Friday, May 31, 2013

Islam on My Mind

I've been criticized by some readers as having "Islam on the brain." It's not a very kind criticism considering the seriousness of the Islamic jihad against them and me and everyone else in the West. Why, my critics ask, don't I devote myself to more important topics such as President Barack Obama's assault on freedom of speech, on his assault on private ownership of guns, on the government's assault on private property, on Obamacare, on Holder's Fast & Furious, and so on?

I don’t know where these readers have been, but I've logged in over 500 columns on those and many more subjects on Rule of Reason alone. I think I am well versed in the damage Obama and Company have wrought domestically, never mind the twisted alchemy of their foreign policies, and have written extensively on both phenomena. I've been excoriating Obama ever since he poked his head out of Illinois many years ago in a stage-managed debut at the 2004 Democratic Convention.

A faraway friend lamented the shortsightedness of my critics, as well, saying they lacked my "metaphysical intelligence."

That being said – I've penned close to a million words on all those subjects over the years, including movies, TV series, book reviews, etc.; I write these columns gratis, thank you very much – I offer this roundup of things Islamic.

The Beast That Bites the Hand that Feeds It

Winston Churchill wrote: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Raymond Ibrahim, writing for the Middle East Forum on May 23rd, addresses the question of crocodiles in "The Calm Before the Jihadi Storm": Where did these killers come from? Who enabled them? What have they up their sleeves? If they are crocodiles, why are we still feeding them?

There is no good news, he writes.

On this Memorial Day, it's important to remember that the very same U.S. policies that created al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1980s – leading to the horrific attacks of 9/11 – are today allowing al-Qaeda to metastasize all around the Muslim world. As in the 80s, these new terrorist cells are quietly gathering strength now, and are sure to deliver future terror strikes that will make 9/11 seem like child's play.

In the 1980s, the U.S. supported Afghani rebels – among them the jihadis – to repel the Soviets. Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and countless foreign jihadis journeyed to Afghanistan to form a base of training and planning – the first prerequisite of the jihad, as delineated in Sayyid Qutb's Milestones.

Al-Qaeda– which tellingly means "the base" – was born. The U.S. supported al-Qaeda, they defeated the Soviets, shook hands with Reagan, Afghanistan became ruled by the Taliban, and for many years all seemed well.

Read the rest of Ibrahim's article. It is one of the most compact, incisive and hard-hitting indictments of our foreign policy I've read anywhere.

But if Reagan helped create the first al-Qaeda cell in relatively unimportant Afghanistan, Obama is helping to create numerous, more emboldened, al-Qaeda cells in some of the most important Islamic nations. He is doing this by helping get rid of Arab autocrats who were effective at suppressing jihadis…while empowering some of the most radical jihadis who were formerly imprisoned or in hiding.

And all in the name of the "Arab Spring" and "democracy."

This caliber of exposé makes one question the "metaphysical intelligence" of our political leadership. But then, our political leadership is not noted for its grasp of reality or its recognition of causo-connections. So what if the logic is apparent? they'd protest. What difference does it make? When you boil it down to the essentials discussed by Ibrahim, it's the difference between our lives and our deaths. The appeasers are feeding us to the Islamic crocodile.

The Inbred Insanity of Islam

Europe News in August 2010 ran an interesting article on the worldwide gene pool of Muslims, "Muslim Inbreeding: Impacts on intelligence, sanity, health and society," by Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels. Sennels wastes no time establishing his thesis:

Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1.400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.

We make light of the Hatfield and McCoy clans of Appalachia gunning for each other over who had an unauthorized roll in the hay with someone else's first cousin. But our Hatfields and McCoys are not flying planes into skyscrapers or preparing pressure cookers to blow up in Boston. Muslims are.

The high amount of mentally retarded and handicapped royalties throughout European history shows the unhealthy consequences of this practice. Luckily, the royal families have now allowed themselves to marry for love and not just for status.

The Muslim culture still practices inbreeding and has been doing so for longer than any Egyptian dynasty. This practice also predates the world’s oldest monarchy (the Danish) by 300 years.

A rough estimate shows that close to half of all Muslims in the world are inbred: In Pakistan, 70 percent of all marriages are between first cousins (so-called "consanguinity") and in Turkey the amount is between 25-30 percent (Jyllands-Posten, 27/2 2009 More stillbirths among immigrants")

The Turks and the Pakistanis are not the only ones guilty of marrying the cousin next door.

Statistical research on Arabic countries shows that up to 34 percent of all marriages in Algiers are consanguine (blood related), 46 percent in Bahrain, 33 percent in Egypt, 80 percent in Nubia (southern area in Egypt), 60 percent in Iraq, 64 percent in Jordan, 64 percent in Kuwait, 42 percent in Lebanon, 48 percent in Libya, 47 percent in Mauritania, 54 percent in Qatar, 67 percent in Saudi Arabia, 63 percent in Sudan, 40 percent in Syria, 39 percent in Tunisia, 54 percent in the United Arabic Emirates and 45 percent in Yemen (Reproductive Health Journal, 2009 Consanguinity and reproductive health among Arabs.)

A large part of inbred Muslims are born from parents who are themselves inbred - which increase the risks of negative mental and physical consequences greatly.

The consequences are fairly evident, too, and can be seen during those noisy and noisome mass demonstrations against freedom of speech and in the criminal activities of Muslims in the way of honor killings, rapes, assaults on infidels in their own cities, and in just general hell-raising when something happens in the West that offends Muslims and sends them into the streets wielding meat cleavers and guns.

If you look into the eyes of a Muslim who is shouting "Death to blasphemers!" do you see intelligence or the dark soul of a "drooling beast"? We will never know for sure, because, for example, the Swedish authorities seem to be reluctant to take a genealogical survey in between burned out cars and torched buildings, but probably if they braved a survey they would find that a high percentage of the rioting "youths" are products of inbreeding. It can help to account for their behavior. Which doesn't excuse them, of course.

Sennells' paper is long but not dry reading. It is chock full of interesting information about the consequences of Muslim inbreeding. Unfortunately, he ends his paper with a call for a legislative ban on first cousin marriages in the Muslim world, in the European Union, and in other Western countries, which, he says, would be logical and compassionate.

A more logical and compassionate move would be to ban further Muslim immigration into the West and to offer tickets home whence they came to any Muslims unhappy with living under secular law.

Mommy! Johnny Stuck His Tongue Out at Me! Or, Islamic Grievance-Mongers

Videos of Muslim funerals in the Mideast show men shouting with maniacal and bellicose anger in their grief over the death of another Muslim. This is odd behavior because the Muslim assumption is that life on earth is transient and the deceased is now happier in Allah's paradise. So, why are they angry? It is in direct opposition to the typical, quiet Christian form of grief, usually expressed that the deceased has gone to a better life. Is Islamic "grief" synonymous with "grievance"?

Peter Huessy, in his Gatestone article of May 30th, "The 'Grievances' Defense," examines the regular fall-back explanation of Islamic "grievances" as the root of Islamic terrorism. The government, the MSM, and Islamic spokesmen all subscribe to the "Grievances Defense." Huessy warns that whether or not the "grievances" are legitimate – and they are not – then we face what Ibrahim in his article described as a "jihadi storm."

The April terrorist attacks during the Boston Marathon killed and wounded scores of people. Machete-wielding thugs last week butchered a British soldier in full view of citizens on a London street. Simultaneously, in Sweden, a full five days of riots have seen burned cars, banks and schools, and assaulted citizens. These attacks raise the uncomfortable question: "Why are we being attacked?"

A newly announced American policy to deal with such threats involves "addressing grievances and conflicts" that feed what is described as "extremism."

What is the common denominator of all the "grievances" cited by the government, the MSM, and Islamic spokesmen? American actions ranging from American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan to alleged anti-Muslim "backlashes" to a lack of respect for Islam and Muslims, coupled with a bigoted "misunderstanding" of Muslim immigrants.

Even now, many weeks after the Boston Marathon bombing, the "Blame America" syndrome is on full display. The New York Times charged that the US had failed to assimilate the bombers' family, implying presumably, "What could anyone expect them to do other then bomb the Boston Marathon?"

Then the bombers were humanized. They were described as friendly school chums, attractive to women. The New York Times compared one of the bombers to the hero of that classic American book Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caulfield. Then came the "self-actualization" explanation for terrorism: apparently, as the two brothers were not members of any terrorist group but possibly just lone-wolf types, America had failed to "assimilate" them properly -- implying that their bombing was somehow our fault.

That rationalization was followed by strenuous efforts to avoid making any connection to their Islamic background, their travel to Dagestan, and their connection to a nearby Boston mosque from which a half dozen members and key leaders have been convicted of terrorist acts in the past decade.

What underlies this "blame America first" mantra?

This compulsion to explain terrorism as driven by grievances against America continues as the politically correct narrative. If "legitimate grievances" motivate terrorists, the thinking apparently goes, then such terrorism is justified. [Italics mine.]

If grievances explain terrorism, the implication is that removing these grievances would remove the terrorism.

Political correctness in thought and speech stunts the mind, encourages the dismissal of truth, and guarantees the deleterious consequences of appeasement. Huessy demonstrates that even though the U.S. (and the West) have bent over backwards to correct these "grievances" to the point of threatening to up-end the First Amendment and subjecting American troops to suicidal "rule of engagement" in Afghanistan to avoid civilian casualties, terrorism has not only continued but has increased in frequency. Huessy concludes his article with

If…the driving force behind terrorist attacks on the United States is a strategy to harm the United States and other Western nations, to eliminate their presence in the Middle East or terrorize them into agreeing to live under the laws of Islam, a credible case can be argued that the U.S. and its allies have the right of self-defense.

This is even truer if the threat the West faces is a force that seeks to establish totalitarian Islam throughout the Muslim world, then everywhere else. If the tip of the spear may indeed be a nuclear weapon, let us rethink what it means to "provide for the common defense."

Islamic "grievances" are endless. Islamic grievance-mongers can point to any little thing and either behead another infidel in protest or file a lawsuit in an American court. Our political leaders shy away from any notion of "self-defense" because to concede its necessity would be to acknowledge that Islam is the enemy. This they refuse to do. See my column "Why Liberals Love Islam" for a discussion.

The PsychoSyndrome of Islam

While both films are touchstones of cinematic technical excellence, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is not one of my favorite movies, nor is his The Birds. While the latter film depicts nature gone mad (it could be called the first ecological horror film), the former is more germane to our theme here.

Psycho is the great-grandfather of scores of copycat films of diminishing quality over the decades. It presents Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) who runs an out-of-the-way motel and apparently has little contact with the outside world. His alternate persona is governed by his dead mother. "She" comes to life when temptation crosses his path. The voyeuristic sight of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in semi-undress in one of his motel rooms triggers in Norman an urge to kill and eliminate the temptation. A cross-dressed Bates stabs her to death in the shower, then disposes of her body and car in a neighboring swamp. A detective, Arbogast (Martin Balsam), investigating Crane's disappearance is also murdered by Bates-as-Mother, to protect Norman from the consequences of his actions.

Norman Bates is subsequently deemed mentally ill and committed to a prison for the criminally insane.

The parallels with Islam here are fairly obvious. The Bates Motel is Islamic culture. Islam is Norman Bates who is compelled to kill whatever doesn’t comport with Islam's death-worshipping doctrine (because Allah commands it). Marion Crane is the temptation, the uncovered infidel female. Detective Arbogast is the truth-seeker and truth-teller who criticizes Islam. Call him Salman Rushdie or Kurt Westergaard or Geert Wilders. Or filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was actually stabbed to death on the streets of Amsterdam in 2004.

Islam fosters a special kind of mental illness that can lay latent and fester in any Muslim until it erupts in criminally insane behavior. Like Norman Bates, who on the outside is a nice, congenial, harmless guy, the average Muslim is someone you can't really know.

Nicolai Sennels pursues this psychological angle, as well, in "Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences." He interviewed 150 Muslim and 100 non-Muslim prisoners in a Danish prison and published his findings in Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist's Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality in 2009 (published by the Free Press Society – strangely, not to be found on any Amazon Books site, including Denmark's). He discusses the archetypical character traits of the average Muslim: anger, locus of control, self-reflection, the role of "honor," and Muslim identity. Sennels writes:

After having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their Muslim inmates), my findings were that the Muslims’ cultural and religious experiences played a central role in their psychological development and criminal behavior.

Discussing psychological characteristics of the Muslim culture is important. Denmark has foreigners from all over the world and according to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven out of 10, in the youth prison where I worked, were Muslim.

On the subject of anger and angry threats, Sennels distinguishes the Western attitude towards anger from the Muslim practice of it. Unbridled anger over mundane issues, he writes, in the West is symptomatic of a character weakness. In Muslim culture, such anger is a mark of strength, manliness, and honor.

In the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes "…Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to." That saying is deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation. We see peoples’ ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.

With Muslims, however, knowledge of facts, civil behavior, common sense, and the willingness and ability to calmly debate or argue a point are all signs of weakness. Muslims would rather resort to breast-beating bravado, insults, making a lot of noise about their "grievances," or settle for actual physical assaults, all while playing the "victim" card. This behavior is bizarre to most Westerners and not quite understood by them.

This cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to exploitation.

A thorough and daily immersion in Islam and its social culture encourages the development of a religious resistance to adjusting to Western culture and a conscious rejection of the idea of assimilation into it, a resistance and rejection encouraged by not a few mosques and their manipulative imams in the West.

Western culture also has had the virtue of imbuing an individual with a sense of personal responsibility for his happiness, success, failures, and goals. Islamic culture, on the other hand, fosters a sense of helplessness and a habitual shifting of blame for his unhappiness, failures, and dubious goals to external forces beyond his control. Westerners are astonished when convicted jihadistsexpress no guilt for their crimes, and, indeed, defiantly boast of them. Sennels writes:

In societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influences there may be fewer feelings of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one's own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies, but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless demands on one's surroundings. In a very concrete way this cultural tendency, shows itself in therapy, as a lack of remorse. The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "…It is his own fault that I beat him up. He provoked me." Such excuses show that people experience their own reactions as caused by external factors and not by their own emotions, motivation and free will.

Again, Sennels' paper is a long but insightful read into the mentality of Muslims, "moderate," "extremist," and anything in between.

Chechnyan Attacks FBI Agent with Fingernails, Is Unconstitutionally Shot

The Washington Post had this headline on May 29th, about a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was killed while being arrested (actually by his fleeing brother,Dzhokhar, in an SUV) for the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th: "Officials: Man who knew Boston bombing suspect was unarmed when shot."

An air of mystery has surrounded the FBI shooting of Ibragim Todashev, 27, since it occurred in Todashev’s apartment early on the morning of May 22. The FBI said in a news release that day that Todashev, a former Boston resident who knew bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed during an interview with several law enforcement officers.

In its only statement about the Todashev’s shooting, which was issued on the day of the incident, the FBI said that an agent, along with two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law enforcement personnel, were interviewing “an individual” in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a “violent confrontation was initiated by the individual.” The agent sustained non-life-threatening injuries, later described by one law enforcement official as “some cuts and abrasions.”

Initial reports citing anonymous law-enforcement sources provided conflicting accounts of what happened. Some law enforcement officials said Todashev wielded a knife and others suggested that he attempted to grab the FBI agent’s gun.

The term "unarmed" insinuates that the FBI agent had a gun, while poor helpless Todashev was "unarmed," except perhaps for a knife, or his fists, or his fingernails, with which to inflict those "cuts and abrasions." Such usage is par for the course in an MSM committed to white-washing Islamists and Muslims and characterizing jihadist-fighting authorities as trigger-happy morons.

In any event, the FBI had no reason to shoot the Chechnyan unless he attacked the agents and posed a life-threatening threat to them. He was a treasure trove of information about other Chechnyans and cohorts of the Tsarnaev brothers. I'm certain that a thoroughly trained FBI agent won’t shoot a terrorism-related suspect if the suspect simply assaults him with Chechnyan or Russian or Arabic maledictions. Or even with broken English ones.

And no one has any reason to read this column unless he is seriously concerned about the threat of Islam and its ongoing invasion of the U.S. at the invitation and with the blessing of our totalitarianism-friendly government. Those in denial of that threat are alreadydhimmis and I do not speak to them.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

"Islam's Reign of Terror": An Excerpt

The following is an excerpt from my essay, Islam's Reign of Terror, published this month by Voltaire Press.


Copyright 2013 Voltaire Press

Islam’s Reign of Terror

On April 15, 2013, during the Boston Marathon, two bombs exploded among spectators near the finish line on Boylston Avenue. Three people, including an eight-year-old boy, were killed, and over two hundred injured, many losing their legs and suffering wounds caused by nails, ball bearings and other shrapnel. The murderers were brothers, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 – two young Muslims whose parents brought them to America.

The Boston Marathon bombing is the latest episode of violent Islamic jihad – a campaign to wage war on non-believers of Islam to convert them to Islam, or to subjugate them, or to kill them. Globally, incidents of Islamic terrorism since 9/11 alone have passed the 20,000 mark. Islam has been at war with the West, and in particular with the U.S. and Israel, for decades, if one does not count the centuries Muslims have raided European coasts for slaves, estimated to be around two million, and captured American merchant vessels in the 18thand early 19th centuries, and enslaved their crews or held them for ransom. The U.S. has been the subject of dozens of attacks here and abroad.

Violence is in Islam’s DNA. Mohammad died in 632. His successors continued his jihad until all of the Arabian Peninsula and Armenia were under Islamic rule. In 634 the Muslims invaded Palestine. In 639 they invaded Egypt and took Alexandria. In 711 the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain, but were turned back by the Franks at the battle of Tours in 732 from conquering the rest of Europe.

Obeying the will of Allah and wishing to fulfill the purported prophecy of Mohammad, Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, was unsuccessfully besieged twice by Muslim caliphs, between 674 and 678, and between 717 and 718. When the Empire collapsed into anarchy, Islam rushed in to fill the vacuum in the Middle East, just as rampaging barbarian Huns and Visigoths filled the vacuum left in Europe by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Constantinople finally fell to the Islamic Ottoman Turks in 1453.

While Europe was embarking on the Renaissance (with its respect for reason and life here on earth), which in turn spawned the Enlightenment (with its love of science and technology), Islam held fast to the Dark Ages. Islam’s demand for blind acceptance of authority was never defanged by the Renaissance. Its prescription for hell on earth was never uplifted by the Enlightenment. As opposed to other religions of the time, it was never dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept the separation of religion and state. When Ethan Allen, who, like many of the Founders, was a Deist, penned his pamphlet, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man, that idea never reached the Islamic world.

Brutality and violence are endemic to Islam’s history because it rejects on principle the only civilized means of settling disputes peacefully: persuasion, debate, discussion, i.e., man’s faculty of reason. Islam regards man as a helpless plaything in a chaotic universe ruled by a spiteful, omnipotent, supernatural deity (Allah). The common man must submit to Allah (and his representatives here on Earth) because he is by nature incapable of thinking for himself. Every totalitarian ideology starts by attacking man’s faculty of reason. Much is made of the "peaceful" verses in the Koran. But those passages are as irrelevant to Islam’s essence as is the fact that Mafia hit men might be ''peaceful'' at a child’s birthday party.

Islam uses Sharia law to enslave citizens under a totalitarian state. In practice, Sharia law is a brutal, primitive system which, among its other barbarities, sanctions the murder of Jews, homosexuals, apostates, and adulterous women (Muslim men are usually exempt from punishment for the latter offense); the genital mutilation of girls and women; the enslavement of infidels, otherwise known as kaffirsor dhimmis; the collection of a poll tax, or jizya (a kind of Mafia-style "protection" money) from non-believers; and the use of force to compel obedience and submission to Islam. Sharia sanctions the lashing of innocent women for some undefined "sexual" offense, of a Saudi woman being harassed by Saudi religious police in a Riyadh shopping mall for wearing nail polish, of a Muslim woman being stoned to death in the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, of four homosexuals being hanged in Iran, and the beheading of an apostate in Tunisia for having converted to Christianity. Sharia condones the tribal practice of "honor killing," when a female Muslim "dishonors" the family by becoming "too Western,'' i.e., when she makes independent choices, for example, about who to marry and what she will wear in public.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder proclaimed: ''It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet."

And this barbarous, totalitarian ideology is being imported to the West. On July 4, 1998, Omar Ahmad, founder in 1994 of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, allegedly a "civil rights" organization, with over thirty chapters in the U.S.) said: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other religions, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

One cause of Islam’s successful infiltration is the spread of multiculturalism in the West. Multiculturalism is egalitarianism, which seeks to destroy the best, applied to cultures. It proclaims that no culture is superior to another. In practice, the only way to achieve such equality of results among cultures is to tear down the best, i.e., the West. To achieve equality between the great and the depraved, we must, claim multiculturalists, surrender to Islamic terror and tyranny our freedoms and wealth. After all, say multiculturalists, who are we to claim that it’s better to use an airplane for travel than it is to use one for mass murder?

The disease of multiculturalism spreads like this. First it blurs all cultural distinctions, i.e., it performs a kind of value lobotomy on the minds in the West. Then any second-rate, third-rate, or nihilistic cultural “values” rush in to fill the void. One sees examples of this in the demands that the Ground Zero mosque be afforded the same respect as the Iwo Jima monument in Washington D.C., or in the calls for the use of Sharia law instead of Western jurisprudence.

Before the spread of multiculturalism, the Western mind valued Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death,” the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. But those “cultural prejudices” are being wiped clean by multiculturalism. And now, the West’s values are being sacrificed to the lowest and worst culture on earth – an Islamic culture that today demands submission to its reign of terror.

Aside from the physical, violent attacks on America and Americans by Islamic jihadists, of equal, if notgreater concern to Americans should be the steady abridgement and incremental "repeal" of the First Amendment or freedom of speech by its enemies in our government and by Islamic advocates such as CAIR and its sister entities. This applies to any and all criticism of Islam, whether it is satirical in any form of expression or scholarly or in newsworthy presentations of facts.

Without the freedom to speak or write, there is no debate, discourse, criticism or truth-telling, and one is forced to submit to Islam in a state of censorship or coerced ignorance or silence.

The West will be safe from Islamic terrorism only if its politicians and intellectuals reject the Koran with its calls for universal slavery and a new Dark Ages, and embrace the Declaration of Independence, a magnificent product of the Enlightenment, with its prescription for individual happiness and freedom.


Edward Cline is the author of the popular Sparrowhawk novels. His articles have appeared, among other publications, in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics, and The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science. He is the chief columnist for Rule of Reason, and has contributed featured articles to Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine, Breitbart's Big Government.
This is an excerpt from a longer essay published and edited by Voltaire Press. The full essay, which may be freely distributed in electronic or print versions, can be found at:

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Why Liberals Love Islam

In my spare moments, which are few and far between, I have often imagined what the ideal socialist-communist utopia envisioned by Progressives and their ilk would be like and how it would function.

Over the years I have read various collectivist utopian novels, particularly those that envisioned ideal communist or socialist societies, and dismissed them as unrealistic fables whose authors had an agenda other than projecting their politics, short-changing their readers on the political and economic facets and means of their tales. Among many such novels, Edward Bellamy's talky Looking Backward: 2000-1887, published in 1888, was the best of a literally unbelievable lot. The most significant and ominous thing about Bellamy's novel is that for many years it was a best-seller, trailing behind Uncle Tom's Cabin and Ben Hur. It helped to popularize socialism in the U.S.

British Fabian socialist H.G. Wells' The Shape of Things to Come (1933) is of the Marxist utopian genre, in which a clique of airmen takes over an anarchical world when governments have collapsed after a world war and plague, and is more optimistic than his dystopian novel, The Time Machine (1895). Although Wells predicted some events in Shape of Things with startling accuracy, such as WWII and the U.S.'s war with Japan, the novel is unique in that the airmen's dictatorship eradicates all religions, including Islam, the latter apparently without much fuss.

According to Marxist doctrine, or at least Friedrich Engels' version of it, socialism, once it has converted everyone into cooperative manqués, would eventually morph into a fully communist state, with the state itself "withering away," shedding the apparatus of government as a snake sheds its skin. This would happen because society at that point would be driven unconsciously by some Hegelian historical necessity. And then, somehow, beggaring examination of any causo-connections, things would all work out effortlessly.

A Marxist utopia would be classless, of course, having in its aggressive socialist stage extinguished by fair means and foul "plutocrats" and the bourgeoisie. A purely Marxist society would be egalitarian – "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

If food is needed, it would be produced. Somehow. It would be distributed without error or mix-up, somehow. Truly communist farmers would automatically grow an abundance of consumables, and truly communist truckers would distribute them to magical food collection points ("markets" having been abolished).

If steel is needed, somehow it would be produced, and fashioned somehow into a vast catalogue of utilitarian objects. Everything needed for the comfort and leisure of men, from clothing, kitchen ware, power, machines, medical services and so on, would be available – somehow.

But, produced by whom? Well, by the people, naturally, who would automatically fulfill every need. If you're an average citizen of the stateless republic, you will not need to be told to report to the local steel mill to help turn out ingots and pigs. There would be no state agency or planner overseeing these matters, because the state will have withered away. No one would direct labor to the right places. No one would need to redirect or redistribute capital, either, because that cursed vehicle of the old times, capital, would no longer exist. You would just know that you're needed, somewhere, somehow.

In fact, money would not exist. Money implies trade, which will have been abolished, as well. Everyone will go around empty-handed, but lack for nothing. Food, clothing, and shelter are all provided to you – somehow.

So, off you trot to the steel mill. Do you know anything about producing steel? Do you have the technical knowledge and the skills to perform the task? Who knows how it happened, but you just have them. That's the glory of stateless communism. You're a universal adept. You can do anything the collective requires you to do.

In the former era of universal socialism, many men had to be cajoled or compelled to do things. In the perfect stateless state of communism, they do things "voluntarily," without prompting. You whistle while you work, as does everyone else, content to work without compensation.

And I could only conclude, in those spare moments, that the perfect communist state must be a society of automatons, all programmed and driven by "historical necessity" and "dialectical materialism," and that you, the citizen of this stateless society, are but an insensate cipher, a pawn of some power that magically causes all other men to "do the right thing" in frictionless amity. You are a humanoid ant, a manqué, unburdened by a volitional consciousness.

Now, no liberal/leftist/Progressive who can read STOP signs and refrain from seasoning his salads with rat poison believes down, down deep, in such Marxist hokum. No, such a utopia conveniently remains a cloudy, shimmering fantasy in their minds, absent of clear details and particulars, never to be attained. Much destruction must occur first, and that is the primary obsession of the liberal/leftist/Progressives today, to destroy what exists. Of course, those mystical powers of historical necessity need a little help from them. They revel in destruction. Destruction makes them feel useful.

And then came President Barack Hussein Obama. He is a walking vehicle of historical necessity. Or so he thinks, and so think all his supporters and the various claques of liberal/left/Progressives in government and the MSM and advocacy groups. Like everyone else, Obama is imbued with a volitional consciousness, and chooses to do what he does. Which, except when he is on a golf course, is destroy. His purported vision of a transformed America is as chimerical and fantastic as any other collectivist's. Down, down deep, he knows this.

Today's liberal/left/Progressives, one suspects, must necessarily dread the dawn of true communism. In such a state, they would have nothing to do. They would be unemployed.

Now, Islam subscribes to a similar fantasy, too, and likewise is minus a clear program of how such a society would actually function and survive. This is the global caliphate that will have brought "peace" to everyone – that is the meaning of Islam being a "religion of peace," in the same way that the United Nations is touted as an "instrument of peace," "peace" being something that destructive organization has never accomplished. All men, but most particularly Muslims, will exist in a state of blissful, conflict-free comity.

Non-Muslims will behave themselves and be content with their status as subjugated dhimmis and kaffirs, obedient to the Islamic State and deferential to Muslims in all instances and encounters. They willingly pay the jizya, the Islamic "protection" tax. This impost, if one examines its fundamental purpose, is a literal tax on your existence; non-payment of it will be against Sharia law and cause your subsequent and swift non-existence. It is based on the premise that a Muslim is a first cause, superior to non-believers, and that your existence, as a dhimmi,is dependent on his existence; a curious metaphysics of morals, not dissimilar from the Mafia brand.

Moreover, terrorism and violent jihad will cease in the global Islamic state; this is what tongue-in-cheek,taqiyya-skilled Muslims mean when they say they don’t condone terrorism.

And, as in the liberal/left/Progressive's fantasy world, things will happen and work will be done and no one will want for anything. Somehow. But, there's a catch. The liberal/left/Progressive dreams of a post-industrial world that has inherited the standard of living and technological marvels which the industrial, capitalist world made possible, but without any of the repellent social mechanisms, such as trade, property rights, individual rights, and so on.

Islam's perfect world, on the other hand, tests the imagination. One can project little more than an oligarchy of caliphs and sultans and muftis living luxuriously on the labor of their submissive populations, and answering to some Grand Vizier or Mufti or Caliph. As with the Catholic Pope (who will no longer exist), he will be regarded as Allah's supreme representative on earth. One can't see in an Islamic global régime oil tankers, high-speed trains, literature other than Islamic literature, art, advances in medicine, or even skyscrapers, except for the bizarre white elephants erected in Saudi Arabia and the various fiefdoms on the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps those skyscrapers won’t even exist, for they were erected with Sunni oil money (international jizya), and they might be blasted to hot atoms by Iranian (Shi'ite) nuclear missiles.

Unlike the liberal/left/Progressive fantasy world, however, which is expected to exist in perpetuity, Islam proclaims that Allah at one point will call it a day and send in his Twelfth Imam or the Mahdi to announce the end of all things, and to cause the sun to rise in the West. There will be weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth as "good" Muslims are segregated from "bad" Muslims and all dhimmis and infidels are sent immediately to hell. No one will be "left behind" because the earth will cease to exist.

And that is the gist of the equally delusional Islamic notion of utopia.

The "totalities" of the liberal/left/Progressive notion of utopia and those of Islam are fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian. There is no other way of looking at either projected utopia, or, at least, no other way of treating the transitional phase between now and the attainment of those utopias, which is socialism birthing a perpetual heaven on earth on the one hand, and religiously imposed collectivism and some equally ambiguous but temporary heaven on earth, on the other.

Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists love Islam? Why are Islamists not wholly reciprocal in that love, and only grudgingly tolerate them? Why do Progressives, liberals, and leftists refuse to identify Islamic doctrine as the cause of terrorist attacks, and demonstrate in their denials contorted states of mind once only attributable to schizophrenics and the mentally ill with multiple personalities?

John Rossomando, in his IPT article of May 24th, "Media Analysts Dodge Jihad Connection in Boston, London," cites numerous examples of the behavior of politicians, commentators and pundits and how they received the newsof the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15th and the broad daylight murder of a British soldier in London on May 22nd. Even though the one killer had shouted "Alluha Akbar!" while killing British Army drummer Lee Rigby, and ranted about Islam on camera, they will not blame Islam.

Commentator Michelle Malkin [of Town Hall] was singled out in the Media Matters post for saying the videotaped attacker was "quoting chapter and verse, sura and verse, from the Quran the justification for beheading an innocent solider there, and of course they've targeted civilians as well."…Michael Adebolajo said, "But we are forced by the Qur'an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu'ran, we must fight them as they fight us," he says.

Media Matters also called Fox News "Islamophobic" in its coverage of the Lee Rigby murder. Media Matters is funded by billionaire George Soros, who has subsidized a number of anti-Western, anti-American Progressive and leftist blog sites that comport neatly with their Islamic counterparts, such as Al Jazeera.

The New York Times omitted reference to the attacker's invocation of Allah, relegating it to page A7. ABC, NBC and CBS similarly omitted the Islamic reference.

Hours after Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's names became public [after the Boston bombing], The Atlantic's Megan Garber penned a column titled "The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?" in which she suggested pinning the Muslim label on them reduced them to being "caricatures" and "whitewashed" their humanity.

Rossomando notes in his article the history of how the MSM and others have shied away from blaming Islam for the terrorism, as well as statements by Islamic clerics who advocate the kind of jihad that Lee Rigby was the victim of.

By now, the reader may well have deduced for himself that the reason why the liberal/left/Progressives will not acknowledge that Islam is at the root of these terrorist attacks is that there is an unspoken, almost Freudian symbiosis felt by the liberal/left with Islam, that is, an unarticulated empathy for another totalitarian system. The Progressive Movement, spawned in the late 19th century, made great strides in the 20th with the steady passage of laws that increasingly robbed men of their freedom with arbitrary, fiat law and regulations, until today when there is hardly a human action or product that is not regulated or constrained. This "progress" covers a range of laws from the Income Tax Amendment to mandated nutritional information on food packaging and countless measures in between.

The Progressives – a.k.a. socialists – see Islam, with its head-to-foot regulation of Muslim behavior and existence, as a friend and ally that will help them to vanquish capitalism and Western civilization. That is their mutual end. "Moderate" Muslims assure us that Western precepts of law and freedom can be reconciled with Islam. They cannot. If Islam is doctrinally a totalitarian ideology, it cannot and will not be reconciled with individual rights. Capitalism and freedom do not sanction or advocate the forcible conquest of socialists and collectivists, unless the latter initiate force against the former. Islam and Progressivism do sanction and advocate the initiation of force.

Daniel Greenfield, in his May 24th FrontPage article, "Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out," emphasized this point:

There is a characteristic feature to tyranny. It isn’t the scowling faces of armed guards or the rusting metal of barbed wire fences. It isn’t the black cars of the secret police or the prison camps surrounded by wastelands of snow.

The defining characteristic of tyranny is the diversion of power from the people to the unelected elite. The elite can claim to be inspired by Allah or Marx; it can act in the name of racial purity or universal workers compensation or both. The details don’t matter, because in all instances, tyranny derives its justification from the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of the people.

Oleg Atbashian, in his May 23rdFrontPage article, "Inside Every Liberal Is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out," a companion article to Daniel Greenfield's, also notes the empathetic symbiosis between secular statism and Islamic statism:

Progressive Chauvinism is marked by a strong belief in the divine right of their kind to hold all key positions in society for society’s own sake, forcing the “lessers”to comply with superior progressive ways. Believing that their condescension and pity towards the lower beings are a sign of benevolence and compassion, they ignite with righteous anger whenever those ingrates dare be displeased with their enlightened dominion.

The chauvinist attitude, of course, is not limited to the left, but it is characteristic of any expansionist totalitarian ideology throughout history. A force that rivals Progressive Chauvinism in today’s world is Islamic Supremacism – also known to its victims as the “religion of peace.” The attitude is almost identical: in the book of Islamic Supremacism the meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Islam.

Islamic Supremacists similarly dream of an ideal, egalitarian society of the future – a global caliphate that will govern over a peaceful world populated by a Muslim majority, while the remaining non-believers would be too intimidated to oppose their Muslim superiors and prefer to pay the jizya – a special Muslim tax on non-believers, or “protection money”- as a condition that they be left in peace.

There is no such thing as "moderate" socialism or Progressivism, either. "Moderate" Progressives are otherwise known as Republicans, who cannot but steadily give ground to the advancing, uncompromising, dyed-in-their-premises Progressives. These watered-down Progressives must yield ground to their more militant and consistent cousins because they cannot think of a single fundamental reason to hold it.

Young John F. Kennedy, touring Germany before WWII, expressed an admiration for the Nazi régime. Remember that "Nazi" was shorthand for "National Socialist." The Daily Mail reported on a new book coming out that details JFK's penchant for things totalitarian:

'Fascism?' wrote the youthful president-to-be in one. 'The right thing for Germany.' In another; 'What are the evils of fascism compared to communism?' And on August 21, 1937 - two years before the war that would claim 50 million lives broke out - he wrote: 'The Germans really are too good - therefore people have ganged up on them to protect themselves.'

And in a line which seems directly plugged into the racial superiority line plugged by the Third Reich he wrote after travelling through the Rhineland: 'The Nordic races certainly seem to be superior to the Romans.'

The future president's praise is now embarrassing in hindsight - a few years later he fought in World War Two against the Nazis and his elder brother Lt. Joseph Patrick 'Joe' Kennedy, Jr. was killed.

And when he became President, JFK formally introduced Fascism, or National Socialism, into the United States. Lyndon B. Johnson, his successor in office, pulled an Otto von Bismarck on the country, and introduced the full-scale welfare state.

Clare Lopez, in her May 24thGatestone Institute article, "The New, Improved Axis of Jihad," ends her discussion of how the various jihadist and supremacist organizations have reformed for a more aggressive and organized offensive against the West:

Reportedly, more than 2,000 targets "including public places, government buildings and military installations" already have been selected and cased. Separate but parallel reporting indicates that the "go" order may already have been transmitted from Tehran to the al-Qa'eda and Hizballah cells inside the U.S., placing them essentially on autopilot status. Of course, all of Kahlili's published warnings have been passed in full detail to U.S. security agencies, but the threat from this Axis of Jihad remains critical and poses a serious threat to America's homeland security.

Effective measures from America's national security leadership are urgently needed. Those measures must begin with an honest acknowledgement of the precepts and objectives of the enemy threat —that is, as they are derived from the doctrine, law, and scriptures of Islam—and should include a comprehensive strategic counterjihad plan as complete as the Axis of Jihad's plan.

The "honest acknowledgement" Lopez refers to is an acknowledgement that Islam is an ideology whose doctrine, laws, and scriptures are as antithetical to freedom -and indeed to life - as were the doctrines, laws, and precepts of Nazism and Communism. But politically correct mindsets in government have not only emasculated any effective measures against the Islamic onslaught, but also have emboldened the killers. States that sponsor terrorism must be ended, and that includes Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until then, Americans and Westerners will be at the mercy of their killers.

Islamic "culture" is root and branch antithetical to freedom. It requires submission not only of one's physical body, but of one's mind. Secular totalitarians who have bothered to examine the character and tenets of Islam see this and appreciate it. One could say that our wannabe overseers are so jealous of the totalitarian nature of Islam that they wish it well, and are eager to ally itself with a system that ultimately must eradicate them, too, along with non-believers, recalcitrant infidels, and apostates.

It is a jealousy sired by envy, as well, of the thoroughness with which Islam converts individuals into obedient, selfless serfs in mind and body, something which liberal/left/Progressives have found difficult to achieve in their best Marxist and fascist indoctrination and propaganda efforts.

Monday, May 20, 2013

The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam Revisited

At the moment, I would rather be writing about the smiley mask that is falling from President Barack Obama and his tyrannical administration regarding the fabricated Benghazi "talking points," the Internal Revenue Service's targeting conservative and Tea Party groups for special attention, and the government's stealing the Associated Press's phone records. There is also the matter of the federal government stealing millions of personal health records in order to screen who will and will not be beneficiaries of Obamacare.

On top of all that, I learned that the Obama administration and the Mainstream Media are "like that." Imagine my index and second fingers crossed. For example, CNN vice president and deputy bureau chief Virginia Moseley is married to Hillary Clinton's deputy secretary, Tom Nides. CBS president David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, master's degree holder in fiction-writing from NYU, Obama's deputy national security advisor, whose editing of the Benghazi "talking points" qualifies as fiction-writing. ABC president Ben Sherwood is the brother of special Obama advisor Elizabeth Sherwood. And, NBC was co-opted because its parent company is General Electric, which got $150 billion in stimulus money. What an incestuous extended family!

That leaves Fox News as the only other major news outlet that hasn't been co-opted or corrupted by the government. But there is one place Fox won't go, either: criticizing the Saudis. Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Group, which is about 10% owned by a Saudi royal prince.

The New York Times is completely liberal/left and shows no signs of wanting a reality check, so it can be written off. The same goes for the Washington Post, whose only saving grace is Charles Krauthammer's weekly column. Whether or not he's a neocon or merely a straight conservative, I've never been able to determine.

So, we don't need a 50-story pyramid housing Minitru in the middle of a squalid London in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to have a compliant propaganda entity. We have glitzy studio news sets and groomed talking head fashion plates and razzle-dazzle special effects to accomplish the same end: falsehoods and news reportage that is so biased it verges on fantasy.

That being said, I move on to another subject that must be raised, even though it is tangential to the foregoing vis-à-vis our foreign and domestic policies.

The following is a revised and expanded version of "The Incontrovertible Dead-End of Islam," which first appeared on October 30th, 2010. The revision and expansion are prompted by a May 13th, 2013 article by Daniel Pipes, president of the Middle East Forum, "Islam vs. Islamism," which also appeared in the Washington Times on May 13th. His article reflects a troubling central premise of alleging a necessary distinction between Islam and "Islamists," that is, between ordinary, non-violent Muslims and their violent, "extremist" or "radical" brethren.

Pipes opens with a reference to the Boston Marathon bombings of April 15thand the foiled attack on the Canadian rail link to the U.S.:

What motives lay behind last month's Boston Marathon bombing and the would-be attack on a VIA Rail Canada train?

Leftists and establishmentarians variously offer imprecise and tired replies – such as "violent extremism" or anger at Western imperialism – unworthy of serious discussion. Conservatives, in contrast, engage in a lively and serious debate among themselves: some say Islam the religion provides motive, others say it's a modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or Islamism.

As a participant in the latter debate, here's my argument for focusing on Islamism.

His argument proposes a false dichotomy between Islam and "Islamists," that is, between Muslims who wage violent jihad on the West and even amongst themselves for sectarian reasons, and those who don’t.

Islam is the fourteen-century-old faith of a billion-plus believers that includes everyone from quietist Sufis to violent jihadis. Muslims achieved remarkable military, economic, and cultural success between roughly 600 and 1200 C.E. Being a Muslim then meant belonging to a winning team, a fact that broadly inspired Muslims to associate their faith with mundane success. Those memories of medieval glory remain not just alive but central to believers' confidence in Islam and in themselves as Muslims.

Major dissonance began around 1800, when Muslims unexpectedly lost wars, markets, and cultural leadership to Western Europeans. It continues today, as Muslims bunch toward the bottom of nearly ever index of achievement. This shift has caused massive confusion and anger. What went wrong, why did God seemingly abandon His faithful? The unbearable divergence between pre-modern accomplishment and modern failure brought about trauma.

Muslims have responded to this crisis in three main ways. Secularists want Muslims to ditch the Shari'a (Islamic law) and emulate the West. Apologists also emulate the West but pretend that in doing so they are following the Shari'a. Islamists reject the West in favor of a retrograde and full application of the Shari'a.

These paragraphs astounded me. The first one glosses over the conquest of the Middle East and North Africa which necessitated forced conversion, butchery, and slavery. Remarkable military successes, indeed. But for their defeat at the Battle of Tours, the "Islamists" would have carved out a huge empire in Europe. What economic accomplishments? The period he cites spans the economically stagnant Dark Ages and early Western Medieval periods. Cultural successes? Other than a certain architectural style, translating some Aristotle and other ancient thinkers – whose works Islam subsequently rejected – I can't recall any great symphonies, artwork, or literature Islam produced in those six hundred years.

"Major dissonance" within Islam began over who was going to be Mohammad's official successor in the 630's. Thus the interminable conflicts between Sunnis and Shi'ites and other splintering sects of Islam. Islam never had any "cultural leadership."

Secularist Muslims may want Islam to ditch Sharia law but only at the risk of being deemed apostates and of their deaths. Apologist Muslims feign a hypothetical reconciliation between Sharia and Western concepts of freedom, and demand the incorporation of Sharia into Western law. "Islamists," however, are consistent with their creed, know that it is"retrograde" and primitive, and wage jihad to achieve that end.

Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, on October 28, 2010, however, published an article, “Offensive Jihad: The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam,” also in the Middle East Form (October 28, 2010), which seems to be at fundamental odds with Pipes' article. Ibrahim's article addresses one of the fundamental problems of and with Islam, one which I have continually stressed: jihad. Jihad is a core tenet in what is a codified system of irrationalism that cannot be “reformed” without obliterating Islam as a distinct religious creed. Remove the belligerent jihadist commands from the Koran and Hadith to wage jihad, for example, and it would cease to be Islam, not only in Muslim minds but in non-Muslim, as well.

There would, of course, remain a host of other irrational assertions and imperatives, such as the sanctioning of wife-beating and the murder of apostates and the like, which constitute, after some astounding mental gymnastics by Islamic clerics and scholars, the byzantine and illogical underpinnings and text of Sharia law. The jihadist elements of Islam, however, are easily transmutable into a political policy, which is conquest of all non-Muslim or infidel governments and societies and their submission to Sharia. That makes it an ideological doctrine. Muslims are either obliged to wage jihad, or they are not. Mohammad and Muslim scholars say they are. End of argument, so far as Koranic interpretation goes, and that interpretation is biased towards the literal.

Reading the debates about what Islam’s mission is and the role of jihadin it and what they truly “mean,” I am always reminded of H.L. Mencken's observation on religious zealotry: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it." Islam is a puritanical creed that makes no allowances for either infidels or apostates or its adherents. I cannot believe that beneath the pious exterior of any person who would be seduced by Islam is not a seething, percolating envy of men who are indeed free, an envy easily and maliciously transfigured into violent jihad.

This policy is operative and underway today in Western nations with varying degrees of success, and it is making progress only by default. Islam is strong only because the West’s defenders are emasculated by multiculturalist premises and a general disinclination to condemn any religion. Aggravating the problem is an unadmitted but general fear in tolerance-obsessed pragmatists of “offending”Muslims, who might start rioting and demonstrating again, claiming discrimination, defamation, and disrespect, and etc., none of it spontaneous but clearly organized and orchestrated by so-called “radicals.”

I was initially impressed by Ibrahim’s quotation from an entry on jihad in the Encyclopedia of Islam, which is an admission that “Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated” – until I realized that it could just as well mean that, after a global caliphate has been established, there would be no more justification for violent jihad. Every nation would by then be conquered, recalcitrant infidels slain, enslaved, or reduced to dhimmitude, and Sharia made the law of every land.

In short, after all the killing, enslaving, and oppression, jihadwould be wrong!!

But, if Islam is completely“made over” in the sense of reformingit, what would be left of Islam that virtually any other creed could not claim as its fundamental tenets, as well? And to“make over” Islam, its principal font of “kilman” or wisdom, the objectionable and barbaric Mohammad, would need to be dispensed with. He is a role model for killers and tyrants and other psychopathic individuals. Remove that one critical link of the irrational and arbitrary in Islam, and all the other links fall to the floor or dissolve into nothingness.

What would be substituted for Mohammad? It would need to be something as enduringly fable-worthy as Mohammad, but measurably benign. But, Islam has no alternative icons that meet that description. What then, would be Islam’s driving force, if not jihad as commanded by Allah as told to Mohammad?

Once Mohammad is removed the text, the next step would be a "blasphemous" exercise and question the existence and credence of Allah; if he commanded jihad, and if his word is sacred and unalterable, and known only through Mohammad, then he would need to be subjected to a “make over,” much as the focus of Christian doctrine was shifted from an Allah-like Jehovah of the Old Testament to the largely pacific New Testament with Jesus Christ and his pacifist homilies.

But Christ, to Islam, was merely an itinerant preacher, not a prophet. If a “reformation” of Islam is undertaken, who in Islamic lore would take Mohammad's place? Would it be Abraham or Moses? But, in the Old Testament, neither of them was much better than Mohammad in terms of their behavior towards men of other faiths; they also advocated the righteous slaughtering of unbelievers and sinners and distributing slaves, women, and sheep among their more zealous followers.

From where, then, would any "sacred word" come? Who would act as the incontestable vehicle of higher mysteries and moral diktats? On whose divine or temporal authority?

Ibrahim writes: “Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects.” In sum, it is either-or: repudiate Islam entirely, or submit to the whole palimony of irrationalism that is Islam, including the imperative of jihad. The one incontrovertible problem with Islam (aside from the untenable claim of Allah’s existence) is its dependence on violent conquest, or the initiation of force. This renders the creed absolutely inconvertible to a pacific doctrine. That is its unarguable dead-end.

Ibrahim goes to the nub of the conundrum that faces "moderate" critics of Islam:

Worse, offensive jihad is part and parcel of Islam; it is no less codified than, say, Islam's Five Pillars, which no Muslim rejects. The Encyclopaedia of Islam's entry for "jihad" states that the "spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad can be eliminated." Scholar Majid Khadurri (1909-2007), after defining jihad as warfare, writes that jihad "is regarded by all jurists, with almost no exception, as a collective obligationof the whole Muslim community."

Even that chronic complainer Osama bin Laden makes it clear that offensive jihad is the root problem: "Our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimatelyrevolve around one issue… Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam... Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die."

Or, as Ayn Rand might have put it: “You can’t have your mystic of muscle and deny him, too.” He is either the source of Islam’s potency, or he isn’t. And if he isn’t, whither Islam?

Andrew McCarthy, in his Family Security Matters article, "Obama's Betrayal of Islamic Democracy" (May 13th) remarks that it is difficult for "moderate" Muslims to "democratize" Islam: "As we have seen time and again, however, this is a very hard thing for moderates to do." McCarthy sympathizes with them.

It is hard for "moderate" Muslims to do because it would entail repudiating Islam altogether, and then they would no longer be "Muslims," moderate or otherwise. Islam is already a "democratic" system; once it attains hegemony wherever it reigns, that is pure "democracy" or majority rule in its original, unadulterated, and un-sweetened sense. Because "democracy" means "majority rule," that democracy would be represented by the Islamic Ummah, or the collective.

Is there such a thing as "moderate" Nazism, or "moderate" Communism? Or "moderate" totalitarianism? The "extremists" of Islam despise "moderate" Muslims because they know that Islam practiced consistently, that is, practiced root and branch, gives them political power. A "moderate" form of Islam, were such a thing possible, would deny them that power. A "moderate" form of Islam would be an emasculated form of it and no longer "Islam." The "extremists" or "radicals" know this, if the "moderates" don't.

Walid Shoebat, in his Pajamas Media column of May 18th,"Islam vs. Islamism: A Case for Wishful Thinkers," tasks Pipes, and, indirectly, McCarthy, as well, on not only the terminology of Islam vs. Islamism, but the core means and ends of Islam, which cannot be conveniently divorced from the ideology. After making hash of Pipes' statistical argument that not all Muslims condone violent jihad, and after citing Muslim authorities, dead and alive, on the legitimacy of jihad as central to Islam's existence, he quotes another authority on jihad and the establishment of a global caliphate by violence and stealth:

What about Al-Ghazali, the famous theologian, philosopher, and paragon of mystical Sufism whom the eminent W. M. Watt describes as “acclaimed in both the East and West as the greatest Muslim after Mohammed, and he is by no means unworthy of that dignity”? Scholars like Pipes know the truth, yet completely ignore it. Al-Ghazali said:

One must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year… one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them…. If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book—Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked.… One may cut down their trees/…One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…they may steal as much food as they need.

Shoebat writes that Pipes "even went as low to claim that Muhammad was a 'Muslim not an Islamist' and even distinguished him since, 'Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology.'"

By switching Muhammad from “Islamist” to “Muslim, Pipes must then answer a crucial question: Is Islam defined by its founder or by Mr. Pipes? Muhammad defined Islam as “Al-Islamu deen wa dawla” (“Islam is a religion and a state”). Pipes then must remove the “and” to substantiate his false case.

Islam is nothing if not a political ideology. The first time Mohammad raised his sword to forcibly convert men to Islam, and abandoned persuasion, that was the inauguration of political Islam. It has not changed since then. Force, coercion, slavery, death, and submission are the sole hallmarks of Islam.

The problem with Islam is that it is a religion. Religion is a primitive form of philosophy that explains existence and purports to give men a moral guide to living. Qua religion, it depends on faith in the existence of a supernatural being, and a form of altruism and collectivism, an altruism that is extended only to other Muslims and the collectivism of the Ummah. One could also argue that jihadrepresents a special kind of altruism: Jihadas seen as a vehicle of "salvation," with suicide bombers and plane hijackers acting as selfless and self-sacrificing drones to spread the word of Allah.

Allow me to pose this question: If one removed altruism and pacifism from Christianity, could one credibly call what was left "Christianity"? One could pose the same question about Judaism or Buddhism. Christianity, as a religion, it should be noted, has never been "moderated"; it has only been barred from acquiring political power. That was another unprecedented accomplishment of our Founders.

Pipes, dividing the discussion about Islam into three groups, writes that he belongs in the third group, which views "Islamism" as a "modern extremist variant of the religion, known as radical Islam or Islamism." He dismisses anyone who views Islam in its totality as succumbing to a "simplistic and essentialist delusion." This is an implicit disparagement of such survivors of Islam as Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and of such champions against Islam as Geert Wilders. Treating Islam in its "totality" is as correct a way of treating it as it was of treating Nazism or Communism in their particular "totalities."

Those "totalities" are fundamentally, and incontrovertibly, totalitarian. There is no other way of looking at Islam, either.