Google
 
Web rhymeswithright.mu.nu

July 15, 2005

Sadly, Islam Is The Problem

I hate to write the headline above. It is my great joy to know a number of Muslims who I love like they are my own family. They are good people. They are animated with a sense of decency that I fully believe is part and parcel of Islam. But even as I acknowledge that part and celebrate it, I cannot help but recognize the darker side of that faith. It is that darker, metastasized form of Islam that threatens Western Civilization, and which must be excised like the cancer that it is. But we have thus far lacked the will to do so, for fear of denigrating Islam and offending Muslims.

Diana West notes the problem and its genesis in the multicultural ethic that has taken hold of our society. All cultures are equally good, we are assured. It is a polite lie that we have all paid lip-service to, not wanting to be seen as racist or religiously bigotted. But in doing so we have given the terrorists who threaten our culture the very cover they need to operate in our society, to injure and kill our fellow citizens. West states that it is islam that has become a threat to our way of life.

Notice I didn't say "Islamists." Or "Islamofascists." Or "fundamentalist extremists." I've tried out such terms in the past, but I've come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam — the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it "moderately" enables, or "extremistly" advances jihad — with the West. Am I right? Who's to say? The very topic of Islamization — for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe — is verboten.

A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against "expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism" (another one of those amorphous terms) because "many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith." Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times' Simon Jenkins wrote, "The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident."

In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action — stopping immigration from jiahd-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence, expelling their imams, just for starters — means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, that's the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death — as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law — the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.

Dare i draw some dangerous parallels here? The Catholic Church has recently gone through a great time of trial as it has dealt with the sins of a relatively few priests and their superiors -- should we have refrained from naming the problem for fear of offending Catholics? Fundamentalist Mormon sects have forced young girls into polygamous marriages to men old enough to be their fathers and grandfathers -- should the problem be ignored for fear of offending members of the LDS church who shun these practices but might take offense at the examination of the roots of their faith?Should we turn a blind eyeto Israeli spying on the US and the groups that facilitate it out of a fear of stirring up the anti-Semitic "dual loyalty" canard? I think the answer to those questions is clear -- why do we treat Islam differently in the face of the terrorist threat which is daily exposed on our shores and in Great Britain?

The time has long since come for us to quit the monkeying around and to take up the serious business of defending our country and Western Civilization from the enemy among us. We must act in a manner that allows to most effectively find the terrorists. who would kill us. I've noted this before.

The time has come (and is, indeed, long past) to begin intensive monitoring of mosques and Muslim institutions, organizations, and "charities" in this country, for they are the places in which the enemy operates. And if that inconveniences innocent Muslims who are loyal to this country, that is just too damn bad, for the enemy operates among them.

There is much in islam that we can admire and commend as good. But we must not let the silly notions of multiculturalism allow that which is evil in Islam overcome and destroy us.





|| Greg, 01:47 PM || Permalink || Comments (12) || Comments || TrackBacks (0) ||

Trackback Information for Sadly, Islam Is The Problem

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blog2.mu.nu/cgi/trackback.cgi/101296
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Sadly, Islam Is The Problem'.

Comments on Sadly, Islam Is The Problem

Sadly religion is the problem.

|| Posted by , July 15, 2005 07:02 PM ||

Once again, the nameless coward strikes again.

But i will ask you this -- in the world as it exists today, what religion is responsible for well over 95% of terrorist activity?

And in the 20th century, what belief system was responsible for more murders than every other cause combined? Oh, that is right -- ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM, and its Socialist cousin the Nazis came in a close second.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, July 15, 2005 10:51 PM ||

Rightly so. Also,when it comes down to extremists, it's the Islamofacists! You don't see Christians, Buddhas, Catholics running around with bomb vests strapped to their bodies.

|| Posted by mcconnell, July 16, 2005 08:31 PM ||

Sadly, it's people with blinkered vision like you which are the problem.

First of all, your "95% of terrorist activity" statistics is pulled straight out the back of your pants. As many American academics have noted, the US government itself has engaged in massive amounts of terrorism itself, by it's own definition. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese nuked, whole villages in Vietnam raped and murdered, the backing of fascist elements in South America, propping up dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, supporting the theft of the Palestinian's land ... the list is long, and so is the number of dead, innocent civilians, which far, far exceeds by orders of magnitude the number killed by the "Islamic" terrorists, who are repudiated by all mainstream theologians. (See this article by a Cambridge professor.

Now, "Western civilization"-- isn't this the same civilization that oppressed much of the world through racist colonization, killed 6 million Jews, enslaved or oppressed black people until fairly recently (1970s in the US, 1990s in South Africa), legally regarded women as propery until ~100 years ago, pretty much wiped out the indigenous population of two continents (North and South America) and stole their land, recently massacred 8000 unarmed Muslims (more than all the terrorist attacks of the past few years combined) in Srebenica, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first (as the US does) even though it has signed a treaty obliging them to dismantle all of them? These are all atrocities carried out in the name of European+American Christianity, *often with mainstream support*. Communism and fascism are also products of "Western civilization", don't forget. The fact is, the Islamic world, though it is in awful shape these days (thanks both to local problems and our interference), overall has a far better track record than we Westerners do.

The other important thing to remember is that you can't neatly divide the world in them and us, into "Western civilization" and "Muslims". Western civilization wouldn't be what it is without many of the institutions and ideas established in the Muslim world. Universities, hospitals, the bank cheque, etc. etc. And today, the West is itself about 10% Muslim in terms of its own makeup.

Sorry man, but you're far, far, far too simplistic...

|| Posted by acrobat, July 16, 2005 11:40 PM ||

Well, I think that our new friend acrobat falls in the "with the terrorists" column. Not one word of condemnation of Islamist jihadi swine, just of the Judeo-Christian West.

Frankly, I doubt that acrobat actually read past my title -- otherwise he/she/it would recognize that I am talking about that cancerous element within Islam that is engaged in jihad. After all, I made a point of saying there is much to be admired in Islam and many more good folks than Islamist juhadi swine.

So I have to tell you, acrobat, that there is nothing so simplistic as reading no farther than the title of a post before making a so-called response.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, July 16, 2005 11:52 PM ||

Only an idiot uses the "with the terrorists" categorization, assuming that anyone against them is "with the terrorists". I don't need to condemn them in every message I post, any more than you have to condemn Christian child molesters or David Koresh or Tim McVeigh or George Bush in all of your posts. It's irrelevant to the point at hand. Certainly, I believe people of any faith who kill innocent civilians deserve the harshest penalty possible, whether they use bombs strapped to their chests or F-16s.

I stately clearly that *all* mainstream theologians, who have a rigorous education on the subject, repudiate them. I read your whole post, and the thrust of it is reflected in the title: that there is something intrinsically Islamic about violence against civilians, something that isn't present in "Western" civilization. As the historical record shows, this is clearly false, as is the idea that there is a mutually exclusive relationship between "us" and "them". There are obviously many wonderful things about our Judeo-Christian-Islamic civilization. I don't buy into the false and dangerous dichotomy that you pose.

|| Posted by acrobat, July 17, 2005 12:15 AM ||

1) Thank you for admitting you didn't read past the title.

2) Thank you for proving my point -- you still have not actually disavowed the Islamist juhadi swine yourself, so the reasonable conclusion is that you cannot do so, no matter how many times you tell me what other folks have done.

3) Condemn Geowrge Bush -- for what? Unless it is that he fails to make it clear who the enemy is by refusing to label this as a Crusade against Jihadist rather than the War on Terror.

4) I read the book, and I fundamentally disagree with it. We spent several centuries fighting off the Islamic hordes that attempted to wipe out Christianity. The sort of embrace the author proposes is nothing short of the suicide of Western Civilization.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, July 17, 2005 12:42 AM ||

1) "I read your whole post, and the thrust of it is reflected in the title" -- this is an admission that I didn't read past the title? Jesus, did you even complete high school?

2) "I believe people of any faith who kill innocent civilians deserve the harshest penalty possible, whether they use bombs strapped to their chests or F-16s." -- again, where's your reading comprehension? Do I have to condemn them in eighth-grader terms?? Is it not enough to say *anyone* -- Muslim, Christian, atheist, or otherwise -- who kills innocent civilians deserves death or life-imprisonment? *You* are the one who refused to unequivocally condemn the taking of all innocent life, not I.

3) For gutting the American education system, paving the way for future ill-informed bloggers like yourself. And countless other things which you can read about on the Internet...

4) A little paranoid, are we? No one has tried to wipe out Christianity; the Muslim world has long lived peacefully with Christian minorities (Saudi Arabia the modern exception, which I condemn), whereas Europe for many centuries just killed or drove out the non-Christians. There was this sad little event called the Inquisition, remember, and after that Christian Europe proceeded with the genocide of two whole continents... funny that we now call it the "West"! Stealing the land from the Native Americans, killing them, force-converting the survivors, molesting the children up until very recently.

And not a peep of condemnation out of you...!

|| Posted by acrobat, July 17, 2005 01:03 AM ||

1) Clearly you lied -- for the thrust of my post was that most Muslims are good and decent people, but there is something in the religion that makes the Islamist jihadi swine indistinguishablle from the decent sort, even to those of the decent sort. Oh, and by the way -- not only did I complete high school, but i teach high school history.

2) Your moral equivalency argument is a failure to condemn terrorism. You lack the capacity to make a simple declarative statement that condemns your fellow Muslims.

3) Ah -- changing the subject and hurling personal insults -- typical of your ilk.

4) Yeah, as long as we Christians are good little dhimmis who accept a second class status in society, you live peacefully with us. Now we won't get into the fact that Islam wiped out the Christian majorities in most of those regions through jihad.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, July 17, 2005 11:36 AM ||

1) That's exactly my point: "something in the religion", which is clearly wrong. And the mass atrocities perpetuated by *mainstream Christian societies* points to something far worse, it could be strongly argued-- though I have the good sense to know that this terrible track record doesn't mean that there is "something in the religion" that's fundamentally sinister.

2) No it is not. I condemn it outright. But I don't buy into your double standard that allows Westerners to kill innocent people either. Jesus would never accept the killing of innocents in any circumstances, but perhaps he's guilty of "moral equivalence" too.

4) You're the one pushing for second-class status here, calling for invasive reducement of civil liberties for American Muslims. The dhimmi system, as you know, was far more tolerant than the European policy of forceconvert-kill-drive them out. And the populations of Muslim lands were obviously not 'wiped out'-- they all have their indigenous populations. The Turks, Persians, Africans, Bosnians, Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc. Muslims were not killed and replaced with Arabs. In fact, most of the Muslim world was won over quite peacefully, through contact with Muslim merchants, or through the adoption of Islam by conquerors who had butchered Muslim populations (as did the Mongols). Contrast that with the Americas where the Natives really were largely 'wiped out' and replaced with European stock. Two entire continents(!)

|| Posted by acrobat, July 17, 2005 12:17 PM ||

No, I offer no call for second-class citizenship. I made a call for a reasonable course of action designed to MONITOR organizations of the type that have been used as terrorist fronts, fundraising mechanisma and recruiting operations. I'm not advocating restricting the rights of Muslims in the least -- merely suggesting that the laws in place designed to protect this country against the Islamist jihadi swine be used to protect Americans.

|| Posted by Rhymes With Right, July 17, 2005 12:33 PM ||

Bottom line, it's the purposeful and wanton act of killing innocent people because they "deserved" it is what's deserving of condemnation no matter what nationality.

Oh, the dhimmi system?
http://www.dhimmi.com/dhimmi_overview.htm

It was just as vile as the rest of the past' atrocities. The focus is the here and now.

|| Posted by mcconnell, July 17, 2005 12:37 PM ||
Post a comment

Remember personal info?


 

 





AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg





Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards
Winner - 2014 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2013 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2012 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2011 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2010 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Winner - 2009 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

Posts by Category

Announcements (posts: 13)
Blogging (posts: 187)
Border Issues & Immigration (posts: 421)
deferred (posts: 4)
Education (posts: 685)
Entertainment & Sports (posts: 483)
Guns & Gun Control (posts: 65)
History (posts: 329)
Humor (posts: 88)
Israel/Middle East (posts: 44)
Medical News (posts: 54)
Military (posts: 273)
News (posts: 1570)
Paid Advertising (posts: 234)
Personal (posts: 108)
Politics (posts: 5261)
Race & Racism (posts: 281)
Religion (posts: 819)
Terrorism (posts: 884)
Texas GOP Platform Reform Project (posts: 4)
The Courts (posts: 310)
Watcher's Council (posts: 482)
World Affairs (posts: 345)

Archives

January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
December 0000



MuNuviana



Licensing

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered By

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64
AnotherMunublogSmall.jpg

Administrative Stuff

Email Me
Syndicate this site (XML)

Advertising Disclosure

adpolicy.gif

About Me

NAME: Greg
AGE: 50-ish
SEX: Male
MARITAL STATUS: Married
OCCUPATION: Social Studies Teacher
LOCATION: Seabrook, TX
DISCLAIMER: All posts reflect my views alone, and not the view of my wife, my dogs, my employer, or anyone else. All comments reflect the view of the commenter, and permitting a comment to remain on this site in no way indicates my support for the ideas expressed in the comment.

Search This Site


Support This Site



Recent Entries

Who Is Regan Theiler And Why Was She Allowed To Spend Public Funds On A Sole Source Contract For Her Part-Time Employer?
Not My Idea Of A Stimulating Evening
About Trump's Liberty University Speech
Do Not Place The Secessionist "Texas Independence" Measure On The 2016 Republican Primary Ballot
Conservatives Vs. Liberal On Those Engaged In Violent Political Activity
Tom Mechler Makes His Case Against Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Jared Woodfill Makes His Case For Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Questions About Moving The 2016 RPT Convention
Reject The Call To Move 2016 Republican Party Of Texas Convention
It Is Too Bad That Political Parties Cannot Reject Voters Who Seek To Join, Stop Would-Be Candidates Who Want To Run

Blogroll


Watchers Council
  • Ask Marion
  • Bookworm Room
  • The Colossus of Rhodey
  • The Glittering Eye
  • GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD
  • The Independent Sentinel
  • JoshuaPundit
  • Liberty's Spirit
  • New Zeal
  • Nice Deb
  • The Noisy Room
  • The Razor
  • Rhymes With Right
  • The Right Planet
  • Simply Jews
  • Virginia Right!
  • Watcher Of Weasels

  • Political & Religious Blogs