“Private undercover team exposes nationwide network of radical, anti-U.S. Islamic centers” — The headline from this article
“Private” undercover team?
The government should be funding this. There should not be 12 agents, but 120 or 1200. Every single mosque and madrasa, every Muslim group, should know it is or can be monitored. If the government is unwilling to do this, as it has been, then private parties — not all of whom have the means — must fund what should be a national effort.
Let me repeat again what I have put up here a hundred times before:
The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has created a situation that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically insecure than would be the case without that large-scale presence — both for the indigenous Infidels and other Infidels who have arrived hoping to share the fruits of that Infidel nation-state, its political and legal institutions, its stability, and its guarantee of individual rights.
No one in Great Britain, in France, in Spain, in Germany, in Denmark, in Sweden, in Norway, in Belgium, in The Netherlands, in Italy can deny the truth of that statement. No matter what people then think can, or assume cannot, be done about it, the truth of that statement remains. And no sentimentalizing about “diversity.” What stands against real diversity more than Islam itself, which teaches that ideally the whole globe should be covered with Islam and nothing but Islam? Nor should there be any more sentimentalizing about “moderate” Muslims. “Moderate” about what? Why do they have to be “moderate” unless the thing — Islam — which they offer only in “moderation” is itself, in essence, a menace, a permanent threat to Infidels?
Americans must have the wit to investigate Islam (not just the Qur’an, but the Hadith and sira). They should investigate its unambiguous and uncompromising view of a world divided between Believers and Infidels, with the former having a right to remove any and all perceived barriers to Islam, even if those barriers are merely those of Infidels who, contrary to Muslims, permit freedom of speech, permit freedom of conscience including the right of individuals to choose another faith or no faith at all, permit equality of the sexes, permit equality of faiths and would never permit a Shari’a-like situation.
Islam flatly contradicts the spirit and letter of the Western world. In this, it is completely unlike Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any other creed that one might call alien to the Judeo-Christian tradition out of which the advanced Western democracies have come. For it is not merely an alien creed, but an alien and a permanently hostile creed. And no amount of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque nonsense, from that business of the “three abrahamic faiths” to “we all worship the same God” (oh no we don’t) to “it’s just a handful of (choose one or more as nouns and adjectives: extremists, Islamists, radicals),” will change that.
Islam isn’t the most complicated subject in the world. Reading the Qur’an, and rereading it, with a guide not written by an apologist, together with a few hundred of the Hadith, and the Sira or biography of Muhammad, will do much to disabuse one of any misconceptions about the peacefulness of Islam. Muslim websites, a click away, further convey the habit of mental submission, a habit that leaches into all areas of life for Muslims, so that they are prone to conspiracy theories of every sort. They are ready to believe all kinds of things in order to avoid thinking about what should be the most obvious thing: how it is that Islam connects to, prompts, and explains the political despotism, the economic backwardness, the social inequities, the intellectual stasis or rather paralysis, of Muslim societies. It explains all that to the precise extent that Islam in those societies remains unconstrained either by some other force — an ideological one such as Kemalism in Turkey, or another loyalty, such as a non-Arab ethnic identity (the Kurds, the Berbers) that might serve to brake one’s singleminded loyalty to Islam which is felt, if not always recognized, as a vehicle of Arab supremacism.
Why must private parties be scrambling for funds (sometimes with little success), when they are, as in this case, doing exactly what the American government should be, but apparently is not, doing? And who will pay for campaigns of counter-Da’wa in the prisons? Or among the black and Hispanic population? Who will pay for security at conferences, or on campuses, so that speeches can be heard that will convey something of the truth? Why should not Congress take this on, and pass a law, to ensure that guarantees of the exercise of the right of free speech be made less theoretical by the full force of the government and the security services, ensuring that there is no disruption?
Where is the American government in all this? Oh, it’s fighting the “war on terror” in Iraq, $880 billion down, and climbing. It’s fighting that war by building a $595 million Embassy. It’s fighting that war by handing out tens of billions of dollars in financial aid, now being supplemented by tens of billions on military aid, to both Sunni Arabs and Shi’a Arabs, building up to Western standards what is called an “Iraqi” army, an “Iraqi” police force.
That learning curve is still almost horizontal. What Presidential candidate, uttering what phrase in what speech, will put a stop to this? Which one will say “Stop the Jizyah of foreign aid to Muslim countries and let them get such aid from Saudi Arabia and other fabulously, and undeservedly rich, Arab and Muslim countries”? How’s that to get the ball rolling, and something like a real discussion going?