Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America Commentary November 2001
www.danielpipes.org ^ | 11-02-2001 | Daniel Pip

Posted on 11/02/2001 3:49:15 AM PST by dtom

The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America - Middle East analysis article by Daniel Pipes



The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America
Commentary
November 2001

In the aftermath of the violence on September 11, American politicians from George W. Bush on down have tripped over themselves to affirm that the vast majority of Muslims living in the United States are just ordinary people. Here is how the President put it during a visit to a mosque on September 17: "America counts millions of Muslims among our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. Muslims are doctors, lawyers, law professors, members of the military, entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, moms and dads." Two days later, he added that "there are millions of good Americans who practice the Muslim faith who love their country as much as I love the country, who salute the flag as strongly as I salute the flag."

These soothing words, echoed and amplified by many columnists and editorial writers, were obviously appropriate at a moment of high national tension and amid reports of mounting bias against Muslims living in the United States. And it is certainly true that the number of militant Islamic operatives with plans to carry out terrorist attacks on the United States is statistically tiny. But the situation is more complex than the President would have it.

The Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes within it a substantial body of people-many times more numerous than the agents of Osama bin Ladin-who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of the United States and the desire, ultimately, to transform it into a nation living under the strictures of militant Islam. Although not responsible for the atrocities in September, they harbor designs for this country that warrant urgent and serious attention.

In June 1991, Siraj Wahaj, a black convert to Islam and the recipient of some of the American Muslim community's highest honors, had the privilege of becoming the first Muslim to deliver the daily prayer in the U.S. House of Representatives. On that occasion he recited from the Qur'an and appealed to the Almighty to guide American leaders "and grant them righteousness and wisdom."

A little over a year later, addressing an audience of New Jersey Muslims, the same Wahaj articulated a rather different vision from his mild and moderate invocation in the House. If only Muslims were more clever politically, he told his New Jersey listeners, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. "If we were united and strong, we'd elect our own emir [leader] and give allegiance to him. . . . [T]ake my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us." In 1995, Wahaj served as a character witness for Omar Abdel Rahman in the trial that found that blind sheikh guilty of conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States. More alarming still, the U.S. attorney for New York listed Wahaj as one of the "unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in the sheikh's case.

The disparity between Wahaj's good citizenship in the House and his militant forecast of a Muslim takeover-not to mention his association with violent felons-is only one example of a larger pattern common to the American Muslim scene. Another example, about which I have written recently elsewhere, involves the American Muslims for Jeru­salem, an organization whose official advocacy of "a Jerusalem that symbolizes religious tolerance and dialogue" contrasts markedly with the wild conspiracy-mongering and crude anti-Jewish rhetoric in which its spokesmen indulge at closed events.1 At a minimum, then, anyone who would understand the real views of American Muslims must delve deeper than the surface of their public statements.

Doing so, one discovers that the ambition to take over the United States is hardly a new one. The first missionaries for militant Islam, or Islamism, who arrived here from abroad in the 1920's, unblushingly declared, "Our plan is, we are going to conquer America." The audacity of such statements hardly went unnoticed at the time, including by Christians who cherished their own missionizing hopes. As a 1922 newspaper commentary put it:

To the millions of American Christians who have so long looked eagerly forward to the time the cross shall be supreme in every land and the people of the whole world shall have become the followers of Christ, the plan to win this continent to the path of the "infidel Turk" will seem a thing unbelievable. But there is no doubt about its being pressed with all the fanatical zeal for which the Mohammedans are noted.
But it is in recent decades, as the Muslim population in the country has increased significantly in size, social standing, and influence, and as Islamism has made its presence widely felt on the international scene, that this "fanatical zeal" has truly come into its own. A catalyzing figure in the story is the late Ismail Al-Faruqi, a Palestinian immigrant who founded the International Institute of Islamic Thought and taught for many years at Temple University in Philadelphia. Rightly called "a pioneer in the development of Islamic studies in America," he was also the first contemporary theorist of a United States made Muslim. "Nothing could be greater," Al-Faruqi wrote in the early 1980's, "than this youthful, vigorous, and rich continent [of North America] turning away from its past evil and marching forward under the banner of Allahu Akbar [God is great]."

Al-Faruqi's hopes are today widely shared among educated Muslim leaders. Zaid Shakir, formerly the Muslim chaplain at Yale University, has stated that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the American secular system, which "is against the orders and ordainments of Allah." To the contrary, "The orientation of the Qur'an pushes us in the exact opposite direction." To Ahmad Nawfal, a leader of the Jordanian Muslim Brethren who speaks frequently at American Muslim rallies, the United States has "no thought, no values, and no ideals"; if militant Muslims "stand up, with the ideology that we possess, it will be very easy for us to preside over this world." Masudul Alam Choudhury, a Canadian professor of business, writes matter-of-factly and enthusiastically about the "Islamization agenda in North America."

For a fuller exposition of this outlook, one can do no better than to turn to a 1989 book by Shamim A. Siddiqi, an influential commentator on American Muslim issues. Cryptically titled Methodology of Dawah Ilallah in American Perspective (more idiomatically rendered as "The Need to Convert Americans to Islam"), this 168-page study, published in Brooklyn, remains largely unavailable to general readers (neither amazon.com nor bookfinder.com listed it over a period of months) but is widely posted on Islamist websites,2 where it enjoys a faithful readership. In it, in prose that makes up in intensity and vividness for what it lacks in sophistication and polish, Siddiqi lays out both a detailed rationale and a concrete plan for Islamists to take over the United States and establish "Islamic rule" (iqamat ad-din).

Why America? In Siddiqi's judgment, the need to assume control here is even more pressing than the need to sustain the revolution of the mullahs in Iran or to destroy Israel, for doing so will have a much greater positive impact on the future of Islam. America is central not for the reasons one might expect-its large population, its wealth, or the cultural influence it wields around the world-but on three other grounds.

The first has to do with Washington's role as the premier enemy of Islamism (or, possibly, of Islam itself). In Siddiqi's colorful language, whenever and wherever Muslims have moved toward establishing an Islamic state, the "treacherous hands of the secular West are always there . . . to bring about [their] defeat." Nor are Muslim rulers of any help, for they are "all in the pockets of the Western powers." If, therefore, Islam is ever going to attain its rightful place of dominance in the world, the "ideology of Islam [must] prevail over the mental horizon of the American people." The entire future of the Muslim world, Siddiqi concludes, "depends on how soon the Muslims of America are able to build up their own indigenous movement."

Secondly, America is central because establishing Islamism here would signal its final triumph over its only rival, that bundle of Christianity and liberalism which constitutes contemporary Western civilization. (One cannot help noting the irony that Siddiqi's tract appeared in the same year, 1989, as Francis Fukuyama's famous article speculating that, with the collapse of Communism and the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, we had begun to approach the "end of history.") And thirdly, and still more grandly, the infusion of the United States with Islamism would make for so powerful a combination of material success and spiritual truth that the establishment of "God's Kingdom" on earth would no longer be "a distant dream."

But this dream will not happen by itself. To American Muslims, writes Siddiqi, falls the paramount responsibility of bringing Islam to power in their country; and to this goal, Muslims must devote "all of their energies, talents, and resources." For this is how they will be assessed on judgment day: "Every Muslim living in the West will stand in the witness box in the mightiest court of Allah . . . in Akhirah [the last day] and give evidence that he fulfilled his responsibility, . . . that he left no stone unturned to bring the message of the Qur'an to every nook and corner of the country."

How this desired end is to be achieved is a question on which opinions differ in Siddiqi's world. Basically, the disagreement centers on the role of violence.

As has been made irrefutably clear in recent weeks, there are indeed some, not just abroad but living among us, who see the United States as (in the phrase of Osama bin Ladin) an "enemy of Islam" that must be brought to its knees and destroyed. In its broad outlines, this judgment came to be solidified during the crisis over Iraq's seizure of Kuwait in the early 1990's, when militants like bin Ladin discerned a historic parallel between the presence of American troops on the soil of Saudi Arabia and the brutal Soviet occupation of Afghan­istan in the 1980's. In their dialectical view, as the New Yorker writer Mary Ann Weaver has explained, the United States, just like the Soviet Union before it, represented "an infidel occupation force propping up a corrupt, repressive, and un-Islamic government." And just as the Islamist mujahideen in Afghanistan had succeeded in defeating and driving out their occupiers, and thereby played a role in the collapse of the mighty Soviet Union itself, so Islamists might cause the collapse of the United States: one down, one to go, as it were.

To the blind sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who after bin Laden is perhaps today's most notorious enemy of the United States, bombing the World Trade Center in 1993 was part and parcel of this revolutionary strategy to "conquer the land of the infidels" by force. The idea, as one of his followers put it, was to "bring down their highest buildings and the mighty constructions they are so proud of, in order thoroughly to demoralize them." 3 And this was a duty that Islamists saw as incumbent on all Muslims; having helped humiliate the Soviets in Afghanistan, they now, as one native-born American convert to Islam proclaimed in July 1989, must "complete the march of jihad until we reach America and liberate her."

But there are several problems with the approach of revolutionary violence, even from the perspective of those who share its goal. The most obvious has to do with its impact on American society. Although attacks like the 1993 bombing or the suicide massacres of September 11 are intended to demoralize the American people, prompt civil unrest, and weaken the country politically, what they do instead is to bring Americans together in patriotism and purpose. Those who mastermind them, in the meantime, are often caught: Abdel Rahman is sitting out a life sentence in a federal penitentiary, his campaign of violence stillborn, while Osama bin Ladin is the object of a massive manhunt to get him "dead or alive." Unlike in the very different case of the Soviet Union, it is very hard to see how the use of force will succeed in wearing down this country, much less lead to a change in government.

Besides, as a number of commentators have recently pointed out, in targeting all Americans the perpetrators of Islamic violence do not bother even to discriminate between non-Muslim and Muslim victims. According to preliminary estimates, several hundred Muslims died in the collapse of the World Trade Center. This is not exactly calculated to enlist the participation of most resident Muslims in a campaign of violent insurrection. 4

For all these reasons, the non-violent way would seem to have a brighter future, and it is in fact the approach adopted by most Islamists. Not only is it legal, but it allows its enthusiasts to adopt a seemingly benign view of the United States, a country they mean to rescue rather than to destroy, and it dictates a strategy of working with Americans rather than against them. As a teacher at an Islamic school in Jersey City, near New York, explains, the "short-term goal is to introduce Islam. In the long term, we must save American society." Step by step, writes a Pakistan-born professor of economics, by offering "an alternative model" to Americans, Muslims can transform what Ismail Al-Faruqi referred to as "the unfortunate realities of North America" into something acceptable in God's eyes.

Practically speaking, there are two main prongs to the non-violent strategy. The first involves radically increasing the number of American Muslims, a project that on the face of it would not seem very promising. Islam, after all, is still an exotic growth in the United States, its adherents representing just 1 to 2 percent of the population and with exceedingly dim prospects of becoming anything like a majority. Islamists are not so unrealistic as to think that these numbers can be substantially altered any time soon by large-scale immigration (which is politically unfeasible and might anyway provoke a backlash) or by normal rates of reproduction. Hence they focus most of their efforts on conversion.

They do so not only as a matter of expediency but on principle. For Islamists, converting Americans is the central purpose of Muslim existence in the United States, the only possible justification for Muslims to live in an infidel land. In the view of Shamim Siddiqi, there is no choice in the matter-American Muslims are "ordained by Allah" to help replace evil with good, and otherwise "have no right even to breathe." "Wherever you came from," adds Siraj Wahaj, "you came . . . for one reason-for one reason only-to establish Allah's din [faith]."

This imperative, relentlessly propagated by authoritative figures and promoted by leading Islamist organizations like the Muslim Student Association, has been widely adopted by Muslim Americans at large. Many attest to the sense of responsibility that flows from being an "ambassador for Islam," and are ever mindful of the cardinal importance of winning new adherents. And, given what they hold to be the truth of their message and the depravity of American culture, Islamists are optimistic about their chances of success. "A life of taqwah [piety] will immediately attract non-Muslims towards Islam," writes Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi, an important Indian Islamist, in his "Message for Muslims in the West."

He has a point: the more readily the message of Islam is available, the more converts it is likely to win. In making headway in the United States, Islam has largely depended on hands-on contact and personal experience. According to one survey, over two-thirds of American converts to Islam were motivated by the influence of a Muslim friend or acquaintance. The Autobiography of Malcolm X (1964), with its moving account of redemption through Islam, has had a wide impact on American blacks (and even some whites), causing a substantial number to convert. Similarly not to be discounted are the efforts of the various Muslim organizations in the United States, whose "attempts at educating the American public about Islam" may be responsible, according to one observer, for "Islam's increasing numbers."

But if increasing numbers are necessary, they are also not sufficient. After all, whole countries-Tur­key, Egypt, Algeria-have overwhelmingly Muslim populations, but Islamism is suppressed by their governments. From an Islamist point of view, indeed, the situation in Turkey is far worse than in the United States, for it is a more grievous thing to reject the divine message as interpreted by Islamists than merely to be ignorant of it. Therefore, in addition to building up Muslim numbers, Islamists must prepare the United States for their own brand of ideology. This means doing everything possible toward creating an Islamist environment and applying Islamic law. Activities under this heading fall into various categories.

Promoting Islamic rituals and customs in the public square. Islamists want secular authorities to permit students in public institutions, for example, to recite the basmallah (the formula "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate") in classroom exercises. They also want the right to broadcast over outdoor loudspeakers the five daily Islamic calls-to-prayer. Similarly, they have agitated for publicly maintained prayer facilities in such institutions as schools and airports.

Privileges for Islam. Islamists seek public financial support for Islamic schools, mosques, and other institutions. They also lobby for special quotas for Muslim immigrants, try to compel corporations to make special allowances for Muslim employees, and demand the formal inclusion of Muslims in affirmative-action plans.

Restricting or disallowing what others may do. Islamists want law-enforcement agencies to criminalize activities like drinking and gambling that are offensive to Islam. While seeking wide latitude for themselves, for instance when it comes to expressing disrespect for American national symbols, they would penalize expressions of disrespect for religious figures whom Islam deems holy, especially the prophet Muhammad; punish criticism of Islam, Islamism, or Islamists; and close down critical analysis of Islam.

Some of these aims have already been achieved. Others may seem relatively minor in and of themselves, implying no drastic alterations in existing American arrangements but rather only slight adjustments in our already expansive accommodation of social "diversity." Cumulatively, however, by whittling away at the existing order, they would change the country's whole way of life-making Islam a major public presence, ensuring that both the workplace and the educational system accommodate its dictates and strictures, adapting family customs to its code of conduct, winning it a privileged position in American life, and finally imposing its system of law. Steps along the way would include more radical and intrusive actions like prohibiting conversion out of Islam, criminalizing adultery, banning the consumption of pork, formalizing enhanced rights for Muslims at the expense of non-Muslims, and doing away with equality of the sexes.

A Muslim majority? Islamic law the law of the land? Even the most optimistic Islamists concede the task will not be easy. Just as Muhammad confronted die-hard opponents in pagan Mecca, writes Siddiqi, so pious Muslims in America will face opponents, led by the press cum media, the agents of capitalism, the champions of atheism (Godless creeds) and the [Christian] missionary zealots." Doing battle with them will demand focus, determination, and sacrifice.

And yet Siddiqi also thinks Muslims enjoy advantages undreamt of in Muhammad's day or in any other society than today's United States. For one thing, Americans are hungry for the Islamist message, which "pinpoints the shortcoming of capitalism, elaborates the fallacies of democracy, [and] exposes the devastating consequences of the liberal lifestyle." For another, the United States permits Islamists to pursue their political agenda in an entirely legal fashion and without ever challenging the existing order. Indeed, precisely because the Constitution guarantees complete government neutrality toward religion, the system can be used to further Islamist aims. Democratic means are at hand for developing an active and persistent lobby, cultivating politicians, and electing Muslim representatives. Nearly a million legal immigrants arrive in the country each year, plus many more through the long coastlines and porous land borders. The courts are an all-important resource, and have already proved their worth in winning concession after concession from American corporations and public authorities.

Even so, the road will not be completely smooth. A delicate point will be reached, in Siddiqi's mind, as society polarizes between Muslim and non-Muslim camps "in every walk of life." At that point, as the struggle between Truth and Error "acquires momentum and the tension increases along with it," the "Wrong Doers" are likely to take desperate steps to "eliminate the Islamic movement and its workers by force." But if Islamists tread cautiously to navigate this point, taking special care not to alienate the non-Muslim population, eventually there will follow what Siddiqi calls a general "Rush-to-Islam." It will then be only a matter of time before Muslims find themselves not just enfranchised but actually running the show.

How much time? Siddiqi sees Islamists in power in Washington before 2020. For Wahaj, implementation of the shari'a in the United States "appears to be approaching fast," and in contemplating what that means his language grows ecstatic:
I have a vision in America, Muslims owning property all over, Muslim businesses, factories, halal meat, supermarkets, all these buildings owned by Muslims. Can you see the vision, can you see the Newark International Airport and a John Kennedy Airport and LaGuardia having Muslim fleets of planes, Muslim pilots. Can you see our trucks rolling down the highways, Muslim names. Can you imagine walking down the streets of Teaneck, [New Jersey]: three Muslim high schools, five Muslim junior-high schools, fifteen public schools. Can you see the vision, can you see young women walking down the street of Newark, New Jersey, with long flowing hijab and long dresses. Can you see the vision of an area of no crime, controlled by the Muslims?
It hardly needs pointing out that this vision is, to say the least, farfetched, or that Islamists are deluding themselves if they think that today's newborns will be attending college in an Iranian-style United States. But neither is their effort altogether quixotic: their devotion, energy, and skill are not to be questioned, and the larger Muslim-American community for which they claim to speak is assuredly in a position, especially as its numbers grow, to affect our public life in decisive ways. Indeed, despite persistent complaints of bias against them-more voluminous than ever in the wake of the airplane hijackings on September 11-Muslim Americans have built an enviable record of socio-economic accomplishment in this country, have won wide public acceptance of their faith, and have managed to make it particularly difficult for anyone to criticize their religion or customs.

Whether and to what degree the community as a whole subscribes to the Islamist agenda are, of course, open questions. But what is not open to question is that, whatever the majority of Muslim Americans may believe, most of the organized Muslim community agrees with the Islamist goal-the goal, to say it once again, of building an Islamic state in America. To put it another way, the major Muslim organizations in this country are in the hands of extremists.

One who is not among them is Muhammad Hisham Kabbani of the relatively small Islamic Supreme Council of America. In Kabbani's reliable estimation, such "extremists" have "taken over 80 percent of the mosques" in the United States. And not just the mosques: schools, youth groups, community centers, political organizations, professional associations, and commercial enterprises also tend to share a militant outlook, hostile to the prevailing order in the United States and advocating its replacement with an Islamic one.

Not all these organizations and spokesmen are open about their aspirations, though some are: for example, the International Institute of Islamic Thought in Herndon, Virginia, proclaims its academic purpose to be nothing less than "the Islamization of the humanities and the social sciences." But the best-known organizations-the ones whose members are invited to offer prayers and invocations before Congress or to attend White House functions, or whose representatives accompanied the President on his September 17 visit to a mosque-tend to hide their true colors behind arch-respectable goals. Thus, the American Muslim Council claims to work "toward the political empowerment of Muslims in America," the Council on American-Islamic Relations is "putting faith into action," and the Muslim Public Affairs Council seeks only to make American Muslims "an influential component in U.S. public affairs."

But as I have documented at greater length on other occasions, 5 much if not everything about the conduct of these organizations points to their essential agreement with the "conquer America" agenda, and from time to time their leaders-including Al-Faruqi and Shakir-have even said as much. As for Siraj Wahaj, he is a top figure in the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim Alliance in North America, and the Muslim Arab Youth Association, and his views contaminate every single one of them. It is not accurate to say, as President Bush said of the Islamist leaders with whom he met on September 17, that they "love America as much as I do."

That a significant movement in this country aspires to erode its bedrock social and legal arrangements, including the separation of church and state, and has even developed a roadmap toward that end, poses a unique dilemma, especially at this moment. Every responsible public official, and every American of good faith, is bent on drawing a broad distinction between terrorists operating in the name of Islam and ordinary Muslim "moms and dads." It is a true and valid distinction, but it goes much too far, and if adhered to as a guideline for policy it will cripple the effort that must be undertaken to preserve our institutions.

What such an effort would look like is a subject unto itself, but at a minimum it would have to entail the vigilant application of social and political pressure to ensure that Islam is not accorded special status of any kind in this country, the active recruitment of moderate Muslims in the fight against Islamic extremism, a keener monitoring of Muslim organizations with documented links to Islamist activity, including the support of terrorism, and the immediate reform of immigration procedures to prevent a further influx of visitors or residents with any hint of Islamist ideology. Wherever that seditious and totalitarian ideology has gained a foothold in the world, it has wrought havoc, and some societies it has brought to their knees. The preservation of our existing order can no longer be taken for granted; it needs to be fought for.


1 "Islam's American Lobby," Jerusalem Post, September 20, 2001.
2 Here are two: http://www.islambook.com/dawah.htm and http:// www. halalco.com/dawah.html.
3 These words were found in a notebook kept by Sayyid Abd al-Aziz Nusayr, the Egyptian immigrant who assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in a New York hotel in November 1990.
4 Upon hearing an immigrant Islamist speaker instruct an audience of Muslims that they were "obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government-anywhere in the world-in order to replace it by an Islamic one," one American-born convert remembers protesting in dismay that this would involve people like himself in political treason. "Yes, that's true," was the lecturer's blithe response. (Jeffrey Lang, Even Angels Ask: A Journey to Islam in America, 1997.)
5 See, in Commentary, "Are Muslim Americans Victimized?" (November 2000), "How Elijah Muhammad Won" (June 2000), "?How Dare You Defame Islam'" (November 1999), and "America's Muslims Against America's Jews" (May 1999).
");}srb="na";srw="na";//-->


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 11/02/2001 3:49:15 AM PST by dtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dtom
reference bump ...
2 posted on 11/02/2001 3:50:58 AM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dtom
Nothing could be greater," Al-Faruqi wrote in the early 1980's, "than this youthful, vigorous, and rich continent [of North America] turning away from its past evil and marching forward under the banner of Allahu Akbar [God is great]."

Pay attention!

3 posted on 11/02/2001 3:54:26 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Well with a generation of kids in this country being denied any discipline in their daily lives especially at home and in the schools and with Christianity being mocked at every turn in the road and especially by Holywood and the Media Islam presents a fertile ground for those wanting some order and meaning to their lives

Liberalism is killing this country
4 posted on 11/02/2001 4:03:07 AM PST by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dtom
Thank you for posting this. Its a great read. Thanks again.
5 posted on 11/02/2001 4:29:29 AM PST by Pal10523
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dtom
This is a must-read. Muslims don't really hide their intentions for the US. If you read what they say, you can see they don't even deny that they intend for the US to become an Islamic country in the not-to-distant future. The difference between the extremist Muslims and the moderate Muslims isn't in the goal itself, the extremists are the ones willing to do the killing and suicide missions, the moderates are the ones planning to stay alive and run the government when this is done.
6 posted on 11/02/2001 4:36:53 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dtom
On the prior post of this article I noted what is perhaps the most significant point of the entire article.

Restricting or disallowing what others may do. Islamists want law-enforcement agencies to criminalize activities like drinking and gambling that are offensive to Islam. While seeking wide latitude for themselves, for instance when it comes to expressing disrespect for American national symbols, they would penalize expressions of disrespect for religious figures whom Islam deems holy, especially the prophet Muhammad; punish criticism of Islam, Islamism, or Islamists; and close down critical analysis of Islam.

It is direct response to this point that I am now proudly displaying my new bumper stickers

Mohammed was a child molestor
Factually true since Mohammed's favorite wife was nine years old when he "married her."

Mohammed is offspring of a diseased pig and a whore.
No this is not provably accurate but it is the most greviously offensive I could think of at the time to insult the religion. Though I normally would not insult anyone's religous beliefs, at this time i am specifically trying to goad a response that will identify violent Muslims. This one is a litmus test for Islam and their ability to get along in the USA. We have all seen numerous anti-Christian bumper stickers over the past years. It is my opinion that we need to show Muslims for what they are. If I am wrong about the expected response then I shall profoundly apologise but until then I shall wait for the attempt to censor me.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

7 posted on 11/02/2001 4:41:14 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dtom
"...Restricting or disallowing what others may do. Islamists
want law-enforcement agencies to criminalize activities like
drinking and gambling that are offensive to Islam. While
seeking wide latitude for themselves, for instance when it
comes to expressing disrespect for American national
symbols, they would penalize expressions of disrespect
for religious figures whom Islam deems holy, especially
the prophet Muhammad; punish criticism of Islam,
Islamism, or Islamists; and close down critical analysis
of Islam.
...."

 

Say, isn't that about the same agenda the "Religious Right"
has for America?

8 posted on 11/02/2001 4:53:29 AM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Desparate times call for desparate measures folks...these people can't take over anything without money. Refuse to spend your money at Arab-owned businesses or with businesses that hire them. The enemy we face has two faces, they smile and proclaim to support America when in reality they go to their place of worship and listen to rhetoric bashing America. It may seem unfair but we can't be sheep.
9 posted on 11/02/2001 5:13:34 AM PST by Cicero5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Maybe stick to the first sticker. Understatement is more powerful and efficient than overstatement. Seeing the obviously false claim of the second sticker many will doubt the truth of the first one. You can add that another that his was a bandit and a robber what is also true.
10 posted on 11/02/2001 5:13:41 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FITZ; N8VTXNinWV
the extremists are the ones willing to do the killing and suicide missions, the moderates are the ones planning to stay alive and run the government...

And that's why the moderates aren't saying a word about their extremist brethren, yet are the first ones in line to complain about the "profiling" of Muslims as Americans are on the lookout for more acts of terrorism by these very people. Quite telling. (If I recall correctly, two of the 9-11 hijacker/murderers had a red-white-and-blue heart on their apartment door reading "Welcome!" Yeah, said one neighbor, welcome to death's door.)

Ping for Lou!

11 posted on 11/02/2001 5:14:28 AM PST by shezza
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
these people can't take over anything without money. Refuse to spend your money at Arab-owned businesses or with businesses that hire them.

What about that oil money? We need to find alternatives to Arab oil very quickly.

12 posted on 11/02/2001 5:26:56 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
See this link for the true face of islam

true face of islam

13 posted on 11/02/2001 5:29:30 AM PST by dtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Factually true since Mohammed's favorite wife was nine years old when he "married her."

She was only 6 years old when mohammed fell in love with her and married her. When she was 9, mohammed had first sex with her. Her name was Ayesha.

14 posted on 11/02/2001 5:31:59 AM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Improving the SUV
15 posted on 11/02/2001 5:34:22 AM PST by dtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
Refuse to spend your money at Arab-owned businesses or with businesses that hire them.

You are barking at the wrong tree. Large part of Arabs in United States are Arab Christians who fled from Muslisms. They are the descendents of original Middle Eastern Arabs who were Christian before Muhhamad was even born. Some of them are Orthodox (like Greeks and Russians) some of them are Roman Catholic (like Lebanese Maronites who are in union with Rome).

16 posted on 11/02/2001 5:34:46 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: knighthawk
He waited 3 years! Nice of him.
17 posted on 11/02/2001 5:35:33 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dtom
Solution?

Internment? Deportation? Execution? Surveillance? Infilatration? Special Ops?

18 posted on 11/02/2001 5:37:38 AM PST by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dtom
bumped for later bumping!!
19 posted on 11/02/2001 5:38:05 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FReethesheeples
speaking of internment

Political pressure for such relocation grew quickly. As the very liberal Walter Lippmann wrote in his national newspaper column on February 12, 1942: "It is a fact that the Japanese navy has been reconnoitering the Pacific Coast more or less continually and for a considerable period of time, testing and feeling out the American defenses. It is the fact that communication takes place between the enemy at sea and enemy agents on land. These are facts which we shall ignore or minimize at our peril?. The Pacific Coast is officially a combat zone: some part of it may at any moment be a battlefield. Nobody?s constitutional rights include the right to reside and do business on a battlefield."

MAGIC & Manzanar

20 posted on 11/02/2001 5:48:33 AM PST by dtom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
re:
"...Refuse to spend your money at Arab-owned businesses
or with businesses that hire them...."

Very feasible and well within all Constitutional rights.

However, you'll be doing away with:
90% of taxi cab companies,
80% gas station/convenience stores
100% of medical services/hospitals
100% of the electronic industry
100% of colleges
99% of auto industry

ahh.... you get the idea?

 

21 posted on 11/02/2001 8:14:31 AM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dtom
Political pressure for such relocation grew quickly. ...

Just stay tuned, such quick change can happen again. The unthinkable will happen soon if there is the mentioned further attack.

That the attacks were suicidal is only the tip of the iceburg the Islamists are heading for on their Titanic. Muck with the world economy and suffer ever worse fate as goods stop flowing to Muslims.

the "conquer America" agenda

Now let us all be very aware of what Sedition really means ...
"incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority"

Beware. This is not just academic debating.


BTW along these line also be aware that

Action Alert!

BUSH PUTTING PRESSURE ON CONGRESS TO PASS AMNESTY PROVISION!!!

STOP HIM!!!!

11/01/01

245 I -- Allows illegal aliens to pay $1,000 and stay in the U.S. and try to become legal.

IT IS BAD. A HUGE NATIONAL SECURITY RISK ­ THERE ARE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS!!!

CALL THE WHITE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY

202-456-1414

AND/OR SEND A FAX

FAX NO. 202-456-2461

DEMAND THAT BUSH STOP PRESSURING CONGRESS TO INCLUDE 245 I IN THE JUSTICE AND STATE DEPARTMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILLS!!!

An extension of 245(i) WOULD PUT OUR COUNTRY AT GREAT RISK! HOW DARE THE PRESIDENT EVEN CONSIDER THIS? WHEN WILL THIS MADNESS END?!

TO SEND A FAX FREE OF PHONE CHARGES,

Go to www.NumbersUSA.com and click on FAX CONGRESS FREE to send a fax to President Bush asking him to stop pressuring the conferees for an extension. You can also send a fax to the conferees asking them to resist any extension of Section 245(i).


22 posted on 11/02/2001 8:21:18 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
For a few, you wish to penalize the many.

Real democratic policy; real "freedom" you espouse.
It is your right to do so.

But you should be as ashamed of yourself as some of us
are of you, that you are here projecting that bile.

 

23 posted on 11/02/2001 8:29:32 AM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Excuse me? The only bile I wish to expurge would be the Reconquista crowd who share the same seditionist demeanor as the Al Qaeda. Most immigrants are good citizens, it is the few that must be screened appropriately to be prevented from doing us all harm. Extending 245(i) would be a Clintonesque attempt at making it easy for seditionists to gain citizenship. That's all.
24 posted on 11/02/2001 11:02:36 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Sleepers come in a number of forms, Reconquista is one of them, al Qaeda is another.
25 posted on 11/02/2001 11:04:42 AM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Say, isn't that about the same agenda the "Religious Right" has for America?

What kind of assh&*e are you deep_6?? The religious right has no intention of punishing critics of islam nor does the religious right highjack commercial airliners filled with passengers and use them as cruise missiles against civilian targets.

Seems as though some of you stupid heathen assh%$es just can't see the forest for the trees. Regards...religious right wing extremist.

26 posted on 11/02/2001 11:05:58 AM PST by kimosabe31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
How very Christian of you.
27 posted on 11/02/2001 11:13:16 AM PST by free100
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: free100
Alas I can not claim to be a good christian mere a cranky old SOB who gets mad as hell when his country is attacked. Like I said everyone has a right to be offended at anything and everyone has a right to say what they feel like as long as they do not incite to immediate violence or advocate the violent overthrow of the US government or engage in speech that activly promotes the enemy's cause in making war or the USA. See the fire in a crowded theater rule of thumb.

When I have been offended by some crap spewed by some anti-american low life, no one has given a rats behind. If some Muslimn has a persecution complex that is not my problem it is theirs and it shall really be theirs if they decide to exceed the bounds of verbal disagreement with the sentiments I express.

Above I stated my reasons for displaying these sentiments. You may well disagree that is your perogative. I shall be courteous enough to read any disagreement you wish but I wish you would specify why you think I should not display the above.

28 posted on 11/02/2001 11:33:58 AM PST by harpseal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kimosabe31
Suffering from a little confusion between
"agenda" and "terrorism", are you?

I suggest you read text printed, not imagined.

 

29 posted on 11/02/2001 2:01:57 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
O.K.,.........Do you or anybody 'out there' in "answerland" know what this business/meaning is
re: Muslim (cult) BODY SHAVING ???? before they attack?????
30 posted on 11/02/2001 2:11:07 PM PST by maestro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: dtom
This is an excellent and very informative post.

Just as the Communists were often supported by a variety of fellow-traveler and liberal organizations and in some other cases they subverted those organizations so too the relationship between radical Muslims and "moderate" ones is a very interesting one.

I would not spend five seconds worrying about radicalizing the moderate Muslims.

I would spend many hours trying to figure out the best way to decouple them from the rest of society.
31 posted on 11/02/2001 2:12:41 PM PST by cgbg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
re:
"....Excuse me? The only bile I wish to expurge would be the
Reconquista crowd who share the same seditionist demeanor
as the Al Qaeda......."

Please allow me to present exactly what President Bush
is in favor of [and what you are in opposition to],
in his own words:


Text of letter from President Bush to Congressional leaders
THE WHITE HOUSE

May 1, 2001

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. Leader:)

I am a strong proponent of government policies that recognize the importance of families and that help to strengthen them. To the extent possible, I believe that our immigration policies should reflect that philosophy. That is why I support legislation to extend the window created under section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act during which qualified immigrants may obtain legal residence in the United States without being forced to first leave the country and their families for several years.

According to agency estimates, there are more than 500,000 undocumented immigrants in the country who are eligible to become legal permanent residents, primarily because of their family relationship with a citizen or legal permanent resident. However, the law generally requires them to go back to their home country to obtain a visa, and once they do so, they are barred from returning to the United States for up to 10 years. Many choose to risk remaining here illegally rather than to be separated from their families for those many years. This issue has been the subject of discussion in the Working Group that Attorney General Ashcroft and Secretary of State Powell co-chair with officials of the Mexican government, and should be addressed to ensure a more orderly, legal, and humane migration flow between our countries.

I encourage the Congress to consider whether there was adequate time for persons eligible under section 245(i) to apply for adjustment of status before the filing deadline expired yesterday. Information indicates an estimated 200,000 were eligible to file but did not meet the deadline. Preliminary reports suggest that many applicants were unable to complete their paperwork in time, due in part to the fact that the rules explaining how the provision would be applied were not issued until late March. It remains in our national interest to legitimize those resident immigrants, eligible for legal status, and to welcome them as full participants of our society. But we will only be able to do this if the path to legalization encourages family reunification. For this reason, I would support legislation that temporarily extends the recently expired April 30, 2001, filing deadline, while maintaining the requirement that the applicant was physically present in the United States on December 21, 2000.

I look forward to working with you on this important legislation.

 

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

 

(ref: http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/bushlett.htm)


Now please again, give us some details regarding
how this bill is even remotely close to an Al Qaeda
agenda?

Thanks

(we certainly have our share of Bush-bashers lately,
don't we, folks?)

32 posted on 11/02/2001 2:26:36 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Yes, that was the May Day agenda.

Today Newsweek points out too:

So what's cooking in 245(i)? Families getting together sounds just too nice. Consider the ease with which many seditionists seeking permanent citizenship may take advantage of this:

Buy your citizenship? That easy?
33 posted on 11/02/2001 2:54:39 PM PST by flamefront
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: maestro
re:
"..Do you or anybody 'out there' in "answerland" know....."

"Answerland"!  I always wanted to live there!

Although nothing specific, some information is readily
available:

"....Hair of both men and women can only be dyed with
colors other than black. Black dyeing or plucking away
white hair is considered deception about the age of a
person. The only exception is in situations of jihad when
enemies are made to believe that Muslim soldiers are
young and therefore strong....."

(ref: http://www.iiu.edu.my/medic/islmed/Lecmed/excr98.oct.html)

I suppose shaving the hair would eliminate the gray..?

It should be considered, that fighting a "shaved body" male
might be tougher than fighting a hairy one. I think if I shaved
my body, the irritation would keep me pretty PO'd all day.
Fighting mad, actually... Maybe that's their purpose? But
even if mad over the constant itch, how the hell would they
be able to aim a gun and shoot straight, with one hand in their
groin, scratching?

 Maybe Sharon Levy would know, if we could find her to ask?

 

Stay well.

Thanks

 

34 posted on 11/02/2001 2:56:57 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
re:
"..Buy your citizenship? That easy?......"

Yeah, I understand your feeling with that, but in all
fairness, there's more to gaining citizenship status
than forking over the $1k.

The $1k is the penalty, not the fee for admission.
Rather than go back and not be able to apply for
10 years, they can pay the $1k and apply now.

And paying to apply does not guarantee approval.
If an applicant's background contains anything that
would prevent the applicant from being accepted,
they not only face deportation, but lose the $1k.

Bush's support for this is well found, in my opinion.
Our former scumbag president would have just
collected the $1k personally and let them camp out
in the Lincoln Bedroom.

 

Thanks

35 posted on 11/02/2001 3:08:11 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Bump for later reading
36 posted on 11/02/2001 4:33:07 PM PST by Jerez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
Oh nonsense. The claims that 6 million Muslims live in this country are wildly over-stated. The number is closer to 2 million, so you would have us believe that in a country of 280 million people the refusal to do business with Muslims would eliminate all of those industries? Mathematically, it just couldn't happen.
37 posted on 11/02/2001 5:00:12 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: walden
re:
"..so you would have us believe that in a country of 280
million people the refusal to do business with Muslims
would eliminate all of those industries? Mathematically,
it just couldn't happen......."

huh?

I guess you're referring to post #21 ? That was in reply
to "Cicero5" where he stated:

"...Refuse to spend your money at Arab-owned businesses
or with businesses that hire them...."

If you're going to include "businesses that hire" people
of middle east heritage, you'll be eliminating almost
all industry and businesses in this Nation.

Indeed, in that case it was mathematically understated.

Thanks.

38 posted on 11/02/2001 6:44:32 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
I didn't see the "that hire them" part-- sorry!
39 posted on 11/02/2001 6:56:14 PM PST by walden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: walden
No prob!

And like I said to Cicero, it's a person's right
to do business with whoever they please. A boycott
is a great way to show disapproval! But it would be
as impossible to carry out as boycotting places
that carry items made in China.

It took me awhile, but I finally understood that this
world just isn't as big as I first thought, and it gets
a little smaller each day. We're either going to have
to learn to get along, or we're going to be at war
24/7/365.

It'll get old fast, you know what I mean?

 

Thanks

40 posted on 11/02/2001 7:06:18 PM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
bttt
41 posted on 11/03/2001 1:39:09 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
I've been away for a while, I hope you are still out there. Just a question: how exactly do we learn to get along with people who want to murder us in the name of their God?

I realize that it is unrealistic to think that we can enact an absolute economic solution, but where given a choice make the right one. peace

42 posted on 11/06/2001 11:15:47 AM PST by Cicero5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
re:
"..Just a question: how exactly do we learn to get along
with people who want to murder us in the name of their God?...."

Whoops? Slightly out of context?

When I said:
"We're either going to have to learn to get along, or we're 
going to be at war 24/7/365."

I was referring to the prejudiced opinion of many, that we
should hold all of Muslim, Islam and those of Middle East
heritage accountable for the terrorist activities of a few.

In the same manner we hate to see "pro life" denounced for
the bombing of a clinic by some crazed maniac, those of
Middle East heritage should not be condemned for what
they have had no part in.

If we continue along that prejudiced path, we'll be at war 
with people that would rather be at peace with us.

The topic was "boycotting" any business that hires or does
business with any person of Muslim of Islam belief. I don't
agree that it's a worthwhile thing to do, nor do I believe that
it's justifiable. But it's certainly a person's right to do so.

My comment was reflecting on that.

Thanks.

 

43 posted on 11/06/2001 11:36:26 AM PST by Deep_6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Deep_6
I think that it is arguable whether we are just talking about a few terrorists. Some estimates put the number of people that follow the extreme "Islam or else" mantra in the 100 million range. Further, if there are Muslims that stand by silently while others perpetrate these acts I believe that they are just as guilty. Don't be PC about this. We need to face reality. It isn't pleasant one but it is reality. As a Christian I condemn the people bombing abortion clinics and would have no problem saying it publicly. peace man
44 posted on 11/06/2001 11:55:15 AM PST by Cicero5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
bttt
45 posted on 11/09/2001 8:35:18 AM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dtom
bttt
46 posted on 11/09/2001 7:40:01 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero5
bump to the top!!
47 posted on 11/10/2001 9:48:22 PM PST by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson