HOLDER AND OBAMA IGNORE SUBPOENA

"A group of politicians deciding to dump a President because his morals are bad is like the Mafia getting together to bump off the Godfather for not going to church on Sunday."
—Russell Baker

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SAID TUESDAY it would provide more information to Congress about the Fort Hood shootings but continued to defy a subpoena request for witness statements and other documents.

After reading the presentation on Islam that Major Nidal Hasan gave to his professional colleagues, one even mildly educated in the form can easily declare the assassin's appeal to the massacre was classic Islam; in other words, there was nothing remotely 'radical' about it.

His testament to Islam is clearly stated in the Qu'ran, with supporting Hadiths and Sira— Islam's core texts prescribing an Islam that has been has carried out for almost 1,400 years throughout most of Europe, north and central Africa, the Near and the Far East, and is now making its way into the Americas with unfortunate ease success, thanks to a hapless host strategically softened by a lack of political will maintained by the treachery of the multiculturalist's creed.

Make no bones about it, Islam is a violent, intolerant, seditious, degrading ideology because its founder was a warlord and mass murderer; therefore, the conduct of those committing Jihad is entirely in keeping with the 'inspiration' of Muhammed whom the Qu'ran calls "an excellent model of conduct" and "an exalted standard of character".

There are two compelling reasons why the Left does not want people to know the facts about Islam and Muhammed, in particular:

if most people knew the full facts of his life, and what he did and taught, the public everywhere would not only refuse to tolerate Islam, the public would also refuse to tolerate the craven, cowardly surrender of our freedoms to this cult, wholly rejecting our accommodation to Muslims demanding acquiescence to their Sharia law in our own lands.

That crystalized moment of clarity would lead to demands that Islam be condemned and perhaps even lead to an indictment of all Muslims, easing the way to deportation, however ugly or painful the process.

Adherents to Islam belong to an ideology that mandates death for apostates, a status that denies the individual full freedom of speech and conscience. Islam also mandates for wife-beating (Qu'ran 4:34), polygamy, female genital mutilation and pedophilia. The Qu'ran allows for child brides by stipulating that a man can divorce a wife who is too young to have begun menstruating and, most damning of all, because Muhammed is recorded in at least 12 Hadiths as having married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated it when she was 9 and he was 54. Islam also mandates for death for homosexuals and adulterers. Most of these mandates are found within either the Qu'ran itself or the Hadiths of Bukhari.

None of this is acceptable to Americans or to any Westerners of good conscience, and so the Left helps to silence any discussion of Islam. The second reason is that the Left itself hates the West, despises Christianity with a vengeance and is exceedingly jealous of capitalism in its frothing pursuit of social justice as defined by its patron saints, Marx and Mao, and thus uses the alien, hostile ideological force of Islam as shock troops in its assault, especially since part of Islamic Jihad involves 'emigration' (hijra) which historically is a stepping stone to Jihad and along with its demographic swell, paves the way for demanding compliance with Sharia and eventually dominating non-Muslim areas.

Neither Republican or Democrat officials are fulfilling with honor the critically important job we have hired them to do.

It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred...

Therefore, it is our mandate as an informed citizenry to be more vigilant in the future when we select our leaders and representatives. This mandate informs is the Tea Party inertia. Americans must quit the finger-pointing and stand tough with the times we now find ourselves nearly in breach of destiny as we stumble among ourselves as orphans and widows of the constitutional framework our founding fathers so struggled to conceive, having lost both the spirit and perspiration that helped American sons and daughters defeat the Nazis and the Japanese aggressors just a few generations ago.

It's a sad state of affairs when President Barack Obama has plenty of time to launch an attack against a state government law and tamper with the US Army's prayer service and host Muslim entrepreneurship summits despite his repeated rebuffs of his own supposed faith, but is willing to DEFY a subpoena request to protect what? a killer? or some information he and his administration don't want to be outed? Doesn't it seem that somebody has all its chips invested in this "angry white men are the biggest terror threat to America" meme?

For the clear-thinking patriot, with each passing incident at high levels of this government, only one conclusion can be reached. We are being governed with heavy hand by a dangerous administration, who, along with the horde of pugnacious sycophants who still support it, will continue to press their destructive agenda forward. Are we calling for an impeachment process? No sir, that would be premature, but we can surely hear the tumbleweed rumblings just down the road, and I fear what wreckage we should meet should things turn even more sour than they are in our government corridors today. The bottom line is simple: we must every one of us, Tea Party or not, demand a far greater standard of leader...

LEGEND ALICE COOPER GATHERS NO MOSS

ALTHOUGH LEGENDARY ROCKER Alice Cooper has been often quoted in the squishy media as a supporter of the Republican Party, Cooper set the record straight during a recent interview with Canada's Hour. "I'll be honest, I go from Democrat to Republican," he said.

"I vote for the person, not the party. Regarding this past year's elections, Cooper said of former US Vice President hopeful Sarah Palin, "I think she's totally a breath of fresh air. When they say she has no experience, maybe that's what Washington needs. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for. But in a shooting war, I want a pit bull, not a poodle. I'm gonna go for the hawk."

“If you’re a right-wing rock journalist,” says Alice Cooper, “I’m in your corner all the way.”

Alice enjoyed a brief flurry of blogosphere glory last year, after standing up to one of Australia’s smarmiest television personalities. Glib puppet Andrew Denton was easily flustered when Alice could back up his support for the war in Iraq. Denton made some typically wrong assumptions about the rock star—not that Alice was offended.

“I revel in that kind of thing,” says Alice. “It angers me so much when I realize that people are jumping on some anti-Bush bandwagon. I’ve been misquoted lately on that. Some people are claiming that I said certain rockers were traitors to America. I think they’re traitors to rock ’n roll. When I was a kid, I’d put The Yardbirds on when my parents talked about politics. Rock ’n roll was my escape from politics. It still is. Why do you think we’re rock ’n rollers? We’re morons.”

Cooper also defies expectations with his Christian beliefs. The Sunday school teacher preaches what he practices on 2005’s Dirty Diamonds. Other rockers dream of running with the devil. Alice dreams of vengeful mayhem in songs like “Run Down The Devil.” Stryper or Bono could never come up with lyrics like, “I want to take him to the Mercury grill/I hope he’s ready for the big blast/ He’ll be my ultimate road kill/I’ll kick his future up his past.”

Alice isn’t afraid to take those same beliefs on the road, lecturing baffled death-metal acts that end up sharing the bill on world tours. And did you catch that part where Alice says that rock ’n rollers are morons?

Thanks to Blabbermouth.

IT'S THE IMMIGRATION, STUPID!

As the United States announces that it will take in more than 5,000 Iraqi refugees now living in Syria, Brenda Walker of VDARE takes umbrage at the idea of persistent immigration of Muslims into our nations is in the best interests of the West. The article is rich in detail, and peppered with informative links. Here's a taste, sans its original links:

IF THERE IS ANYTHING that should make Americans' blood run cold about immigration, it is the sight of Europe—and Britain, the home of Western civilization—being buried by millions of Muslim colonists. Europe is just hoping against hope that Islam isn't going to explode into massive rioting (or worse), or impose total cultural Islamification.

Major jihadist terror occurred in London (July 7, 2005, killing 52 and injuring 700) and in Madrid (March 11, 2004, killing 191 and injuring 1841). Yet cowardly politicians continue policies of appeasement, which hostile Muslims correctly apprise as the fatal weakness of a culture too pacified to defend itself.

Some Europeans already accept the coming Eurabia. One Dutchman, mourning the future loss of Europe was quoted by Paul Belien as saying, "I am not a warrior, but who is? I have never learned to fight for my freedom. I was only good at enjoying it."

Well, that's honest. But how about less self-pity and more directed anger? Many Americans I know in the patriotic immigration reform movement had a come-to-Jesus moment of awakening from passivity, turning to resolve to save the country.

Did America encourage Europe's socialist pacifism by protecting it too well, starting after the Second World War? Perhaps. Having your freedom handed to you on a plate is no way to appreciate its value.

Other causes of the continent's tragic downfall are rooted in recent history. They include business' desire for cheap labor (so familiar!), a trendy belief in secular multiculturalism as a replacement for Christianity and apparent ignorance of Islam's long-standing enmity toward Europe.

Now the triumphs of Tours and Vienna are being trampled by immigrants, entering mostly legally. It's a wonder the Muslims bother with terrorism at all when demography is working so well for them.

Read it all.

THE TIMES THEY BE DONE CHANGED

A MAN, WHOSE FAMILY was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. 'Very few people were true Nazis,' he said, 'but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.'

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectra of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and ! to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority,' is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on—before it's too late.

ENCOUNTER WITH A SHARIA APOLOGIST

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch reports on an encouraging email he received from an educated reader. It is as follows:

I am writing to tell you about a small success story in the struggle against Sharia. I am a law student at the University of Cincinnati. Last Thursday our school hosted a Sharia apologist from Saudi Arabia, Dr. Abdulkareem Hamad A. Alsaiygh. He's Dean at the Center for Contemporary Islamic Studies and Dialogue among Civilizations, Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University.

The purported goal of his visit was to dispel myths that the West has about Islam and Sharia Law. Because of your written work and this website, a group of us were prepared to ask questions that cut through the typical obfuscating rhetoric of this Sharia apologist. Heading into the event, the vast majority of students in the audience were sympathetic and welcoming to the speaker and his ideas. By the end of the event, they were all rightly horrified.

Among other things, our questions forced Dr. Alsaiygh to admit the following:

1. That apostasy is rightly punishable by death under Islamic law and the law of Saudi Arabia.
2. That there will never be a Christian church in Saudi Arabia.
3. That a Christian church is considered a national security risk to Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states.
4. That stoning is appropriate punishment for adultery.
5. That most women raped in Saudi Arabia deserve some punishment for "putting themselves in that situation."
6. That "interfaith dialogue" could never include polytheistic religions.
7. That Christian evangelism in Saudi Arabia is a subversive act comparable to planning a terrorist attack in the US.
8. And that all these were "moderate" Islamic positions.

Of course, he attempted to take us on the obligatory guilt trip by blaming the West for radical Islam. But, by this point, he had lost the vast majority of the audience.

THE DONNYBROOK AT THE FBI

The WorldNetDaily story below illustrates why I regularly point out how “political correctness” is aiding and abetting the advance of militant Islam in America and to an even far greater degree, in Europe. One line is especially revealing:

“The [FBI] officials said terrorism is "not a new phenomenon" limited to Muslims, and they cited abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph as an example of a Christian terrorist.”

The problem with this stilted reasoning is that very few terrorist acts worldwide are perpetrated by Christians, whereas since 9/11 over 9,000 verifiable acts of terrorism have been perpetrated worldwide by Muslims.

Furthermore, nowhere in the New Testament are Christians exhorted to “smite infidels” or forcibly subjugate unbelievers, as is the case in the Qur’an and the Hadith. To gloss over or rationalize Islamic terrorism by pointing to a handful of “Christian terrorists” is a revealing example of political correctness run amok in the FBI, a political correctness that some field agents tell us they vehemently disagree with.

Nevertheless, true to its directive from on high (Saudi blackmail), the FBI believes its agents still aren't sensitive enough to Muslims and their culture, so the bureau has extended by "a few weeks" its Islamic cultural "enrichment" training program, WND has learned. During a recent outreach event at a Washington-area mosque, FBI officials also reassured a large turnout of concerned Muslims that the bureau is not profiling Arabs and Muslims for terrorism, and has made investigating alleged "hate crimes" against them and other minorities "the second-highest priority in the criminal division of the FBI."

Among the officials who attended the Feb. 8 "town hall meeting" at the large ADAMS Center mosque were Timothy Healy, deputy assistant director for FBI intelligence, and Dave Bennett, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's Washington field office. The officials said terrorism is "not a new phenomenon" limited to Muslims, and they cited abortion-clinic bomber Eric Rudolph as an example of a Christian terrorist.

While admitting that they are concerned about the threat from "homegrown terror" perpetuated by second-generation Muslim immigrants, the officials assured the Muslim audience they are no more concerned about such homegrown attacks than they are "about bank robberies," and are not targeting the Muslim community for special surveillance.

Of course, I am also very concerned about recently immigrated terrorists, such as those who flew into the Twin Towers. Recent evidence provided by news stories suggesting both our southern and northern borders are under assault.

One official offered that FBI headquarters has extended the bureau's Arabic curriculum, which includes Muslim culture, by "a few weeks" to expose agents to Islam and cultivate a better understanding of the faith.

"We all need to learn and understand each other," he said, adding that the Muslim sensitivity program is part of basic training for agents.

"One of the things that the FBI believes in is diversity," he said. "Diversity is important."

To that end, he says the bureau is "under a hiring push this year" and is heavily recruiting Muslim agents. The FBI wants to hire 900 FBI agents and 2,000 professional support staff, including Arabic translators, by Sept. 30. [emphasis added and note: why does the FBI routinely reject Christians and Jews who are fluent in Arabic who apply to be translators?]

"One of the things that we are critically seeking are special agents and support staff who are Arabic speakers," he announced to the audience at the ADAMS mosque, which was founded and funded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.

"We also need folks who, candidly, are familiar with Islam," the official said. "We're learning, many of us. And I've had many conversations with Muslims, and I've learned quite a bit. I'm a Roman Catholic, and there are so many similarities I have learned between Islam and Christianity that was a surprise to me."

ADAMS Center is not the only Muslim Brotherhood-tied organization where the FBI has recruited agents. In September, it also set up a recruitment booth at the annual Islamic Society of North America convention. Just four months earlier, federal prosecutors named ISNA as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror fundraising case, and listed it as a member of the U.S. branch of the radical Brotherhood.

What's more, the agency is advertising for agents in ISNA's magazine "Islamic Horizons," as well as on the website of the Saudi-backed Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, which has supported Hamas and other known terrorists.

Last November, Lebanese former FBI agent Nada Prouty was arrested and pleaded guilty to charges in connection with a Hezbollah espionage investigation. As WND first reported, the FBI summarily rejected some 90 Jewish Arabic speakers who after 9/11 applied to become translators and language specialists at the FBI's New York field office.

As WND also first reported in 2003, national Arab-American and Muslim leaders have made presentations at an FBI training course on civil rights at the Washington offices of the FBI, and at the FBI Academy at Quantico, Va., as part of "Enrichment Training Sessions" for new special agents there.

In addition, the imam of a large Manhattan mosque has lectured veteran counterterrorism investigators at the FBI's New York field office about misinterpretation of the meaning of jihad in the Quran, the Muslim holy book. The sensitivity training program, denounced by some active and former agents, was mandated after the 9/11 attacks by FBI Director Robert Mueller. FBI headquarters defends the program as a way to reach out to the Muslim community in America.

"I hate the word 'sensitivity' training," said FBI spokesman Ed Cogswell. "I would call it an awareness training relative to cultural issues."

Mueller has met several times with Arab and Muslim groups since 9/11. He even agreed to be the keynote speaker at the American Muslim Council conference in Washington—a move that drew fire from AMC critics, who note the group has sung the praises of Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, and was headed by al-Qaida fundraiser Abdurahman Alamoudi, now serving time in federal prison on terror charges.

"Mueller should lead the FBI in this war, and leave the sensitivity sessions to the human resources department or CNN," complained retired FBI special agent Don Lavey, who served 20 years in the bureau's counterterrorism unit.

"Let's just hope the director is leading the charge in this war against terrorism with an equal amount of zeal that he shows for cultural sensitivities," added Lavey, who claims Mueller is so politically correct he refuses to use "Islamic" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

Yeah, let's. Unfortunately nationality matters. If a scientist or engineer comes from China to the US for study or employment, there could be security concerns, while the same concerns would be less likely if the person came from Britain. In the 1940s aliens from enemy countries found their movement restricted. During the cold war those with Eastern European connections had difficulty getting security clearances. Today's enemies are motivated by Islam, by and large they come from Muslim countries. Many come from nations that are nominally allied to the US. Yes, this scrutiny causes problems but those problems are unavoidable in a dangerous world. End of story.

SHREDDING ISLAMOPHOBIA

No assembly required. No stereotypes allowed. No counter-arguments declarable.

From the awesome Hugh Fitzgerald files, also known here at the Project as instant relief thanks to a battalion of word soldiers...

“When the world is compelled to coin a new term to take account of increasingly widespread bigotry—that is a sad and troubling development,” Annan said. “Such is the case with ‘Islamophobia.’ The word seems to have emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Today, the weight of history and the fallout of recent developments have left many Muslims around the world feeling aggravated and misunderstood, concerned about the erosion of their rights and even fearing for their physical safety.”
—Former Secretary-General of the U.N. Kofi Annan

The “world” was not “compelled to coin a new term”—it was Muslims who coined the word, and they did so deliberately. For that word so deliberately kept undefined is merely a weapon employed to deflect criticism, to label all those who may offer criticism of Islam and of its adherents, basing their criticism not on some blind prejudice, but on their own observations and study. Indeed, the entire Western world—its political leaders, its media, its university departments of Middle Eastern studies—have all been engaged in a massive effort to deflect criticism or disarm it. It is despite all that that Infidels everywhere are coming to some conclusions about Islam, and the more they study, and the more they observe, and the more “Interfaith” gatherings and little Muslim Outreach evenings they attend, all of which end up being dismal exercises in Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque argumentation, the more wary, and critical, and indignant, and sometimes more, they become. The game is up. From a Beslan school full of children to a Bali nightclub full of revellers, from Madrid subways to Moscow theatres, from New York skyscrapers to Najaf mosques (where Sadr’s bezonians tortured, killed, and stacked the bodies of Iraqis who had opposed their reign of terror), from Istanbul to India, the evidence just keeps piling up. And the evidence, too, of what is actually in the Qur’an and hadith and sira—and how many Infidels, a few years ago, even had heard of the “hadith” and the “sira,” or had any idea what was really in the Qur’an, or had ever heard of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya—now online, and it can easily be read. And all the excuses, all the nonsense, can no longer be offered up—for we Infidels, fortunately, have the guidance of defectors from Islam, ex-Muslims such as Ibn Warraq (whose own guide to debating Muslims, and how not to be intimidated or snookered, will for many prove invaluable).

Kofi Annan, as Oriana Fallaci notes in her Fallaci Intervista Fallaci, looks, on the surface, to be far more presentable, and far more decent, and far more intelligent—grey hair, gravelly voice, grave mien—than in fact he is. The words quoted above are the words of a simpleton. Perhaps Edward Mortimer, that early admirer of Khomeini and Nazi-Zionist conspiracy theorist, who feels a special responsibility to protect Islam, is the main puppet-master here, or perhaps it is Ms. Rishmawi (the “Palestinian” behind-the-scenes operative who was so influential with Mary Robinson, she of the antisemitic lynch-mob meeting in Durban in September 2001).

Or perhaps it is Annan—the man on whose watch for more black African deaths occurred than anyone since Leopold III of Belgium—really thinks that the word “Islamophobia” came into use because it actually described a real, and deplorable condition; that it describes an unfair, unjust, prejudiced and irrational (i.e. without foundation, against reason and logic) phobia, or hatred, of Islam. What is unreasonable or irrational would be the opposite. That is, the continued ability of many Infidels to regard Islam as just another “religion” worthy of respect, perhaps at the edges a bit rough, but hijacked by a few extremists, or even many extremists, but having a decency at its core, a real religion of “peace” and “tolerance” as a number of Western leaders have insisted.

If, upon reading and studying Qur’an and hadith and sira, and if, after looking around the world over the past few years, and if, after having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and Muslim behavior toward dhimmis—Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists—you do not feel a deep hostility toward the belief-system of Islam and toward its adherents (for the category of “moderate” is nearly meaningless, given the dangerous use to which “moderates” can be put in continuing to mislead the unwary Infidels), then it is you who are irrational, and need to have your head examined.

The word “Islamophobia” must be held up for inspection, its users constantly asked precisely how they would define that word, and they should be put on the defensive for waving about what is clearly meant to be a scare-word that will silence criticism.

So let us ask them which of the following criticisms of Islam is to be considered “Islamophobic”:

1) Muhammad is a role-model for all time. Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and had sexual intercourse with her when she was 9. I find appalling that Muslims consider this act of Muhammad to be that of the man who is in every way a role model, and hence to be emulated. In particular, I am appalled that virtually the first act of the Ayatollah Khomeini, a very orthodox and learned Shi’a theologian, was to lower the marriageable age of girls in Iran to 9—because, of course, it was Aisha’s age when Muhammad had sexual relations with her.

2) I find appalling that Islam provides a kind of Total Regulation of the Universe, so that its adherents are constantly asking for advise as to whether or not, for example, they can have wear their hair in a certain way, grow their beards in a certain way, wish an Infidel a Merry Christmas (absolutely not!).

3) I find appalling the religiously-sanctioned doctrine of taqiyya—would you like some quotes, sir, about what it is, or would you like to google “taqiyya” and find its sources in the Qur’an?

4) I find appalling many of the acts which Muhammad committed, including his massacre of the Banu Qurayza, his ordering the assassination of many of those he deemed his opponents, even an old man, a woman, or anyone whom, he thought, merely mocked him.

5) I find appalling the hatred expressed throughout the Qur’an, the hadith, and the sira for Infidels—all Infidels.

6) I find nauseating the imposition of the jizya on Infidels, the requirement that they wear identifying marks on their clothes and dwellings, that they not be able to build or repair houses of worship without the permission of Muslim authorities, that they must ride donkeys sidesaddle and dismount in the presence of Muslims, that they have no legal recourse against Muslims for they are not equal at law—and a hundred other things, designed to insure their permanent, as the canonical texts say, “humiliation.”

7) I find the mass murder of 60-70 million Hindus, over 250 years of Mughal rule, and the destruction of tens of thousands of artifacts and Hindu (and Buddhist) temples, some of the Hindu ones listed in works by Sita Ram Goel, appalling.

8) I find the 1300-year history of the persecution of the Zoroastrians, some of it continuing to this day, according the great scholar of Zoroastrianism, Mary Boyce, which has led to their reduction to a mere 150,000, something to deplore. There are piquant details in her works, including the deliberate torture and killing of dogs (which are revered by Zoroastrians), even by small Muslim children who are taught to so behave.

9) I find the record of Muslim intellectual achievement lacking, and I attribute this lack to the failure to encourage free and skeptical inquiry, which is necessary for, among other things, the development of modern science.

10) I deplore the prohibition on sculpture or on paintings of living things. I deplore the horrific vandalism and destruction of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist sites.

11) I deplore the Muslim jurisprudence which renders all treaties between Infidels and Muslims worthless from the viewpoint of the Infidels, though worth a great deal from the viewpoint of the Muslims, for they are only signing a “hudna,” a truce-treaty rather than a true peace-treaty—and because they must go to war against the Infidel, or press their Jihad against the Infidel in other ways, on the model of the Treaty of al-Hudaibiyya, no Infidel state or people can ever trust a treaty with Muslims.

12) I deplore the speech of Mahathir Mohammad, so roundly applauded last year, in which he called for the “development” not of human potential, not of art and science, but essentially of weapons technology and the use of harnessing and encouraging Muslim “brain power” for the sole purpose of defeating the Infidels, as a reading of that entire speech makes absolutely clear. Here—would you like me to read it now for the audience?

13) I deplore the fact that Muslims are taught, and they seem to have taken those teachings to heart, to offer their loyalty only to fellow Muslims, the umma al-islamiyya, and never to Infidels, or to the Infidel nation-state to which they have uttered an oath of allegiance but apparently such an oath must be an act of perjury, because such loyalty is impossible. Am I wrong? Show me exactly what I have misunderstood about Islam.

14) I deplore the ululations of pleasure over acts of terrorism, the delight shown by delighted and celebrating crowds in Cairo, Ramallah, Khartoum, Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad, and of course all over Saudi Arabia, when news of the World Trade Center attacks was known—and I can, if you wish, supply the reports from those capitals which show this to have taken place. I attribute statements of exultation about the “Infidels” deserving it to the fact that Islamic tenets view the world as a war between the Believers and the Infidels.

15) On that score, I deplore that mad division of the world between Dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb, and the requirement that there be uncompromising hostility between the two, until the final triumph of the former, and the permanent subjugation, and incorporation into it, of the latter.

16) I deplore the sexual inequality and mistreatment of women which I believe I can show has a clear basis in the canonical Islamic texts, and is not simply, pace Ebadi and other quasi-”reformers,” a “cultural” matter.

17) I deplore the fact that Infidels feel, with justice, unsafe in almost every Muslim country, but that Muslims treat the Infidel countries, and their inhabitants, with disdain, arrogance, and endless demands for them to bend, to change, to what Muslims want—whether it be to remove crucifixes, or change the laws of laicity in France, or to demand that “hate speech” laws be extended in England so as to prevent any serious and sober criticism of Islam.

18) I deplore the emphasis on the collective, and the hatred for the autonomy of the individual. In particular, I believe that someone born into Islam has a perfect right to leave Islam if he or she chooses—and that there should be no punishment, much less the murderous punishment so often inflicted.

19) I find the record of Muslim political despotism to be almost complete—with the exception of those Muslim countries and regimes that have, as Ataturk did, carried out a series of measures to limit and constrain Islam.

20) I deplore the fact that while Muslims claim it is a “universalist” religion, it has been a vehicle for Arab imperialism, causing those conquered and Islamized in some cases to forget, or become indifferent or even hostile to, their own pre-Islamic histories. The requirement that the Qur’an be read in Arabic (one of the first things Ataturk did was commission a Turkish Qur’an and tafsir, or commentary), and the belief by many Muslims that the ideal form of society can be derived from the Sunna of 7th century Arabia, and that their own societies are worth little, is an imperialism that goes to culture and to history, and is the worst and most complete kind.

21) I deplore the attacks on ex-Muslims who often must live in fear. I deplore the attacks on Theo van Gogh and others, and the absence of serious debate about the nature of Islam and of its reform—except as a means to further beguile and distract Infidels who are becoming more wary.

22) I deplore the emptiness of the “Tu Quoque” arguments directed at Christians and Jews, based on a disingenuous quotation of passages—for example, from Leviticus—that are completely ignored and have not been invoked for two thousand years, and I deplore the rewriting of history so that a Muslim professor can tell an American university audience that “the Ku Klux Klan used to crucify (!) African-Americans, everyone standing around during the crucifixion singing Christian hymns (!).”

23) I deplore the phony appeals of the “we all share one Abrahamic faith” and “we are the three monotheisms” when, to my mind, a Christian or a Jew has far less to fear from, and in the end far more in common with, any practicing polytheistic Hindu.

24) I do not think Islam, which is based on the idea of world-conquest, not of accommodation, and whose adherents do not believe in Western pluralism except insofar as this can be used as an instrument, temporarily most useful, to protect the position of Islam until its adherents have firmly established themselves.

25) I deplore the view, in Islam, that it is not a saving of an individual soul that is involved when one conducts Da’wa or the Call to Islam, but rather, something that appears to be much more like signing someone up for the Army of Islam. He need not have read all the fine print; he need not know Islamic tenets; he need not even have read or know what is in sira and hadith or much of the Qur’an; he need only recite a single sentence. That does not show a deep concern for the nature of the conversion (sorry, “reversion”).

26) I deplore the sentiment that “Islam is to dominate and not to be dominated." I deplore the sentiment “War is deception” as uttered by Muhammad. I deplore what has happened over 1350 years, in vast swaths of territory, formerly filled with Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, much of which is now today almost monotonously Islamic. I do not think Islam welcomes any diversity if it means the possibility of full equality for non-Muslims.

27) I deplore the fact that slavery is permitted in Islam, that it is discussed in the Qur’an, that it was suppressed in 19th century Arabia only through the influence of British naval power in the Gulf; that it was formally done away with in Saudi Arabia only in 1962; that it still exists in Mali, and the Sudan, and even Mauritania; that it may exist in the Arabian interior, but certainly the treatment of the Thai, Filipino, Indian and other female house workers in Arab households amounts to slavery, and it is no accident that there has never been a Muslim William Wilberforce.



I could go on, and am prepared to adduce history, and quotations from the canonical texts. And so are hundreds of thousands of Infidels who have looked into Islam, or in their own countries, had a close look at the Muslim populations which have made their own Infidel existences far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous than they would otherwise be.

If this is “Islamophobia”—show me exactly why it is irrational (i.e. not based on facts or observable behavior, or a study of history), an “irrational” dislike or even hatred of Islam. If you cannot show that, then perhaps the word should not be invoked. But if you do invoke it, be prepared to have copious quotations from Qur’an and hadith and sira constantly presented to audiences so that they may judge for themselves, without the “guidance” of apologists for Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

THE DEATH OF DIVERSITY

By Daniel Henninger

People in ethnically diverse settings don't care about each other.

Diversity was once just another word. Now it's a fighting word. One of the biggest problems with diversity is that it won't let you alone. Corporations everywhere have force-marched middle managers into training sessions led by "diversity trainers." Most people already knew that the basic idea beneath diversity emerged about 2,000 years ago under two rubrics: Love thy neighbor as thyself, and Do unto others as they would do unto you. Then suddenly this got rewritten as "appreciating differentness."

{Uh, I think it went, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Something radically different from the latter part of Henninger's quote, but nevertheless.]

George Bernard Shaw is said to have demurred from the Golden Rule. "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you," Shaw advised. "Their tastes may not be the same." No such voluntary opt-out is permissible in our time. The parsons of the press made diversity into a secular commandment; do a word-search of "diversity" in a broad database of newspapers and it might come up 250 million times. In the Supreme Court term just ended, the Seattle schools integration case led most of the justices into arcane discussions of diversity's legal compulsions. More recently it emerged that the University of Michigan, a virtual Mecca of diversity, announced it would install Muslim footbaths in bathrooms, causing a fight.

Now comes word that diversity as an ideology may be dead, or not worth saving. Robert Putnam, the Harvard don who in the controversial bestseller "Bowling Alone" announced the decline of communal-mindedness amid the rise of home-alone couch potatoes, has completed a mammoth study of the effects of ethnic diversity on communities. His researchers did 30,000 interviews in 41 U.S. communities. Short version: People in ethnically diverse settings don't want to have much of anything to do with each other. "Social capital" erodes. Diversity has a downside.

Prof. Putnam isn't exactly hiding these volatile conclusions, though he did introduce them in a journal called Scandinavian Political Studies. A great believer in the efficacy of what social scientists call "reciprocity," he wasn't happy with what he found but didn't mince words describing the results:

"Inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television." The diversity nightmare gets worse: They have little confidence in the "local news media." This after all we've done for them.

Colleagues and diversity advocates, disturbed at what was emerging from the study, suggested alternative explanations. Prof. Putnam and his team re-ran the data every which way from Sunday and the result was always the same: Diverse communities may be yeasty and even creative, but trust, altruism and community cooperation fall. He calls it "hunkering down."

Give me a break! you scream. What about New York City or L.A.? From the time of Sherwood Anderson's "Winesburg, Ohio" through "Peyton Place" and beyond, people have fled the flat-lined, gossip-driven homogeneity of small American "communities" for the welcome anonymity of big-city apartment building—so long as your name wasn't Kitty Genovese, the famous New York woman who bled to death crying for help.

It's a wonderfully thought-provoking study, suitable for arguing the length of a long August weekend and available as a lecture on Prof. Putnam's Harvard Web site, the "Saguaro Seminar." Astute readers, however, have already guessed who's thrilled with the results.

Pat Buchanan, reflecting an array of commentaries on the study from the American right, says, "Putnam provides supporting fire from Harvard Yard for those who say America needs a time-out from mass immigration, be it legal or illegal." The "antis" believe the Putnam study hammers the final intellectual nail in the coffin of immigration and diversity.

The diversity ideologues deserve whatever ill tidings they get. They're the ones who weren't willing to persuade the public of diversity's merits, preferring to turn "diversity" into a political and legal hammer to compel compliance. The conversions were forced conversions. As always, with politics comes pushback. And it never stops.

The harvest of bitter fruit from the diversity wars begun three decades ago across campuses, corporations and newsrooms has made the immigration debate significantly worse. Diversity's advocates gave short shrift to assimilation, indeed arguing that assimilation into the American mainstream was oppressive and coercive. So they demoted assimilation and elevated "differences." Then they took the nation to court. Little wonder the immigration debate is riven with distrust.

The diversity ideologues ruined a good word and, properly understood, a decent notion. What's needed now is for a younger black, brown or polka-dot writer to recast the idea in a way that restores the worth and utility of assimilation. Somebody had better do it soon; the first chart offered in the Putnam study depicts inexorably rising rates of immigration in many nations. The idea that the U.S. can wave into effect a 10-year "time out" on immigration flows is as likely as King Canute commanding the tides to recede.

Here, too, Robert Putnam has a possible assimilation model. Hold onto your hat. It's Christian evangelical megachurches. "In many large evangelical congregations," he writes, "the participants constituted the largest thoroughly integrated gatherings we have ever witnessed." This, too, is an inconvenient truth. They do it with low entry barriers to the church and by offering lots of little groups to join inside the larger "shared identity" of the church. A Harvard prof finds good in evangelical megachurches. Send this man a suit of body armor!

My own model for the way forward in a 21st century American society of unavoidable ethnic multitudes is an old one, a phrase found nowhere in the Putnam study or any commentary on it: the middle class. Its assimilating virtues may be boring, but it works, if you work at getting into it.

Of course Hillary Clinton believes this can't happen here because the middle class has been "invisible" to George Bush. As with diversity, progress is always just beyond the horizon.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Thursdays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

LIVING IN THE AGE OF QUARREL

The more I read the posts at Jihad Watch and those of Robert Spencer, the more I am convinced that only a fact-truth confrontational approach will prevail in this ongoing conflict with passive-aggressive Islam. That naive handmaiden of so-called "moderation" will not do the job. Th evidence has spoken, loudly and clearly.

The current crisis with Islam appears to have two immediate sources: 1) the oil revenues that fund the spread of the belief-system and Jihad and 2) the collapse of the USSR which had delayed a lurking jihad that for 70 years lay dormant after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. But now unbelievers, or kafir, face a resumed war with Islam and its sleeping dogs that has been in process for 1300 years.

During the 70s and 80s there were many who sought to appeal to "moderates" within the Soviet Empire, who urged no confrontation in word and deed with the obvious aggressive and totalitarian nature of the Soviet belief-system. They were in Western "peace movements" that were often funded by the USSR. The people who advised caution and moderation in confronting the Soviets did so for many reasons, but it all boiled down to "don't make them mad", "don't offend them" "they only have different "values".

Yet folks like Solzhenitsyn advised a confrontation that would make the Soviets angry, and noted that in their anger, in their rage, the Soviets would reveal themselves and the nature of their belief-system. Thus the exile of Solzhenitsyn, the attempt to kill Pope John Paul, the attempt to crush Solidarity, the shooting down of the Korean passenger plane by the Soviets in 1983, and other ugly manifestations of Soviet rage, did much to bring down the regime. All of the items you mention are necessary to contain this insane Soviet-like belief system, including factual in-your-face-confrontation with the sick violence and intolerance of Muhammad and his belief-system.

Pope Rage, Cartoon Rage, Apostate Rage, and other rages are just what the doctor ordered to cure this belief-system disease. Confrontation and resulting rage are good. Solzhenitsyn was right about confrontation re the USSR. In-your-face-factual-truthful-confrontation-is the answer with Islam, too.

Moderates and apologists within Islam try to claim differently, by disassociation techniques, but with every invocation of the takirphrase "Allahu akbar" in the warzones of Iraq to the streets of Paris suburbs, the implication that the culprits think God will approve of their action or that their action does something to glorify God, the message is burned into the minds and hearts of the world that Islam is the root cause of these reveries. However, without looking into their minds, it's impossible to know if they deliberately meant that or if they were using a common phrase in their culture without thinking about what it meant. But in their own words, to a Muslim, their religion is everything, including their God-given right to use force in subjugating infidels to the ends of the earth.

These apologists usually point to so-called Christian atrocities in Serbia or in the distant past to validate their points. Yet, it is quite evident that Western secular progressive cultures have done everything possible to distance themselves from their historical roots in Judaic and Christian thought and symbolism, and even this distancing is used by the jihadists to prove their notions of superior religiosity, and they certainly have no qualms in desecrating the traditions and icons of those religions, while screaming bloody murder at anyone who dares raise an eyebrow at theirs.

But let's be clear here, I am not defending Christianity's "hollow" symbols. From a fundamentalist biblical perspective, almost all of the so-called holy days are fabrications taken from traceable pagan sources, and would be quite foreign to the players of biblical times.

But it seems that leftist America is stealthly embracing Islamic appearances while throwing off the yoke of Christianity. This is a ridiculous and dangerous operation. It needs to be stopped before it is too late.