Saturday, December 03, 2005

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.

29 Comments:

Blogger Caroline said...

"White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke observed, "Al Qaeda's usual strategy is ... to rely on indigenous populations, and maybe bring in a few operatives, but that indigenous population may not be here in the numbers necessary.""

The article states 3 million Muslims. That's only 1% of the total population. Does the author care to make predictions about what will happen should the US Muslim population approach 10%, as in France?

"Countervailing factors make it less likely for sleeper cells to germinate among the native American Muslim population." Those factors, according to the official, are fundamental: "It's the American dream. American Muslims are living that dream."

And the previous article you cite from National Review makes it clear that Muslims despise western materialism. So this is just hubris, to imagine that this tiny 1% is so seduced by the glorious materialistic American dream and that explains their passivity.

"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."
By contrast, strident secularism and a monocultural definition of integration have characterized cosmopolitan Europe for decades. Europe's weighty history of fratricidal wars, religious conflict, and colonialism have contributed tremendously to its deepening secularism..."

I'm sorry, but I don't think the average American is all that different from the average European. Again, this is hubris to imagine that we are so different that we can escape the consequences of admitting a Muslim population that comproses up to 10% of our population.

"Where's the heart of isna?" Patel asks, referring to the Islamic Society of North America. "Plainfield, Indiana! That place hasn't been bombed. It's not in the heart of cosmopolitan America. It's in rural Indiana!" "

I'm not quite sure how to take that. Is that a potential threat to cosmopolitan America and its more secular values?

"Zogby found an astonishingly high proportion--a plurality of 38 percent--of American Muslims believe that Washington is waging a war on Islam, not terrorism. U.S. foreign policy can't be held hostage to threats of domestic terrorism, but policymakers ignore such dissatisfaction at their peril. Indeed, this resentment is especially dangerous given that Logan found that, despite current high levels of integration among American Muslims, segregationist trends are beginning to emerge. "[Muslim] groups are clustering more over time and becoming more separated from whites," he writes."

Well there's the money quote. And France has done everything it can to avoid waging a war on Islam and look where it is today. Which means that any efforts we take to fight the jihad, whether foreign intervention or the Patriot Act or incarceration of jihadis as at Gitmo, will increasingly polarize and radicalize American Muslims (even as their numbers grow and grow they will if something isn't done about it even as this war is likely to go on for several decades).

“Not surprisingly, most {European} respondents told the State Department that they identify more as Muslim than with their European country of residence.”

That’s a weird thing to insert into the article, given that they didn’t ask the same question of American Muslims. 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.

This article smacks to me of hubris in assuming that the US is so superior to Europe. We’ve seen the same thing in Germany after the France riots explaining why it could never happen there. Does this author really want to let our Muslim population approach 10% of our population in order to test his hypothesis?

12/3/05, 9:10 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

On further reflection, and rereading Jason's original comment, this author is apparently implying that "people of the book" have nothing to fear from Islam - and that seems to be the implication of the previous NRO article as well. I DO NOT appreciate the (fairly subtle) implication in this article that the 'heathens', i.e. the European secularists and the "cosmopolitan" Americans (read secularists) in some sense have it coming to them for reasons they should presumably understand.

12/3/05, 9:27 PM  
Blogger beakerkin said...

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

12/3/05, 9:32 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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...]

12/3/05, 9:47 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

"Where's the heart of isna?" Patel asks, referring to the Islamic Society of North America. "Plainfield, Indiana! That place hasn't been bombed. It's not in the heart of cosmopolitan America. It's in rural Indiana!" "

my previous comment: "I'm not quite sure how to take that. Is that a potential threat to cosmopolitan America and its more secular values?"

A little slow on the uptake but I get it now. He's referring to 9/11 and explaining why New York was bombed! Asshole! Maybe he missed UBL's threat just prior to the elections that red America would be a target if they voted for Bush while Blue America would be spared. And of course previously France was to be spared (but no more, according to a recent fatwa issued which zeroed in on France). And of course Britain was protected as long as it permitted the free reign of radical Islamists but then as soon as Britian enacted minimal anti-terrorist measures (beginning last January IIRC) that "pact" was broken. If conservative Christians imagine that they can take Muslim spokespeople's words at face value they are mistaken. And frankly, I don't recall anything about Christianity that implies turning one's cheek to liars. But then I haven't been a practicing Christian in many years. One of my favorite writers though, Jiddu Krishnamurti, repeatedly stressed the importance of seeing what is. "Seeing what IS". Not coloring or distorting reality in some way that protects your ego or your ideals of how things SHOULD be.

12/3/05, 9:55 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

AOW - I grew up in the MD suburbs and lived in Potomac as a teenager. I was shocked to read about those students at that Islamic School in Potomac. There was no such school when I lived there. I also went to Georgetown as an undergrad and am truly shocked to read reports about the massive dhimmitude there, including the recent story at JW about the Georgetown Marriott cancelling the counter-terrorism symposium because of fears of Georgetown Muslim students rioting! It's mind boggling to me! It was a strongly Catholic school when I was there (they filmed the movie 'The Exorcist' on the campus!) What the hell happened to the places I knew from my youth?!

12/3/05, 10:08 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

12/3/05, 11:05 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

12/4/05, 4:07 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

12/4/05, 4:17 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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?

12/4/05, 4:28 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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.

12/4/05, 4:47 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

AOW: "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.""

This is pure taqiyyah bullshit, designed to make the infidel feel there is nothing to fear from Islam (in the US at least).

1. "Life". And that would mean, what? That a society of dead people is sharia non-compliant?

2. "Mental well-being". Got it. A society full of insane, mentally-ill people is sharia non-compliant.

3. "Religion". I don't know of any society on earth that doesn't have some form of religion (except maybe North Korea) so that means that virtually every society on earth is already Sharia compliant.

4. "Property". Every society has property. Who is permitted to own it is another issue not addressed. He didn't specify "private property" or state-owned property". Just "property", as in terra firma.

5. "Family". And a society which has no family is where? Maybe that's the society where all the citizens are dead.

I see. If you live in a society where the people are actually alive and they have families and there's earth under their feet and they're not all locked up in a loony bin and the people practice some form of religion, why then - you have nothing to fear from Islam, because you're already Sharia compliant! What a relief! What was I ever worried about?

What utter bullshit. Who teaches these people how to utter sentences that have no meaning whatsoever and shame on the author for even quoting such a vacuous statement as if it had any meaning.

Jason was right in his article about why conservatives fail to recognize the Islamic threat - because they are seduced by the fact that Islam is a "religion" and it helps them make common cause against the secularists. This article is a perfect example.

12/4/05, 6:45 PM  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

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!

12/4/05, 6:57 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

12/4/05, 9:11 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Jason: "People have been so focused on their method -- terrorism -- that they have ignored their goal: Islamic theocracy and oppression of non-Muslims."

Very well stated.

Jason: "As I've said, Europe is facing the problem first given their demographics."

Once people grasp the truth of what you're saying, they will realize that we have to place a major focus on our immigration policies. It's the most important defensive and nonviolent step we can take which will also have the maximum impact in terms of ensuring our national security.

12/5/05, 12:00 AM  
Blogger traditional_christian said...

Isn't it a bit odd that, they haven't bombed us because they love us, yet what are we to make out of all the anti-American, anti-western rhetoric coming out of the middle east? Seems like they speak with forked tongue, from a mouth full of venom.

12/5/05, 12:46 AM  
Blogger American Crusader said...

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.

12/5/05, 12:30 PM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Aren't we the little weekend soldier, Beak. Please quiet down, you're irrelevent.

The reason you don't see so much unrest in America is probably because muslims have been quite successful here. Their income is up and they are moving into the upper middle class without much trouble. That isn't true in France or Britain.

So let's take a pass on Pipes and B'at Shit and the other Regenrey Press vanity writer hacks.

12/5/05, 1:33 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

12/5/05, 4:11 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

12/5/05, 4:12 PM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Jason, do I have to remind you that your fization with terrorism is bordering on paranoia?

American muslims just aren't a very radical bunch. Can you find a few potential wack jobs in any group? Sure but you are so far outside you're not even knocking on the door.

Pure paranoia.

12/5/05, 4:19 PM  
Anonymous Bilwick said...

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?

12/5/05, 4:23 PM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

Bilwick, so nice of you to correct my spelling. When you get reduced to that then we know you are blowing smoke out of your ass but let's proceed.

Pipes, Ba't Shit and others that are popular with the right wing crowd are stooges paid to write whatever propoganda is popular at the moment. They have few credentials other than being on some think tank's payroll.

They are similar to the "nuclear scientists" that "Curveball" Achmed Chalabi used to work the crowd and to get you right wing pussies all upset. You certainly remember the volume of crap and lies that led up to the Iraqi occupation.

12/6/05, 9:48 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Ducky, you no longer write anything worthy of comment.

12/6/05, 10:17 AM  
Blogger Mr. Ducky said...

I see Jason, so you are going to defend the "intelligence" that generatied the war fever?

I also wonder that you can defend "bulk buy" manipulation by Regnerey. Surely you know that Scaife et. al. have been out there creating these pseudo "best sellers". Get some slob to write a book, bulk buy it and voila...instent expert.

Surely you are tired of being taken for a sucker, no? I'm just here to help. It's tough for you, defending the Libertarian position when you have absolute nothing to show for it in the political arena. You're pretty much left with trying to tear down what the left has built in this country.... odd that you hate that so much. On one hand the left has been influential in making America what it is and you despise that but on the other you tout the greatness of the country.

I do also but I know what built it and it wasn't libertarians.

12/6/05, 11:46 AM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

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.

12/6/05, 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Bilwick said...

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.

12/6/05, 1:04 PM  
Blogger Jason_Pappas said...

Hmmm. You have a point, bilwick.

It was Ducky who first used the word “paranoid.” Shall we just say “projection?”

12/6/05, 1:12 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

Jason - Ducky's comments remind me of a previous exchange we had on this site, in which I described that when I would talk with my leftist acquaintances about the Islamic threat, they would launch into a bunch of "facts" about Monsanto and seed patents in Iraq, about Bolivia and the privitization of water and so on. I was sympathetic to all these concerns but they made it very difficult to get back to the topic at hand. I recall you said something to the effect of leftists focusing on many disparate details and losing sight of the big picture. (I'd try to scroll back through your archives (sorry, too lazy) but I understood what you meant, through personal experience.

Ducky seems to provide a perfect example in this interchange. Here is a thread about whether or not our major media outlets grasp the basics about the Islamic jihad and Ducky is focusing on....bulk buy manipulation by Regnery Press?! It's an interesting mentality, in which one can ignore a constant drumbeat of FACTS in EVERY SINGLE paper throughout the whole world every single bloody day of the week for literally years now, demonstrating the very REAL threat of the global Islamic jihad, and yet dismiss all that (call you paranoid) and then focus on some obscure detail about Regnery's (just one small press) book buying practices! Hell, I'm even willing to grant that Regnery's book buying practices aren't 100% kosher (I have no idea whether they are or aren't!). But does Ducky think that Regnery is single-handedly responsible for the constant drumbeat of news from all over the entire world every single day about what Muslims are doing to advance the jihad? It really boggles the mind.

My take on it? Ducky has built his entire identity (that means not only self-concept but a network of friends and activities that support that ego-identification) as a "liberal" (leftist is a fairer term) and he's clinging to it like a drowning man clings to a life raft. That's the only possible explanation for this combination of obtuseness, denial of reality, and combined with it all - the sort of attack mode characteristic of someone who is defending their ego-identifications to the death.

But then I'm a psychologist by training (and an avid Krishnamurti reader to boot) and that's the way folks like me tend to filter this kind of stuff. I am, however, open to other explanations (or paradigms) which would explain such madness.

12/6/05, 8:48 PM  

<< Home