1. It is frequently argued that very few Muslims actually engage in violent acts. It is usually noted as well that only a very small percentage of other Muslims actually support the violent acts of others. The argument, therefore, is that we are not at war with Islam, but only a tiny percentage of extremists and their supporters. I disagree. To the extent that so-called “moderate” Muslims believe that our country (the world) should be ruled by Sharia Law, then we ought to be at war with them as well, because they are definitely at war with us and our way of life. Sharia Law is diametrically opposed to our concepts of liberty and freedom, and most of our rights given by the Constitution. Under Sharia, there is no distinction between Islam and the State. Islamic law dictates how people should live; and inasmuch as we have 57 Muslim countries from which to judge, it is not a pretty picture. Democracy? No. Freedom of speech and religion? No. Women’s rights? No. Gay rights? No. And the list goes on and on. So the question is: if we were at war (hot wars through proxies and the cold war) with the Soviet Union because of their worldview that was diametrically opposed to ours, then why are we not at war with Islam? (And for those who want to tell me that not every Muslim believes Shariah law should control society, I obviously know that. Just like every Russian did not agree that their way of life should dominate the world. So what? We understood the threat of their ideology and acted accordingly.)
So how is Islam at war with us? This writer has frequently commented on how they use propaganda to sway public opinion to their side; and how they have been successful in getting the “useful idiots” on the left, in academia and in the media to support them. In the book “The Grand Jihad” by Andrew McCarthy (Encounter Books, 2010) he describes how the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies seek to get control through “propaganda, communication and information.” They even acknowledge that in most instances it will not be violent acts that carries the day, but rather they will gain control by : “1.controlling the education system, 2. Influencing the media and 3. Ingratiating themselves with an unsuspecting population.” (From “The Grand Jihad.”) Violence is to be utilized only when it has a reasonable chance of succeeding. (This is a perfect description of the likes of the head of the Palestinian Authority, Abbas. The “useful idiots” of the media refer to him as a “moderate.” Yet, when he denounces violence against civilians it is usually in the context of it not being in the palestinians’ interests – not that it is morally wrong.)
2. Will education be the key battleground? In the 8/9/10 edition of The Weekly Standard is an article by Stephen Schwartz entitled “History Corrupted.” He notes that the states of California, Texas and Florida are key states dominating the textbook market. California’s State Board of Education has recommended the use of a book entitled “History Alive! The Medieval World and Beyond.” Mr. Schwartz notes that there are 5 chapters on Islam. Only one person in history gets their own chapter – Muhammad. Don’t bother looking for Jesus in the book. The students are told that Muhammad “taught equality. He told his followers to share their wealth and to care for the less fortunate in society. He preached tolerance for Christians and Jews as fellow worshippers of the one true G-d.” As Mr. Schwartz points out, no mention of the reality of Muslim societies: “social inequality, neglect of the poor, and intolerance.” He also notes the lack of discussion of some other harsh realities of the Muslim world: “polygamy, forced marriage, forced divorce, public beheadings, and judicial punishments such as amputations, cruel floggings, and stoning.” And let’s not forget the murder of women sickeningly referred to as “honor killings.”
In a minor effort to give some balance in the book, the authors note that “depending on the policies of various Muslim rulers…non-Muslims’ rights and freedoms varied from time to time. Some Muslim rulers allowed the destruction of important Christian churches.” Well there’s a shocker! According to Schwartz, Christians are generally portrayed badly with Jews as their victims. The authors also note that: “In addition to spreading the faith of Islam, conquest allowed Muslims to gain new lands, resources, and goods.” See what a positive light is put on a little conquest here and there? The authors describe “jihad” as meaning “to strive,” and that it originally meant “physical struggle with spiritual significance.” Would that be like flying planes into buildings and shouting Alahu Akbar? Or like when Major Hassan murdered 13 shouting Alahu Akbar? That kind of physical struggle with spiritual significance? Perhaps the authors did not realize the modern day significance of one of their concessions when they wrote: “The Koran tells Muslims to fight to protect themselves from those who would do them harm or to right a terrible wrong. Early Muslims considered their efforts to protect their territory and extend their rule over other religions to be a form of jihad.” I had to read that one twice! “Early” Muslims? What about today’s Muslims? What about all those who say that muslims who in engage in violent jihad are “distorting” the religion? Distorting it from what? From the days of the “Early” Muslims who carried out the same violent efforts at conquest?
3. More on the Mosque at Ground Zero. Of course, propaganda continues to be another tactic used by Islamists. Not surprisingly, they already have the mainstream media and most political leaders supporting the mosque. When Obama spoke to a roomful of Muslim leaders at the White House, he spoke about the “right” to build a mosque there. As if that was the issue in this country. What he did not do was speak truth – and explain to these Muslim leaders why building a mosque there is a bad idea. The next day he tried to backpeddle by saying he simply noted they had a “right” to build there, and was not commenting on the “wisdom” of doing so. But that’s the whole point! He passed up on an opportunity to use his bully pulpit and speak the truth and explain why – if they are truly sensitive to others – they should not build there. When Bush spoke to the Muslim world he told them they needed to improve the lives of their people and bring freedom and democracy to their lands. For speaking truth he was ridiculed by our mainstream media. Obama passes up a perfect opportunity to explain how doing the right thing and not building the mosque would show America that the Muslims are truly interested in bridge building.
An editorial in the 8/27/10 edition of the Investor’s Business Daily points out that Imam Rauf (the imam behind the mosque) wrote a book in 2004 entitled : “A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa (means proselytizing) in the Heart of America Post 9/11.” Anybody see anything remotely “bridge-building” in that title? Or, as this writer has suggested, are two Canadian Muslims sitting on the Board of the Muslim Canadian Congress, correct when they say : “We Muslims know that the idea behind the ground zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel.” (From the 8/11/10 Investor’s Business Daily, quoting Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah.)
Of course, the left and the mainstream media are aghast that anyone could oppose the building of the mosque. As usual, some have to resort to name-calling, or worse. Nancy Pelosi has no interest in investigating where the money is coming from to build this $100million mosque. She would, however, like to see an investigation of those opposing the mosque, and who might be supporting them! Hey Nancy – 68% of the American people oppose the mosque, you want to investigate all of them? Time Magazine’s 8/30/10 cover asks “Is America Islamophobic?” Of course they conclude we are. After all, a poll showed that “46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers.” Here’s my question: why only 46%? Is everybody else sleeping? (Poll numbers and quote from article by Clifford May in the 8/27/10 Ventura County Star.) May goes on to name just some of the violent Muslim groups: “al Qaida, the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, Lashkar-e-Taiba, al-Shabaab, Abu Sayyef, the Muslim Brotherhood,” and says there are dozens of others. MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell said opponents are acting “like the people who attacked America and killed 3,000 people.” Former talk-show host Dick Cavett said he was “genuinely ashamed of us.” And Katie Couric added “we cannot let fear and rage tear down the towers of our core American values.” (Last 3 quotes from IBD’s 8/25/10 editorial.)
But my favorite lines come from the LA Times, 8/23/10 front page article. They do not refer to the mosque as the mosque at ground zero; instead, they call it “the so-called ground zero mosque.” (This is not unlike Obama. If we do not call it a war on terror, then terror just disappears. So see, it’s just a mosque; ground zero has nothing to do with it.) The author, Borzou Daragahi, goes on to say that “houses of worship are humdrum affairs in the Muslim world.” Unless, of course, you want to build a church or temple. Then let’s see how humdrum it is. The writer goes on to quote a former leader of the Jordanian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. At no time does the writer tell us that the Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. The person quoted, Zaki Saad, is well versed in how to use propaganda. He says: "When they connect all Muslims to Sept. 11, that means they connect terrorism and extremism to Islam. This is a form of discrimination and is unacceptable.” He knows how to throw in one of the key words (here, discrimination) to play on the conscience of the left and other Americans. As noted above, they know how to “ingratiate themselves with an unsuspecting population.” And, of course, they use those words that have the most value for their propagandizing. Finally, the LA Times notes that “some conservative American critics” believe that the mosque will serve as a “victory mosque” to the terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Center. Yes indeed. But it’s more than conservatives, it’s 68% of the American people.
So are we at war with Islam? More in Part II.