The New Republic Joins National Review
Not to be out done in the Dhimmitude department, the New Republic joins National Review in welcoming Islam to America: “That, in large part, is a function of America's ability to accommodate Islam itself.” This is an explanation of why there are terrorist attacks and Islamic violence through out Europe but not recently in America. Apparently we love Muslims and they love us back! The article claims that Muslims feel at home in Middle America, which is called “Bush Country.” The author shows no sign of reading Pipes, Emerson, Sperry, Spencer, etc. Of course, the British believed they were exempt and so did the French. If that’s a sign, I’m bracing myself.
posted by Jason Pappas at 4:38 PM
17 Comments:
The reason there have been no recent attacks is that Americans are not placid. Let them try the burning car bit in VT or even in NYC. They may find 72 virgins in a hurry
Caroline said this: I recall quite clearly right after 9/11, interviews with young Muslims at a well-heeled school in Potomac, MD saying the exact same thing – that their identities as Muslims superceded their identities as Americans.
I, too, recall those interviews! A few were televised, and all the major newspapers here covered the shocking story. What I heard was a wake-up call for me. I couldn't believe the spew of hate I was hearing from the mouths of schoolchildren!
One of the fellows who works at the Islamic school in Potomac (The name of the school escapes me at the moment) is married to Susan Douglass, a convert to Wahhabism who worked at the Islamic Saudi Academy, the school from which convicted would-be assassin Ahmed Abu Ali graduated as valedictorian. Today, Susan Douglass writes materials for CIE (Council on Islamic Education) and is a nationwide consultant for social-studies textbooks used in public schools throughout the United States.
Last spring, the Hindu community here in Fairfax County voiced strong opinions to one of the new texts under consideration because the whitewash of Islam as pertains to India was so blatant. The Christian community was strangely silent and, as far as I know, so was the Jewish community. Things got so heated that the social-studies curriculum head took early retirement.
Both the school in Potomac and ISA are still up and running--and spreading hate by virtue of radical teachers and, at least in the case of ISA, curriculum from Saudi Arabia. I'm not surprised about the ISA curriculum--after all, the school is owned by the government of Saudi Arabia. This ownership gives ISA what amounts to diplomatic immunity, and not much oversight is done of the curriculum
We're fooling ourselves if we believe that certain Muslims will change just by virtue of living here in America. "Hubris" is a good word for describing the stupidity which has now appeared in both New Republic and National Review.
[Jason, forgive me for harping on ISA. I've been fired up since 9/11 about the danger the institution poses to our national security. Maybe even to my own personal security, as it sits so close to me. And there is a connection to what I'm saying and this blog article. Idiots here in this area think that if their kids, mostly Christian-school students or Christian homeschool students, play soccer with ISA's team, they can win over some hearts and minds. Hasn't quite worked out that way. ISA's team plays very dirty on home turf, to the point that, on at least one occasion, an ambulance had to be called to the field because of deliberate, repeated aggression which the ISA refs refused to curtail. I've lost a few clients because of my position on ISA. Oh, well...]
Everyone is making great points – some that I wanted to make but didn’t have the time before I ran out of the house. I think Caroline is right, the author is blaming the victim with his “Europe brought it on themselves” or “they have it coming to themselves,” just like some America-bashers said we brought 9/11 on ourselves. And both articles insinuate that if we become good dhimmi we’ll escape the wrath of Muslims. Quite infuriating! Neither article (this & the NR article) even considers blaming Islam or suggesting Muslims need to change.
I knew AOW would have the details on Islamic treachery.
Beak is right also, they know the consequences. Many people believe that Muslims who aren’t part of today's jihadist violence don’t accept the principle of jihad. Bull! Most who believe in jihad know it can’t be pulled off at the current time. Some also realize that they can just breed and vote themselves into power. Removing two Muslim governments, and rounded-up a major portion of Al Qaeda helps to establish a deterrent. Not quite enough … but it is still important. I think Beak is right that 9/11 had the surprising (to them) effect of galvanizing America while only motivating a handful of Muslims to join the jihad. I only regret that the left gives the jihadists hope.
Jason,
Some also realize that they can just breed and vote themselves into power.
Didn't Trifkovic mention that such is the goal of moderate Muslims?
Too many people (GWB? Condi?) believe that "moderate Muslims" will Westernize, but I believe that moderation is a method, not an actual ideology which repudiates shari'a law.
Caroline,
What the hell happened to the places I knew from my youth?!
Well, things here are not the same now; the "big push" has been on, in earnest, since 1991, when the Saudi dollars poured in to build mosques, schools, etc. Several of the major developers--among them Edgemoore, which has several subsidiaries, each owned by a cousin (Ahmeds all over the list of CEO's)--are Saudi-owned, and they're scooping up land and building houses with horseshoe arches. Dhimmitude and political correctness abound.
Hal-al markets have sprung up in what used to be unlikely places, so our population of Muslims here is huge.
Go to
Northern Virginiastan to get an education as to the seriousness of the matter. Articles there go back for quite a period of time.
Also, CAIR is a powerful force, especially since 9/11--which I just don't understand. But the Saudi lobby is powerful, I guess.
I finally got to read the article in New Republic:
When Khan spoke of "my people," he wasn't talking about his British countrymen. Rather, he was referring to the members of a global Islamic community...
See? There's the problem--lack of assimilation. Khan doesn't see his fellow Brits as his countrymen; rather, he hearkens back to his Muslim brothers. And why? In part, because having infidels as friends is not Islamic, as so instructed in the Koran.
And what about all the Muslim immigrants within our borders? Can we trust them not to revert back to their roots?
Found this at the end of the sequel article:
Most Americans would be horrified by the notion that they live in a country that abides by Islamic law. But some American Muslim leaders contend that U.S. society is harmonious with Koranic injunctions without even trying. "America is positively, unabashedly religious," enthuses Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York-based imam. In his important 2004 book, titled What's Right With Islam, Abdul Rauf contends that space for religiosity is essentially inseparable from American liberalism, codified in both the U.S. political system and the broader U.S. social compact: "Fully in keeping with the principles of the Abrahamic ethic, American religious pluralism was not merely a historical or political fact; it became, in the mind of the American, the primordial condition of things, a self-evident and essential aspect of the American way of life and therefore in itself an aspect of the American creed." Drawing on hundreds of years of Islamic writings, Abdul Rauf makes the case that, by upholding the five conditions understood by Muslim legal scholars to constitute the good society--life, mental well-being, religion, property, and family--"the American political structure is Shariah compliant."
I'll leave it to others to comment on this, if anyone feels inclined to do so. I've been online for hours and need a break.
Stopping back by for a second...I didn't mean to imply that I agree with that second article. I was just passing it along. I can't believe I'm reading such rot in New Republic!
I couldn't believe the New Republic had an article that was so ignorant of Islam as a religion, movement, etc. In every way the author seemed to just make things up out of thin air or, as Caroline showed, create sentances either trivial or meaningless. It shows there are some air-heads on the left in the New Republic and some in denial on the right at National Review.
In any case, AOW wrote: "I believe that moderation is a method, not an actual ideology which repudiates shari'a law." I wish I said that! And it's so true. People have been so focused on their method -- terrorism -- that they have ignored their goal: Islamic theocracy and oppression of non-Muslims. As I've said, Europe is facing the problem first given their demographics.
It's amazing how blind so many politicians, journalists and everyday citizens are about Islam. Other then Israel, there is no other country that radical Islam targets more than America. I know that "radical Islam" is a redundant term for many, but I still don't want to generalize. Most Muslims want to live in peace, like people everywhere do but they need to start speaking up.
Oh, common on, Ducky, do we have to remind you that terrorism is done by well-to-do or middle class Arabs? Atta and his friends were one of the privileged who were studying in the West. Terrorist leaders are highly educated; many seem to be physicians. Poverty and lack of skills have nothing to do with an attraction to the Islamic ideology. Get over this crass Marxist-like economic explanation. People are interested in spiritual matters, ideals, and causes – perhaps even more than the next piece of bread.
Interestingly enough, I just got an e-mail promo from Marty Peretz, editor-in-chief of the New Republic, that touts this very article as a reason to subscribe. They only other point he makes in the promo was that the NR was one of the original supports of Zionism. I guess they are playing both sides of the street.
I'd be curious to know how Pipes et al qualify as "vanity press writers." Meaning, what, "pro-freedom"? Are there any collectivist, socialist, or statist (you pick the label--just avoid the falsity-in-advertising "liberal" or "progressive") who would qualify as "vanity press" writers, and if so, how? Possibly not an important point, granted; but as with a lot of Mr. Ducky's remarks, just leaves me wondering. Is the rendering of Henry Regnery as "Regenrey" a typo or is that supposed to be another of Ducky's hi-larious witticisms?
Ducky, you no longer write anything worthy of comment.
The left built the obstacles; private enterprise and individual initiative built the country.
If the left had its way, the UK would still be mired in pre-Thatcher poverty and the USA would be burdened with government the size of France’s – and with an unemployment rate to match.
So, Jason, the ever-astute Mr. Ducky has not only uncovered the "bulk-buying book plot" (no doubt the result of collusion between "Regenrey" [again--is that supposed to be some clever pun, or what?] and Karl Rove--but has found you out! Your secret mission: "to tear down what the Left has built up." That shouldn't take you long! By the way, I think I met Ducky the other day. He was on the subway trying to convince the other passengers that Moon Men controlling the CIA were responsible for the Dick York/Dick Sargent Darrin-switch on BEWITCHED.
Hmmm. You have a point, bilwick.
It was Ducky who first used the word “paranoid.” Shall we just say “projection?”
<< Home