This chilling anecdote points up what has been stated many times on this forum: moderate Mohammedism is a myth created by liberals in order to maintain their state of denial. If that myth is exploded, the whole multicultural dogma falls on its face. The truth would be exposed - all cultures are decidedly NOT equal. Liberals, whether they are of the Bush/Neocon variety or the hard left, will go to any length to maintain this mythology. Hence the campaign against General Boykin, whose great crime was to point out that the emperor had no clothes.

Paranoid thinking is found elsewhere than in the Mohammedan world. Check out Roger Clegg’s article, entitled “Does Education Make Black People Crazy?” at:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10376

The first part of the solution is immigration control. Why are there Pakistanis in the United States (and the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand…) in the first place? The brilliant Masood and his brother could be helping their own country, one that could use help by all accounts. The slots Masood occupied at Chicago and Northwestern could have gone to fully qualified Americans, as could his law firm job. America does not need immigration to prosper. As this anecdote intimates, and the September 11th attacks proved (not that GWB or anyone else in power seems to have noticed), our thoughtless hospitality carries a high price, even if our policy makers are not the ones who pay it.

Language is revealing, too. In addition to slandering Jews, note how Masood and his brother refer to Americans: “you Christians.” They know the difference, even if we refuse to see it anymore. HRS

Disgusting as these characters may be, it seems to me to be going too far to insist that moderate Islam is a myth; there have been modernist interpretations of the religion for the past 150 years— interestingly enough, they developed among Tatars under Imperial Russian rule and Indians under British rule. Modern Turkey has been dominated by precisely the moderates that many at VFR insist don’t exist. It seems to me that this is an overreaction, albeit an understandable one, to the sort of people who feel compelled to pretend that every terrorist is really an alienated nice guy, and that there are only few terrorists out there who don’t like us — when it is obvious that many millions hate us. It is certainly difficult not to be disgusted when we hear such whitewashes of Muslim history as “Islam is a religion of peace,” but it is a dangerous overreaction to insist that all Muslims, today, are our enemies.

Perhaps not all Moslems are our enemies, and perhaps many are peace-loving. That does not mean I want them moving into my country and transforming her because our own elites are too enervated to resist. I am an American, a Christian and a native of a nation that is part of what was once Western Civilization. I have no interest in seeing her transformed into an aliens’ land where our descendants will be strangers to most of their (uninvited) neighbors. That is why I believe we need to stop all immigration to the United States, from all countries, with very limited exceptions for those who legitimately marry Americans, and encourage repatriation as much as possible.

As it happens, because of their terrorist proclivities, Middle Eastern Moslems are probably the most dangerous on an individual basis, while Mexicans, because of sheer numbers and proximity, are the most dangerous collectively. Be that as it may, I want both to stay home (along with all the other Latin Americans, Asians, Africans, Eastern Europeans… who are encouraged to think they have a right to repopulate Western nations), where I wish them all happiness and success, as long as they do not harm Christianity, the West generally and America specifically. It is long past time to speak plainly. HRS

Reality alert: you don’t exactly have to be brilliant to have a Northwestern law degree, nor to pursue a Masters in computer science. Brilliance implies a bit more than that. Moreover, the claim that this Masood is liberally educated is laughable. There’s not a major university in the country, private or public, that provides a true liberal education to its students. They provide *training* in narrow disciplines based upon assumptions popular at this particular moment in time and call that “liberal education,” but they absolutely do not educate anyone in the proper sense of the word. In fact, this is precisely the problem. Without even knowing Masood, I can guarantee you that he is completely unacquainted with the great minds of the Western world, unread in philosophy, and ignorant of the principles that underly sound political science. He is simply a lawyer in the modern sense of the word: a trained monkey—trained for a specific task, and no other. This is how a guy who is supposedly “so brilliant” can in fact be so ignorant and so deluded. We’ve got a country/world full of them, both Muslim and otherwise.

I too, do not favor mass immigration, from any source. It is a source of social, cultural, and economic disaster. Nor, just because many, or even most, Muslims are not terrorists or extremists, is that any reason to ignore the fact that as many as 25 percent of the world Muslim population IS against us. That is quite reason enough, I think, to discourage Muslim immigration. I also agree with Mr. Sutherland on the particular threat presented by mass Latin American immigration. I just object to an exaggeration of the Muslim problem, which in certain circumstances, could easily play into our enemy’s hands.

I appreciate Mr. Levine’s concern about my perhaps oversweeping language. If my language suggested that I think all Muslims, as individuals, are our enemies, I regret that. However, the issue here isn’t: Are all Muslims, as individuals, our enemies? The issue is: What is the net impact on our society of an ever-increasing Muslim population? And my view, which I’ve stated over and over, is that the extremist, anti-American views are so widespread and dominant in the Muslims population that any large Muslim population in our midst is inherently going to pose a serious challenge to the integrity and independence of our society. Indeed, even if only a minority of Muslims were extremists, the fact would remain that those extremists through intimidation and fear control and silence the moderates. That Muslim Canadian female tv personality (I forget her name) lives in fear of her life and speaks of giving up Islam altogether. So it’s not a question of individuals. It’s a question of the total impact of Muslims on our country.

Since it is not humanly possible for us to design an immigration program which is simultaneously a mass immigration AND a selective immigration, the only way to assure our own safety and peace would be to avoid any mass population of Muslims here in the first place. Now that they’re here, however, we must instantly stop any further mass immigration of that group, remove all illegal aliens of that group, and remove all non-citizens and even naturalized citizens of that group who share militant beliefs and allegiances. Such a policy would probably trigger a general emigration of Muslims, which would be most desirable.

The “individualized” approach that some would favor, sucks us into the illusion of the “peace process syndrome,” that is, of finding the “moderates” who will be on our side, of continually trying to tweak the Muslim community to get the result we want, even as the actual Muslim community continues in its actual extremism. That is why I reject the assumption that the existence of some individual moderate Muslims means that Islam per se is not a problem. I believe that Islam per se is a problem.

The only way to have Muslims safely in a Western society is if they are literally that, individuals—individuals who have come here because of particular connections they have with this country and are not here as part of a vast transplantation of their entire culture.

Mr. Levine may be correct in the sense that certain shades of Mohammedanism may differ, but there are still some problems with his overall point.

For instance, when we consider certain of the Hadiths. One of the worst of the eschatological Hadiths teaches that at the end times Allah will bring the Jews to the Holy Land so the Mohammedans can kill them. This is the one about Jews hiding behind rocks and trees which start talking: “O Muslim, o servant of Allah, there is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.”

Next time you meet a Mohammedan that appears ‘moderate’ ask them about this one. Ask them if they believe it. Ask them if they are willing to renounce it. Watch what happens. If anyone tries to tell you that it’s only ‘figurative’ to teach a ‘spiritual lesson,’ ask how one figuratively exterminates the Jews and what spiritual lesson is to be acquired from this ‘figure.’

Alternatively, you can ask about Mohammed’s marriage to six-year old Aisha, also taught in the Hadiths, and the consummation of this marriage when she was nine years old. Ask if they believe this and what they think about. Ask if they’re willing to criticize such behavior. Ask if they’re will to call it by its name “pedophilia.”

I’m sure other examples could be made. The problem here is that you really refer only to difference of degree, while the scale of measure remains unacceptable from one end to the other by Western (i.e. civilized) standards.

Two other points I’d quickly make.

1. It’s important to keep in mind that Mohammedansim openly endorses the assumption of a deceptive, seemingly innocuous outward show for the purpose of lulling and disarming those in the Dar al-Harb. When they begin to obtain the upper hand this changes. How is one to know whether such is the case in a given group?

2. Even among those who might be only nominally “Muslim” in the sense of identifying with it for cultural or family reasons without really being steeped in the Koranic teachings, the question of final loyalty remains a concern when push comes to shove. It is still as potentially powerful as loyalty to race, (among non-whites.)

Lastly, your point that, “I just object to an exaggeration of the Muslim problem, which in certain circumstances, could easily play into our enemy’s hands, ” I think misses the mark. Clearly the problem today is that we are vastly understating the role that this religion plays in the violence and terrorism of which we are all aware.

I was glad to see Mr. Auster’s clarification, with which I am largely in agreement. However, I think Mr. LeFevre’s suggestion that there is at most a difference in “shades” among Muslims is inadequate. Some Muslim groups are our enemies: others are not. The Bin Ladens hate modernist Muslims and will destroy them also when they can. My point was that to treat all Muslims as our enemies is to play into the hands of the worst elements and make our job harder. Actually the other error — to pretend, a la the Bushites, that “Islam is a religion of peace,” and that the issue is only a small group of fanatics, while being coy about just what they are fanatical about, is the more common mistake in society at large. However, those communicating at VFR are immune to that particular insanity.

Let me be crass about this for a moment. I hope I do not offend anyone. I would explain my view of moderate Muslims in this way: Imagine a scale which rates all religious groups by their level of ‘fanaticism.’ On that scale, I believe, the most liberal Muslim groups would top out at about the Baptist level.

Here is an interesting and timely article on a ‘moderate’ Muslim nation. Srdja Trifkovic on Malaysia and Mahathir.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsViews.htm

Yes Thrasy the comments are crass; some grandmothers and best friends of Catholics are Baptist. Indeed, experience suggests one will find a healthy proportion of Baptists sideling the bar with Catholics. But yes extremism is undesirable.

Bubba poses an interesting idea: many lawyers are deficiently trained in that they are not trained in Western philosophy, political science, and history. The same could be said of most college graduates and postgraduates. Catholic universities do try though.

I’m not sure I’d call Thrasy’s Baptist comment crass, just silly. ;-)

As to Mr. Levine’s qualification of more ‘liberal’ forms of Mohammedanism, I think we may arguing over an irrelevancy. Mohammedanism is not compatible with Western culture, and that’s all there is to it. I gave 2 examples of this that in my experience even ‘moderates’ defend. So the question of allowing these people here still raises some fundamental questions even if we’re not immediately concerned about stuff blowing up.

And I still have to return to the point I raised about ” the assumption of a deceptive, seemingly innocuous outward show for the purpose of lulling and disarming those in the Dar al-Harb.”

There are then 2 assumptions we can make here, and we need to ask ourselves the following questions, (regardless of your own opposition to their immigration here. It’s a larger question.):

1. Considering the damage the Mohammedan immigration has already wrought in our Western societies, what is the SAFEST assumption to make?

2. What are the consequences of making a mistaken assumption in one or the other case?

Your answer to the one, namely that “to treat all Muslims as our enemies is to play into the hands of the worst elements and make our job harder” seems overwrought. We are already facing a mortal enemy that wants to destroy us. And again, our biggest error has been in our effort to downplay the role of Mohammedanism in this, (a point which you seem to agree with.)

Go back for a moment to the days when Charles Martel was fighting to defend against Mohammedan aggression. How would acknowledging the true nature of orthodox Mohammadenism have made his job ‘harder’? And of what value would it have been to him to acknowledge that some nominal Mohammedans weren’t really his enemies?

Joel is making the crucial point. It looks as though Daniel Pipes is coming around to that point as well, which I think is a significant development:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1294

Let us rememberOur white fore-fathers “mass emigrated ” to this land which we live,slaughtered many of the natives,en-slaved some,and then forced the rest into submission…and built a good portion of this nation with the labor of un-fortunate black slaves.So,how can anyone really deny other peoples entrance into this land? And also,there was another comment,in which it is stated”extremist anti-american views are so widespread and dominantin the Muslims population”…Admittedly this is correct,and if you cannot understand why,I would advise you to take a serious look at history,not “His-story”,but the real deal.And also,I would like to point out,that ,these days,Anti-Americanism is not limited to “Muslim populations”,but is actually rampant among much of the international community.Anti-Americanism is quite fashionable abroad…….

Thanks Frank for offering such a pure unadulterated expression of anti-Americanism. According to Frank, America, in its very origins and development, is a guilty country because it pushed aside Indians and had black slaves. Therefore America has no rights inhering in itself as a country, including the very right to exist and preserve itself. It simply has an obligation to all other peoples, including people who openly hate America and want to destroy it, to let them come here and take over.

If Frank has an ounce of reasoning ability, if he has an ounce of affection for our country, I ask him to ask himself: Is this what he really believes and what he really wants?

To Frank: The sins of the past never require suicide in the present, for individuals or nations. Would you care to compare the role of the USA in the history of slavery with the role of most nations in history, including Arab and Muslim nations (who still engage in slavery today)? What is the point of bringing it up, given the results of the comparison?

Maybe Mr. Coleman’s suggestion can be combined with Frank’s: Given that the forefathers of the Arabs conquered, enslaved and massacred other peoples, the Arabs forfeit the right to immigrate to the US. Is that a compromise everyone can agree to? Or will Frank want to say that tales of Arab savagery are the inventions of “His Storians”?

Frank has a good question.

“Let us remember our white fore-fathers “mass emigrated ” to this land which we live,slaughtered many of the natives,en-slaved some,and then forced the rest into submission…and built a good portion of this nation with the labor of un-fortunate black slaves. So,how can anyone really deny other peoples entrance into this land? “

I have a good answer.

We can deny other people entrance to our land because we know that they are as bad or worse than our forefathers were, and we are smart enough not to want to be enslaved or slaughtered.