during WW2, that the enemy is not Germany but only the members of the S.S. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies!

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 19, 2008 6:37 PM

My comments about de-religionizing a culture notwithstanding, I think that K. Uffar has it right.

Posted by: joeblough at July 19, 2008 6:46 PM

"... for better or worse it certainly is possible to make war on a religion. Indeed to nearly eradicate a religion.

"We've done it to our own, we can do it to theirs."

Posted by: joeblough

Good point, joeblough! One of the main reasons Western European governments undertook universal education in the 19th c. was to reduce the influence of religion (particularly the Catholic ohurch) in public life and religion as an alternate focus of loyalty. It was supported by all the leftists of the day. Unfortunately the flip-side of the program was the enhancement of state power and loyalty to the state, one of the ideas leading to fascism.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 19, 2008 7:15 PM

While the people of the U.S. and the west generally certainly can make personal war on Islam, the U.S. government is constrained by the Constitution which includes a First Amendment. Thus, the government can discriminate against Islamism as an ideology seeking to replace the Constitution, but it cannot discriminate against Islam per se. A "personal Islam" (I realize that such a thing is illusory in reality) cannot be responded to by the government any more than a personal belief in witchcraft that does not otherwise result in violations of the law. Similarly, Muslims who simply say "Sharia would be a better system" once they are on US soil, cannot Constitutionally speaking, be discriminated against any more than someone who says Flag burning is against the law can be (of course, we can and should ask for people's opinion on Sharia before they enter the US, and we can deport them after the fact for lying if).

I realize that the distinction between Islamism and Islam is unsatisfying and unhelpful in most ways (such as getting the public to wake up). However, from a legal standpoint, it is required under the First Amendment. As a lawyer and a pragmatist, I would rather that the government take some incremental steps (such as asking about Sharia before entry to the US) then do nothing because it is all Islam.

Government is not in the business of making judgements about the validity of religion. For example, simply being a member of a cult is not illegal and cults are not prosecuted per se for being cults. They are prosecuted for things like child endangerment, violations of health codes, etc.

We should not disregard the First Amendment in our thinking, since free speech seems to be in jeopardy throughout the Western world. I believe that Pipes realizes the legal connundrum provided by the First Amendment, and is taking a sensible step to work within the system from a policy-making perspective.

Thank God for the First Amendment, and this website.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 19, 2008 8:47 PM

K. Uffar:

The West did confront the ideology of communism without taking on the belief (or the mere expression of belief) that state ownership of enterprise was a good idea.

The analogy is not perfect, but it is somewhat applicable. The legal system cannot prosecute someone for their beliefs, but it can prosecute someone for their actions and the government can engage in ideological warfare, especially outside the scope of the territory of the US.

We need someone like a Reagan to take on Islam ideologically in a global full court press. Someone who meets with apostates, publicly embarasses governments such as Iran and Saudi Arabia for how they treat people, etc.

The distinction between Islamism and Islam makes that kind of action possible. Otherwise, the First Amendment is a straightjacket--at least domestically.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 19, 2008 8:52 PM

Pipes is correct in that we lack the tools needed to fight Islam as a Religion...for now. That doesn't mean we should give up.

If the West does not take steps soon to halt muslim immigration (BTW-anyone know of Pipes' position on muslim immigration?), and, once they are inside the gates in substantial numbers, the only way we (in the U.S.) will be able to take protective steps against the jihadists, or Islamists within, is to amend the Constitution to specifically remove Islam from protections of the First Amendment. Or, we can wait to see if the SCOTUS renders a decision declaring Islam to NOT be a religion under the First Amendemnt...quite unlikely. Anyway, there is no way to develop workable policies by using the distinctions of muslim- Islamist without amending the Constitution. Do the distinctions Pipes makes help us in any way in formulating a solution the problem he points out? I don't see one. How does the state permit the practice of religious Islam and not allow that to be combined with practice of political Islam? That would require monitoring mosques perhaps...not gonna happen under existing Constitutional law.

Posted by: USorThem at July 19, 2008 9:12 PM

We are not going to "get rid of" Islam nor are we going to be able to remake the Muslim world, nor should that be our goal. We did not "get rid of" communism, we ended the threat from it (or had it end as the case may be). That qualifies as a reasonable, achievable goal for government. Naturally, that requires a correct threat assessment based upon a full understand of Islam and its doctrines of war, by hook or crook, by stealth or sword, to remove the obstacles to Islam and subsume the intolerable dar-al-Harb into dar-al-Islam. The goal then would be to return the Muslim world to the condition it was in prior to the modern Jihadist reawakening, return it to the fatalism and defeat and fracture of the 300 years previous. To weakness not strength. Not have a debate with it.

The project suggested by Ali Sina (the end of Islam) or the Pope's challenge to the core of Islam with the public conversion of Muslims in Europe, is another matter. Ultimately, a far profounder one perhaps, but not the province of government or law. Let both exist.

Posted by: Nick Danger at July 19, 2008 9:34 PM

I've thought it over a bit, and after reading comments from other posters, I have come around to the pragmatism of Pipes' Islamist vs. Islam distinction. Pipes was influential in opposing the New York Madrassa. He couldn't have done what he did (including getting quoted as an expert in the New Duranty Times) if he had just said that the problem was Islam. Even though a close examination of the descriptions of "Islam" and "Islamism" reveals they are the same, we can accuse any Islamic group as being closet "Islamists", which a little digging will reveal to be so (since they necessarily are, being the same) and bang, another mole whacked. At the other end, we can gradually add core Islamic beliefs to the list of supposed "Islamist" radicalisms. Eventually enough people will be on the joke that Islam and Islamists are actually the same, and we can drop the facade. Brilliant.

Posted by: K. Uffar at July 19, 2008 11:56 PM

Ah, pragmatism, what a rotten little idea. Pipes, no matter his willingness to speak out about things that, outside of this forum, seem controversial, he's never been one to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about Islam. His preoccupation with 'moderate Islam' and his pretense that Islam's fine, but Islamism's not undercuts my giving him the respect I give to those who tell the hopeless truth about Islam.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at July 20, 2008 12:39 AM

K. Uffar:

It would be different if Pipes was somehow suggesting that JIhadists were "hihacking" the religion or some other such nonesess.

We can call is Islamism while acknowledging that the source of the problem is found in the texts themselves.

The Muslim world constantly uses the "we aren't anti-Jewish, we are anti-Zionist" canard. No reason why we can't do the same.

For an example of someone who is Muslim and is clearly not an Islamist, see Dr. Jasser. http://www.aifdemocracy.org/

I know that some people on this site are skeptical of Dr. Jasser, but he has been outspoken against CAIR, Sharia, and other Islamist elements in the US.

The bottom line is however the Constitution. The First Amendment really is the prime directive of the country. Even if Islam vs. Islamism is a distinction in only 1% of the cases, it is a distinction worth making for constitutional reasons---so long as it is never denied that the books themselves do contain the source of the problem.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 12:39 AM

Maybe Daniel Pipes is Dorothy, and this is Oz. (If I just wish hard enough ...)

Posted by: HotSpur at July 20, 2008 12:51 AM

There are some alternate articulations that too are gaining ground.

One is that Islam is an ideology much like Communism but conveniently invokes God in order to be effective, uncontested and enduring.

One can use scientific tools to address the above articulation.

This articulation reduces Islam to an ideology and by Dr. Pipes own admission, we know how to fight it.

This nuanced approach is elucidated in my upcoming book.

Those who are familiar with Bill Warner’s work are probably aware that Islamism statistically dominates Islam (through the Islamic Trilogy). Hence separating Islamism from Islam is very difficult, if not impossible. This also implies that it is difficult to formulate a coherent policy based just upon opposition to Islamism, while accepting Islam as a religion.

Posted by: MoorthyM at July 20, 2008 3:33 AM

As I began to read Mr. Pipes interview I was struck with the nauseating feeling of another apologist view of what we westerners face. However, after completing the article, I came to a much different conclusion. Yes, it would be great to be able to call a “spade a spade” and not be bothered with the “politically correct multiculturalists” moon bat guano that permeates or society. But ultimately, to get the message out we have to fight on their terms.
Islamism and Islam at the very core are one and the same, a totalitarian ideology. Attacking “Islam” has been spun to be seen as attacking the “religion.” As Mr. Spencer has pointed out, any hint of “racism” (and that includes the illusion to religious intolerance) must be avoided at all costs, because the “sheeple” have been so ingrained with PC dogma, it would be rejected outright.
I think Jsobieski hit the nail; a lot of what I have been reading lately in books and on the net is leaning in the direction of a war on the ideology as opposed to a perceived war on a religion.
Lets face it; the results so far have not been encouraging.

Posted by: Martellus at July 20, 2008 4:36 AM

Ok, let's proceed and play the astute game of Pretend (that Islam and Islamists are different) along with Pipes -- oh, and don't forget to swallow this slip of paper after you read it! This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds, Mr. Phelps...

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 20, 2008 5:09 AM

Q: You have written extensively about the distinction between Islam and “Islamism”, also called “militant Islam”, or “fundamentalism”. How do you explain the difference?

Dr. Pipes is most certainly learned on the subject of Islam and I have great respect for his views. But if the question above requires a Ph D to parse out the differences between friend and foe, then we are doomed and will never muster up the strength to fight this ideology and political system.

I agree with DenverRodeo with his comment regarding us attacking Germany and not the SS during WWII. The soldier on the ground must thoroughly understand the difference between friend and foe. At present they do not. If this can not be accomplished then we need to stop and take a second look at what we are doing. But to say that this is not easy, is to give up our lives. Certainly, our lives and those of our children and grandchildren are worth the effort. We MUST develop an effective strategy. We cannot give up as Dr. Pipes has implied.

Posted by: Spot on at July 20, 2008 5:43 AM

Ali Sina has correctly identified the "religion" of islam itself as the enemy's weakest point in this war. The religion is mohammed-worship, and nothing more; in essence, worship of history's most successful sociopath.

Unlike every other ancient religion, there is nothing profound, nothing spiritually nourishing or intellectually challenging about mohammed-worship.

This is a war of ideas, and one side has the ideas of a kindergardener. That is why that side does not want their ideas discussed. Like a child throwing a temper tantrum, it wants total respect for its every absurdity.

What Pipes does not get is this:

In this war, we are first fighting our own governments and our own intellectuals and our own colored ribbon culture, before we get to engage the enemy. Our Side has to understand the absurdity of mohammed-worship, of sociopath-worship, if we are going to have a chance.

In that sense, we are fighting a religion. Because we need to.

Posted by: Moonzoo at July 20, 2008 7:37 AM

Several comments have been made regarding the limitations imposed on our actions by the Constitution and the First Amendment. But these limitations only go as far as the Congress and Supreme Court are willing to abide by them. And they aren't always willing.
During WW1, there was the Sedition Act, passed by Congress, which prohibited publishing any criticism of the government or the military. Dozens of publications were closed down. The Postmaster-General forbade the post office from carrying many periodicals. And the War Production Office withheld deliveries of newsprint to many periodicals, effectively shutting them down. Hundreds of war-critics were jailed. The Supreme Court did not protect them.
During WW2, thousands of Japanese-Americans (and even more Italian- and German-Americans) were evicted from their homes and put on reservations. The Supreme Court didn't stop this.
So in practice, Supreme Court protections only go so far. And when push comes to shove, the SC is at the mercy of Congress. Congress determines the size, the membership, and the competence of the Court. The Court has twice been enlarged by Congress (originally the Court numbered 5 justices). A third enlargement, by FDR, to approve his New Deal proposals, was refused by Congress. And justices can by impeached and removed from the bench by Congress for any reason. The Founding Fathers wisely made these things difficult to do, by splitting Congress into two Houses, and making its membership so numerous. But these things CAN be done. Congress has impeached and removed federal judges (altho not any Supremes, that I can recall), and it has passed laws with the provision that they were not subject to SC review.
Likewise, SC decisions have to be enforced, and sometimes have to be paid for. The President can refuse to enforce them; Pres. Jackson was famous for the line "the Court has made its decision, let them enforce it." And Congress can refuse funding.
So, yes, there are constitutional limitations on our actions, but they are not absolute, and they have been disregarded in the past, in times of crisis.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 20, 2008 10:04 AM

It seems to me that Pipes's real reason for making the Islam/Islamism distinction is pragmatic, not theoretical. He believes that governments will not be able to tackle jihad without first extracting it from a "faith" which millions in the West follow (or extracting the "faith" from Islam, it hardly matters). This "faith" must, he thinks, be left in tact so that the political dimension of Islam can be sidelined and contained. Is this feasible?

I doubt it for the reason that no government, unless it wishes to defy logic, can maintain that Islam is a "religion of peace" on the one hand (as a personal "faith"), and on the other concede that it contains the seeds of a supremacist, violent political ideology. And this is why they constantly have to cling to the notion that a few bad apples - Taymiyya, Wahhab, Qutb, for example - have corrupted the "faith". To look back further into the history of Islamic supremacism to the inception of Islam and to take an honest look at the Qur'an, hadith and sira to see the seeds of violence and intolerance, risks inciting the "faithful" Muslim population, including those "cultural" Muslims, and "alienating" them.

In a nutshell, Pipes goes along with this government point of view and asks us to not to offend or alienate Muslims who might not buy into the violent ideological aspects of their "faith". In the sense that only on this basis are governments likely to be able to confront the political project of Islam (i.e. by separating it from the "faith") this might seem pragmatic. Though in doing so the classical foundations of the political project are necessarily ignored, yet what Islam and a "faith" and Islam as a supremacist political project share is precisely its classical foundations, beginning with the overriding message of the Qur'an. What use is it for any government to take action against the political ideology of Islam - what Pipes calls "Islamism" - if the price to pay is ignorance of its canonical roots and denial of the massive security risks we face by deliberately de-politicising the messages spun out at mosques all over the world?

Posted by: dlp at July 20, 2008 10:26 AM

There are a few rules of getting things done that must be followed in order for one to be successful. One of those rules is the old "KISS" rule (Keep it simple stupid). When large numbers of people are needed for a project, the KISS rule is imperative or the entire organization will get buried in details and lose sight of the goal.

There is no question to any learned observer that the "religion" of Islam is the problem. So to begin our war declaring that Islam is a religion of peace would have been much the same as in WWII calling the Germans a peaceful country with only a few bad eggs.

We had a different breed of people here in WWII. They believed in get things done and wouldn't tolerate much less. Today, I'm afraid that our politicians reflect a people that is watching TV incessantly and nothing really seems real anymore.

Probably we will have to wait for something disasterous to happen before everyone wakes up. That may never happen if our enemy is smart. Instead, they should immigrate here to the max and infiltrate us with there religion.

Posted by: Spot on at July 20, 2008 12:31 PM

ebonystone: Solid post about Constitutional give and take over the centuries. My compliments. Right now the federal judiciary (and many state judiciaries as well) is too powerful and out of alignment with respect to separation of powers. But Congress has the Constitutional authority to change this, if only it will. I believe there is a reason why the Founding Fathers dealt with the federal judiciary in Article III and that is because the legislative and executive branches are more important. After all, separation of powers does not necessarily mean an equal distribution of power across the board.

I'll close here by noting that President Bush's "signing statements," which have driven a lot of Bush detractors crazy, are actually a clever way by the President to assert his authority within the confines of the Constitution. What a wonderful document the Constitution is and it's fascinating to see how it has been stretched here and there by all three branches for more than two centuries. But though stretched, it has never broken.

Posted by: Wellington at July 20, 2008 2:28 PM

ebonystone and Wellington:

Sometimes to get from point A to point C, you first have to go to point B.

The Constitution is admittedly stretched and downright fabricated in ways that make it unrecognizable, but the principle of government not getting involved in theological disputes per se and in not discriminating between belief systems per se is as old as the Constitution itself. I am no lib. If I could stack the court with nine Scalia's, I would do so in a heartbeat. I would love to see Congress impeach SC Justices for their wacky decisions, including the recent decision on Habeas Corpus as it relates to Gitmo.

However, we do not live in a world where that is possible in the foreseeable future. We are so far from that kind of action, that I wish to focus more on what can be done NOW, not after the entire Western world has a change of heart.

As it is, we have public schools in England and US having lessons about Islam requiring 2nd graders to behave like Muslims for a day, when we all now that Muslim 2nd gradaers will NEVER be asked to learn about Christianity or Judaism from a Christian or Jewish point of view, much less perform Christian or Jewish ceremonies from a cultural perspective.

In that context, what you are talking about is as mythical as the moderate Muslim unicorn. A fairy tale with no foreseeable path to fruition.

We are in a war here folks. We have tools immediately available to us, and we have imaginary tools that do not exist.

Your solution seems to be, wouldn't it be great if X, Y, and Z were true.

Unfortunately, for the moment, and for the foreseeable future, X, Y, and Z are not true.

We ARE in the grips of a deadly PC culture.

We ARE subject to a Drive-By-Media and elitist government which is either totally ignorant or 99% cowardly.

We ARE in desperate need of a plan that is more than . . . when things really get bad, then we can do X, Y, and Z.

I don't want to wait for a nuclear device to level NYC or Washington D.C. before doing something.

Thus:
(1) Having government officials talk about Islamists is fine with me. Far better than calling them Southern Asians. Pointing to a religious motivation is far better than avoiding the topic of religion all together (see recent speech guidelines by the State and Homeland Security Departments).

(2) If IslamISM is the cross-over mechanism to get people to read Islamic texts to see what "verses are being interpretted in a violent way by the 'extremists'" then I am all for that too.Discussing IslamISM can be a good thing (if we use it properly) to get people involved in a conversation who are unwilling to consider a frontal assault on Islam itself

The end goal has to be a discussion of the texts. That is what results in people "crossing over" to our side. At this point, we need to maximize the flow of cross-overs. As a fairly recent cross-over myself, I can tell you that an immediate frontal assult on Islam would have gotten nowhere with me, even though I fully recgnized the tyranny of Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc. and the media bias in favor of the PLO over Israel.

Bottom Line: Unless there is some mass movement to impeach SC Justices that I am unaware of, lets focus on some more achievable goals.

Put another way, a society capable of impeaching SC Justices for some of this crap, will have already solved much of the Jihad problem because it means that our society as a whole is no longer in a deadly embrace of PC-nihilism.

In summary, while being on a deserted islanded, presuming the existence of a can opener is of little value.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 2:48 PM

During WWII, many people said we were at war with the Nazis.

The SS vs. Germany analogy is a straw man.

Nazis (far broader than SS--encompassing the entire ideology) vs. Germany is far more analogous.

In the Cold War, we did not consider everyone with leftist views to be a communist. We focused our attention on people who actually wanted to subvert our form of government. We distinguished between socialist beliefs and the ideology of communism.

Again, the primary goal at this point is to get as many people to look at Islamic texts to realize how horribly violent the religion is.

It is far easier to get someone to go along with your encouragement if they don't think you are some type of "Islamophobe". Yes, I hate that word. But use of the word is part of the reality that we find ourselves in. In took a good 50 years for the U.S. to dig itself into a PC-hole. It will probably take another 50 to dig our way out.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 2:55 PM

More on my Germany-S.S. analogy:

Interview with Daniel Pipes, July of 1940

Q: You have written extensively about the distinction between Germany and “Germanism”, also called “militant Germanicness”, or “fundamentalism”. How do you explain the difference?

DP: Germany is a personal idea, and there are many different ways of understanding what it means to be a German. One can be a Lutheran, a beer-drinker, one can be someone who lives by the law in a very strict way, one can be a nominal Germanist, who does not pay that much attention to his ideas; all these and other ways are possible within the nationalism of Germany.

Germanism is a very specific approach, one that holds that Germans would be powerful and rich were Germans to follow the Teutonic law in its complete detail. Germanists aspire to apply that law everywhere in the world, and see non-Germans as inferior, and to be defeated. It’s an ideology that has its roots at the origins of Germany, but developed in its present state about 20 years ago. It is part of Germany, but not the whole of Germany.

Q: You have been advising the American Air Force and the British R.A.F. What have you recommended to them?

DP: I have recommended that when they plan to conduct bombing raids, they pay close attention to the distinction between Germans and Germanists and avoid bombing the former, because if we do, the Germans will get angry and become Germanists.

Q: How will our air command be able to tell the difference?

DP: It may be more difficult from the air than on the ground, but generally speaking the Germanists will have postures that are more erect and stiffer, while the Germans will be more relaxed. Most of the time our pilots and bombardiers will be able to spot this if they fly low enough, and even risking anti-aircraft fire from the ground is an appropriate price to pay to make sure we don't kill the good Germans.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 20, 2008 3:25 PM

DenverRodeo:

Your point is well made, but overstated.

A more appropriate analogy would be fighting the Nazis in contrast to fighting people for their affiliation with Germany. I'm sure that US military units with Americans of German ancestry probably emphasized the Nazi part more than the German part for obviouos reasons. I understand that Nazi Germany could only become Nazi Germany because so many Germans permitted it to happen, but that is a debate for another day.

The Nazis were the source of the problem. Many Germans were not Nazis, and most people in the territories occupied by the Nazis were not Nazis.

But essentially what you are saying is, we will need to wait for a couple of American cities to vaporized before we do something since until that time, we should do nothing.

The First Amendment of the Consitution does prohibit discrimination against any particular religion per se. So at this point, it is either taking on IslamISM, or it is doing nothing since the Constitution prohibits what you want to do, and there is insufficient public support in any case.

I agree with you in terms of action by non-government actors, but government action is limited by the First Amendment. Denying reality is not helpful, even with the truly funny hypothetical interview above (which is unfair to Mr. Pipes given the different context between WWII --pure shooting war and the war against Jihad --primarily ideological conflict).

Bottom Line: Do you deny the existence of the First Amendment to the US Constitution?

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 3:58 PM

JSobieski -

Imagine a religion appeared in America (appeared on the radar that is, after years of existing "under the radar" without breaking any laws) that had doctrines mandating killing politicians and policemen. It has a membership of one million in nearly every state of the Union. Only a couple of hundred members scattered all over the US have been putting the killing doctrines into practice. The rest are true believers and do not show any real signs of protesting their violent brethren (though some of them claim to with flimsy arguments). Meanwhile, the killings are escalating in numbers and in geographical dispersion. Would our political representatives hestitate to shut that religion down?

If you agree they wouldn't hesitate, the tipping point is the type and degree of threat to civil order which a "religion" represents -- not some abstract principle to be defended no matter how many people get killed as a result.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 20, 2008 5:35 PM

We did, in fact, make a distinction between Germans and Nazi Germany, even though we fought them as one. When the Nazi government of Germany was defeated our war with Germans ended. When the Imperial government of Japan was defeated, our war with the Japanese people ended. The analogy is bad because in the case of Islam the situation is much worse. Islam is not a country
that can exist independent of the given ruling ideology. Nor is it an army that can be crushed on the battlefield and victory declared once and for all. There is no absolute victory here and the all-or-nothing-at-all approach may feel good but doesn't accomplish a helluva lot. The steps needed to contain and constrain and limit the harm Islam can do to the Infidel world are spelled out here all the time. They do require making the public aware of these teachings in Islam and the threat they pose, they don't require the government to draw theological conclusions about them, i.e. teaching Jihad and Shari'a supremacism will not be allowed here and are grounds for expulsion. Muslims could see that as "war" with Islam or not, as they choose
to see Jihad and Shari'a as Islam, but they would have to adjust nevertheless.

Posted by: Nick Danger at July 20, 2008 6:36 PM

JSobieski -

Imagine a religion appeared in America (appeared on the radar that is, after years of existing "under the radar" without breaking any laws) that had doctrines mandating killing politicians and policemen.

[No imagination required]

It has a membership of one million in nearly every state of the Union. Only a couple of hundred members scattered all over the US have been putting the killing doctrines into practice. The rest are true believers and do not show any real signs of protesting their violent brethren (though some of them claim to with flimsy arguments).

[Again, no imagination required]

Meanwhile, the killings are escalating in numbers and in geographical dispersion. Would our political representatives hestitate to shut that religion down?

[Yes they would do more than hesitate. Your paragraphs above are not fiction--they are our current reality. However, all I see is political representatives bending over backwards to utter the phrase "religion of peace" and while avoid saying "jihad"]

If you agree they wouldn't hesitate,

[I disagree and current events show that you are wrong. Even in the days immediately after 9/11, there was no evidence of looking at Islam per se, and we had every reason to expect follow-up attacks]

the tipping point is the type and degree of threat to civil order which a "religion" represents

[True, which is why I have repeatedly said, "your plan is that AFTER a couple of US cities get nuked, we will do X, Y, and Z"---I am trying to focus on things that can be done NOW---not after the next big attack]

-- not some abstract principle to be defended no matter how many people get killed as a result.

[I agree--but until a couple of US cities are vaporized, the First Amendment is going to be in full force].

Bottom Line: We agree on what will happen AFTER something horific on scale that makes 9/11 look tame.

I however am interested in doing some things before then in. It is not an acceptable strategy from my point of view to say "wait for the #^%^%$ to really hit the fan, and then we do X,Y, Z"

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 6:57 PM

JSobieski: I'm not as sanguine as you are that you can get Americans to read the Koran in the first place (hell, they don't even read the Bible) and even if you did you'd have to be prepared for all kinds of lame excuses for why we shouldn't take very seriously what the Koran says. I provided appropriate Koranic passages to a highly educated Christian some years ago. Now, this person is just about the most sophisticated and well educated human being I have ever met. He speaks five languages fluently and can converse on almost any subject with knowledge and intelligence. His response? He didn't think they were so bad. Cutting off fingertips, heads, slaying the infidel, etc. Hey, got to understand them in the context of the seventh century and so on.

Well, I think you get my point. No, I'm afraid that it will take extremely destructive actions by Muslim radicals to drive the point home to enough Americans so that they will demand their government representatives to isolate Islam (and thus Muslims) in a way never before seen in American history where a religion is concerned. Oh, by the way, that friend I mentioned above has changed his mind a good bit and now thinks there is something fundamentally flawed about Islam. But it took many actions by Muslim terrorists over the past few years (and ad nauseam excuse making by their intrepid "moderate" Muslim brethren) and not reading the Koran or Hadith or Islamic religious law to alter his thinking here. In short, and excuse the cliche, actions speak louder than words. I often wish that weren't the case, and especially where the Islamic faith is at issue, but sadly and nonetheless it is.

Posted by: Wellington at July 20, 2008 7:31 PM

JSobieski

"Bottom Line: We agree on what will happen AFTER something horific on scale that makes 9/11 look tame.

I however am interested in doing some things before then in."

I don't see any reason why we can't take preventive measures before the attacks, if we think the potential danger is big enough. What's preventing us is as you say political correctness; but that's not a "reason", it's an irrational thing. The question is whether we can cut throug the PC better through trying to make ourselves seem PC-friendly, or whether it would not be better ultimately to step on the gas.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 20, 2008 8:01 PM

In my first two comments on this thread, I suggested four "tools" that we could use in our struggle with Islam (or Islamism, if you prefer):
1. drastically reduce our dependence on imported (non-NAFTA) oil -- both strengthening our economy and weakening the sources of jihadi funding;
2. virtually halting Islamic immigration by going back to the immigration rules in effect in the 40's and 50's;
3. educating the public as to the true beliefs and aims of Islam;
4. halting foreign aid to Islamic countries.

I don't think any of these are imaginary tools, nor are any unconstitutional. Some of them have already been used in the past.

Thanks for your support, Wellington. I liked your line: "separation of powers does not necessarily mean an equal distribution of power across the board."

Posted by: ebonystone at July 20, 2008 8:20 PM

ebonystone:

I support all of the ends you mention above. My previous contention is that government cannot in terms of people on US soil (citizens and residents) discriminate on the basis of religion. That is in the First Amendment of the Constitution. We can shut down a mosque because it is being used to do certain things, but we cannot shut down a mosque simply because it is a mosque. What I am saying is the constitutional law of the land as well as the political reality that we find ourselves in.

The First Amendment does not apply to those outside the US who are not US citizens, so restricting immigration is a key tool. However, I don't think limiting immigration on per se Muslim belief is constitutitionally permitted either. That's why Robert's questionnaire idea focuses on concepts like Sharia law, minority rights, etc.

Even more importantly, we don't seem to be very close to having sufficient support to use immigration restrictions in a targetted way against Islamic world. I see no signs that we are on the cusp of such action.

In terms of constitutional law, sayings like "the constitution is not a suicide pact" or "separation of powers does not mean an equal distribution of power across the board" do have value, but they are not in the Constitution. The first quote is from Abraham Lincoln, and it represents the period of time in which the Union was on the precipice of destruction. Traitors were hung without trial, habeaus corpus was suspended. etc. Similar things might happen because of a Jihadist attack---if something like a nuke goes on in NYC. Otherwise, the Constitution is not going to be watered down just because we say so.

Just as "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution either (although it is a paraphrase of the establishment clause -- the suicide pact and separation of powers lines are not even paraphrasing anything in particular, they are just nice quips).

My point is that people post comments about banning Islam in the US and ragging on people like Pipes, and it is totally unproductive to do either.

The government cannot ban Islam from being practiced in the US. It can take steps to proactively seek out and deal with those who want to interfere in the Constitutional order or otherwise commit crimes or conspire to commit crimes against infidels (RICO is a great legal tool, mark my words that it will be used in the jihadist context eventually).

Pipes is a mere sliver of difference in emphasis from Robert, and we need both of them and everyone else communicating to everyone that they can.

For my part, I want to try and push through things that can be accomplished rather than post comments about how Islam should be banned (constitutionally impermissible), how the Supreme Court could deny that Islam is religion (at most, the court would make precisely the Islam vs. Islamist distinction that Pipes makes), and how we should just deport all of the Muslims.

I appreciate the sentiments of such comments, but they are not an action plan. Glad to hear that you too are interested in moving the ball forward, even if it means some incrementalism./

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 8:43 PM

The distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism" which some find acceptably machiavellian is, I think, more akin to a boomerang. To posit something called "Islam" which has been stripped of its politics and geopolitics, and left only with the rituals of worship, and then to take that politics and geopolitics and the instruments used to further them, and put that under a separate rubric of an invented thing called "Islamism," because we are all either to believe, or to pretend to believe -- I don't know which is worse -- that we, non-Muslims, can do this, can split Islam in two for calculated purposes, in order that we might smuggle in the real theme -- that Islam itself is the problem -- in the guise of opposing only Islamism -- simply confuses and in confusing, disheartens.

Imagine a United States where 300 million non-Muslims, or at least the adult part of that population, was worried about "Islamism" but, at the same time, was not at all worried about good old "Islam."

Well, would that outcome, presumably favored by those who push this Islam/Islamism distinction, worry you, or not worry you?

Posted by: Hugh at July 20, 2008 9:18 PM

admit that I wouldn't like this country to become dominated by Muslims, regardless of how peaceful, moderate, or pro-western they purported to be. For the record, I would vote in favor of a Constitutional amendment that declared Islam should not be construed as a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment. I think that case is not hard to make intellectually, although it is impossible to make it politically.

My previously stated position is based on sound legal principles. The realities of the law (barring some specific trigger to the contrary) do constrain what government actions can be taken. I fully encourage private non-governmental actors to go further, but the First Amendment only permits the government to go so far. If I want to worship a tree stump in my back yard, the government has no business to stop me. If that tree stump tells me that I am superior to non-tree stump worshipers, the government has to ability to interfere in that belief so long as I do not act upon it.

From a constitutional law perspective, it is CRITICAL that Islam be defined as an ideology so that we can tie these apparently "random" jihadists together with a common theme. comment texts, etc. Religion per se cannot be that theme. However, since Islam is more ideology thatn religion in any sense that I have experienced religion, I don't see that it is impossible to fight the Jihadists, both fast and slow, using the Islamist construct, so long as doing so is not an attempt to ignore the Muhammed trilogy.

While sympathetic to your argument that Islamism vs. Islam is legal hair splitting, I believe that the First Amendment of the Constitution requires this hair splitting if effective government action is going to be taken. In a choice between (A) the enemy is Islamism, and here are the steps we are going to take vs. (B) the enemy is Islam per se, but of course, government action cannot discriminate on the basis of religion so that government action cannot be taken and we are relegated to purely private action, I choose option (A) because it is the lesser of two evils.

I believe a sound argument can be made that by declaring Islamism the enemy, we can in fact encourage people to look at Islamic texts and educate themselves. A war against Islamism when coupled with the acknowledgement that there is a textual basis for Islamism in the books of Islam is a trojan horse of sorts, but trojan horses can be effective. In some sense, this is a classic martial arts move. We are encumbered with this "peaceful religion that has been hijacked" meme, so why not use it to our advantage. Point out the textual references to apes and pigs, to the killing or subjugating of infidels. The PC-defenses will be down because we are not attacking Islam, we are attacking a violent ideology that is grounded in some Islamic texts.

A public debate in which war is declarated against Islamism and the textual evidence for Islamism is publicly discussed is probably the best way to force the "moderates" to choose sides either the way of a constitutional republic or the way of Sharia. Forcing both Muslims and non-Muslims to confront the violence of the Muhammed trilogy is a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the First Amendment prohibits the government from caring about whether X number of people in the US believe in Islam per se. However, the First Amendment does not prohibit the government from taking on an ideology determined to undue/reshape the constitutional order through illicit means.

Aside from prohibiting pro-Sharia law advocates from entering the country in the first place, under the First Amendment, people inside the jurisdiction of the US have every right to believe that Sharia law is the way to go and to try through peaceful and lawful means to try and exact Sharia law.

However, advocating violence and advocating lawlessness so long as such communications are not purely academic/theoretical and are reasonably intended to result in action--the government can take action in those instances.

I am looking for ways to move the ball forward that could actually be implemented.

Bottom Line: Unlike the government of Saudi Arabia. the US government isn't allowed to asked people what their religious persuasion is. The government certainly can NOT disciminate against Muslims in the US simply for being Muslims. Any actions against Muslims will need to be justified on attributes that relate to actions/ideologies, and not per se religious belief

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 9:52 PM

Hugh: The distinction you mentioned above in your 9:18 PM post would most definitely worry me. To cut to the quick, and I hope you don't mind, methinks you are ever so obliquely dismissing Dr. Pipes. I'm with you here, though I think Pipes understands full well that Islamic radicalism has no upside to it for America and the West. So, the debate for reasonable, informed dhimmi minds comes down to whether there is anything in Islam that should be respected and admired. Pipes says yes. I say no. I will not put words in your mouth, Hugh, but I nonetheless can imagine where you stand on this issue respecting the merits of Islamic thought or the lack thereof.

JSobieski: Thanks for your several thoughtful comments. And you're correct in asserting that merely calling for Islam to be banned in America because it is injurious to American interests (which it most defninitely is) is of little consequence-----and will be certainly productive of even less results in the foreseeable future. That's why new methods of thinking, and of Constitutional considerations not imperative until now, are so necessary in the upcoming years. The Founding Fathers were as wise a group of men who ever lived, but they had the luxury of never having to consider the many iniquities of the Islamic faith, except perhaps in the abstract. I remain confident that the Constitution can deal with the totalitarian aspects which Islam confronts it with, but it will entail flexible thinking of the most subtle kind to achieve such. Hopefully, American society has not dumbed down enough to disallow this new experiment in preserving Western freedoms. Ah, the game of games continues-----liberty (in every aspect) versus slavery (in all its nefarious forms, including a religion which is not beneficial to mankind realizing its destiny). Fascinating times, no?

Posted by: Wellington at July 20, 2008 10:04 PM

Wellington:

What you say is all true, but I should point out that they had more experience with Islam and more knowledge of its teachings that any US administration since that time.

And yes, we are in for some "interesting" times.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 20, 2008 10:07 PM

'To posit something called "Islam" which has been stripped of its politics and geopolitics, and left only with the rituals of worship'..well, isn't that the "reform" everyone wants to see? Why not just impose it--at least here. There's no reason we can't insist on such a stripping in our own countries. Isn't that what not countenancing Jihad and Shari'a amounts to? Anyone who understands the politics and geopolitics and jurisprudence of Islam enough to want it banned is not going to have illusions about good old Islam.

Should we go further? Is the U.S. government going to declare Islam itself, persona non grata? If that is the way we are to go, for the sake of not being confused about our target, so be it--after all, it won't change how the Muslim world reacts to any act of self-defense on our part: war on Islam, not war on "Islamism". But how
is it feasibly going to happen?

Posted by: Nick Danger at July 20, 2008 10:26 PM

JSobieski: Oh, absolutely, I agree. Folks like Jefferson, Franklin and Adams knew full well what Islam was about but, for them, it was a distant phenomenon, at best shrouded in the shadows of greatness produced by classical civilization and the Judeo-Christian world. Understandably, they treated with Islam as an aberration which posed no threat to the new Republic. It was but a curiosity of a stupid, malevolent kind, of a world in decline and deservedly so. Wow, have times changed or what? Wish we had another Jefferson or Franklin today who would call Islam on the carpet, and not a magic one, for what it is. I see none in sight. Do you? Nonetheless, my best to you and yours.

Posted by: Wellington at July 20, 2008 10:51 PM

Pipes' definitions are analogous to Spencer's.

Spencer writes, in essence, that many/most Muslims are not the problem (we cannot know what is in their heart), but that Islam is problematic.

But these Muslims who are not the problem, by definition, believe in (some sort of) Islam. This is the Islam Pipes calls "Islam."

As for the Muslims who are (or might be) problematic, Pipes would classify their take on Islam as "Islamism."

Pretty straightforward, no?

Posted by: kamala at July 20, 2008 11:30 PM

For yet another perspective, there is this bit of optimism from ex-Muslim Abul Kassem: "There is a secret life of Islam and it may very well lead to the death of Islam. The history of Islam, for instance, tells us that Islam needs blood to thrive. Human blood is the life-line of Islam, violence its hallmark, and hate its foundation. In the beginning, Islam lives on the blood of infidels. When that is unavailable, or becomes difficult, Islam must cannibalize itself...
Muhammad himself had predicted the decline of Islam. Comparing Islam with a snake, he likened Islam to be confined between the mosques of Mecca and Medina. Please read these Sahih ahadith from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

"Islam was initiated as something strange, and it would revert to its (old position) of being strange, and it would concentrate between the two mosques just as the serpent crawls back into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0270)

"The Islamic faith will recede to Medina just as the serpent crawls into its hole…(Sahih Muslim, 1.0271, 0272)

"We can conclude that there is a certain ending to Islam and that those who wish for it do not necessarily need to do anything. All that is needed is to let it run its own course. It is bound to self-destruct, if we are to learn from the lessons of Islamic history. The un-Islamic world just needs to protect itself with strict security measures, never letting the various groups of Islam unite to kill the infidels. Once the infidels learn the secret life of Islam, it is simply a matter to watch how Islam implodes. Once the Islamic oil runs dry, once the world secures a reliable source of energy to replace oil, once the infidels stand together, and once the infidels become iron-resolute to contain Islam in their lands, Islam will die a natural death."

Posted by: Nick Danger at July 21, 2008 12:49 AM

Pipes interview reads like a verbal copy of Tiny Tim's "Tiptoe through the Tulips"

Whatever happened to the truth? Is not islam the issue, the enemy? Do not any see that Pipes approach here will lead to defeat?

With respect, laws can fail, justice can not be served with his view in this case.

If O.B.L. hijacked islam, and you try to just outlaw his "sect" based on his hijacking, could not a good arguement be made that his "sect" is not at all twisted? If so, would he be allowed to fly planes into buildings as a tool to serve his faith? If not,why not? Stark terms serve to make the issue clear.

Also, law is one thing, court decisions are another. It is not really about the truth, it is what you prove in court. If the hat and gloves do not fit bit. Lawyers can find as many positions as the law can write laws for.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at July 21, 2008 3:33 AM

I fail to see that any of the suggestions that I have made for the gov't to deal with the Islamic threat are unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution requires to rely on imported energy sources while failing to use our own. Nor are we required to pay foreign aid to anybody, much less our enemies. As for immigration, our pre-60's policy was based on national origin, not religion, and was very limited in numbers as well. Its aim was to restrict immigration to "people like us", i.e. people who were already here, and since 90% of Americans were of white European descent, those were the kind who were admitted. Asians and Africans were largely excluded. So the policy was criticized on the grounds that it was racist, and that it presented a bad image of America. The policy was perfectly legal then, and could be so again.
I realize that such suggestions will require changes of opinion in both Congress and the electorate. But such changes have come often in the past, and with surprising suddenness. For example there were the entrances into both World Wars. In WW2, of course, we were attacked (altho some would say that FDR did his best to provoke an attack), but in WW1 we were not. Yet Woody Wilson led us straight from his "he kept us out of war" election campaign into a declaration of war only one month into his second term, with the overwhelming support of
Congress, the media, and the intelligentsia. After the war, his program was rejected just as suddenly; the gov't control of the economy was rejected, as was Wilson's pet project of the League of Nations. Likewise after WW2 the war production controls were eliminated despite Truman's insistence that they were required for the transition to a peacetime economy. And in the 60's, the Great Society programs were enacted with almost frightening speed.
So sudden and great changes in policy are possible. I realize they may be difficult, but they've happened in the past, and they can happen again.
Education as to the menace we face is probably the key. I believe that JW is part of this education, I know it's educated me.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 21, 2008 9:11 AM

All of the above ideas are well taken and excellent points for discussion. Dr. Pipes wrote a book some 25 years ago titled “Slave Soldiers”. This book described the Islamic practice of raiding small European Christian villages and kidnapping boys and girls in pre-medieval and medieval times. They used these boys as slave soldiers or eunuchs, and the girls as concubines or slaves. He researched everything down to persons names, dates, and places. He drew no moral conclusion, he just presented a factual account.

As has been previously well stated in the above posts, we face a serious problem. We don’t want such things as have happened in the past at the hands of Islamic soldiers to happen to our children and grandchildren. But how do we warn them of the danger? And how do we prevent an Islamic takeover?

First we should stop all Islamic immigration. In doing this we put ourselves on hold and in the position to watch Europe develop into an Islamic nation over the next 10-15 years. (I would most certainly suggest the same for our European friends but I am afraid it is already too late for them.) This would give us time for our citizens to see Islam at work first hand. We must also provide an accurate historical context of Islam so they understand what they see. Gradually our country may come to its senses and change laws to outlaw sharia. We could also see some great change on constitutional issues once the danger is seen by everyone.

We must also use every military method available to keep WMD’s out of Islamic hands. They can launch a first strike against us with such weapons and destroy our society as we know it. Proper immigration control will also help reduce the threat of a first strike WMD attack. We also need to greatly reduce the money flow to Islamic countries.

I wish we had a WWII mindset in this country but we don’t. General Curtis LeMay once said on camera that “War is hell but when you kill enough of the enemy, you win.” It was well understood in those days that if you are fighting an enemy to the death, you must destroy them to the point that they will tell their children and grandchildren not to ever challenge you again. That is what will work with Islamic countries.

Instead, today, we have military and civilian leaders that do not admit the true identity of the enemy and want to engage in war without hurting anyone. This is a recipe for disaster but it does buy time albeit at great expense.

There is no silver bullet that I can see, but shining the light of truth on Islam and Mohammad is essential to our survival.

Posted by: Spot on at July 21, 2008 9:20 AM

ebonystone:

How can Muslim immigration be banned on the pretext of national origin when so many Muslims live in Europe, and so many of the people fleeing the ME are not Muslims?

In many cases, we want non-Muslim immigrants to come to the US because they at least know what the problem is.

Are you saying that we will ban all immigrants from England to stop the influx of Pakistanis?

Banning all Muslim immigration is not so easy as you seem to think unless the government can actually ask each potential immigrant what their religion is and unless the government can discriminate between religious faith

I wish we had a WWII mindset, but we don't.
I wish more people were aware of the problem, but they aren't.
I wish more people who are aware that something is fundamentally wrong about Islam said something, but they don't.
I wish the U.S. government were capable of taking on more Jihad-specific actions that actually take into consideration that people who read the Koran are more likely to be dangerous, but it isn't.

Now that we have the wishes out of the way, what goals are achievable in 2008? How many votes would banning Muslim immigration get in 2008? Are you talking about disciminating on the basis of national origin as a proxy, or outright banning Muslim immigration?

In any case, there is no present will to do anytning much less invasive, such as asking about beliefs pertaining to Sharia law, etc.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 21, 2008 11:04 AM

Ebonystone

Good questions and good comments. I would have gotten into this discussion yesterday afternoon but was out.

As I understand the law, we have no requirement to let just anyone enter our country. Nothing in our constitution requires us to allow immigrants at all. I don't see why we could not allow those from certain countries to immigrate and not from others. But I agree that allowing only certain religions to immigrate would be a problem constitutionally. I agree, Europe would be a problem.

I see that you have a good aquaintance with the law. But laws are made by legislators. It is not easy but we either change the mindset in Washington or we are doomed.

I don't see any silver bullet. I do know that if enough people will read books like you and I have read that more people will be aware. Fathers tell wives, sons, and daughter this kind of stuff but I admit it is hard to get them to listen, that is until the day they see some horrible event on TV committed by Muslims. So I recommend spreading awareness as far as possible to anyone that will listen. Robert's book "The Truth about Islam" is an easy read and gets right to the point.

But constitutionally, we don't have a requirement to kill ourselves unless we all agree to it.

Posted by: Spot on at July 21, 2008 11:58 AM

The Constitution as it presently exists, without any additional amendments, is sufficient to deal with Muslim immigration IF we have the right people in government. If 90% of federal legislators and judges knew as much about Islam as Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald do, thus understanding full well what Islam really intends for America, I am satisfied that laws could be passed banning Muslim immigration outright and such laws would be upheld by the courts in a constitutional manner, principally on the basis of national security arguments.

The sticking point in all this is knowledge and that's why I, ebonystone, JSobieski and others are scrambling here to come up with ways to prevent Islamic hegemony (or at least a hell of a lot of trouble caused because of Islam) from becoming a reality here in America. I think another constitutional amendment (specifically not according First Amendment protections to Islam) might be necessary to save us from the ignorance of government officials, and yet even this proposal is a long shot, once again because of a dearth of knowledge of Islam by politicians and even a good portion of the American people. Right now, Islam is still in the driver's seat. And that's a shame. I think one or more 9/11s is what it will take to finally knock sense into the people in charge. And even then I'm not certain. All part of the reason why I have maintained that Islam is the masterpiece of totalitarian thought and structure. It's the enemy and it is one formidable enemy.

Posted by: Wellington at July 21, 2008 12:41 PM

JSobieski

"The government certainly can NOT disciminate against Muslims in the US simply for being Muslims"

That's a straw man fallacy. We are not talking about discriminating against American Muslims "simply for being Muslims", we are talking about discriminating against them for supporting a religion that is seditious and that is tied to seditious violence.

"Any actions against Muslims will need to be justified on attributes that relate to actions/ideologies, and not per se religious belief"

Your distinction here is artificial. It does not exist in Islam. Islamic religious belief is tied to actions/ideologies and you can't untie them except in your imagination.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 21, 2008 1:33 PM

The distinction doesn't exist in Islam but it DOES exist in the U.S. Constitution.

I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself, but I am speaking strictly from a legal point of view on this point.

The First Amendment does not allow discrimination against a religion per se.

However, the government can take action against those who conspire to deny others their civil rights or to overthrow the government.

My distinction is the only way that the government is going to be able to address the challenge of the jidhadists.

Constitutional Law requires that the government action not be premised on religion per se. I didn't make up the rules, they are what they are, and they aren't going to change because you say so, because the distinction is irrelevant with respect to Islam, etc.

I am simply restating well established Constitutional doctrines. If you don't like it, amend the constitution.

Nobody can claims (certainly none of the posters on this site) that an actual majority of Muslims are actively engaging in seditious acts. The problem is that more than a majority are complicit in those acts by not speaking up, but that is a speech issue not an action issue.

The legal challenges to addressing the Jihadist threat are serious. Are realize you would rather not confront that fact, but I am trying to focus on the present and the possible, instead of focusing on the world as I would like it to be.

As you would learn by looking in to various KKK, Neo-Nazi, and similar U.S. cases that are analogoous to Islam, speach itself--even when it is hate speech---is not sufficient for the government to take action.

On the other hand, waiting for specific action by specific individuals is a method of dealing with crime, not terrorism.

The genius of the Islamist construct is that it allows the government to more easily characterize the Jihadists and to take action against them for their stated ideology (the RICO statute would play a role here).

Otherwise, you are going to have a lawsuit resisting each and every policy---and frankly, under existing precedent---we would lose each case.

The Supreme Court is not going to strip first amendment rights from Muslims by removing its status as a religion. So, the next best alternative is to address the ideology as distinct from Islam per se.

I am an attorney. I deal with legal issues every day. I advise my clients to deal with the law as it is, and not as they wish it would be.

The majority of Muslims do not commit violent acts themselves, so if you want to address the issue in a way that is proactive you have to go after ideology and religion. That is the law.

Otherwise, we just wait for people to commit crimes, and then pounce afterwards--which is not a satisfactory solution.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 21, 2008 3:52 PM

Wellington and DenverRodeo

Agreed.

Until we get the people in Washington up to speed (if that is ever possible) the best thing we can do is what we are doing right now. Helping to make Roberts website an interesting place.

Posted by: Spot on at July 21, 2008 3:55 PM

In other words, Neo-Nazis had the right to march in Skokie, Illinois. Despite the violent and seditious acts of such groups.

Are many Neo-Nazis tied to violence? Yes. Just as many KKK members are as well. So are many Black Nationalists.

However, mere membership in those organizations could not serve as the basis for government action.

Mere speech such as "white people are superior and everyone else should leave" is protected even though many of the groups uttering such speech do far more than just talk.

We need to classify the Jihadists as an ideology and do it as quickly as we can. The benefit of using a phrase such as Islamo-Facism or Islamism is that when the litigation ensues, we at least have a shot at saying we are not discriminating against Islam per se.

I understand that the Islam vs. Islamist distinction is a phantom in many respects, but so was separate but equal and it nonetheless served as constitutional law for 100 years.

Posted by: JSobieski at July 21, 2008 4:02 PM

JSobieski

The groups you mentioned (neo-Nazis, KKK, etc.) differ from Islam: their guiding ideology is not nearly as seditious, not by a long shot, in fact, their goals are considerably smaller than conquering the world; they are far less numerous; and their members have been responsible for only a fraction of the violence which members of Islam have been doing. As I said before, the tipping point does not refer to an abstract principle, but to the weight of quantity and quality of the offending group: and Islam qualifies. Talk about "ideology" or "isms" is only distracting us and delaying the inevitable conclusion the West will come to anyway. The sooner the better, the sooner the less costly too in lives, trouble, and money.

Posted by: DenverRodeo at July 21, 2008 4:51 PM

"However, the government can take action against those who conspire to deny others their civil rights or to overthrow the government."

JSobieski;

Can "those" who conspire to deny, in your opinion, apply to islam itself? That is key, otherwise the fight is already over. We are fighting the words "send down" over 1400 years ago, unless you can show how we are unable, or can not take that focus.

Try to display and fit the "faith" of islam into synch with our laws and rights, where else can you bring attention with better goals?

It is that approach that has hope of sucess against the spread of islam in this country.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at July 21, 2008 5:40 PM

JSobieski,

In reply to your comments on immigration. My suggestion would not eliminate all Moslem immigtration, but would greatly reduce it. In the 50's, immigration to the U.S. averaged ca. 250 thousand/yr. In the 90's it averaged 900 thousand/yr. In the 50's it was almost all European. In the 90's it was mostly non-European. I agree with your comment that some of the immigrants from Europe would be Moslem -- the second generation of Islamic immigrants TO Europe. But their numbers would be greatly reduced.

Posted by: ebonystone at July 21, 2008 6:08 PM

In response to Hughs post 7-20-08 9:18,
“The distinction between "Islam" and "Islamism" which some find acceptably machiavellian is, I think, more akin to a boomerang. To posit something called "Islam" which has been stripped of its politics and geopolitics, and left only with the rituals of worship, and then to take that politics and geopolitics and the instruments used to further them, and put that under a separate rubric of an invented thing called "Islamism," because we are all either to believe, or to pretend to believe -- I don't know which is worse -- that we, non-Muslims, can do this, can split Islam in two for calculated purposes, in order that we might smuggle in the real theme -- that Islam itself is the problem -- in the guise of opposing only Islamism -- simply confuses and in confusing, disheartens.

Imagine a United States where 300 million non-Muslims, or at least the adult part of that population, was worried about "Islamism" but, at the same time, was not at all worried about good old "Islam."

Firstly, I believe your supposition to be inane. The reason we are even discussing these things in this tiny corner of cyberspace and not in the mainstream media or Congress, the town square, or as a matter of national policy at any level, is the vast majority of people in the western world do not see the threat that Islam posses. It is our responsibility to see that this changes before Europe ceases to exist as we know it, before Canada becomes the next Al-Qaeda staging ground, before another horrific attack on our soil.
Right now, at this place in time, we desperately need to tap into that 300 million non-Muslim pool.
I’m getting the impression that you want to take the high road on this issue. Fine, I’m saying it’s not the only road that can be taken. This is war and anything goes. True we don’t want to obfuscate the issues, we need people to see the truth on their own terms.
You state, “in order that we might smuggle in the real theme.” I say let the genie out of the bottle. There is no stretch between Islam and Islamism; they are one in the same, they arrive at the same conclusion from different directions.
But they have to at least look.
Speaking to my own experiences, it doesn’t take much. Because of you Hugh, and Robert Spencer, Serge Trifkovic, Oriana Fallaci, Ibn Warraq, Mark Steyn, Bat Ye’or and the posters here at JW, the two million or so dead Armenians, the dead Sudanese, the 1300 years of slavery, the Balkans, the Timorese, the Hindus, the Christians, the Jews, and all the other nameless dead. Because of a “religion of peace and tolerance”? Confusing? Yes. Disheartening? Absolutely.
This understanding didn’t come from divine revelation, Government propaganda, public school, or theology. It came from curiosity, a lifelong hatred of anything Muslim, but not knowing why it left such a conflict in my soul. However, one day, just a few months ago I stumbled in here, to JW. Holy crap I thought what a bunch of loony conspiracy theories! But something in the back of my mind said, what if they are right? Therefore, I dug deeper, and here I am.
Rant aside; the point is that the message must get out. By whatever means available.
If Dr. Pipes has an inroad to the powers that be, and if he wants to call it Bob, then more power to him. I hate Bob. I hate Bobism! I have read some of his stuff and in my opinion, “he gets it.”(Dr. Pipes not Bob) True he may dabble in semantics, so what? If we can just get people to look at Bob, to understand some of Bobs history, illuminate Bobs tactics, then the truth will become self evident; that Bob must die.
Looking at it as an ideology has some other benefits; first it is easier to get through the PC fog and skirt the issue of racism, second, splitting it up makes it easier to kick one of its legs out from under it. Koran, Sunnah, and Shari-a, these three parts make the whole, remove one and what happens?
Christian theology has been examined, questioned, dissected, and turned inside out for 200 years, it still stands on its own merits. Could we say the same of Islamic ideology?
These are not rhetorical questions, I really want to know.

“Well, would that outcome, presumably favored by those who push this Islam/Islamism distinction, worry you, or not worry you?”
Not worry, not one little bit.
Say no to Bob.

Posted by: Martellus at July 22, 2008 12:33 AM

Martellus: Hugh inane? Are you serious?

Posted by: Wellington at July 22, 2008 12:48 AM