Dhimmi Watch: Fitzgerald: Normal Muslim kids in the West

December 31, 2005

Fitzgerald: Normal Muslim kids in the West

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald reflects on the exclamations of surprise with which both Muslims and dhimmis generally greet the arrest of a Muslim on terror charges, and explores some of their implications:

Virtually every time a Muslim terrorist is arrested we hear it: “He was a quiet, soft-spoken young man….He was a normal young kid like all his peers...A normal kid, very polite but secluded. He didn’t mingle much with people...We never felt that or noticed any changes in his attitude."
Terrorists, in murdering Infidels, do not necessarily start out as fire-breathers. They may, in outward aspect, seem to be just like any "normal young kid." But that "normal young kid" is a normal young Muslim kid -- and that makes all the difference.

Indeed, they need not have been concealing, all this time, a particularly fervent and murderous faith at all -- as some have implied. That could happen. It is even possible that rising high in various Western governments are Muslim moles, concealing their real feelings until such time as they are able to exploit their positions, or perhaps even now exploiting them. But there is a much larger problem. It is not the fervent Muslim who is hiding his fervency. It is the Muslim who is not fervent, but for whom changes in his personal life transform the merely observant into the fanatic and the protector or supporter of killers, or even a killer himself.

And if Muslims themselves, in Iraq, in Israel, in Egypt, in Morocco, in Tunisia, in Algeria, and elsewhere, have expressed great surprise, not in all but in many cases, at the son or brother who ended up as a suicide killer, how much more difficult, how impossible, really, for Infidels, innocent of Muslim ways, innocent of the fantastic ability to conceal, overwhelmed and confused by Muslim apologetics and rhetoric, disinclined to see the scope or nature of the menace because to recognize it is simply too upsetting, then how nearly impossible it must be for those Infidels to avoid being deceived. And this happens all the time, individually, and collectively, about all sorts of matters.
Shall all Muslims be monitored for sudden changes in their personal lives? Shall we have a National Register to record when that Muslim someone's father or mother dies, when a child becomes mortally ill, a husband or wife leaves, a job is lost, a stock investment sours, or bipolar disorder sets in -- for every last Muslim?

Of course we cannot. We must recognize that with the System of Islam already accepted, any Believer might, potentially, be set off by these purely personal setbacks. Apologists for Islam keep stressing the idiotic idea that Muslims behave as they do only because of perceived injustice by the "colonialist" or "imperialist" West. You know what the Arabs and Muslims mean -- they mean such outrages as the United States of America being so busy stealing all of Iraq's oil (yes, so far the American government has made how many hundreds of billions on its imperialist venture in Iraq?), not to mention stealing all of Saudi Arabia's oil, and don't forget that Great Israeli Empire that stretches a full 8 miles from Kalkilya to the Mediterranean.

Through the prism of Islam, one views the Universe as divided into two camps: the Believers and the Infidels. It does not matter if the Infidels are white or black, rich or poor, whether they have rescued you from a tyrant, or rushed to help you when a tsunami, or an earthquake devastate. It does not matter if they are Infidel Americans in the United States, or in Iraq, or walking down a street to see a tourist site in Cairo or Beirut, or taking the metro in London, or Madrid. It does not matter if they are Hindus celebrating a wedding in Kashmir, or a poor tiffin-wallah who happens to be walking by a mosque at the end of Friday Prayers in Dacca, who is then beaten to death by the excited worshippers, eager to take care of at least one Hindu that day. It does not matter if those Infidels happen to be Dinka and Nuer tribesmen in the south of the Sudan, who never posed a threat to the Arabs who have over the past century, from being a mere 10% of the country, slowly been taking it over, demographically and geographically It does not matter whether they are Christian villagers who are ethnically identical to Muslims, in northern Nigeria, or in the Moluccas, or the southern Philippines, or whether those villagers are Buddhists in southern Thailand. All that matters is that they are Infidels, non-Muslims. They can be targeted for any reason -- or no reason.

Not all Muslims feel their Islam in that way. But we, the Infidels, cannot detect who receives Islam in what way. And the insistent blend of nonsense and lies, the taqiyya and tu quoque, that we receive from Muslim spokesmen, some smoother and more plausible than others, does not inspire our confidence. And we have no way of detecting the changes, over time, that can occur for no other reason than personal ones. Mohammad Atta felt keenly his loss of status, and the usual graduate student angst, and loneliness, while in Hamburg. All of that led him to more, and more fanatical, Islam. It was his consolation. Ayman al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden were children of very prominent and rich families, but had always taken their religious obligations more seriously. Their disgust at the circumambient society necessarily had to take on a religious cast, had to locate the enemy not in the corruption and swinish behavior of the Egyptian and Saudi elites, but in Infidels. And they responded by attacking those elites for being, precisely, insufficiently Islamic, and tied to the Infidels.

When will this government, when will other Western governments, when will the press, manage to understand that ideas matter, and that Islam is essentially an idea, a very primitive Idea, but an Idea, a geopolitical Idea, whatever its bits and pieces of pagan Arab lore, and stories appropriated in distorted fashion from Judaism and Christianity?

These ideas must be taken seriously. One cannot blandly assert that "only a few" Muslims are a problem. How does one know this? How does one know which Muslim, perhaps both outwardly and inwardly content with his life, will never prove susceptible, not to some wild extra-Islamic doctrine, but to Islam itself? All the technological "progress" that has been made has helped to dry up those pockets of innocent village Islam, where illiterate peasants go to a ramshackle mosque and are pious, content, and know nothing of the outside world. Now those same villagers, like the Iranian peasants who listened to Khomeini's tapes, can see the videocassettes of decapitations of Nicholas Berg and Kenneth Bigley, and can hear the chants -- Qur'anic chants, war chants, consisting only of Qur'anic verses (nothing made up, for nothing need be made up).

Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

Posted by Robert at December 31, 2005 8:45 AM
Print this entry | Email this entry | Digg this | del.icio.us

Comments
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)

Testimony and exclamations of disbelief like: “He was such a quiet and decent man, I can’t believe he did that”, don’t just apply to situations where someone discovers a jihadist in their midst, but often when a rapist or serial killer or pedophile (hey! just like the prophet Mohammad—peace be unto him) is exposed in an otherwise quiet community. However, in both situations, it is from here that the former derives its greatest danger; the citizens’ complete failure of the imagination is exposed. They simply cannot comprehend that someone would wake up in the morning, drink their tea, and few hours later slit the throats of a few stewardesses with a box cutter and ram a couple planes into office buildings. I sympathize because even I can’t believe it; but, nonetheless, I know it to be true because I’ve *seen* the results of such a character’s handy work.

This is a deeply disturbing problem for our country considering that it appears most of the Democratic Party leadership shares this same woeful lack of imagination when it comes to prosecuting the War; else they wouldn’t sacrifice national security for the sake of political gains. Or perhaps they would, and maybe I, like those other unbelievers, am simply being unimaginative and credulous as to what the true political motives of the Democrats are (though I think that would be giving them far too much credit).

Nonetheless, as Fitzgerald cautions, “Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out”—would it be rash to adopt not only a policy of restricted immigration but one of steady out-migration for Muslims who have repeatedly made overtures of support and routinely engage in clearly duplicitous rhetoric when it comes to “terrorism”?? Well that’s not fair! Not fair to whom? Face it: if there were less Muslims in the West we wouldn’t need to “infringe of civil liberties” by making old women take their shoes off or rifling through peoples’ bags on the subways. The West is a decadent place filled with filthy infidels and every temptation imaginable so why these pure of heart Mohammadean martyrs would want to live in any place besides their desert utopias is beyond me.

The onus is upon Muslims to expel the “radical” elements in their midst, not for us to show how tolerant and inclusive we can be of a people with a long history of wanting to kill us. Until that time, any mosque that carries Saudi funded materials urging jihad; any imam, cleric, mufti who openly preaches sedition and death; any Muslim advocacy group that takes money from terrorist charities, hires terrorists sympathizers, issues phony fatwas, etc., should be put under extreme pressure to leave, if not thrown on a boat and sailed to some failed Islamic state. I’m sure they’ll be much happier there anyways.

Posted by: modern prometheus

at December 31, 2005 10:04 AM

This post links in with an item about police profiling posted a few days ago. Police complained that they could not establish a pattern which would help them determine who would turn out to be an Islamic terrorist.

While the serial killer often surprises ordinary members of the public, the police have developed a science, albeit inexact, of psychological profiling. With Muslims who turn out to be terrorists, however, this breaks down. The only common factor is Islam. (They are nearly always male and under 40, but this hardly narrows it down.)

Take two failed shoe bombers. Richard Reid is the best known, as he got closest to carrying out his attack. Look into those eyes - no brain behind them. Stupid, ugly, criminal record, every inch the loser. Less well known, because he backed out at an earlier stage, is Saajid Badat, grammar school educated, articulate, four A levels - despite the silly beard he even looks intelligent. These men have nothing in common other than Islam.

Posted by: Interested

at December 31, 2005 10:34 AM

Islam should be banned by law. Or at least, the idea has to be played with.

Posted by: ajm

at December 31, 2005 10:44 AM

"Islam should be banned by law. Or at least, the idea has to be played with."

Well, I don't think Islam in itself should be banned by law, anymore than I think socialism should be "banned by law." I don't know how much is to be gained by banning something outright, even if it is a murderous ideology; rather it is our responsibility and duty to see that these ideas are routinely challenged and utterly vanquished; and if we can't convince people to see the truth, to alleviate them from their naivete and muddleheadness, then we don't deserve to be the defenders of Western Civilization. We shouldn't have to ban things and compel people (most people, not all, obviously) through legislation when force of reason should be enough. And if that isn't enough for some? Then, like always, we should remain vigiliant of the threats that exist against us from within and without, but I'd rather not start banning things outright; that smacks of tyranny to me.

Posted by: modern prometheus

at December 31, 2005 11:26 AM

"When will this government, when will other Western governments, when will the press, manage to understand that ideas matter?" - HF

Our entire society seems to be proclaiming in unison that ideas, especially religious ideas, do not, in fact, matter at all. But at the same time, those who maintain that ideas are irrelevant to facts seem to belie this belief by working to homogenize our language so as to reduce definition, because definition brings separation and separation between people is seen as the root of all evil.

Words define and thus words themselves must be diluted or deconstructed into such relativity as to be rendered meaningless, and thus, harmless. These dogooders seem to believe that if we do not define our differences, then the differences will not really exist. If you don't like the reality you're given, you can create your own, or rather we can create our own. There is no you and no me, only we.

In the beginning (the first separation) was the Word.

Posted by: Rebecca JW

at December 31, 2005 11:50 AM

"When will this government, when will other Western governments, when will the press, manage to understand that ideas matter?"

Hugh keeps asking this same question, and he keeps implying that most of the non-governmental, non-media, non-elite People are on our JW/DW side. One important reason why Western governments and press fail to understand the problem of Islam is because the vast majority of the Western people also fail to understand it. And the failure of the Western people is not due to their being mere sheep being led by the nose by "elites" -- give people more credit than that; they can manage to be PC idiots without some "elite" program of brainwashing from the top down.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper

at December 31, 2005 12:03 PM

Ideas, and values, in particular, have
consequences, as they will influence actions.
Actions are the most important, however it is
naive to think that a society of people who
believe an evil madman will be good.

We need to get rid of all muslims in the West.
First, by stopping immigation, second, by making
the lives of muslims here miserable.

Posted by: American

at December 31, 2005 12:15 PM

Hugh's article couldn't be more prescient . . .

Muslim in 'personal attack' on Home Depot

Crashes through store with Quran, Palestinian flag in trunk
Posted: December 31, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

With a copy of the Quran and a Palestinian flag in his trunk, a Jordanian-turned-U.S. citizen crashed his car into a Home Depot in Arizona where he formerly worked, igniting an explosive blaze in the stores' paint section and causing $1 million in damage.
The Dec. 18 attack in Chandler, Ariz., by 24-year-old Ali R. Warrayat was a carefully planned "personal statement," the East Valley Tribune of Mesa, Ariz., reported.

Warrayat, a student at Arizona State University in Mesa, had his car radio blasting with Arabic music to drown out the yells of employee he might encounter, the paper said.

After crashing through the doors at 6 a.m., Warrayat headed for the paint department and slammed the vehicle into the flammable goods. He jumped out of the car, ignited the blaze with a lighter then headed for the exit, sweeping merchandise from the shelves as he went. He then sat on the curb outside, waiting for police to arrest him.

When police arrived, however, he struggled with officers and refused to cooperate when asked if he understood his Miranda rights.

Warrayat replied in a foreign language and when asked if he understood English, said, "Do you speak Arabic?"

He is being held in a county jail in Phoenix without bond on suspicion of aggravated assault and arson.

A Home Depot official told police the company will consider placing armed guards at all of its stores in the area if Warrayat is released from jail.

Warrayat worked as a paint stocker in the Chandler store six months ago but was transferred to another Home Depot location after difficulties with a supervisor. He told police he was angry at the store management about not getting a proper raise.

He also said he was mad at the United States for proposing a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border and wanted to make the country "more free."

A day after the incident, Warrayat asked reporters to come to the jail to hear him make a statement, but when they arrived, he refused to speak, gazing at the ceiling and the floor with his lips pursed, the Tribune said.

Friends described Warrayat as deeply religious, with a Quran hanging from his rearview mirror; and in police statements, the 24-year-old referred to his religion often, the paper reported.

A co-worker and friend said Warrayat was "gentleman-like and respectable with everyone."

"When I saw him on TV, he did not look like the Ali that I know," Joaquin Bustamante told the Tribune. "He was a hard worker and worked circles around everybody, and he was a very private person."

Warrayat told police he had a swastika tattooed in red and black on the bottom of his foot after the Nazi symbol was painted on a mosque where he prays. Islam considers stepping on things disrespectful, he explained.

Police seized a computer at the house he shares with his parents, finding images of men lighting Molotov cocktails and a cartoon of two bloodied and dead children with a Middle Eastern flag in the background.

Posted by: justamomof4

at December 31, 2005 1:34 PM

All Muslims are the same, they have in their psyche (already established from their childhood) the hatred of the West and anything non-Islamic. So there are no good, or moderate Muslims, they are all the same deep within.
Its time the west realize this and stopped all Muslim immigration whether they are new immigrants , immigrants joining existing Muslim families in the west or asylum seekers. Send them all back to Muslim countries and start repatriation of existing Muslims from the West, then there will be peace.
We are building a horrible future for the future generations in all western countries. Muslims do NOT have loyalty to the countries that they have immigrated, one has only to look at the trend now and see the number of high placed Muslims who have been convicted and sent to prisons in all western countries for supporting Jihad and other terror activities. The writing is on the wall, if we fail now; we fail all future generations. God Bless you all and a very happy Christian 2006

Posted by: faqi

at December 31, 2005 2:52 PM

Although it may be difficult to ban Islam itself, it should be possible to ban Islam from prisons. Richard Reid was a Jamaican convert who gained his indocrination while serving time in prison. Islam has great appeal to the alienated, malcontent misfit.

We should not allow chaplins or any other muslim preachers access to prisoners. This is like setting a match to gasoline. Parole should be conditional on not being dedicated to the cult of Mohammed

Posted by: GFB

at December 31, 2005 4:43 PM

THANK YOU FOR THIS LINK:http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=109349&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=240&sid=100e323ee83426b4859e608fc884ede3

According to this Swiss survey, 70 % would be against banning Islam. This, I suspect is out of ignorance or out of PC-tolerance or probably both. If these 70 % would have a basic understanding of what Islam teaches and what makes a Mohammedan tick, the survey would have shown the opposite result.

As for those family-members, who "have expressed great surprise, not in all but in many cases, at the son or brother who ended up as a suicide killer..." I don't think they are credible. We know from earlier postings that this "surprise" and "shock" is only in the immediate aftermath, when they are afraid of the "backlash", that so far hasn't happened. This was the case with Mohammed Atta's father, who blamed the "Mossad and the CIA" first, but just recently came up with the most venomous rhetoric justifying his sons mass-murder. The same with one of the 7/7 bombers from London who received a "martyrs funeral" in Pakistan. Immediately afterwards, "shock...etc..."

A little later, when there was no "backlash" the uncle was quite cocky about it and justified it, grinning into the cameras. Again, no backlash.

The Israeli's are doing the right thing when they destroy the houses of those families who send suicide bombers. I would suggest this is not enough: One should also go after all the males in such a family and assassinate them, and in the case of this Pali-brood-sow who 'gave her 3 sons for the Jihad,' which was recently elevated to become a Pali-politician Israel should sent them a hell-fire missile wherever they are.

There is no turning back now, we are at war!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami

at December 31, 2005 7:27 PM

The story of one such muslim youth
is called

The Last Night Of A Damned Soul
by Slimane Benaissa.

It is a microscopic view
of the war dna of islam,
its methods of indoctrination,
and sacred pattern for the making of a jihadi

Posted by: the poetess

at December 31, 2005 9:17 PM

Normal muslim? What the f*ck is that? An explosive device that perverts religion for a political and satanic goal. Oh, ok.

Posted by: Truth

at December 31, 2005 10:25 PM

We shouldn't have to ban things and compel people (most people, not all, obviously) through legislation when force of reason should be enough. And if that isn't enough for some? Then, like always, we should remain vigiliant of the threats that exist against us from within and without, but I'd rather not start banning things outright; that smacks of tyranny to me.

Posted by: modern prometheus at December 31, 2005 11:26 AM

The U.S. banned Shintoism/emperor worship in Japan (and in the U.S.) because it was evident that this belief-system directly threatened the security of the United States and the world. It was a fanatical cult, just like Islam. It is not inconceivable that Islam might some day become illegal in the U.S. The fact that it calls itself a religion and demands recognition and protection as such under our laws does not guarantee it immutable legitimacy.

Former Supreme Court Justices Jackson and Goldberg, both of whom have been credited with coining the phrase "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", realized that extremism in the name of civil liberties could lead to the destruction of our nation, which is the direction that Islam, the ACLU, left-wing judiciary, America-hating leftists and their assorted ilk are dragging us all. THAT is tyranny. Keeping our enemies out of our country, the most fundamental law of self-defense, is not tyranny.

America was founded on the principle of religious freedom; the first settlers came here to escape religious persecution in Europe. The Constitution did not establish an official state religion, thus church and state were separate and religious freedom was guaranteed to every American. Of all the religions practiced in America, Islam is the only one that threatens the others. It is the only one with imperialistic ambitions. It is the only one that sanctions genocide to establish global dominance. It is the only one that subjugates women, kills apostates, sanctions slavery, and is designed to implement "Allah's" law throughout the world. Islam is the only religion that implements the tenet of jihad, holy war, to accomplish its diabolical goals. Islam's inimical doctrine is wholly incompatible with democratic government because free will and individual freedom are forbidden in Islam. Islamic law is a core component of Islam and it is antithetical to everything we stand for and believe in.

Saudi Arabia PAID its citizens to immigrate to America in the 1960's and the 1970's. They were sent here to buy property, build mosques, learn about our culture, start businesses, marry American women, have dozens of offspring, and spread the faith. Wahabbi imams were dispatched to recruit converts in prisons, oversee the mosques, and keep the faithful true to the Wahabbi doctrine of hate and intolerance. This Islamic fifth column should have been smashed and booted back to the kingdom decades ago, but instead it has been permitted to flourish and expand. By allowing this, our government has all but put its stamp of approval on the Islamic agenda in America. Two generations have been inculcated in the most radical Islamic dogma right here in America, the results of which remain to be seen. With regular trips to the epicenter of Islam and an endless stream of visiting radical clerics to impart their demonic vitriol, these "American" Wahabbis are ticking timebombs. I certainly would not consider it tyrannical to send them all packing to an atmosphere more condusive to their pathological ideology. The Wahabbis might be the most radical sect of Islam, but there is no "moderate" sect; they're all brainwashed fanatics.

Legislation designating Islam a totalitarian political system antithetical to our Constitution would be a dream come true. Their plan to Islamicize America would suffer considerably under endless scrutiny. We might not succeed in having Islam banned in America, but we could make their lives so miserable that they would gladly leave.

"I see no logic in granting freedom to a group who claims to be diametrically opposed to freedom. If freedom of conscience cannot be allowed in their ranks, if they claim to hate everything about our system, I do not see any way that we can coexist in this nation. I do not believe we should extend freedom to those who tell us that they hate freedom."
Abraham Lincoln

Posted by: Susanp

at January 1, 2006 1:27 AM

The quotation immediately above that is attributed to Abraham Lincoln does not sound like Lincoln. Such words as "group" and "coexist" and "our system" reek of the past few decades; "diametrically opposed" is the kind of fixed phrase, with the adverb on tap, that is not at all like Lincoln. Possibly the quotation has been misattributed, or possibly the addition of the name is meant to convey the essence of something, worded differently, that Lincoln said.

One would like to know. Is that paragraph written by Abe Lincoln of Illinois, or by someone else.

Posted by: Hugh

at January 1, 2006 1:51 AM

I’d propose to formulate some very broad, conditions any religion has to respect in order to be allowed as a cult in the country, like to accept Constitution and laws, officially declare that religious and political matters must be separated, etc. These conditions could be defined or approved of by members of historically accepted religions.

Then, it might be possible to ban a religion as long as it doesn’t respect these conditions, that is, as long as it hasn’t been reformed. The positive twist of that formulation, encouraging the reform of Islam (specifically), would possibly help to convince more people – all the more if it is linked to one or several concrete projects of reform.

We would have the 25 percent who are just against it (as shown here), the, say, 10 to 20 percent who would accept it in order to support a due reform, and, in case of a vote (for example based on the popular initiative) the grey number of Muslims who understand what their religion is, can’t or don’t want to speak out, but would vote (anonymously) for its reform.

Posted by: ajm

at January 1, 2006 5:01 AM

I have been busy a lot lately, so I haven't been able to read as much as I usually do...so this may have been discussed here. The story about the "American" teenager going to Iraq just cracks me up. He was hanging around the mosque a lot, and talking politics with the men there...and he just decided to go to Iraq without his parents permission. You can't convince me that he wasn't on a jihad mission.

Posted by: Carolyn2

at January 1, 2006 11:28 AM

Theodore Dalrymple has described a fascinating psychological profile of the typical young Muslim male transplanted to Western society. It is all speculation, of course, but it certainly seems to provide a plausible explanation for their bizarre and seemingly irrational reversion back to the fundamentalist Muslim cause.

A lengthy read, but well worth the time.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_suicide_bombers.html

Posted by: Elad

at January 1, 2006 2:22 PM

Hugh, I agree with your assessment. The quote by Susanp might be Abe Linclon of San Francisco, Ca., 1990, but not the Abe Lincoln who was President during the war between the states. If Susanp can provide a reference I would appreciate it. Google turned up nothing to corroborate her statement. I smell fish.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069

at January 1, 2006 3:15 PM

Hmm.
This article on radical losers might be an interesting additional read for this post. Rather long, but I think it's pretty much 'spot on' as regards those 'normal young kids'.

Posted by: Kathy K

at January 1, 2006 8:19 PM

Hugh, I found the quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln first on an index card and then in a research paper that my daughter did for a college history class. I ran across it quite by accident (the paper and a dozen index cards fell out of a book) and I cannot swear that it is genuine but if it's not, her history professor didn't catch it. The reference cited is: Recollected Words of Abraham Lincoln by Don E. Fehrenbacher and Virginia Fehrenbacher.

I asked her if she knew where and when these comments were made by Lincoln and she doesn't even remember writing the paper. She graduated several years ago. I assumed it was a legitimate quote since she made a very good grade, but I cannot verify it because I don't have the book. I certainly would not deliberately misquote Mr. Lincoln.

Posted by: Susanp

at January 1, 2006 10:52 PM

Kathy K, many thanks for that excellent article, 'Radical Losers'.
A long read, but worth it.

No moslem can be trusted, ever.

How, without some trust, can we handle the moslem world wide insurgency ? Good question.

I expect many millions dead before this thing is over; actually, some tens of millions. No one will 'win', but islam will lose, and the Arab and Islamic Empire will collapse with the collapse of islam. This dark prophesy is based on the honourable acts of our present leaders, who, like those in the democracies in the thirties, are willing to surrender whatever is required to 'maintain' peace. This is truly an honourable position, and would work when there are genuine grievances that can be addressed. Where the intent on the other side is world domination, as with nazis and islam, or the fantasy of world domination which, if not reached, will produce mass destruction for all, an acceptable result for both nazis and islamists, then the honourable effort by the peacemakers on our side will, sadly, result in huge death tolls where, a less honourable but more realistic approach, would save millions of lives.
Happy New Year everyone.

Posted by: dby

at January 1, 2006 11:48 PM

Susanp--

No, there was no such implication. I only wondered about it because the words have a modern ring -- "coexist" and "group" and "diametrically opposed." I suspect that the quotation is partly, even greatly, paraphrase rather than verbatim. One would like to know, because if the quote can be found, and it is close to (if not exactly the same) as what is quoted, than this too would be useful for all the obvious purposes. If anyone reading this has a copy, or is able to get hold of a copy, of the Fehrenbacher book, and finds the quote, and it turns out to be as apt as it may be, please post here or e-mail to me c/o Robert.

Wouldn't it be nice, along with Churchill, Tocqueville, and a hundred others who had their relevant say,something from Lincoln could turn up -- not directly about Islam, but on the larger matter at hand.

Posted by: Hugh

at January 2, 2006 1:07 AM

I can understand everyone's concerns, there is a solution but the solution is not to ban Muslims from entering western countries.

Religion need not be mentioned when it comes to immigration.

Western nations only need adopt 2 simple policies which the vast majority of people would find easy to accept.

1. Help the most oppressed and most neglected.

Who are the most oppressed and most neglected in Islamic countries? Groups, which help those in refugee camps, such as World Vision, could be used to identify people who have been stuck in a camp for along time. These are the kinds of people our governments need to fly in. These people know about the negative effects of the Sharia. Many of them speak Arabic; they are good for our countries security.

2. If a country is that good that people are willing to leave America (for example) and go and live there then it is good enough to accept an equal number of people from those countries. (I'm not talking about restricting refugees, but I am talking about restricting the numbers of those who choose to live in the US.)

For example, if 10 000 people leave the US and decide to live in the UK in a year then 10 000 people should be accepted from the UK into the US the followin year. Does this sound too simplistic? How many people leave the US every year and decide to live in Saudi Arabia? Not many; therefore very few Saudis would be accepted as citizens into the US.

Some important points about these policies.

a) Religion is not mentioned so no one can accuse you of having some kind of phobia.

b) Immigration could be increased if it means helping those who are most oppressed and most neglected.

c) If Islamic nations improve then more people will want to live in them, if that happens then we should accept more people from those countries.

What could be fairer?

Trying to ban a religious group from entering the country is neither fair or just; saying such things will only cause policy makes to ignore you.

Posted by: Brad

at January 7, 2006 2:23 AM

Happy new year. That was a thought provoking post there.

Religion, Conversions, Tolerance, Racism, Terrorism, Hidu right Vs country's left !!, war on terror etc. leave very strong feelings and often lead to debates. Your blog made me think of the Indian context

I feel Terrorism need not be overt. It could be covert too. . My blog below is on how the society defines the "weak" and who becomes the underdog !

"..Gudia, a Muslim girl and Shri Ramdev ji, a Hindu male...".
at
http://o3.indiatimes.com/vinayak/archive/2006/01/06/403344.aspx
or
http://batteredmale.blogspot.com/2006/01/gudia-muslim-girl-and-shri-ramdev-ji.html

Vinayak

Posted by: Mr. Vinayak

at January 7, 2006 8:05 AM

The suggestions I made in the last post is only part of the solution.

The other problem we are faced with is the way Muslims think about government. Most Muslims believe that their choices regarding the kind of government available to them are limited to the following.

1. Communism

2. A Secular Humanist government (under the guise of democracy) or

3. An Islamic Government (Islamic law, the Sharia)

Communism is obviously out as atheism is at the heart of the doctrine and religion is often suppressed.

Muslims see the immorality of governments in the west (democratic governments) and immediately think that that doesn't work.

The only viable option seems to be the Sharia.

However, there is another option.

The world has not yet seen a government where there is a true separation of religion and state and what freedom that would bring.

The following link is about why we need a true separation and what that would look like. (I'm not saying that people with religious beliefs would not be in parliament. All people have a belief of some kind.)

Note only is a true separation good, it is also achievable. Though we may not be able to achieve this quickly it is achievable. We can certainly begin by taking steps in the right direction.

Even if you disagree with the following URL I hope it will at least cause you to think about how we might solve the present dilemma about what kind of government Muslims wish to live under.

http://www.freewebs.com/cuteministries/religionandstate.htm

Posted by: Brad

at January 8, 2006 4:33 AM