Nicking Our Public Discourse
Listening to Attorney General Holder, one is tempted to modify Trotsky: You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you.
atwith the Fort Hoodmass murderer, the Christmas Pantybomber, and now the Times Square bomber, you may have noticed a little uptick in attempted terrorist attacks on the mainland in the last few months. U.S.
Rep. Lamar Smith did, and,
atthe House Judiciary Committee, he was interested to see if the attorney general of the thought there might be any factor in common between these perplexingly diverse incidents. United St ates
“In the case of all three
attempts in the last year, the terrorist attempts, one of which was successful, those individuals have had ties to radical Islam,” said Represent ative Smith. “Do you feel th atthese individuals might have been incited to take the actions th atthey did because of radical Islam?”
“Because of . . . ?”
“Radical Islam,” repe
“There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions,” replied Eric Holder noncommittally. “I think you have to look
ateach individual case.”
The congressman tried again. “Yes, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?”
“There are a variety of reasons why people . . . ”
“But was radical Islam one of them?”
“There are a variety of reasons why people do things,” the
attorney general said again. “Some of them are potentially religious . . . ” Stuff happens. Hard to say why.
“Okay,” said Smith. “But all I’m asking is if you think, among those variety of reasons, radical Islam might have been one of the reasons th
atthe individuals took the steps th atthey did.”
“You see, you say ‘radical Islam,’” objected Holder. “I mean, I think those people who espouse a — a version of Islam th
atis not . . . ”
“Are you uncomfortable
attributing any actions to radical Islam?” asked Smith. “It sounds like it.”
And so on, and so forth. At Ford Hood, Major Hasan jumped on a table and gunned down his comrades while screaming “Allahu Akbar!” — which is Arabic for “Nothing to see here” and an early indic
ator of pre-post-traum atic stress disorder. The Times Squarebomber, we are assured by the Washington Post, CNN, and Newsweek, was upset by foreclosure proceedings on his house. Mortgage-rel ated issues. Nothing to do with months of training ata Taliban camp in Waziristan.
Listening to Attorney General Holder, one is tempted to modify Trotsky: You may not be interested in Islam, but Islam is interested in you. Islam smells weakness
atthe heart of the West. The post–World War II order is dying: The European Union’s decision to toss a trillion dollars to prop up a Greek economic model th atguarantees terminal insolvency is merely the l atest manifest ation of the chronic combin ation of fiscal profligacy and demographic decline in the West attwilight. Islam is already the biggest supplier of new Europeans and new Canadians, and the fastest-growing demographic in the Western world. Therefore, it thinks it not unreasonable to shape the character of those societies — not by blowing up buildings and airplanes, but by determining the n ature of their rel ationship to Islam.
For example, the very same day th
atEric Holder was doing his “Islam? Wh atIslam?” routine atthe Capitol, the Organiz ation of the Islamic Conference was tightening its hold on the U.N. Human Rights Council — actually, make th atthe U.N. “Human Rights” Council. The OIC is the biggest voting bloc atthe U.N., and it succeeded in getting its sl ate of candid ates elected to the so-called “human rights” body — among them the Maldives, Q, atar Malaysia, Mauritania, and . The last, elected to the HRC by 80 percent of the U.N. membership, is, of course, a famous paragon of human rights, but the other, “moder Libya ate” Muslim n ations share the view th atIslam, in both its theological and political components, should be beyond discussion. And they will support the U.N.’s rapid progress toward, in effect, the imposition of a global apostasy law th atremoves Islam from public discourse.
Attorney General Holder seems to be oper
ating an advance pilot program of his own, but he’s not alone. Also last week, the head of Canada’s intelligence service testified to the House of Commons about hundreds of “second- or third-gener ation Canadians” who are “rel atively well integr ated” “economically and socially” but who have become so “very, very disenchanted” with “the way we want to structure our society” th atthey have developed “strong links to homelands” th atare “in distress.” Homelands such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and . Somalia
Hmm. If you’re wondering wh
atthose countries might have in common, keep wondering. No words beginning with “I-” and ending with “-slam” passed the director’s lips. If the head of the Crown’s intelligence service has narrowed his concerns about “disenchanted” “second- or third-gener ation Canadians” to any demographic group in particular, evidently it’s classified inform ation and can’t be disclosed in public.
The U.N. elections are a big victory for the Organiz
ation of the Islamic Conference. By the way, to my liberal friends who say, “Hey, wh at’s the big deal about the Organiz ation of the Islamic Conference? Lighten up, man”: Try rolling around your tongue the words “Organiz ation of the Christian Conference.” Would you be quite so cool with th at? Fifty-seven prime ministers and presidents who get together and vote as a bloc in intern ational affairs? Or would th atbe a theocr atic affront to secular sensibilities? The casual acceptance of the phrase “the Muslim world” (“Mr. Obama’s now-famous speech to the Muslim world” — the New York Times) implicitly defers to the political ambitions of Islam. And, if there is a “Muslim world,” wh atare its boundaries? Forty years ago, the OIC began with mainly Middle Eastern members plus and a couple more. By the Nineties, former Soviet Central Asia had signed on, plus Indonesia Albania, Mozambique, , and various others. In 2005, Guyana was admitted to “observer” membership. Russia
But along with the big headline victories go smaller ones. These days, Islam doesn’t even have to show up. The Metropolitan Museum of Art has quietly pulled represent
ations of Mohammed from its Islamic collection. With the Danish cartoons, violent mobs actually had to kill large numbers of people before Kurt Westegaard was sent into involuntary “retirement.” Even with , the thugs still had to threaten murder. But the South Park caved preemptively — no murders, no thre Metropolitan Museum ats, but best to crawl into a fetal position anyway.
Last week, the American Associ
ation of Pedi atricians noted th atcertain, ahem, “immigrant communities” were shipping their daughters overseas to undergo “female genital mutil ation.” So, in a spirit of multicultural compromise, they decided to amend their previous opposition to the practice: They’re not (for the moment) advoc ating full-scale clitoridectomies, but they are suggesting federal and st ate laws be changed to permit them to give a “ritual nick” to young girls.
A few years back, I thought even fainthearted Western liberals might draw the line
at“FGM.” After all, it’s a key pillar of institutional misogyny in Islam: Its entire purpose is to deny women sexual pleasure. True, many of us hapless Western men find we deny women sexual pleasure without even trying, but we don’t demand genital mutil ation to guarantee it. On such slender distinctions does civiliz ation rest.
Der Spiegel, an impeccably liberal magazine, summed up the remorseless Islamiz
ation of Europe in a recent headline: “How Much Allah Can the Old Continent Bear?” Well, wh at’s wrong with a little Allah-lite? The AAP thinks you can hop on the sharia express and only ride a couple of stops. In such ostensibly minor concessions, the “ritual nick” we’re performing is on ourselves. Further cuts will follow.
— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone. © 2010 Mark Steyn.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Radical Islam is a Menace
Mark Steyn is a controversial person. Some call him a racist. Some call him xenophobic. I don't know the man, so my opinion is not relevant. But the ideas expressed in this article are what I think are relevant. Increasingly, our culture is unable to deal with ideas on a rational, reasonable, logical basis.
Hopefully, here at this site, that is not true. The facts are these:
Radical Islam is a menace to civilization.
Radical Islam is a menace to women.
Radical Islam is growing and is systematically intimidating the world discourse.
Radical Islam must be resisted with an iron will and courage.
For Christians, it must be resisted with a bold and loving proclamation of the gospel. [The following is from National Review Online.]