Tuesday, September 14, 2010

John Hawkins and the Ten Questions

Over at Townhall.com, John Hawkins has a great piece on the ten questions you're not supposed to ask about Islam.  It seems as though several of his commenters missed the rhetorical nature of his questions, but follow the link and you can be the judge.  I'm going to address John's question's seriously.
Why do so few moderate Muslims speak out against Islamic extremism? How can we get more moderate Muslims to speak up and amplify their voices?
Why always the assumption that there are numerous moderates out there who aren't speaking up?  Implied in this question is, I believe, the possibility that maybe there is actually a vast majority of Muslims who support violent Jihad.  As a conservative, I tend to look for the simple answers.
Of the "moderate Muslims" who have spoken out in favor of moderation or against terrorism, a number of them have later been tied to terrorist groups or have advocated radical policies. This causes a great deal of difficulty for people who want to ally with Muslim groups because the "moderate" they're talking to today may very well make them look bad by advocating radical policies in a month or two. What's the best way to deal with that?
It's time that dar es al-harb (the non-Muslim "house of death") stop trying to hard to prove its good faith.  The burden should be on dar es islam (the "house of submission," or more to the point, the Islamic world) to prove good faith after all the times it has broken good faith.  True, we in America would not subject any other religion to such scrutiny, but no other religion in America subscribes to such an anti-constitutional political ideology, either.
Because of the concept of Taqiyya, many non-Muslims believe that Muslims have few qualms about lying to non-believers. Is this a legitimate concern? If not, why not?
Mohammed Atta attended strip clubs and drank alcohol in the weeks leading up to 9/11.  Trust in "moderate Islam" is a sentimental exercise for liberal fools.
When it comes to immigration, how does the United States tell the difference between radical Islamists and moderate Muslims? If we can't tell the difference, should that affect our immigration policies?
Only if one believes in the continuing integrity and sovereignty of our republic.  All immigrants, regardless of religious or ethnic status, enter our borders, remain within our borders, and attain our citizenship at our pleasure.  There are no constitutional protections for non-citizens -- ever.
Widely accepted practices in large swathes of the Islamic world -- like shariah law, honor killings, and death for apostates -- are absolutely, unconditionally incompatible with western civilization. Should we be asking Muslims if they oppose those practices before we allow them to enter our country? Granted, they could lie, but the very fact that we would publicly label those customs as barbaric would send a strong signal.
Why not?  As an American citizen, if I lie on an employment application, my employer has the right to terminate my employment years after the fact, if it takes him that long to find out.  That would be a good model for American immigration policy.  You lie, we deport you.
Why does Islam have such "bloody borders?"
Bloody borders are a cultural phenomenon stemming from the conquests of the prophet himself (peace be upon him).  They will not rest until the world is dar es islam, and most Muslims have no moral qualms whatsoever about using violence to achieve that end.  Does that mean they all engage in violence?  Not necessarily.  Most of them don't have to.
Much of the Islamic world has an extremely backward attitude toward women. Is this something that goes along with Islam or is it a cultural issue in the nations where Islam happens to have taken root?
I don't view this as an either-or question.  Islam is what Islamic authorities say it is.  Concern for the "why" more than the "what" sounds like more of a liberal concern to me.  Deepest apologies to John Hawkins.  I know better than to think he's gone sour on us.
Why is there so much rabid anti-Semitism in the Muslim world? Pointing to Israel doesn't seem to be much of an answer, given that what Israel does or doesn't do has no impact whatsoever on the day-to-day lives of 98% of the Muslim world.
It's the same reason President Obama is demonizing "the rich" and numerous corporations (banking and otherwise).  The imams and mullahs keep their hold on power by blaming someone else.  It really doesn't matter who the someone else is, but it's a defining factor of tyranny.  In the Islamic world, it serves as a distraction from kleptomanic plutocrats like the late Yasser Arafat.
Islam, as it's practiced, SEEMS to be an EXTRAORDINARILY intolerant religion. Yet, non-Muslims are constantly being told we have to be tolerant to Islam. Why should non-Muslims be so tolerant of Islam when that tolerance is not being returned?
This question is most definitely rhetorical.  We are a nation of religious freedom, distinct from tolerance.  I have no problem with Muslims desiring to worship in the manner of their choosing, but they are probing us to see just how tolerant we are of things that have absolutely nothing to do with the free exercise of religion.  The Park51 mosque is just the beginning -- if we let it happen.  Why should we be so tolerant of Islam?  Short answer:  We shouldn't.
While there are certainly individual Muslims who seem to fit in very well in western society, Europe has had a great deal of difficulty assimilating Muslims. So, it seems natural to ask: Is Islam on a widespread scale compatible with the freedom, openness, and traditions of western civilization?
No!  At least in America, everything Islamic is anti-Constitution.   Everything constitutional is anti-Islam.  Peaceful co-existence between dar es islam and dar es al-harb is not just a taqiyya-based deception.  It has laid bare the amazing capacity of liberals for self-delusion.

No comments:

Post a Comment