What’s Wrong with the World

Me, too! (Kamilla stands and applauds Col. West)

Can we Brits borrow Col. West for a couple of years?

Wow, there's a man for you. I thought we had flat run out of them. Does he stand a chance of winning a seat in Congress?

I have no idea. Anybody else know? This incident is the first I've heard of him.

Jack, no. :-)

Congress? Maybe Secretary of Defense. Or State. =)

In this climate anyone can win.

FL-22 is a competitive district -- 52% - 48% in several of the last presidential elections. West has definitely has a shot.

We are in trouble when speaking the obvious, one backed by 1500 years of history, generates applause. It should be a truism by now. But if there is an enemy perceived as more dangerous it's easy enough to overlook islam, which after all only wants to destroy us.
Yes, it's the Christian/conservative/Republican cabal.
The script on islam is such that no wonder some of the panty wetters on the panel froze, & a moral disgrace it is that one old woman took the fifth.
But things like that happen when a nation is on a suicidal course.

Wow. Wish I could vote for him. I'll send him a check instead.

Referencing a number of historical dates and the names of Islamic scripture is fine, but it doesn't build a cohesive argument. I'd like to see specific passages from the Koran that orders Muslims to wage war against Christendom. Yes, Christianity and Islam have a violent past, but Protestants and Catholics have waged equally bloody wars. Further, if you look in the book of Numbers you can find plenty of examples of violent retribution against nonbelievers. Villainizing 1.5 billion people is counterproductive to war efforts in the middle east. We should be looking at commonalities between monotheistic religions, they're plentiful and far more fundamental than either religions violent past.

Further, if you look in the book of Numbers you can find plenty of examples of violent retribution against nonbelievers.

Yup, and _so_ applicable. Oh.

Villainizing 1.5 billion people is counterproductive to war efforts in the middle east. We should be looking at commonalities between monotheistic religions, they're plentiful and far more fundamental than either religions violent past.

Let's ask the soldiers who died at Nidal Hasan's gun, "How's that 'not villainizing' and 'looking for common ground' stuff working out?"

Btw, Jonathan, you should read some Robert Spencer. He's done all the work.

First of all I'd contend that Nidal Hasan subscribed to an extremist "perversion" (to use the video's terminology) of Islam. I see where you're coming from. As a Jew, I'm not looking for common ground with Inquisitors who tortured and murdered hundreds. But, I don't view all Catholics with mistrust. In my personal opinion, I don't think its responsible to condemn an entire belief system based on a minority's heinous crimes.

And a quote from Robert Spencer I found while researching (thanks for the tip): "My work is dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts. I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people." Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't sound like Spencer condemns Islam as a whole. His research has just revealed a textual source which, perverted by extremists, can justify terrible things. Like I said in my previous post, this is nonunique to Islam.

revealed a textual source which, perverted by extremists, can justify terrible things.

That shows that you haven't read much Spencer. He is emphatically not saying that the jihad ideology is a "perversion" of the texts. He's much too good a scholar for that. The "reform" that would be necessary would bear about the same relation to the actual meaning of the texts that, say, contemporary "pro-gay" interpretations of Romans bear to its obvious meaning or that "mythological" reinterpretations of the resurrection bear to the obvious meaning of the Gospels. In other words, it would make more sense to say that the "reform" is the "perversion" than vice versa, insofar as we are talking about normal, original meaning. Spencer's work shows this in spades. He says he wants "reform" of Islam only because he, like most of us, would find a modernist Islam evacuated of the raison d'etre that he himself has so amply demonstrated in its own texts and origins to be much easier to deal with than a real Islam. For obvious reasons. Not surprisingly, he isn't finding a lot of Muslims to get on board with such "reform."

Jonathan, the comparison to the Inquisition is also quite specious. The brutalities of that institution do not derive organically from injunctions in Scripture or Tradition. The Inquisition (that is, the Inquisition that we all associate with torture and cruelty) was an arm of the Spanish Imperial State far more than it was an institution of the Catholic Church.

Put another way, the number of Christians, historical or contemporary, claiming a sacred mandate to wage aggressive war and "holy" subjugation is vanishingly small; and these few heretics are bereft of authoritative texts or traditions on which to ground their ideas.

That same can emphatically not be said about Islam. There is, rather, a huge and influential faction of the Islamic religion committed to holy war and holy subjugation; and they have, at easy reach, vast resources of text and tradition to support their views.

I apologize for misconstruing Spencer, I only scanned his site. You still didn't sell me on reforming Islam. Many liberal sects of Islam exist around the world. Part of religious freedom or "freedom of conscience" is that religious doctrine doesn't have to be concrete. The Torah and Bible explicitly demand punishment for nonbelievers. The Torah and Bible also include codes of conduct that foster moral behavior. The Koran explicitly demands punishment for nonbelievers. The Koran also includes a code of conduct that fosters moral behavior. One of the five pillars of Islam is charity. You can convert to Islam by a simple declaration of faith. Attributing every passage from the Koran to every Muslim is ridiculous. Insofar as the vast majority of Muslims have never killed a nonbeliever, I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they too are rational humans capable of determining good behavior from outdated scripture.

What happens is that they become radicalized when they discover what has a plausible case to be "true Islam." It has happened again and again and again.

As for the Bible, I just want to point out: There is nothing in Christian texts that requires physical punishment by the community (as opposed to something like excommunication) for non-believers or apostates. Nor is there any evidence that the earliest Christians considered the Old Testament punishments for idolatry among Israelites (e.g., stoning) to be remotely applicable to the Christian community. On the contrary, from the teachings of Jesus on, including some references in the Pauline epistles, the evidence is that the severest punishment the Christian community engaged in against erring members was something akin to shunning, excommunication, refusing to eat with the person, and the like. Nothing even remotely like death for apostasy. But that's by the by, and I chiefly say it because I wish you would stop saying "Torah and Bible" as though the first were Jewish and the second, Christian.

I should add that I do consider statements like the one you quoted from Spencer about reforming Islam to be confusing to readers and to be in tension with the much larger amount of his work. And he has been criticized for them "from his right," as it were. I sometimes think he's engaging in wishful thinking. Other times I think he's engaging in some sort of clever "see, they won't reform, because they know as well as I do that that would be a betrayal of Islam" game when he, for example, calls upon the Muslim community to condemn specific terrorist acts.

Ok, so we can consider the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament calls for violent punishment. The earliest Christians didn't feel these punishments are applicable. In later centuries when avowed Christians went to war against people with differing beliefs, it was necessarily caused by political reasons. The fact that a crusading priest could point to a number of verses technically contained within the Bible is irrelevant. But, when a Muslim goes to war, their sole impetus is religious. No economic or political motivations. Is there a double standard at play?

And on the condemnation of terrorist attacks, mainstream Muslims condemn them everywhere. http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php Even the Ayatollah of Iran condemned 911, and I wouldn't say he's exactly pro-US. So like I said previously, there is no need to pigeon hole every Muslim into an extremist mold, especially considering the flexibility granted to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I know its easier to establish a straightforward criterion for enemies, but there's a gray area.

And a quick response to Paul's post: I don't see that "huge" faction dedicated to holy war. In the news I see a dedicated minority that could just as easily be Hindu (like the Tamil Tigers), Jewish (the Orthodox Rabbinate insisting upon continued expansion of settlements), or Christian (Scott Roeder).

Is there a double standard at play?

Nope.

Dear Lydia,

Your latest response to Jonathan's comments (which are obviously unresearched and clearly left-wing conspiracy) has left me with a fufilling catharsis. My emotions have been purged with your clear apprehension of the rhetorical theme of brevity. Your one-word response moved me, and while I, initially and inanely believed Jonathn's ideas, am now fully and definitely on your side.

Nope.

Ok, so we can consider the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament calls for violent punishment. The earliest Christians didn't feel these punishments are applicable. In later centuries when avowed Christians went to war against people with differing beliefs, it was necessarily caused by political reasons. The fact that a crusading priest could point to a number of verses technically contained within the Bible is irrelevant. But, when a Muslim goes to war, their sole impetus is religious. No economic or political motivations. Is there a double standard at play?

No, because the use or misuse of scriptures can be adjudicated by a central body. And even the rulings of this body can be judged against a deposit of Faith. (Highlighting once more the importance of a Magisterium and heirarchy.)

Because there is a heirarchy and a legitimate teaching authority that can speak for the entire religious body, it is easy to see which and which isn't a "perversion". There is no such central authority in Islam, and thus one pronunciation is as authoritative as the other.

You cannot say that the extremists are perverting Islam, for there is no authority within Islam to back up your assertion with a completely consistent internal logic. As long as they are using the same sources, the radical imam's Islam is no more a perversion than the Islam of the westernized moderate. As such, while only 10% or so (of 1.2 billion) have chosen the extremist interpretation, there is nothing to hold back (from a religiously authoritative standpoint) the other 90% from choosing to follow them.

10% is a low estimate in many countries, especially when you parse out the rhetorical loopholes in most polls (such as the allowance for an Islamic interpretation of "peace," which generally means, "the absence of any non-Islamic political authority"), and especially among Muslims resident in the West. But even at 10% we're talking a 100-million-strong faction. When you throw in people who report that while they are not committed to jihad themselves, they are solidly sympathetic to those who are -- a position, again, strongly supported by the traditional texts which describe jihad as an positive duty for "all able-bodied men" -- you're really getting up there in terms of numbers.

Even if we grant that 10% have chosen an extremist interpretation (which is conveniently left undefined) it doesn't undermine any of my arguments. That still leaves 90% of Muslims with moderate or reformed interpretations of Islam, a vast majority. Existence of a central authority is meaningless. Only the Catholic Church claims to have a singular interpretation of their scripture. Absent a Pope-like figure, a religion may spawn countless sects with varying interpretations. Sure, any pronunciation in Islam (or the ever changing Protestant Church or Judaism) may be equally authoritative. Any sect of Judaism may wish to revert to an old-school interpretation of the Torah, "there's nothing to hold them back from a religiously authoritative standpoint." Christianity, too, is open for interpretation. If a group decides a passage ought to be interpreted differently, then who's to say they are no longer Christians? Again, short of someone claiming divine insight, no one possesses this ability. Religious authority is subjective. Claiming otherwise is a messiah complex. So do we declare war on an entire culture because of an unlikely shift of ideology (9:1 ratio) which is possible in any belief system absent of constant directions from G-d? I'd say no.

I'm just trying to point out the need to keep an open mind.

it doesn't undermine any of my arguments.

It at least undermines your silly attempt at moral equivalence.

That still leaves 90% of Muslims with moderate or reformed interpretations of Islam, a vast majority. Existence of a central authority is meaningless.

No, it isn't. Even Protestantism doesn't entirely rid itself of a central authority, as you can see in most large denominations. Heck, there's a reason why Protestant groups keep splitting...an absence of authority would mean that the, say, Baptists would consist of even people who hold doctrines which are not Baptist in nature.

Sure, any pronunciation in Islam (or the ever changing Protestant Church or Judaism) may be equally authoritative. Any sect of Judaism may wish to revert to an old-school interpretation of the Torah, "there's nothing to hold them back from a religiously authoritative standpoint."

Really? Don't you have chief rabbis?

Christianity, too, is open for interpretation. If a group decides a passage ought to be interpreted differently, then who's to say they are no longer Christians?

The Pope, the head of an established denomination, any number of authoritative bodies, etc. Mormons are not Christian, for example. There are many who can say if something is no longer Christian. As such, because of this, a group that calls itself Christian isn't so just by virtue of themselves adopting the name.

Again, short of someone claiming divine insight, no one possesses this ability.

I gues you don't really know Christianity that well. Or, you don't know religion that well.

How do you think religion gets started anyway? Oh yeah, divine insight. It's not "Messiah complex". Well, Christianity claims to be founded by the Messiah anyway. Part of the foundation of central religious authority is the vestment of divine guidance upon that authority, as well as a tradition upon which to measure the pronunciations of that authority.

The problem with Islam is that it vested that authority not on an institution, but a book. While Protestantism tried to reach a similar state of affairs, they never quite bred the need for human authority out of their systems.

So do we declare war on an entire culture because of an unlikely shift of ideology (9:1 ratio) which is possible in any belief system absent of constant directions from G-d?

I don't necessarily endorse declaring war on all Muslims. But I do endorse trying to evangelize them out of Islam. And for what its worth, neither Charles Martel nor the Crusaders, nor the defenders of Vienna (nor Col. West, for that matter) seek to declare all out war on all of Islam. What they seek is to recognize Islam as a violent religion to be defended against. Even the most radical of the proposals of people like Col. West, such as the cutting off of immigration from Islamic countries, are a far cry from the genocide you are imagining.

At worst, it is to close a fortress door on the border. Not to wipe them out en masse.

Eh, my last paragraph sounds weird.

Lemme try again.

The defenders of Christendom (Martel, the Crusaders, the defenders of Vienna) Col. West cites did not seek an all-out war with Islam. They only sought to preserve their lands from Islam. None of them wanted to go on forced conversion campaigns or the like. I don't think even Col. West wants something like that. From what I hear, he wants the same thing Martel would have wanted, which is a recognition of Islam as a violent religion and the protection of their homelands against it.

At its most radical, this position may entail a cutting off of immigration from Islamic countries, or even a deportation. These are a far cry from the genocidal "all-out war" you envision. At worse, it is the lowering a fortress door between Western and Islamic lands, not a cleansing.

When you throw in people who report that while they are not committed to jihad themselves, they are solidly sympathetic to those who are -- a position, again, strongly supported by the traditional texts which describe jihad as an positive duty for "all able-bodied men" -- you're really getting up there in terms of numbers.

This point of Paul's is often not sufficiently appreciated.

Btw, at its worst, the OT is not about world conquest, only conquest of the Promised Land. If I were Jewish, I would consider this point particularly important.

1. I don't believe moral equivalence is what I was getting at, especially since morality isn't quantifiable. I was merely trying to point out that the majority of Muslims don't violate respect for nonviolence. This speaks to moral permissibility rather than equality.

2. I'm glad you brought up Protestant groups splitting. Each new denomination has equal claim to be Christians if they can create a reasonable argument for how they fit the criterion. Unless you reject the original Reformation, then you probably don't believe that religious authority comes from name alone.

3. Even in the days of a united Hebrew kingdom a chief rabbi never existed. Every scholar of Torah (ordained or not) has equal right to make theological arguments. That's why the Mishnah, Haftorah, and Talmud are so extensive. Each Rabbi had his (or her) own interpretation of what the Torah means. Even the original punctuation of the Torah is debatable.

5. Jumping over a point, Christians and Jews are referred to as "people of the book" within the Koran. Both religions are founded upon divine intervention thousands of years ago. All that remains of these events is written accounts. Sure, the Old Testament established a priest class, but when was the last time a Jew or Christian took orders from the Levites? The manner in which history progressed (Diasporas, etc) made the original institutions of enforcement impossible to uphold. I don't believe Jesus ever taught that the bishop of Rome should make all final decisions on the New Testament. So unless a Rabbi reaches the last circle of Kabalah or the Pope truly talks to God, both religions derive authority from books written long ago. Like Islam.

4. I think I ended up answering this point in my last answer.

6. The problem I have with creating a "Fortress Against Islam" is the artificial delineation of geographic territory. What constitutes the Christian homeland outside of the Holy Land? I'm not sure religion should be tied down within national borders. Also, we've already established that most Muslims are nonviolent, so why deport them all?

And Lydia:
Paul's point on sympathy is vague and appeal to remote fears.

On the Holy Land: The pervading Jewish sentiment on the Holy Land (outside of the extreme Orthodox) is that it ought to be open to all people. Currently, the most controversial site I can think of is the Dome of the Rock, which is built upon the foundations of the original Temple. I'm just not sure what reclaiming this site would accomplish. I would argue that the Torah provides justifications for either course of action. Some Jews argue that expelling Arabs is the first priority. Most believe it is no longer a priority. They're both entitled to their beliefs because neither has greater authority.

Paul's point on sympathy is vague and appeal to remote fears.

Nonsense. It has extremely concrete manifestations in business owners in Dearborn who contribute to Hezbollah, protesters in Europe with signs calling for the downfall of democracy, and instance after instance of young Muslims who get radicalized at the local mosque, which their parents wouldn't even have been attending if they were not at least tolerant of terrorism and the imams who promote it. Another instance is the celebration of 9/11, etc., among Muslims, which has been documented again and again.

I don't think you take my point at all about the Holy Land. It was simply the non-comparability of Islam as a religion of conquest and Judaism as a religion of conquest.

Jumping over a point, Christians and Jews are referred to as "people of the book" within the Koran.

Jonathan, the Islamic posture toward "people of the book" is that, unlike atheists and pagans, they can retain their lives and homes if they evermore acknowledge of complete sovereignty of Islam. The doctrine of dhimma, also dating from the primitive origins of the faith, evident in virtually all the great scholars, all four Islam legal schools, and put into practice by virtually every Islamic regime that ever ruled, can be properly thought of as Jim Crow for infidels. It is a legal code erected to establish the subjugation and humiliation of whole peoples, to deprive them of liberty and drive their children away from the faith of their fathers. That liberals and other fools have presented this scheme as an instance of "tolerance" is just the kind of craven whitewashing which we are dedicated to fighting tooth and nail here at this site.

Lydia:
First, Hezbollah is a political organization as much rooted in nationalistic tendencies as religious fervor. Regardless, an isolated example in Dearborn, Michigan hardly proves a point that every Muslim supports Jihad. Feel free to read back a couple posts where we agreed that the vast majority opposes terrorism. Second, democracy is a political system. I'm not even sure how that fits into what you're saying. Third, please take a visit to your local mosque and extend this dialogue.

And conquest is a basic human tendency (see Han China, the Monguls, the Huns, the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantines, the Aztecs). Jews went through a period of conquest, though it was cut short by stronger forces.

I'll respond to Paul when I have more time, assuming y'all are still interested in carrying on this interesting conversation.

Jonathan:

It's wonderful that you want to seek common ground with Muslims. But they don't want to seek common ground with you. They want you to seek common ground with them, but not vice versa: they want you to submit to Islam. When Muslims say they want to get along with other religions, that's like when Democrats say they want to be bi-partisan. What Democrats and Muslims mean by these statements is that they want their adversaries to stop being adversaries and join them.

Here are a few representative quotations from the Koran to help you out:

Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Seize them, confine them, lie in wait for them in every place of ambush. (Sura 9:5)

Believers! Do not befriend your fathers or your brothers or your sons if they choose unbelief in preference to belief in Allah. (Sura 9:22)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah, those who do not forbid what Allah and his apostle have forbidden, fight them until they pay tribute to the believers and are utterly subdued. (Sura 9:29)

Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are merciless towards the unbelievers but kind to each other. (Sura 48:29)

O Unbelievers! We renounce you. Enmity and hatred will reign between us until you believe in Allah alone. (Sura 60:4)

Most Muslims, to be sure, are not ready to up and go to war with us. Most of them just want to get on with their lives. But this is true of all societies; few people in any society decide to be warriors. So what? If a society is at war with us, it will be the warriors who do the fighting. So the question is not whether most Muslims qua individuals are at war with us, because in any case most of them will not be. Nor is the question whether we are, or should be, at war with Islam. The question is whether Islam is at war with us. And if 1400 years of Muslim wars of aggression on infidels, its conquest of over half of Christendom, the persecution and extirpation of Christianity within dar al Islam, the Koranic injunctions to jihad, and the outspoken hatred of Muslims for Christians and Jews, and their rejoicing at our discomfiture and death, do not suffice to show that Islam is at war with us, what _would_ suffice? The nuclear immolation of Rome and Tel Aviv? What would it take to convince you?

You may argue that Islam is not at war with us, despite what Muslims say and do. But this is rather like arguing, circa 1943, that Germany and Japan were not at war with us, despite their declarations of war, their depredations on our shipping, and their attacks on our territory.

Jonathan, I'm glad you find the conversation interesting. Some of us may have a different view of the character of a "conversation" where one side is engaging in such wanton misrepresentation as this: "an isolated example in Dearborn, Michigan hardly proves a point that every Muslim supports Jihad" (emphasis added).

Up until now you have not evidenced tendentiousness of this sort, so I prefer to chalk that one up to a rushed comment. But please refrain from that kind of crude abbreviation of your interlocutors' arguments in the future.

we agreed that the vast majority opposes terrorism.

I didn't. And wouldn't. This is far more than I know or would agree with. My standards for opposing terrorism are pretty high, by the way. Spencer has had a lot of good posts on the taqiyya-ridden "condemnations" issued by Muslims, by the way.

First I believe I needed to respond to Paul's earlier post on dhimma. "It is a legal code erected to establish the subjugation and humiliation of whole peoples, to deprive them of liberty and drive their children away from the faith of their fathers." I see a grand irony in advocating for deportation or conversion of Muslims and then lamenting the policy of dhimma. Additionally, the policy of dhimma is necessarily tied to a political entity. The practice of Islam is not tied to a political entity. I'm not trying to "whitewash" over a historical occurrence, but it is no longer practiced in the modern Muslim world and hasn't been since the Ottomans.

Kristor: If you would, refer back a ways where I explained the decentralization of authority in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The religion as a whole is not at war. There doesn't exist a body with the authority to declare war. The analogy of Japan and Germany is ridiculous considering both are nations with absolute leaders. I would also encourage you to travel to a mosque and speak with real Muslims. If you treat them with due respect, I'm sure you'd find that they aren't at war with your religion.

I apologize for my rushed response. I was merely trying to point out a logical inconsistency in that a single empirical example, though fine for illustration, doesn't create a truth statement.

High standards should be expected of everyone when fighting terrorism, I agree. Many Muslims are participating in this fight like the Afghan, Pakistani, and Turkish soldiers who risk their lives alongside Americans and Brits. Again, sorry for making an assertion in haste. I may not have convinced you that most Muslims oppose terrorism, but 90% don't claim to have extremist interpretations of the Koran.

Jonathan, you seem to be arguing that because there is no central Muslim body with the legal authority to declare and organize war against us, and because only about 10% of Muslims are involved in and support the war against us, therefore the Muslim war against us is OK. Do you, in fact, think that the current Muslim war against the West is OK? If so, then how would it be unjust to characterize you as a traitor? If not, what's the problem with our waging war right back, as lethally as we possibly can? If the 90% of Muslims who want nothing to do with the war against the West don't like it when we make war back at Islam, let them decapitate Osama et al. forthwith, and hurriedly proffer terms of abject surrender.

I didn't mean to say that Islam is like Germany and Japan. [Of course it isn't! For one thing, we could force all Muslim nations to the point of total economic collapse in a month or two, if we really wanted to do it. This whole "intractable conflict in the Middle East" is intractable only because we keep pussy-footing around and procrastinating and trying to prevent the most recent war of Islam against the West - the one that started in 1948 - from finishing. As we showed in the two Gulf Wars, the Muslims aren't even paper tigers. Germany and Japan were another matter altogether; much tougher foes than the Muslims.] I meant to say that our situation vis-a-vis Islam today is like our situation vis-a-vis the Axis in 1943: our enemy has declared himself as such, has committed acts of war against us, has attacked our transportation system and our territory. An avowed ememy is at war with us. Why is this so hard to get?

And here's the thing, the bloody awful ugly thing: when an enemy has made war upon you, you have only two alternatives: lie down and die, or force him to do so. We are right now in a mealy-mouthed, weasel-worded predicament because we cannot admit to the fact that we have an enemy, and name him forthrightly, while remaining politically correct. And this hamstrings our war effort; confuses it with a humanitarian relief effort. Islam is at war with us. It behooves us, if we want to survive, not to succor and help Muslim nations, not to build their roads and sewage systems, but to destroy them, so as to bring that culture to its knees. Islam hates us and wants to destroy our culture; so we _can't_ truly make friends with Islam.

I know perfectly well that individual Muslims are mostly fine people. So are liberals. I've known a few Muslims, and a ton of liberals, and they were all good folks. That's beside the point, because it does not change the fact that their doctrines are death dealing, are fatal to my culture, and must therefore be stopped.

The ironic thing is that if the West got up off its rear end and spanked the Muslims and the liberals, and brought those two false doctrines to ruin, their former advocates would then find themselves better off than they now are.

Please understand, I don't mean to accuse Jonathan of treason. I mean to point out only that agreement of any sort with a war upon one's homeland is not different from treason. I mean only to point to the black snake now coiled on the coffee table of our national living room.

I see a grand irony in advocating for deportation or conversion of Muslims and then lamenting the policy of dhimma.

This is another slipshod remark that verges on calumny. Jonathan, let me warn again you that our patience here is not infinite. Unless you can quote me as advocating a policy of (1) unqualified deportation of Muslims qua Muslims and (2) coerced conversion of Muslims, you are hereby asked to retract your perceived "grand irony," which was actually a figment of a thwarted imagination.

Now, it is fair to say that I have favored policies of (1a) general deportation of illegal immigrants, and (2a) a private and personal policy (derived from such obscure injunctions as Christ's Great Commission) of conversion by persuasion; but these two things have about as much in common with the dhimma as chalk does cheese.

I'm not trying to "whitewash" over a historical occurrence [the dhimma], but it is no longer practiced in the modern Muslim world and hasn't been since the Ottomans.

False. Perniciously false. Indeed, I regard such as statement as on the level, morally, of someone saying in 1950, "there is no discrimination against Negroes in the South, and hasn't been since the 19th century." Please educate yourself before persisting in such obscenities. A careful conversation with any Orthodox Christian will surely clear this matter up. The Vatican can provide ample evidence of the yoke of despotism and humiliation endured by Catholics in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Kristor, I don't believe Muslims who are at war with the US are just. I don't believe I had made any claims that border on treason. You asked that the 90% of Muslims who are not extremists surrender to the West. What basis do you establish this obligation on? Does every Muslim have a positive moral obligation to do everything in their power to help the West? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this website was aligned strongly against liberalism. The justification to demand that Muslims do everything in their power to help an outside group is the same that justifies liberal domestic policy. You also said that "if the West got up off its rear end and spanked the Muslims and the liberals, and brought those two false doctrines to ruin, their former advocates would then find themselves better off than they now are." I believe this statement is contradicted when you state the need to destroy them: "if we want to survive, not to succor and help Muslim nations, not to build their roads and sewage systems, but to destroy them". I'd appreciate some clarification on how a cultures destruction would put them in a better situation than they are now. What builds strong, peaceful nations is mutual respect and economic development. When the US identified Cuba as an ideological enemy of the state and cut off trade and political ties, we naively expected them to cave to our will and enter the fold of Democracy. Democracy and freedom don't work like magic. This is the crux of why I reject the statement that Islam is at war with the West. Not all of Islam is at war with us. Falling back into a defensive position eliminates the possibility of economic and political developments that would boost the well being of the US and Middle-East. If you'd like empirical examples I'd be happy to explain a few.

Paul, the irony I was trying to point out was in regards to the entire demeanor of this thread. Characterizing all Muslims as a foreign other at war with the West and then lamenting the past in which Muslims saw Jews and Christians as foreign is ironic. I believe Jonathan R. first advocated for deportation and Kristor has demanded the destruction of Islamic culture. The irony I saw was in this thread as a whole, not an internal inconsistency in your arguments, Paul. Saying that dhimma as practiced by a political body ended with the Ottomans is like saying the poll tax ended with the 24th Amendment. I never claimed absolute compassion and equality exists within the Muslim world today. I don't believe it exists anywhere.

Paul, the irony I was trying to point out was in regards to the entire demeanor of this thread . . . The irony I saw was in this thread as a whole, not an internal inconsistency in your arguments, Paul.

That's total bunk. Here are your own words:

First I believe I needed to respond to Paul's earlier post on dhimma. "It is a legal code erected to establish the subjugation and humiliation of whole peoples, to deprive them of liberty and drive their children away from the faith of their fathers." I see a grand irony in advocating for deportation or conversion of Muslims and then lamenting the policy of dhimma.

Emphasis added. Next:

Saying that dhimma as practiced by a political body ended with the Ottomans is like saying the poll tax ended with the 24th Amendment.

No, it's like saying the poll tax ended with the 1st Amendment; in other words, a complete falsehood. The dhimma perdured beyond the Ottomans and exists today. To say otherwise is to stand on flat-out ignorance as a defense for perpetuating lies.

This grows tiresome, Jonathan.

Characterizing all Muslims as a foreign other at war with the West and then lamenting the past in which Muslims saw Jews and Christians as foreign is ironic.

Yeah, never mind the little matter of, you know, truth.

I don't wish to jump into the middle of a conversation, but I find the lack of sincerity on the part of "Jonathan" to be distributing. Instead of confronting the Islamic doctrines of jihad and dhimmitude, he brushes them aside with moral relativism and outright denial. I find his denial of modern policies of dhimmitude to be both ignorant and dangerous. The fact of the matter is that the policies of dhimmitude are alive and well across the Muslim world. Perhaps Christians and other non-Muslim minorities have to come and pay the jizyah (though even this practice has not been abandoned), but Christians most certainly live as humiliated second-class citizens in Muslim countries. The Coptic Christians in Egypt cannot build new churches, and the large populations of immigrant Christian laborers in Saudi Arabia likewise cannot build churches or conduct any sort of open Christian religious services, all the while the Saudi government spends hundreds of millions to build mosques and Islamic schools across Europe and North America. Even in secular, modern Turkey (often held up as the example of moderate Islam) the ancient Greek Orthodox Christian population faces religious discrimination for Turkish authorities, of which the Patriarch of Constantinople recently complained. One could easily spend all day providing numerous examples of such practices in Kosovo, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Palestinian territories, and elsewhere in the Muslim world.

"Jonathan" demonstrates much ignorance about Islamic doctrine, jurisprudence, and history. I would encourage him to abandon his sophistry and actually engage in a thorough study of Islam and its history. If he needs recommendations for reading material I can provided him (as I'm sure the writers at this site can) with many excellent titles to start with.

A clarification on my part. I wrote:

Perhaps Christians and other non-Muslim minorities have to come and pay the jizyah...

It should have read:

Perhaps Christians and other non-Muslim minorities no longer have to come and pay the jizyah...

I apologize for the error.

I think it's extremely clear that Jonathan will find a way to explain away all evidence brought. For example, a reference to Hezbollah gets the astonishingly irrelevant response that it is a _political_ organization. How convenient. If every Muslim terrorist group can be called "political," we can then pretend that the "Muslim" part is irrelevant. If one points out support for said groups among whole populations (e.g., Dearborn Muslim immigrants), this is said to be an "isolated" example, though it directly illustrates the problem of Muslim support for terrorism even among supposedly "ordinary" Muslims who are just living their lives and who probably are not considered to be part of that "10%" Jonathan is so concerned to emphasize. And so on and so forth. One has only to read the archives of Jihad Watch over the past few years to get an education on these matters, but Jonathan is uninterested and would, if he made any stab at doing it, no doubt dismiss every bit of evidence piecemeal--this thing is "isolated," that thing is "political," the other thing probably just represents a "minority." And he tells us his motive: He thinks it's *bad to think* that Islam is dangerous and alien. It's "wrongthought," so he won't think it, evidence notwithstanding. To believe this--even if it happens to be true--would be, he thinks, be similar to the thought processes that brought about dhimma status on the other side. We _must_ seek common ground with Muslims; we _must_ believe it is possible. So that is what Jonathan is determined to believe.

This means that it is really a waste of time to give him evidence. Casting pearls and all that.

The ironic thing is that if the West got up off its rear end and spanked the Muslims and the liberals, and brought those two false doctrines to ruin, their former advocates would then find themselves better off than they now are.

So the problem with Muslims is not that some of them are reactionary militants. If they were secular liberals they would still be infidels listed on your plans for ruin. Fortunately your view is a minority and getting smaller everyday.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/233607

Step2, no the problem with Muslims is not that some of them are reactionary militants, but that their religion enjoins violent jihad, so that at any point in time some of them will _quite naturally_ be jihadim. The more devout Muslims are, the more likely they are therefore to be jihadim, ceteris paribus. And, the more vibrant and compelling the Muslim faith is to more people, the greater the absolute number Muslims there will be, and the more devout the average Muslim, and therefore the greater the number of jihadim we'll have to suffer. And vice versa: the weaker and less compelling the Muslim faith, the less attractive and influential it will be, and the fewer the number of jihadim.

I'm not advocating ruining people, but doctrines. Most of the spanking that needs to be done involves words, rather than cruise missiles. If we can just start calling spades "spades" most of the liberal edifice will fall apart. E.g., call enemies "enemies" and traitors "traitors." But a few cruise missiles carefully placed could bring a quasi-modern nation to its knees very quickly, and something like that will probably be needed in order to prick the balloon of Islam for the citizens of those nations.

If you read my sentence that you quoted with a bit more care, you'll see that it argues that the _actual human beings_ who are now enemies or traitors to the West will likely experience an improvement in their overall long-term welfare, concomitant with the devolution of their adherence to the pernicious doctrines they espouse. That's what happens when you switch from basing your life on falsehoods to running it in closer accord with the truth.

Jonathan, there is no contradiction between destroying a nation-state as an organization and improving the welfare of the people formerly its subjects. When the USSR fell, the Russians began to have better lives than before. The destruction of an evil, false nation-state will indeed impose an economic cost upon its subjects, but this is the case for any improvement in life; all improvements impose upon their beneficiaries the necessity of some capital investment, which necessarily reduces their expenditures on consumption in the short term (though not in the long term).

I didn't ask that the 90% of Muslims who are not jihadists surrender to the West. And I came nowhere near suggesting that they had some moral obligation to do so. You should read more carefully. I said that such surrender is among their options, should we decide to make real war upon the 10%, which would necessarily impose collateral costs upon the 90%, at least in terms of their short-term economic welfare. If we were to do such a thing, the 90% could obtain quick relief from the difficulties of living in a war-torn land by deposing their overlords both civil and religious, and surrendering to us.

You revert to the argument that "not all Islam is at war with us" as justification for a policy of rapprochement and friendship with Islam. But no enemy is a monolith. Most of Germany and Japan were not at war with us; most Germans and Japanese were tending gardens, selling shoes, stocking shelves, and so forth. This did not mean that Germany and Japan were not at war with us; it does not mean that we would have been wiser to invest money and blood in rebuilding the German sewer systems even as we sought to destroy the Wehrmacht. Your argument fails abjectly.

Kristor,
Here's the thing, if you were trying to empower the jihadim, it is hard to imagine what could be a more convenient plan, because they have shown themselves to be most effective at operating in failed states. They are also committed to violent opposition to modernism, equality, and other liberal norms, which is why I thought it was strange indeed to suggest that liberal doctrines should also become targets. Your plan is about as well thought out as the jihadim, who fall into an uncomfortable silence when questioned about what happens after their glorious revolution. I think your central mistake is equating terrorist attacks by outlaws to acts of war by a state, which does have legal authority to commit its subjects to war.

"But a few cruise missiles carefully placed could bring a quasi-modern nation to its knees very quickly, and something like that will probably be needed in order to prick the balloon of Islam for the citizens of those nations."

And what are these states that we nuke? Be specific, please.

Lydia and Paul: Treating my rebuttals with pejorative remarks doesn't strengthen your framework of arguments.

Daniel: Is it necessary to put my name in quotation marks? I'm not sure what you're trying to convey with that. Confusion aside, the burden of proof is on you to show why Islam, as a faith (not a political body, sect, or otherwise) but as a whole entity is at war with the West and why it must be regarded as an enemy. I've reiterated the subjectivity of faith several times, and I feel it suffices as an answer to your overall argument. If that's not enough Step2 provided you with a very good link.

Kristor: Had the West destroyed the USSR, Moscow would still be covered in nuclear fallout. Gradual reforms beginning in the 70s coupled with a failing economy brought about a peaceful regime change. Military action on the part of the US would have been devastating. But I like this metaphor you've chosen. The best way for a people to resolve their problems is through peaceful change not imposed by an outside force. Physical coercion tends to make a mess at things. Further, in the middle of your post you said " didn't ask that the 90% of Muslims who are not jihadists surrender to the West. And I came nowhere near suggesting that they had some moral obligation to do so." So I think you would be fine with a plan that involved Western cooperation with 90% of Muslims to remove the radicalized 10% and return autonomy to moderate Muslims. I think that is a fair middle ground between our stances, don't you? It respects Americans' right to be free from terrorism and their right to maintain religious freedom as long as they don't turn to violence.

Lydia: If I failed to address any piece of evidence you've provided I apologize for letting down my rigor of debate. I'm trying to hold myself to a high standard. If you wish to change my mind though, you'll have to address the moral framework I've been working within that started way back when discussing the myth of a "chief rabbi". You can call my beliefs "wrong-though" when you have proven that. I'd ideally like to reach a common ground as I feel I have with Kristor. Common ground (with Christians, Muslims, or Jews) ends prejudice and begins cooperative discourse.

You can call my beliefs "wrong-though" when you have proven that.

You are inattentive, as you have been before. I am saying that _you_ would consider it "wrongthought" to accept that you are _completely and totally wrong_ about Islam and that seeking common ground with Islam is a _bad idea_. Hence, you explain evidence away rather than risk changing your mind.

That it is totally pointless to argue with you is evident from, inter alia, your insistence that Islam as a "faith" must somehow be considered separately from Islamic "political bodies," a distinction that is _not there_ in Islam. This artificial and false-to-reality distinction enables you illicitly to dismiss counterevidence left and right. Why bother even debating you, at that point?

I find the "but liberal Muslims condemn this philosophy of hate" argument to be particularly annoying in the face of the Islamic tradition of taqiyya, which is basically an institutionalized understanding that one may lie or misrepresent oneself to defend Islam.
They are religiously bound to misrepresent themselves in order to not harm Islam as an institution.

I'm trying to hold myself to a high standard.

You're doing a miserable job. Right now I consider your standard -- based only, of course, on what I've seen in this thread -- to be on the level of an apologist for Jim Crow. The claim that the dhimma is no longer practiced began as a piece of sand-pounding ignorance, but still an easily remedied one. To persist in it once corrected, however, is truly despicable. The dhimma is practiced all over the Islamic world (including, to our disgrace as Americans, in pockets of Iraq); to dismiss or deny, out of some misplaced pining for "common ground" and "cooperation," the plight of these people, groaning under Islamic tyranny, is loathsome.

There is also the matter of your manifest misrepresentations, including the claim (amply contradicted by the portions of your comments I previously quoted) that when you leveled accusations at me you actually had in mind "he entire demeanor of this thread." Perhaps (who can say?) you did have that demeanor in mind; in which case you chose your actual words very, very poorly; and simple fairness and good sense would suggest that this be acknowledged and guarded against in the future.

Lydia: I didn't mean to make a typo. Sorry. But, using adjectives like "completely" and "totally" doesn't give your arguments more validity. Additionally, Islam can be and has been separated from political institutions. There are mosques within the United States. They are not tied to a political body. They do not have to have ties to any political body. They can still be called Muslims. So its a true-to-reality distinction that has to be taken into account especially when evaluating absolutist statements such as your own.

Bill: I'm not sure how your argument fits in to what I'm saying. But, I'd say that lying, while bad, isn't necessarily hateful.

Paul: I'm sorry that you've misinterpreted my arguments and labeled me a Jim Crow apologist. I'd prefer not to be villainized like this, but I can handle some name calling. The argument itself was that a legal code of dhimma doesn't exist to the extent it once did. Sure, political equality still exists, and discrimination. These things have existed and do exist throughout most of the world. I explained this before. I also previously clarified the irony I saw. I'll see that I am more precise with my language from henceforth. I would like to hear a response to the point itself though. And the attack on my standards of debate. Refer to the sentence before the one you quoted. I was referring to the rigor of my debate: ensuring that I respond to each argument.

I regret that this thread has taken a turn towards diversionary tactics. Personal attacks at my rhetorical skill have distracted the debate from the issue of whether or not the religion of Islam is at war with the West. My primary contention that I has yet to be refuted is that religious authority is subjective and therefore an entire religion can't be said to be at war. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are based on old scriptures which are up for interpretation (remember, every punctuation in the Torah can create a volume of interpretations). Only unconditional arguments hold any weight against this contention. Up until now, I haven't read anything that proves that Islam is at war with the west categorically true. Other important things to consider would be the artificial geographic boundaries of today hardly lend themselves to creating a "fortress" against Islam. Also, conquest is nonunique to Islam. Rulers like acquiring more land no matter who they pray to.

Typo: "that has yet to be refuted"
I caught that one.

There are mosques within the United States. They are not tied to a political body. They do not have to have ties to any political body.

And you are extremely ignorant about what Islam is, so you really have no idea at all what you are talking about--for existence, sharia is an entire system of society, including political laws, and any good Muslim is supposed to try to move toward a world governed by sharia. Hence, while a mosque isn't an entity, formally, of any particular government, insofar as it teaches Islam at all, it is teaching a political philosophy of conquest, subjugation, and the establishment of sharia law. This has been amply documented, but you don't want to know that.

My primary contention that I has yet to be refuted is that religious authority is subjective and therefore an entire religion can't be said to be at war.

Rubbish. A religion can _clearly teach_ conquest, subjugation, and the establishment of religious law. "Is subjective" does not mean that the term "black" can mean "white" or that texts can mean anything whatsoever. There is a good reason why jihadists say that they represent or have discovered the true Islam.

I didn't label you a Jim Crow apologist. I don't know you from Adam. I labeled the character of your denials of the dhimma comparable to apologias for Jim Crow.

The argument itself was that a legal code of dhimma doesn't exist to the extent it once did.

This is an example of precisely why this thread has been derailed by what you call diversionary tactics but the rest of us see as basic matters of clarity and fair play, which have to be established before conversation can commence.

The argument was absolutely, emphatically not "that a legal code of dhimma doesn't exist to the extent it once did." This nonsense on stilts, and not a little insulting to our intelligence. Do you think we have forgotten that you wrote, "[dhmma] is no longer practiced in the modern Muslim world and hasn't been since the Ottomans" and "Saying that dhimma as practiced by a political body ended with the Ottomans is like saying the poll tax ended with the 24th Amendment"?

Readers can check for themselves as to how your earlier statements comport with this new and convenient "to the extent it once did" qualification.

Also, this is no a matter of "attacks on rhetorical skill"; it is a matter of doing justice to the views of your opponents, rather than commencing with sloppy, transparent elisions and misrepresentations.

Jonathan, in the hopes that this unpleasant business can be put behind us, let me say this: This website has been around for going on three years in its present incarnation, and a further two or three in a previous one. With all due respect, we have all heard these arguments innumerable times, in wondrous variety of specifics. We try to be patient, but the fact is that having to revisit the well-trod ground on scriptural moral equivalence, on hieratic structures or lack thereof, on religion being subjective, on the Inquisition, on "people of the book," on the felt horror at facing facts about Islam, etc -- well, the prospect of it, at times, just fatigues me, as I'm sure it does the regulars here.

As Lydia has indicated, most of us suspect that there is really not much we can do here. The liberal mind on the subject of Islam is often simply incorrigible; no weight of evidence, nor depth of scholarship, can dislodge it from the illusions to which it clings.

The Torah has a detailed system of laws to live by and create a political body. I don't care to create a new Jewish Kingdom as prescribed by the Torah. I'm more concerned with moral lessons learned from scripture relevant to life today. That's what any modern form of religion can hope to achieve. "There is a good reason why jihadists say that they represent or have discovered the true Islam." Because every follower of a religion would think this.

I wonder if in the past three years you have always been as arrogant in assuming your position to be infallible. I'm still waiting for a categorical response. If someone could do that for me, I may walk away from this experience with respect for another viewpoint. Otherwise, I'm afraid you too suffer from a bizarre need to see the world in absolutes. Your attitude of "with me or against me" is dangerous and build upon logical fallacies. "No weight of evidence, nor depth of scholarship, can dislodge it from the illusions to which it clings." Your evidence thus far hasn't held wait. Even if x,y,z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g are Muslims and x,y,z,a,b,c,d,e,f,g hate freedom and Jews and Christians and apple pie and capitalism, you have failed at deductive reasoning. With no a priori argumentation, you have established nothing beyond a near sighted attempt to label an enemy that you want to exist but may not.

Whatever your motivation be for mistrusting the Islamic faith, I appreciate the time and effort you've put into this thread. I'm writing an essay about xenophobia and discrimination in the 21st century and this experience has provided quite a few interesting insights. I suppose the grandest irony in all of this (reference intended) is that I could probably hold a conversation similar to this with a Muslim or a Jew about how the other faith is out to get them. It's disheartening.

Oops, weight, not wait.

Ha! It's all been a "conservatives in the mist" enterprise. I might have known.

al: who said anything about nukes?

I've reiterated the subjectivity of faith several times, and I feel it suffices as an answer to your overall argument.

I'm sure the assorted victims of Islamic jihad can take comfort in the notion that their attackers' faith is subjective. Sarcasm aside, traditional Islam presents a specific set of doctrines related to establishing the politically supremacy of Islam and the institution of shari'ah over non-Muslims via military jihad. This is clearly outlined in the Qur'an, the hadith (sayings and anecdotes) of Muhammad, and over a thousand years of standard Muslim jurisprudence (both Sunni and Shi'ite). Muslims believe these doctrines to be perpetually binding until the end of time.

As to the claim that most Muslims are only nominal in their faith and thus not inclined to jihad, this is a moot point. They are this way despite their faith, not because it and we have seen all too many instances of nominal Muslim getting religion and joining the jihad caravan. Likewise we see those who while failing to pick up the banner of jihad themselves cover for those who do (and this would include "moderate" Muslim groups like CAIR trying to bully those who discuss the link between Islamic doctrine and jihad terrorism). I would also note that many of these "moderate" Muslims have taken up the cause of cultural jihad, in which they intimidate or dupe Western institutions into giving Muslims a special status and even giving deference to the shari'ah in many instances. Islamic scholar Robert Spencer keeps track of this at his indispensable Jihad Watch website.

It is understandable that non-Muslims want to think the Islamic institutions like jihad and dhimmitude are "perversions" of some original, moderate, humanist Islam, but the facts just don't bare that out. We must acknowledge Islam for what it is and not what we wish it were.

Of course Jonathan, I don't think you are acting in good faith here, but have assumed a priori in accordance with your liberal worldview that Islam is peaceful at its core. Again, I suggest you stop arguing about something of which you clearly have little, if any, knowledge about and go take a thorough study of Islam.

There are mosques within the United States. They are not tied to a political body. They do not have to have ties to any political body.

What an utterly ignorant statement devoid of any truth or grounding in reality. A good many mosques in North America are operated by Muslims connected to the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi sponsored Wahhabism. You can read what Muslim Brotherhood operative Mohamed Akram said about the Brotherhood's agenda in the US:

Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims' causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims' efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic state, wherever it is.

...and...

In order for Islam and its Movement to become "a part of the homeland" in which it lives, "stable" in its land, "rooted" in the spirits and minds of its people, "enabled" in the live [sic] of its society and has firmly-established "organizations" on which the Islamic structure is built and with which the testimony of civilization is achieved, the Movement must plan and struggle to obtain "the keys" and the tools of this process in carry [sic] out this grand mission as a "Civilization Jihadist" responsibility which lies on the shoulders of Muslims and – on top of them – the Muslim Brotherhood in this country.

...and...

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Proecess" with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who chose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.

The fact of the matter is that numerous mosques in North America (and Europe) are connected to political bodies such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and many of those that aren't still promote the political ideology inherent in Islamic doctrine.

Congratulations Daniel, you've found quotations from the Muslim Brotherhood, a political group which maintains a minority status across the Arab world. Remember when I asked for a categorical response? A quote from a single person falls short. Establish for me how a religion, a collection of beliefs that exist within the conscious of over a billion people, can be labeled as you wish. Your burden of proof is simply unattainable. I can make all sorts of concessions on places where Islam has done bad things. I'm looking for some solid deductive reasoning, not some perverse proof by induction. Please provide.

Oh, please. Okay, everybody, let's ignore this guy. He's admitting that no evidence that could be brought could convince him. Presumably quotations from the Koran and Hadiths as well would not convince him, either, because he would simply say that any interpretation is "subjective." And inductive evidence, no matter how sweeping, to the meaning of Islam and the intentions of Muslims towards us and the West, is in his view "perverse." What a waste.

Good job, Daniel.

He's admitting that no evidence that could be brought could convince him. Presumably quotations from the Koran and Hadiths as well would not convince him, either, because he would simply say that any interpretation is "subjective."

I read him rather as saying that a 1500 year old religion with 1.5 billion adherents is likely going to have more than one tradition that can plausibly claim to be the correct one. It's not ultimately important what the Koran and the Hadiths say, just as the totality of Christian beliefs can't be defined by quoting the Bible. Rather, what's important is what the political and religious elites believe. And that's where Jonathan's argument falters, because with few exceptions they do not take what could remotely be called a 'moderate' position on Islam. The problem with 'moderate' (really 'modernist' or 'liberal') Islam is not it doesn't exist, but rather that it has no political clout in the majority of the muslim world. Claims by some that Islam can't be modernized, that this or that passage in the Koran precludes it, are easily debunked--just look at Christianity. Christians are all too willing to ignore the Bible when it comes to maintaining relevancy; at this point Christians who don't do this are downright reactionary. Unless you view muslims as a separate species that don't behave like all the other humans, it's reasonable to suppose that Islam will eventually morph as well, though perhaps not along identical lines. In any case, this can only come from within the Muslim world...it can't be engineered by the West.

Not only is "Jonathan" giving us the Conservatives in the Mist treatment, he wants us to do his homework for him!

Well, I suppose it would be churlish to not even provide a text or two:

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Jihad-Islamic-Holy-Non-Muslims/dp/1591026024/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267119135&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Islamic-Imperialism-Professor-Efraim-Karsh/dp/0300122632/ref=pd_sim_b_1

Matt Weber, please: Christianity and Islam do not start from even _remotely_ similar positions. If you are implying that they do, you are showing your ignorance as well. There is _no_ mandate of conquest and domination in the origins of Christianity _at all_, _nothing_ comparable to sharia law, etc. Has Christianity "morphed"? Sure, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But it started at a totally different place.

"al: who said anything about nukes?"

You did. A few missiles armed wih conventional warheads are unlikely to bring any nation to its knees. You may not have intended that but experience, from WWII to our present conflicts, clearly shows that a reliance on massive airpower won't defeat anyone. That requires boots on the ground. Reflect please on what decisive air strikes in Hawaii and New York did to break the will of the American people or what "shock and awe" did to break the will of the Iraqis.

In the Pacific theater small isolated islands were pounded with 5" to 16" naval guns as well as air power and we still needed the Marines.

With all respect many of the posters possibly take Islam so literally because they take Christianity so seriously themselves. Polls I have seen show a greater variability amongst Muslims then some posters are willing to allow. What saved the West was that folks started taking religion less seriously over the past few hundred years (a couple hundred years of religious wars will do that). Jewish experience has been similar. Note how the settler folks in Israel who take the fee title from God thing seriously are going to destroy that nation.

The commenter who wanted to persecute Muslims AND "liberals" is perhaps more a sign of a problem then a solution. If the model of the W4 folks is correct then we face a bleak future in which we have to kill a lot of people. If the correct model is more along the lines of the Cold War and containment (a liberal strategy, recall - one that worked) then we butch up for a few decades while we wait for the corrosive effects of modernity to tame Islam as it did to Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity and Islam don't need to be identical for me to compare them.

Al, we can't "contain" anything as long as we are allowing free-flowing Muslim immigration. Stopping that is where I'd start.

Yes, Matt, and apples and aerobics don't need to be identical for me to compare them, either. As in, they both exist. In some sense of "exist." Next similarity?

al: rubbish. Conventional weapons could do the job nicely. E.g.: Iran has 1 oil refinery. Couple conventional warheads on that, and they'd run short of gasoline pretty quick.

Your comparison between the Japanese and the Iraqis is instructive, because the analogy between the two cases is not good. The Japanese were much tougher fighters than the Muslims, who generally collapse the minute things start going badly for them, and who don't seem to be able to organize things very well. And we were using dumb weapons on the Japanese. The Japanese were dug into those islands to a degree never seen in warfare, before or since. Finally, shock and awe did indeed gut Iraqi morale; when we began our invasion, they were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, and no way to communicate. Their units evaporated. I recall the story of one Iraqi colonel who was operating an artillery piece all by himself when we destroyed his weapon.

It took us years to beat the Japanese. It took only 21 days for us to conquer Iraq and eradicate the 4th largest military apparatus in the world. You will recall that at the end of those 21 days, Syria was quaking in its boots, and Libya voluntarily dropped its nuclear program.

But in any case I'm not suggesting invasions are the way to go. Too expensive, and tiresome to the electorate. All we need to do is keep them so busy repairing their own sewage systems and bridges and power plants that they have no time or money left over to spend on war by proxy. Keep them destabilized long enough, and exposure to the relative success of the West will more and more disincline them to any very fervent moral commitment to the fundamental organizing principles of their societies, i.e., to Islam. Apostasy could then spread. Apostasy from Islam is the only long term way to solve this problem. And such profound shifts in culture are not abnormal. Look what's happened to the West in the last 100 years!

I'm the one you think wants to "persecute Muslims and liberals." I said explicitly that I don't want to destroy people, but rather doctrines. And the simple fact is that if you read what I have written, I never mentioned nukes. You really need to start reading more carefully.

No argument that a strategy of containment of Islam would be better than our current policy of propping up failed Muslim states all over the place, and admitting their fifth columnists to our lands without limit. We _really_ need to butch up. But no chance of that until we muster enough guts at least to name our enemies as such. Has there been a single US politician other than Colonel West who has even dared to name the enemy?

The relevant similarity was that both religions have commandments in their scriptures; nothing more. Christianity has decided to ignore many of its commandments so as to stay with the times, but some conservatives insist that Islam will never compromise in this manner. I see no reason to believe this, especially since Islam has hardly remained static for its entire existence.

It's also worth asking whether the jihadis pose any kind of military threat to the US that justifies, say, continuous bombardment of the Middle East. I'm not sure how a person could answer 'yes' or even begin to justify the proportionality of such a response. We aren't locked in some existential struggle with these guys, so why pretend we are?

If the correct model is more along the lines of the Cold War and containment

Al, I don't have a problem with the containment model. I think it has plenty to recommend to it -- supposing you don't get to pick a chose what it entails and still claim the mantle of Cold War model. That model included an almost blanket ban on Communist immigrants, save defectors. It included all the domestic apparatus of anti-sedition, like HUAC, the Smith Act, the McCarran Act and that law proscribing Communists and fellow-travelers in the diplomatic service.

You may not be aware of this, but a supermajority of contributors and former contributors here at What's Wrong with the World opposed the Iraq war, and most every other imperialist project cooked up by other factions on the Right. Most of us are deeply ambivalent about American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.

Lydia, ignoring my arguments doesn't make them disappear. I've gone over all of your quotes and evidence, but you have to put it into a logical framework for me, otherwise there's no way to evaluate the argument. When I ask for a categorical proof, I do so with good reason. If you'd had some logical training, you'd know that proof by induction only works on defined sets (like the natural numbers). Proof by induction is worthless when examining Islam, which is a dense set (like irrational numbers). What's a waste is throwing inductive evidence at me because even if you give me 1,000,000 examples, the set of possible examples is infinite. In calculus terms, the limit of 1,000,000 over infinity approaches zero. Now do you understand why your logical framework is unsatisfactory to me?

Paul, I'd love to do some reading, but at this moment I'm totally swamped. But, maybe you could give me the categorical answer I've been looking for.

Paul, your advocacy would create what equates to a real life Thought Police. You can't control an immigrant's conscious. Your options would be cease all immigration for people who look Arabic (a racist option), demand a declaration of faith (which violates the Bill of Rights), or hope to root out Muslims through some sort of police action(which would solidify mistrust of the West and would only create underground practices of faith like during Greek occupation of Israel).

Matt: I'm glad you grasp the arguments I've been making.

Kristor: Your suggestions have become more and more outlandish. Destabilizing the middle east to win converts to Christianity? That's just about the most un-Christian (and immoral) idea I've heard in a while. "All we need to do is keep them so busy repairing their own sewage systems and bridges and power plants that they have no time or money left over to spend on war by proxy". Or we'll solidify faith in radical regimes like Iran's, undoing all the progress that's been made in the region. You also realized that widespread military intervention in the middle-east would accelerate Iran's desire to acquire nuclear arms (and increase their legitimacy) as well as pulling China into the conflict. Bad decision.

If you'd had some logical training, you'd know that proof by induction only works on defined sets (like the natural numbers). Proof by induction is worthless when examining Islam, which is a dense set (like irrational numbers).

Wow. Um, Jonathan? My husband and I have published a book (and, no, I don't mean "self-published") that contains a whole chapter on the problem of induction and Bernoulli. Of course, in informal contexts like this, the term "induction" also includes inferences to the best explanation which can be best formalized using Bayes's Theorem. On which I have also published in peer-reviewed analytic philosophy journals. Buddy, you are just out of your depth, especially if you think you know anything at all about empirical investigation using non-deductive inference.

Yeah, brother: you picked the wrong lady to go toe to toe with on epistemology.

Your options would be cease all immigration for people who look Arabic (a racist option), demand a declaration of faith (which violates the Bill of Rights), or hope to root out Muslims through some sort of police action.

I'm on record favoring a cessation of all Islamic immigration. Since Islam is a religion, not a race, and no longer even majority Arabic, your first comment is absurd. The second option, which I favor too, short of the full cessation, would not entail any statement of faith but rather a renunciation of certain doctrines. Perhaps the distinction between a doctrine and a religion is also obscure to you.

So here, I suppose, is a categorical answer for you: the Islamic doctrines of jihad and dhimma are wicked and intolerable doctrines which should be prohibited and those who persist in prosecuted. The relevant statute already exists; it would only need some specified tweaking;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002385----000-.html

Fantastic! So you can provide me with an explanation then. 1. Can Baye's Theorem prove anything outside of probability? 2. If I start spamming the thread with evidence that supports my claim then is my position proven by "inferences to the best explanation"? 3. What do you do when someone is in between? 4. How do you count sympathy, confusion, or indecision?

I legitimately would like to hear an explanation. I consider myself a quick study, so I'll try to keep up. Or, you can leave this discussion at an appeal to authority, but where does that get us?

The Koran doesn't say to overthrow the US government. But technicalities aside, you'd still have to establish a legitimate link between scripture and belief. And even then, the statute doesn't prove your point. The statute itself is conditional. Its a self fulfilling prophesy that falls victims to the same flaws in reasoning from before.

And your proposed policy is circumvented by my third scenario, which you conveniently ignored. I can tell you I denounce Molok, Lord of Flames. I can sign my name on a piece of paper that says "I hereby denounce the religion of Molok, Lord of Flames." I can put my hand on any book I want and swear that I denounce Molok, Lord of Flames. But once you let me in I'll dig a hole, write down the scripture I committed to memory and resume practicing in my hole. Its happened plenty of times before. Even if you find my hole and put me in jail, I'm going to worship Molok. So at that point, do you torture it out of me? Do you kill me? What do you do? You've created a bizarre, intangible target.

Even if you find my hole and put me in jail, I'm going to worship Molok.

Prison does provide time for correcting your mistakes, though.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/02/080602fa_fact_wright?currentPage=all

Under similar jailed circumstances, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group wrote a 417-page code for jihad called "Corrective Studies". It forbids the killing of women, children, elderly people, priests, messengers, and traders. Betrayal and oath-breaking are prohibited and decent treatment of prisoners of war is required. It may not be much by Western standards, but it is light years ahead of the mindless slaughter al-Qaeda preaches.

But technicalities aside, you'd still have to establish a legitimate link between scripture and belief.

Not to prosecute sedition, I don't. Omar Abdel-Rahman was sentenced to life in prison for seditious conspiracy, without anyone plunging into interminable debate about the subjectivity of religion and the rest of it.

A rider attached to 18 USC 2385 attending to jihad-sedition exposes the internet recruiter, or the Friday-afternoon sermonizer, the street pamphleteer who states, in very carefully couched language, that Pres. Obama, being an infidel, deserves death (this video was shot by newsmen and can be easily found on the internet) -- the rider exposes all of them to federal prosecution, which would do the trick for me.

I have no idea what you Molock point is. If a Muslim immigrant signs a loyalty oath renouncing jihad, then goes out and agitates for it, he has perjured himself and may be prosecuted in court of law. Truly private practice of the religion is not an issue.

I think we all agree that saying the president of US deserves death should be taken seriously. Why would being a Muslim mean you have to be seditious? Have we reached an agreement? Muslims who participate in violent acts should be prosecuted, like anyone else. "If a Muslim immigrant signs a loyalty oath renouncing jihad, then goes out and agitates for it, he has perjured himself and may be prosecuted in court of law." So as long as a Muslim doesn't agitate like violence, we can accept Islam as a legitimate religion and peacefully coexist? I'm just asking to clarify.

The Muslim in question was very careful not to actually advocate violence, Jonathan. He knew how to negotiate the handcuffs upon common sense established by that incorrigible liberal mind I mentioned above.

The Jihad-sedition law I have argued for does not require actual violence, or even an actual call for violence, to initiate a prosecution. The crime one one of disloyalty.

Jonathan writes:

What's a waste is throwing inductive evidence at me

Unfortunately, I think I'm going to agree with this in the end.

because even if you give me 1,000,000 examples, the set of possible examples is infinite.

I'm trying, really, to see what this could possibly mean. Maybe the idea is that the number of people involved in the example isn't restricted to the integers, so that examples involving π/3 Muslims would have to be counted too. But wait, would that prove that Muslims are irrational? You may have problems even here ...

In calculus terms, the limit of 1,000,000 over infinity approaches zero.

You're almost there -- I think what you want to say is that zero is the limit of 1,000,000/x as x goes to infinity. Not that any of this is remotely relevant to the rationality of inductive inference.

Now do you understand why your logical framework is unsatisfactory to me?

Yes, absolutely.

I'm a little confused. Didn't the guy in question say Obama "deserves death." Could you just clarify for me what would violate your proposed sedition law?

You'll have to look it up, man. A mosque on 96th Street and Lexington Ave, in NYC, I believe. The guy knew exactly which lines he could walk right up to but not cross.

Alright, so I found one of his quotes. "Cut the transportation of their countries, tear it apart, destroy their economy, burn their companies, eliminate their interests, sink their ships, shoot down their planes, kill them on the sea, air, or land." He was the leader of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya right? And that organization is labeled a terrorist group by both the US and Egypt. I'd say arresting Omar was a job well done by the FBI.

The man I have in mind, who made the statement about Obama, has not been arrested. The Blind Shiekh, Omar Abdel-Rahman is another Jihadist. He is in prison.

Congratulations Daniel, you've found quotations from the Muslim Brotherhood, a political group which maintains a minority status across the Arab world. Remember when I asked for a categorical response? A quote from a single person falls short. Establish for me how a religion, a collection of beliefs that exist within the conscious of over a billion people, can be labeled as you wish. Your burden of proof is simply unattainable. I can make all sorts of concessions on places where Islam has done bad things. I'm looking for some solid deductive reasoning, not some perverse proof by induction. Please provide.

If you had bothered to look at the context of my previous post you would have noticed that I brought up the Muslim Brotherhood to acknowledge that, contrary to you claims, that mosques in North America to have connections to "political bodies". But as I mentioned elsewhere, you are acting in bad faith here, so I guess I should not be surprised that you'd find some reason to disregard the rebuttal of your ignorant statement and rant about how I failed to establish something that it was never my intention to establish in the first place.

Jonathan,
It seems to me that you reject the idea that Islam itself is the enemy because what follows from that idea is too awful to contemplate. I truly sympathize, because, unlike Kristor, I think it is going to take much more than "pricking" some Islamic "balloon" to win this struggle that has gone on for thirteen centuries. Obviously you are not going to take Lydia's or Paul's or Allen West's or my word for it. So I suggest you take Mohammed's. Do what I did: go to the library and check out the Quran. It's a real eye opener. You began by saying: "I'd like to see specific passages from the Koran that orders Muslims to wage war against Christendom." You will find these passages on page after page. Then educate yourself on taqiyya. Then delve into the hadith if you still feel the need. The truth is unpleasant, but it is still the truth.

NasicaCato: I don't mean to suggest that Islam will die an easy death. It is very strong. But I think it is strong the way that the USSR was strong. Lethal, but fragile. This because it is founded upon falsehood and perpetrates evil, not least upon its own adherents; and evil and falsehood are weaker than truth and goodness.

Kristor: Your suggestions have become more and more outlandish. Destabilizing the middle east to win converts to Christianity? That's just about the most un-Christian (and immoral) idea I've heard in a while.

Jonathan, you're reading too fast again. I didn't say that we should destabilize in order to win converts to Christianity. I said that a low-level war against Muslim enemies would reduce their ability to wage war on us by proxy, as they are now doing. In the process, it could be the straw that broke the camel's back of Islam's appeal to men, as Star Wars was the straw that broke the back of the USSR.

I do think we need to decide whether the Muslims are right in saying that they are at war with us, and whether they really mean it. Does their murder of thousands of our civilians tell? Something in me says, "yes." If we decide nevertheless that the Muslims are wrong about this, then the right thing for us to do is nothing. If we end up agreeing with the Muslims that they are at war with us, then ipso facto we recognize that, like it or not, we are at war with them. This is the daunting realization that, as NasicaCato points out, so many Westerners are so terribly reluctant to face. Because if we are at war, we must go to war. Whether that war be hot or cold, we must shape our policy, not to support and succor our enemy, but to destroy his capacity to make war. If as a result of the demoralization of Muslim society that might then ensue, the people of Muslim lands began to turn away from it, why that would be gravy, so far as our near-term war aims were concerned.

In the long run, however, widespread apostasy from Islam is the only thing that will end our conflict with Islam (aside from our surrender, that is). Islam defines itself as at war with all other creeds. As long as it is around, it will be fighting us, somehow. Islam itself has set up the situation in such a way that the only way the fight with Islam can end is by the destruction either of Islam or of all the alternatives thereto.

Returning to Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, he gave an excellent speech at the Freedom Defense Initiative event last Friday. Everyone should check it out.

Awesome. Thanks for that, Daniel.

And for those of you wondering why we need the jihad-sedition laws suggested by Paul Cella, it is because of Muslims like this, this, and this (and there is plenty more where that came from).

Daniel, your links reminded me that back in the day one of the American Nazi leaders who regularly turned up on the TV, in full uniform, was a young Jewish kid. Your links consist of two native born self-hating Jews, a Saudi kid who grew up in Queens and who blogs from his parent's home in North Carolina and an angry dude approaching geezerdom. Three of the four were born here and the forth was raised here. For perspective and if you want to see what really scary folks are like, walk into most any bar in Elko most any evening.

Of course we want to watch folks like this as one might be another McVeigh, but we don't want to lose perspective either and start acting like latter day Palmerites. There are three hundred million people in this nation and a fair number believe that Elvis is alive and others that Sarah Palin should be president. Butching up means that we don't get too exercised by the various levels of derangement that some of our fellows manifest.

My understanding of Islam is that there is no central authority and that more than one meaning is attached to terms like 'jihad" so I don't understand how the term could be inserted into our laws without a constitutionally impermissable amount of intrusion into First Amendment considerations. The present laws seem adequate. Maybe some model language?

and others that Sarah Palin should be president.

Al, you think this is relevant to bring up in the present context? I mean, we're talking about blowing up trains and planes here, or bringing in sharia law, not believing that someone you regard as unqualified should be President.

For perspective and if you want to see what really scary folks are like, walk into most any bar in Elko most any evening.

And how many of those folks are agitating for violence against the American government and society? How many of those people in that bar are intentionally providing a propaganda outlet for America's enemies?

Of course we want to watch folks like this as one might be another McVeigh, but we don't want to lose perspective either and start acting like latter day Palmerites. There are three hundred million people in this nation and a fair number believe that Elvis is alive and others that Sarah Palin should be president. Butching up means that we don't get too exercised by the various levels of derangement that some of our fellows manifest.

And how many of those Elvis fans or Sarah Palin supporters are inciting violence and supporting American-murdering terrorists? To brush off those who would incite jihad violence and lump them together with harmless cranks and mainstream political activists is dangerously naive.

My understanding of Islam is that there is no central authority and that more than one meaning is attached to terms like 'jihad" so I don't understand how the term could be inserted into our laws without a constitutionally impermissable amount of intrusion into First Amendment considerations.

The ambiguity surrounding the definition of jihad is a fairly modern problem. Historically Muslims have understood jihad to be, quite clearly, the spreading of the Islamic theo-political dominance by force (refer to Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" for more detail on this). Nevertheless, when these Muslim clerics and activists I referenced call to jihad, they are not speaking of some inner spiritual struggle, but are quite clear that they mean the violent overthrow of the American system (and other Western and not-Islamic-enough Arab regimes) and the forceful establishment of a Caliphate. Neither Mr. Cella (if I may be so bold) or myself are interested in throwing peaceful, Sufi mystics in jail, but the fact of the matter is that jihad-as-sedition is a very real threat and one that must be forcefully dealt with. And if you need further proof, just ask the families of those murdered at Fort Hood who lost their loved ones to a Muslim jihadist egged on by an American-born Muslim cleric.

Paul Cella, how would jihad-sedition laws apply to those Muslims who coyly refrain from agitating for jihad against the US, but openly call for jihad against Israel, Russia, Ethiopia, India, the Arab regimes, and other countries involved in conflict with Muslims around the globe? How do we prevent American soil from being used to agitate for jihad against our friends and allies? During the recent war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza we had Muslim protesters in Florida calling for the genocide of Jews and an "American" Muslim blogger encouraging "American" Muslims to come to the aid of Hamas, to cite but a few examples. Such madness cannot be tolerated, but how should it be dealt with?

If trains and planes are going to be blown up, the clowns referenced in Daniel's post are likely NOT to be the ones doing the blowing up. It is one thing to keep tabs on them as our history is replete with terrorist acts by nuts, it is another to extrapolate on nutty views and abandon core values.

In the replies, I have yet to see how we add jihad to our laws given our Constitution and I have yet to see the why given our present laws. Concern and annoyance (which I share) just isn't sufficient reason to take three steps backwards. Oriental exclusion, Palmer raids, and McCarthyism were stains on our nation, I don't want to repeat them.

Daniel, read your last paragraph. Note that you can't seem to discuss jihad without referencing Islam. Tell me how you get that past the First Amendment and for that matter explain how our present laws are insufficient? We are watching them, arresting some and convicting some; what more do you want?

The sharia law thing is a different animal. I would file it with things like the Illuminati and Eisenhower as a Communist agent because I have yet to see a plausible model that gets us from here to there and buying into the possibility seems (to me, at least) to lead us into very dark places. If such a model exists, please share as all I see is an underpants gnomes level of analysis.

As for relevance. We face the present threat because folks in high office, in many nations with ours in the front of the line, have behaved like fools and knaves in energy and foreign policy. Intelligence, competence, character, experience, and temperament matter.

A bipartisan example: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul both have have serious views and are serious political actors, Both have run for president and either, should he actually win, would likely be be a disaster as president. Nader also comes to mind. Folks who take either of them seriously as potential presidents are possessed of certain deficiencies. With SP we are down several more rungs on the ladder, if we haven't fallen off.

There is also a certain glass house factor here as, on any reasonable scale, "moral monster" is hardly a relevant description of our current president.

"And how many of those folks are agitating for violence against the American government and society?"

Quite a few actually. The interior American West is full of folks who consider government above the county level or, for some, any government at all to be illegitimate and who have backed it up with displays of force up to the dynamite level. You might google the county Independence movement and the wise use movement for a start. For a bracing personal experience you might walk into such an establishment wearing a Greenpeace tee shirt.

"How many of those people in that bar are intentionally providing a propaganda outlet for America's enemies?"

This is where you find some of the strongest support for the incompetent politicians and foolish policies following 911 that trashed our reputation and likely recruited many terrorists.

The sharia law thing is a different animal. I would file it with things like the Illuminati and Eisenhower as a Communist agent because I have yet to see a plausible model that gets us from here to there and buying into the possibility seems (to me, at least) to lead us into very dark places.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. There are sections of Dearborn in which Christian missionaries who walk around talking to people on public streets have been run out with threats of violence. No real police were to be found until one got outside of an area in which an Arab festival was taking place. I posted video of this in a post last summer. Within that zone, only the festival security--Muslim pseudo-police--reigned, and they were the ones who ran out the peaceful missionaries who were merely exercising their normal rights as citizens of the United States. This is a de facto example of sharia in practice, and this kind of thing is occurring in spades in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe: What develop are simply de facto zones within which the Muslim immigrant population run things as they see fit and according to Muslim rules, even when this is contrary to the formal law of the land and the rights conferred thereby. More formally, sharia courts have been given semi-official status in England despite concerns from women's groups to the effect that women who appear to "agree" to have, e.g., their marital and divorce decisions governed by such religious courts have actually not given full, free, and informed consent but have acted under duress or without full knowledge. That concern, in turn, is supported by recent reports from Pakistan to the effect that women, even _highly educated_ women, entering arranged marriages under Islamic law, do not read their marriage contracts but merely go along with pressure from their male relatives to sign them unread, because it would be considered "impolite" and not "trusting" of their families to do otherwise. The implications for the sharia courts in England are obvious.

The path is only too clear, actually, and it is happening before our very eyes.

Al, that you reject the model is not the same thing as saying there is no model.

To take a broader view, I see the problem of disloyalty as one that cannot be resolved by any art we fallen men possess; that, in other words, it is one of the permanent problems of political society. Even the most furious revolutionary knows that there is a state, off at the end (perhaps only in his imagination) that could gain his loyalty; and even the most patriotic conservative knows that his country could attempt reforms sufficient ruinous and wicked as to drive him into a posture of open disloyalty.

My reading of history suggests that few problems have been more conducive to strife, violence, and ultimately war; that it is exceedingly difficult to get this balance between conformity and dissidence right; that it is just as dangerous to error on one side as the other; that our success at this in America is so remarkable that it has sort of blinded us the peril; and that said success is woefully misunderstood.

Is it a coincidence that virtually every major revolutionary movement to arise since the Founding of the Republic has been the subject of firm legal and political sanction? Jacobins, Copperheads, anarchists, polygamists, syndicalists, Fascists, Nazis, Communists -- all have felt the sting of legislation designed to literally outlaw their doctrines and organizations.

The American tradition on dissent has generally been to allow plenty of it, up to a point; but to be highly vigilant against open disloyalty; and then, when pushed, to hit hard and unapologetically -- with sedition laws, committees of inquiry, legally binding loyalty oaths, surveillance, raids: in sum, all manner of social, political, economic, and legal constraint.

That liberals regard this tradition as a catalog of horror does not move me. I am proud of my country's handling of this problem of disloyalty. I think it is one of our unheralded triumphs, that it sets us apart from the common run of political society in human history. President Adams signed the Sedition Act; Jacobin France made disloyalty a capital offense, to be adjudicated by revolutionary tribunals bereft of any legal protections for the defendant. In the late 1930s we had the Smith Act and the HUAC; the Soviet Union had bloody purges and the Gulag; Germany suffered under a paralysis that gave rise to the Nazis; and Spain had a cruel Civil War. Again, disloyalty is not a problem that presents us with any perfect solution. We Americans have generally gotten right. And I think that the reason that we have been strong in this is that we have had statesman and legislators and citizens willing to do the hard and thankless work of proscribing seditious doctrines and fettering disloyal movements.

And yes, I do not hesitate to say that we should emulate what we have done in past, now, in our dealings with a seditious movement that has already accomplished horrible treacheries against us.

And how many of those folks are agitating for violence against the American government and society?

It depends on how many are listening to Glenn Beck. That was a cheap shot, but his apocalyptic paranoia siren is really loud.

How do we prevent American soil from being used to agitate for jihad against our friends and allies?

If you've been reading Kristor's comments, it would be natural to conclude he is trying to incite a war against some 30+ nations, many of whom are technically allies.

If trains and planes are going to be blown up, the clowns referenced in Daniel's post are likely NOT to be the ones doing the blowing up. It is one thing to keep tabs on them as our history is replete with terrorist acts by nuts, it is another to extrapolate on nutty views and abandon core values.

I'm sorry, but it is getting difficult to take you seriously. I never accused the Muslim clerics and activists that I cited of blowing anything up. I accused them of incitement to jihad (i.e. sedition) and proving aid and comfort to our enemies in the form of propaganda. And yes, there is a direct link between such incitement by clerics and internet bloggers and attempts to carryout attacks against Americans either domestically or abroad.

Daniel -- Your comment on February 27 at 12:19 AM presents a difficult problem. I do not think it would be wise to proscribe seditious agitation directed at other countries, even allies of the US. Certainly incitement to murder can be prosecuted, though.

Now, undoubtedly the clever Jihadist can discover the strict bounds within which he may safely vent his despicable spleen and stay clear of legal liability. No way around that. It would be a big improvement, in my view, to narrow those bounds, to let him feel his freedom restricted, so that every time he takes to the street to denounce the infidel regimes, he must keep ever in mind not going too far, lest he face arrest and prosecution.

Another important tool is the legislative committee of inquiry. In the American system the legislative branch's power of investigation is very robust. So even if our clever Jihadist steers clear of statutory sedition, he may nonetheless find himself dragged before an investigating committee to field some pointed questions, under pain of perjury, contempt of Congress, etc.

I would also favor legislation to set up a US Attorney's office specifically dedicated to jihad-sedition. This office would work hand-in-hand with the investigating committees, and would not be above some cleverness of its own -- for instance, working to deliberately provoke would-be seditionists to cross boundaries into prosecutable offenses.