Category Archives: Mecca

The Myth Of Muslim Peacefulness

WHEN YOU DRAW A LINE AROUND the Muslim world, you draw a line through 90% of the conflict zones in the world. Teachers are routinely murdered in Thailand and the Phillipines; students are blown up in Russia; Christians are kidnapped in Nigeria, Afghanistan and Pakistan, as one atrocity follows after the other. Year in and year out Muslims with no so-called Al Qaeda links have committed heinous crimes against innocent people, mostly from other religious cultures in a perpetual religiously-ordained land grab, and among their own in an aggressive act of religious oppression.

Recently an Imam based in England said he would dance with joy if Iran nuked Israel. The death of 2-3 million people would cause this religious figure an orgasm of joy.

No other people in the world stake a claim to high morality and yet happily pursue the mass murder of others. Why are Muslims so full of hate and intolerance for others, except that this behavior is ingrained in their specific Islamic personality, as dictated by the Qur'an? In this day and age this is the only question worth asking in Islamic Studies. Studying the movements of Islamic Art and poetry are pointless to the main question of survival in the world today. Any Islamic studies course needs to make the connection between the conduct and teaching of Mohammad and the modern day conduct and attitudes of Muslims.

Five Reasons Why, Among the "Great Religions," Islam Is A Focus of Particular Concern:

Reason #1
Islam is unique among religions in having a developed doctrine, theology, and legal system mandating warfare against unbelievers. This is found in the Qur'an and Sunnah, as well as in Islamic jurisprudence. Many like to point to violent passages in the Bible as an alleged equivalent to this, but actually the Bible contains no open-ended, universal command for believers to wage war against unbelievers, as does the Qur'an (9:5, 9:29, 2:190-193, etc.).

Reason #2
Muhammad said, "If someone changes his Islamic religion, kill him." That bit of gentleness from Muhammad can be found here in the most canonical of hadith collections, Bukhari.

Reason #3:
Islamic texts encourage terror and fighting to a far larger degree than the original texts of other religions, concludes [Danish linguist] Tina Magaard. She has a PhD in Textual Analysis and Intercultural Communication from the Sorbonne in Paris, and has spent three years on a research project comparing the original texts of ten religions. “The texts in Islam distinguish themselves from the texts of other religions by encouraging violence and aggression against people with other religious beliefs to a larger degree. There are also straightforward calls for terror. This has long been a taboo in the research into Islam, but it is a fact that we need to deal with," writes Magaard, adding, "Moreover, there are hundreds of calls in the Qu'ran for fighting against people of other faiths. If it is correct that many Muslims view the Qu'ran as the literal words of God, which cannot be interpreted or rephrased, then we have a problem. It is indisputable that the texts encourage terror and violence."

Reason #4
Since 9/11/01, thousands have died in Islamic terror attacks all over the globe.

Reason #5
But perhaps the greatest reason many people focus worried scrutiny toward Islam is that it commands Muslims to use persuasion (which would include voting), deception, terror, and demographic jihad (immigration and reproduction) to spread the rule of Islamic law all over the globe, and to subordinate non-Muslims to the status of debased, second-class citizens.

Qur'an, Chapter 9, verse 29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger [Muhammad] have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book [Jews and Christians], until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

In response to worries about efforts to impose Islamic law around the world, and of late particularly in Europe some Muslim apologists respond that when Spain was dominated by Islam, it was a multicultural paradise for Christians and Jews.

Not so. An excellent reference is the book "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. Even noted Medieval scholar Maria Rosa Menocal in her extended whitewash of Muslim Spain called The Ornament of the World, as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has pointed out, admits that the laws of dhimmitude were very much in force in the great Al-Andalus [Muslim Spain]:

The dhimmi, as these covenanted peoples were called, were granted religious freedom, not forced to convert to Islam. They could continue to be Jews and Christians, and, as it turned out, they could share in much of Muslim social and economic life. In return for this freedom of religious conscience the Peoples of the Book (pagans had no such privilege) were required to pay a special tax—no Muslims paid taxes—and to observe a number of restrictive regulations: Christians and Jews were prohibited from attempting to proselytize Muslims, from building new places of worship, from displaying crosses or ringing bells. In sum, they were forbidden most public displays of their religious rituals.

About Muslim Spain, Andrew Bostom and Bat Ye’or write:

Iberia (Spain) was conquered in 710-716 AD by Arab tribes. Most churches were converted into mosques. It proceeded as a classical jihad with massive pillages, enslavement, deportations and killings.

Toledo, which had first submitted to the Arabs in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. The town was punished by pillage and all the notables had their throats cut. In 730, the Cerdagne (in Septimania, near Barcelona) was ravaged and a bishop burned alive. In the regions under stable Islamic control, Jews and Christians were tolerated as dhimmis—like elsewhere in other Islamic lands—and could not build new churches or synagogues nor restore the old ones. Segregated in special quarters, they had to wear discriminatory clothing. Subjected to heavy taxes, the Christian peasantry formed a servile class attached to the Arab domains.

The humiliating status imposed on the dhimmis [Christians and Jews under Muslim rule] and the confiscation of their land provoked many revolts, punished by massacres, as in Toledo (761, 784-86, 797). After another Toledan revolt in 806, seven hundred inhabitants were executed. Insurrections erupted in Saragossa from 781 to 881, Cordova (805), Merida (805-813, 828 and the following year, and later in 868), and yet again in Toledo (811-819); the insurgents were crucified, as prescribed in Qur’an 5:33.

The revolt in Cordova of 818 was crushed by three days of massacres and pillage, with 300 notables crucified and 20,000 families expelled. Thousands of people were deported to slavery in Andalusia [Muslim Spain], where the caliph kept a militia of tens of thousand of Christian slaves brought from all parts of Christian Europe (the Saqaliba), and a harem filled with captured Christian women. Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the Christians and Jews.

In Granada, the Jewish viziers Samuel Ibn Naghrela and his son Joseph, who protected the Jewish community, were both assassinated between 1056 to 1066, followed by the annihilation of the Jewish population by the local Muslims. It is estimated that up to five thousand Jews perished in the pogrom by Muslims that accompanied the 1066 assassination. This figure equals or exceeds the number of Jews reportedly killed by the Crusaders during their pillage of the Rhineland, some thirty years later, at the outset of the First Crusade.

The Muslim Berber Almohads in Spain and North Africa (1130-1232) wreaked enormous destruction on both the Jewish and Christian populations. This devastation—massacre, captivity, and forced conversion—was described by the Jewish chronicler Abraham Ibn Daud, and the poet Abraham Ibn Ezra.

Although Maimonides is frequently referred to as a paragon of Jewish achievement facilitated by the enlightened rule of Andalusia, his own words debunk this utopian view of the Islamic treatment of Jews: "The Arabs have persecuted us severely, and passed baneful and discriminatory legislation against us. Never did a nation molest, degrade, debase, and hate us as much as they."

Europeans came over and conquered America. In the conflict, both sides did bad things. But the smoke has cleared and most Americans honor the Country’s Indian heritage. I was involved in a construction project whereby the taxpayer built twenty-some nice new homes on the Reservation for Indian families, free of charge. Sports teams go by the names of Indian tribes. Look at the number of US towns named after the Indians. America’s premier coin is the $50 American Buffalo, with an Sioux warrior on the face side.

Compare Manifest Destiny with Islamic expansion where Buddhist statues are blown up, Jewish remains are destroyed, and locals are converted, subjugated, or killed. These Muslims can stand around and make direct threats, we see them posted in the news and on blogs all the time like: "UK your 911 is on the way!", meanwhile the infidels stand back, take it, with no visits to the courts.

Draw one cartoon and that schizophrenic religion is afire while the nihilistic Western dhimmis comment with awe about how these thugs are so passionate in their beliefs. Must be simply fabulous to be a Muslim, since neither he nor she has to worry about being politically correct. This outrage, any Muslim outrage is not about the pope, a Palestinian homeland, Israel, or any of the endless red herrings they toss out. It is about a belief system that would collapse under it own weight if the truth could be told without cities burnings and thousands, if not millions, of people dying.

NYPD Terror Advisor Sued By Muslim Group

By Art Moore for

The President of Pretense

A Muslim analyst for the New York City Police Department is suing the city for workplace harassment, alleging he was subject to a regular stream of "anti-Islamic" messages from an e-mail list run by a former adviser who trained detectives in counter-terrorism. The contracted adviser, retired 21-year CIA veteran Bruce Tefft, is also a defendant in the suit, filed in federal court in Manhattan last December. But Tefft—a founder of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Unit—told WND he believes the analyst, who is not named in court papers, has no case against him. Tefft, noting the suit so far has cost him $50,000 in legal fees, cites First Amendment protections and argues NYPD personnel signed up for his e-mail list at their own will and were completely free to unsubscribe at any time.

He also points out his employer at the time, the private intelligence firm Orion Scientific Systems, covered his entire salary and expenses, effectively donating his services to the NYPD. A hearing is scheduled for next month on a motion to dismiss the case.

Tefft continues to send out about 50 to 60 e-mails a day comprised mostly of unclassified material and news reports from around the world related to terrorism and Islam. In a fraction of those dispatches he adds his own comments, some of which became a focus of the complaint. "This is a global war we are in," Tefft said, explaining the relevance of the e-mailed reports to domestic officials. "The enemy is a global enemy. Jihadists are all over the world. So whatever goes on around the world has value here."

The suit by the Egyptian-born analyst—who filed as "John Doe Anti-Terrorism Officer" because he works undercover in the Cyber Unit—says the e-mails "ridiculed and disparaged the Muslim religion and Arab people, and stated that Muslim- and Arab-Americans were untrustworthy and could not reliably serve in law enforcement positions or handle sensitive data."

He also claims he was subject to disparaging remarks by NYPD personnel and that on one occasion, Muslim and Arab-American employees of the intelligence unit were asked to leave the room after giving a presentation, while other employees were allowed to stay, according to the New York Observer.

The suit contends that despite the analyst's repeated complaints to supervisors about Tefft's e-mail distribution over a period of three years, the city "failed to do anything to stop it."

"Tefft's hate-filled and humiliating email briefings were distributed to virtually all City employees who worked in the NYPD's Intelligence Division, including the highest-ranking members of that division and Plaintiff's supervisors," says the complaint.

The Muslim analyst's lawyer, Ilann Maazel, was not available for comment.

The analyst, a former prison guard at the city's Rikers Island jail, has been assigned since 1998 to the NYPD's Intelligence Division, where he helped form the Cyber Unit in 2002, Maazel told the New York Times in December. The members scan the Internet to monitor potential threats, and Maazel said the analyst's family in Egypt could be harmed if the nature of his work were revealed.

Not a sentimentalist...

According to the suit, Tefft's personal notes on the e-mails included comments such as "a good Muslim...can't be a good American," "Burning the hate-filled Koran should be viewed as a public service at the least," and "This is not a war against terrorism... it is against Islam and we are not winning."

On one article headlined "1 in 4 Hold Anti-Muslim Views," Tefft added, "Then 1 in 4 is well-informed." On another one titled, "Has U.S. threatened to vaporize Mecca?" he commented, "Excellent idea, if true."

Tefft, who spent 17 of his 21 years in clandestine services stationed overseas, including hot spots such as Mogadishu and Angola, makes no apologies for his views. "I won't dispute what I was saying; I could justify what I said about Islam," he told WND.

Tefft believes the threat of Islam to the U.S. is so serious he has no time to mince words. "I'm not a sentimentalist, and I'm not hate-filled either," he said. "Hate is an emotion. I don't feel emotional about it at all. I feel analytical and logical" and insists there clearly is a link between fundamental Islam and terror. "There is nothing un-Islamic about Osama bin Laden," he said of the al-Qaida leader. "If there were, he would have been declared apostate, non-Islamic."

Maazel, in a December interview with the New York Times, called the e-mails "racist," but Tefft says that is absurd. "I don't consider Islam a race," he said. "So to call me racist is ridiculous. I have good friends who are Egyptian officials. I've worked all over the world."

Islam, he maintains, should be regarded as a political ideology bent on world conquest....

Bombed If You Do, Bombed If You Don't

Terror cell
Terror cell

Amazing how many of the comments on the New York Times article reporting on Tancredo's recent statement bluster with such horror that the US may bomb a few holy sites in response to a nuclear attack on America. Be assured there are Islamic imperialists plotting this very minute how they may obtain a nuclear weapon and set it off in the heart of America.

Where is the outrage that these "hijackers" are planning on murdering upward of a million American citizens, leaving our own nation in economic and political disarray? We must imagine these bloggers feel America deserves it. The people who would attack the United States do not give a fig about blowing up sacred sites in Iraq, school children, mosques.

Is Mecca holier than Portland or Los Angeles? Are there more civilians who would be murdered by a dirty bomb in Mecca than in Los Angeles? The radicals are not going to be detered by threatening to bomb their children. They strap bombs to their own children. The only thing the radicals value as holy or cherish is public religious display. If the Muslims explode a dirty bomb in the US, say Los Angeles, will you feel safe in Des Moines? Will you wonder how many bombs they have and when they will strike again.

Many seem to have forgotten some of the Allied tactics of World War II. Everyone knows the Germans bombed civilians in London and environs, but memory fogs over in regard to the extensive and demoralizing bombing that was carried-out against civilians in various German cities. Dresden. Heidelberg. Berlin. Purely shock and horror bombing, meant to help defeat a very real and determined enemy. Any citizen of the West should reflect on this before preaching about what we should be morally precluded from doing.

To point to acts of sectarian violence in Iraq and elsewhere indicates a lack of the most basic knowledge. Just because Sunni extremists destroy Shiite holy places (which they do not recognize as legitimate or sacred) doesn’t mean that they will not be bothered by the destruction of the two holiest sites in all of Islam. In fact, the revered nature of Mecca and Medina as holy sites that every single Islamic sect accepts and embraces, is probably the only thing the Sunnis and Shi'ites hold in agreement.

We are told we are not at war with Islam, but current (and historical) indications in that direction are overwhelming. Tancredo’s statement perhaps was not the most brilliant approach, but then most of us have deceived ourselves into believing that nothing like World War II will ever, or could ever, revisit us. It does not take two crazy parties to get a war going, just one.

More Tancredo Blowback

Al Kaaba

Is this discussion of dropping a nuke on Mecca getting out of hand? While liberals trot out their usual stuff, and conservatives, well, do kind of the same thing, here's a fresh perspective from the annals of hindsight:

Maybe he's not so crazy. Back in 1968, Curtis LeMay was running as George Wallace's Vice president. He said we could stop North Viet Nam from over running South Viet Nam by dropping 2 bombs on Hanoi and Haiphong. Liberals and conservative called him nuts; however if he had done so, There would have been no Communist victory and the deaths of about 250,000 would have prevented the deaths of 4 million, North and South; not to mention and additional 35,000 Americans. Maybe Tom Tancredo has a point and it is not the top of his head.

Charles B. Tiffany
Kissimmee, Florida

The Fitzgerald Perspective

Tancredo spikes again, after the MSM continues to ignore him as a marginal candidate for for the US presidency. The following article by Hugh Fitzgerald originally posted on Jihad Watch on July 18, 2005, pulls the argument together in an even clearer light for today’s readers. Fitzgerald writes:

Tom Tancredo

A two-year-old posting on the matter, put up the last time Tancredo raised the matter of deterrence and a retaliatory attack on Mecca gives us this—

"Congressman Tancredo, a former history teacher, has almost alone in Congress bothered to begin to investigate what Islam teaches, what it is all about. For this he deserves the support of everyone, and everything possible should be done to help re-elect him—if for no other reason, than to ensure that at least one member of Congress will speak the truth about the belief-system of Islam. He deserves to be supported to the hilt, in any possible way.

And the Congressman did not recommend that "Mecca be bombed." While many people have in the past suggested that—see the redoubtable Fred Ikle, for example, he who was so important in the Reagan Administration—Congressman Tancredo said something different, and perfectly understandable.

He was asked about rumors that Muslim terrorists might have already smuggled into the country nuclear devices that they planned to set off, and what kinds of things might deter them. He mused aloud, that one of the things that might deter them would be the threat to bomb Mecca. That was all he said. It was hardly remarkable, and the only thing remarkable about it has been, as has been repeatedly suggested at JW (see, for example, the recent article by Rebecca Bynum)is that all the different ways to inflict damage on the belief-system of Islam have not been discussed. But on the other hand, as long as we are conducting either a "war on terrorism" or a "war on an ideology of violent extremism" that remains carefully unnamed, perhaps in the end it is not surprising that we have no discussion of the kinds of deterrents that would work, and on whom.

It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understanding that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limitation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR—of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats.
For example, there may be no way of deterring the groups and groupiscules of fanatics. But there are ways to threaten, and deter, the Saudis from continuing to send money abroad to support the entire Muslim infrastructure that, as the recent Freedom House report showed, encourages not merely Islam but the most hate-filled brand of Islam—in other words, there are threats of seizure of assets that might get the attention of the rulers of Saudi Arabia (and the U.A.E. riding pillion), to have them cease using the "money weapon" to pay for mosques and madrasas and Da'wa throughout the Western, Infidel world.

But Tancredo was addressing a different problem. and he did not offer an answer. He offered one among many possibilities that he thought deserved intelligent discussion. And he was right. And this is not a clear-cut case. There are many ex-Muslims, for example, who appear to believe that Tancredo is absolutely right—that this may be the one thing which, if threatened, or at least considered, could cause Muslims to rethink. It is already clear that the change in the atmosphere in the Western world, the beginning of a glimmer of an understanding that the very matter of Islam needs to be examined, has caused such things as this absurd public-relations effort in damage-limitation, this so-called "fatwa" to be issued by some Muslim groups in America, and announced by that more than doubtful organization, CAIR—of course the wording will require the closest kind of reading, the kind we ordinarily would reserve for Shakespeare, Keats, or Hardy, applied to the banal taqiyya of Muslim bureaucrats.

But the mere fact that people who have been defending certain acts now feel they must, for Infidel consumption, seem to be distancing themselves, is a sign that when danger is perceived, there is a drawing-back. It is certain that the mere discussion of bombing Mecca has both good and bas aspects. The bad aspect is that it is the kind of remark that allows many to get on their high moral horse, and huff and puff, and "deplore" this wild man, Tom Tancredo. Anyone can imagine what editorials in The New Duranty Times and The Bandar Beacon deploring Tancredo might look like. But in our Infidel hearts, we are all secretly pleased, and relieved—are we not?—that such a discussion of deterrence has at least been begun. For without such a discussion, there is no way to begin to think straight about the problem of Islam world-wide—not of "terrorism" but of Islam.

Every intelligent Western observer has noted what Tocqueville, who had been in Algeria, referred to as the "morbid" quality of Islam. Churchill, in "The River Wars," had nothing good to say about the foaming-at-the-mouth fanaticism of the Muslim warriors, but he did note that they did not fear death, for the sensual Paradise that awaited the warrior who died in Jihad was a reality.

And because the usual kinds of threats might mean little to fanatics, one has to figure out what might work as a deterrent. In Israel the punishment of destroying houses has some deterrent effect, given that the families of the "martyrs" will suffer—and some "martyrs" are willing to die, but don't want their family members left behind to have to build a new home. It is not true that such deterrence does not work. There are other possibilities. Much Muslim behavior inimical to the West can be deterred.

For example, the family that has seized, and treats as its private property, the vast territory of Arabia—the House of Al-Saud—both directly or indirectly helps to support, and even help to create, fanatics in two ways. Within Saudi Arabia, its own despotism and corruption causes young Saudis who are enraged by them to embrace, not Jeffersonian democracy, which is un-Islamic, but rather Al Qaeda or other groups, which provide them with the vocabulary, the imagery, the categories that Islam itself supplies to define opposition to a corrupt caliph or ruler. For it does not do, within Islam, to denounce someone as corrupt, or as a despot. The rulers, after all, are the rulers, and the habit of mental submission that Islam inculcates, and the inshallah-fatalism that is within Islam, helps in large part to encourage submission to the despot, however corrupt—unless that despot can be seen as, defined as, placed in the category of, "Infidel."

Then anything and everything can be done to destroy that "Infidel." And that is exactly what happens among those who oppose the Al-Saud, or the Mubarak Friends-and-Family stratokleptocracy in Egypt—save for a pitiful, nearly nonexistent Western-style secular opposition in the latter, the opposition will always take on a Muslim cast. Muslims can do no other. And the corruption of the Al-Saud helps create the odd scion of plutocrats who, in Muslim terms most nobly, gives it all up to fight for "justice" against the corrupt rulers, but "justice," alas, Muslim-style, with the Muslim worldview, which means that all evil comes from Infidels, and all who are genuinely evil must be defined as, and treated as, Infidels, even if they may claim—falsely, obviously—to be Muslims, as do so many of the corrupt princes and princelings of Saudi Arabia.

That is one way the Al-Saud help swell the ranks of the Muslim terrorist groups.

The second way they do so is in building, and paying for the maintenance of, mosques and madrasas all over the world, but especially in the Infidel lands, the Bilad al-kufr, where those mosques, and those madrasas, can encourage the worst brand of Islam (this does not mean that a "milder" brand does not inculcate hatred of Infidels, for it must—it is a question of with what intensity, with what fervor, with what single-mindedness, the particular brand of Islam inculcates what is common to all of them, part of Islam itself). Nearly $100 billion has gone from the Saudis as part of the propaganda weapon on behalf of Islam, as part of world-wide Da'wa, and to pay for Western hirelings who will do the bidding and promote the interests of, and deflect criticism from, the Saudis as they continue their malevolent activities throughout the world.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle.
The Al-Saud are rational actors. They can be threatened, and forced to cease their support for the mosques and madrasas and hate-filled propaganda. they can be threatened with seizure of their assets abroad. They can be threatened with a total removal of American guarantees, which they assume are permanent, for their safety. They can be threatened with a loss of secure American or other Western refuges if and when they are overturned. They can be threatened with the removal of Western doctors, and teachers, and a refusal to allow their children to study in the West, or for them to find medical care in the West. These are very dangerous threats—imagine if someone threatened you that you would never again be allowed access to advanced Western medical care.

And in the end, if they think they have that ace-in-the-hole, oil—you can show that you are willing to seize the oil in the al-Hasa province, oil conveniently close to tankers in the Persian (Persian, not Arab) Gulf, and that there are a thousand-and-one ways to deal with this situation. But this requires a complete change of tone to get the Saudi attention. Such attention will not be attained if those who continue to prate about a "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia, which one finds in such deplorable examples of the appeasement-of-the-Saudis mindset in the Op/Ed of one Flynt Leverett, described—even more disturbingly—as "former senior director for Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council"—and someone who has clearly been one of those who fails to understand that Saudi Arabia is not, and never has been, and never can be, the ally of an Infidel country, but that, if treated correctly, certain kinds of behavior on its part can be prevented, and certain other kinds of behavior forced from its rulers.

Iongressman Tancredo, in raising the question of what would, or would not, work as deterrence, was performing a great service to discussion. It is of course difficult to predict what bombing Mecca would do. I tend to think it would be far better to discuss all the other kinds of deterrence that one knows will work, on the rational actors or quasi-rational actors within the dar al-Islam. And as for the fanatics, one can consider how to limit access to Mecca, airfield by airfield, port by port, highway by highway, until it should be as remote as the highest Himalayas, or some impassable and steaming jungle, or the frozen wastes of Ultima Thule. Mecca would still be there, but to get to it—that would be the problem. And that kind of deterrence would be a step-by-step affair.

But the question of the psychology of Muslims—of their combination of grandiosity and living in some mythical great past, and resentment over the miserable and obviously miserable present, where murderous hatred of Infidels is so often part of some grotesque ten-step Self-Esteem Program for those Muslims who have tasted the West, may even have used drugs or lived as criminals and now wish to go straight, Islamically straight—needs more examination.

However the debate over this or that kind of deterrence goes, the mere fact that such a debate takes place is good, for it automatically ends certain taboos. It makes clear that this is not a "war against terror" alone but a long campaign, very likely without end unless the migration of Muslims to the West is stopped and reversed (and while hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the U.K. claim to "wish to leave" one does not see any of them leaving—but more significantly, one has not heard, even from the most antisemitic and anti-Israel brigands, any pleas for them to remain), and unless the unearned and entirely unmerited OPEC oil wealth is so diminished that the Saudis, and the rest of them, can be pushed back into that state of obscurity, poverty, and general irrelevance that they were in before an accident of geology gave them power. In the meantime the Infidels, for their own safety, must work to create those conditions—or to do nothing to prevent the creation of those conditions—by which, like those in the Soviet Union who concluded that their own system had failed, Muslims themselves will be forced to confront the evident political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of their own peoples and polities, and will have to attribute those failures, correctly, to Islam itself.

Finally, it is hard for Infidels to judge the effect of a threat on Mecca, or a threat to limit access to Mecca, on Muslims. Who might best have some insight into this? Possibly ex-Muslims themselves, the many articulate and acute students of minds formed by Islam, who managed to undo its manacles, and escape from its closed circle. One wonders what views they would have on the threat to bomb Mecca, or to limit access to Mecca, as something that might work on the groups and groupiscules that, unlike the sneering but carefully calculating members of the Al-Saud, are less subject to the ordinary threats of loss of income, loss of access to all the goods and services of the advanced Infidel world, even loss of life."

Hirsi Ali Speaks At National Press Club

Read and comprehend, my fellow believers in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The words of Hirsi Ali at the National Press Club here in Washington:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

The first time that I was at a gathering like this one, it was November 2005, at the Krasnapolsky hotel in Amsterdam; not quite like this one, though, because there is only one National Press Club. I was invited to a session on media coverage of Islam, and Submission was shown. Submission is a 10-minute film I made with Theo van Gogh. As many of you know, he was killed for it by a Muslim. I found myself in the odd position of defending freedom of expression, free press, and the rights of women against Arab-Islamic journalists and commentators. I found it odd because the Western journalists whose conference it was were either quiet, mumbled something about free expression, or approached me after the session and whispered into my ear that I had done a good job. I noticed the embarrassment they felt at defending the very right from which they earn their bread. I noticed the same sense of uneasiness in early 2006 among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and commentators on how to respond to the cartoons of Muhammad in Denmark. In fact, many seriously defended the assertion that Denmark had to apologize for the cartoons. This attitude was repeated in the fall of last year when the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor who wrote that the founder of Islam spread his religion by the sword, and the New York Times urged the Pope to apologize.

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam.

Tony Blair, a leader I admire, wrote in the first issue of this year's Foreign Affairs magazine that what we were facing after the 11th of September was a battle of ideas, a battle of values. In his article, Blair began by incisively outlining the most crucial conflict of our time, but then lost the line of his argument in inconsistency when he came to clarifying the parties involved in the war of values. He backpedaled against his argument and declared that the Koran is a great book, ahead of its time and good for women.

Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of expression, equal rights for women and men, gays and heterosexuals, critical thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas—and especially faith?

It is not the end of history. The 21st century began with a battle of ideas, and this battle is about the values of the West versus those of Islam. Tony Blair and the Pope should not be embarrassed in saying it, and you should stop self-censoring. Islam and liberal democracy are incompatible; cultures and religions are not equal. And perhaps most important of all, Muslims are not half-wits who can respond only in violence. The Koran is not a great book; it is reactionary and full of misogyny. The Byzantine emperor's analysis of Muhammad was correct: he spread his faith by the sword.

From this perspective journalists like all the rest of us face the unpleasant reality of taking sides or getting lost in the incoherence of the so-called middle ground. The role of journalists serving the West, who understand what this particular battle is about, will be to inform their audiences accordingly.

As I travel from country to country to testify from experience and observation that Islamic dogma creates a cult of death, a cage for women, and a curse against knowledge, I get both support and opposition. Europeans and Americans ask:

But what about the good Muslim living next to me? What about the different schools of thought in Islam? Is there no difference between the Muslims of Indonesia and the ones in Somalia, or the Muslims in Saudi Arabia and those in Turkey? Can we really generalize? What about the women who voluntarily wear the headscarf and the burqa and are happy to relinquish their freedom as their faith requires? If we give Catholics and Protestants and Jews their schools and their universities, isn't it only fair to give Muslims theirs, too? If generations of Jews, Italians, and Irish have assimilated, is it unreasonable to think that Muslims will assimilate too, eventually?" Isn't it more fruitful to engage in debate with your opponent and convince him through dialogue to take back his declaration of war than to attack him? Isn't it obvious that military attacks, such as those in Afghanistan after 9/11 and in Iraq, create more terrorists, and therefore more people who are determined to destroy the West than there would be if we had dialogue with them?

These questions are legitimate and deserve serious answers. Let's make a moral distinction between Islam and Muslims. Muslims are diverse. Some, like Irshad Manji and Tawfiq Hamid, want to reform their faith. Others want to spread their beliefs through persuasion, violence or both. Others are apathetic and do not care much for politics. Others want to leave it and convert to Christianity, like Nonie Darwish, or become atheist, like me.

Islam unreformed, as a set of beliefs, is hostile to everything Western.

In a free society, if Jews, Protestants, and Catholics have their own schools, then Muslims should have theirs, too. But how long should we ignore that in Muslim schools in the West, kids are taught to believe that Jews are pigs and dogs? Or that they should distance themselves from unbelievers and jihad is a virtue? Isn't it odd that everywhere in Europe with large Muslim organizations, demands are made not to teach kids about the Holocaust, while in mosques and Muslim bookshops The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is distributed?

And what about in Muslim lands, where Jews, Catholics, and Protestants cannot have their own schools, or churches, or graveyards? If Muslims can proselytize in Vatican City, why can't Christians proselytize in Mecca? Why do we find this acceptable? If Christians, Jews, and Atheists take to the streets in large numbers to protest against their own elected governments in objection to the war in Iraq, to the war against terror, why don't Muslims march in equally large number against the beheadings of Western aid workers? Why don't Muslims stand up for their own? Why are Jews and Christians and Atheists in the West the ones fighting genocide in Darfur? Why does it pass unnoticed in Muslim lands when Shias kill Sunnis and Sunnis, Shias by the thousands? It doesn't add up, does it? If you ask me, "What is the role of journalism today?" I would urge you to look into these questions.

As a woman in the West I have access to education. I have a job, and I can change jobs as I wish. I can marry the man of my choice, or I can choose not to marry at all. If nature allows it, I can have any number of children I want. I can manipulate nature and freeze my eggs. I can have an abortion. I can own property. I can travel wherever I want. I can read whichever book, newspaper, or magazine I wish. I can watch any movie I want or go to the museum of my choice. I can have an opinion on the moral choices of others and express my opinion, even publish it. And I can change my mind as time goes by. I can establish a political party or join an existing one; I am free to change parties or give up my membership. I can vote. I can choose not to vote. I can stand for election to office or go into business. This is what makes the West so great.

In Muslim lands, except for a very lucky few, women are denied education, have no job, and are forced into marriage with strangers. In the name of Islam, women are denied the right to their bodies; they cannot choose whether to have children or how many to have. They have no rights to abortion, and often they die trying to get one. They cannot own property, trade, or travel without the risk of robbery or rape. Most women (and men) live in state and religious censorship on what to read (if they can read at all) and what films to watch, and they have hardly any museums or art they can enjoy. Of the 57 Muslim nations that are members of the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), only two are democracies. Both are frail and corrupt, and both face the risk of being overtaken by the agents of pure Islam. Turkey has a safety check in the shape of the army and Indonesia none. In none of these countries—except for the usual show-pieces to delude the West—are women allowed to establish their own political parties, play a meaningful role in one, vote, or run for office.

This obsession with subjugating women is one of the things that makes Islam so low. And the agents of Islam—from Riyadh to Tehran, from Islamabad to Cairo—know that any improvement in the lives of women will lead to the demise of Islam and a disappearance of their power. This is why, among other things, they are so desperate to cage in women. This is why they also hate the West.

Please don't be fooled by the few shrill voices—in or out of the veil—that enjoy the status quo and betray their fellow women.

If we do not understand the differences between Islam and the West—why one is so great and the other so low—and we don't fight back and win this battle of ideas in order to preserve our civilization, in my view there is no point to your profession or mine.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a resident fellow at AEI.

Authorities Concerned Over Taxi Jihadists

Taxi drivers under suspicious cloud...

More consumption for those of you who live to toast a lethargic homeland defense. With the arrest of a Philadelphia taxi cab driver in the Fort Dix terror plot, there are a sprinkling of reports that certain authorities are paying closer attention to Muslim cabbies, many of whom are militant believers, say these authorities. My question is, "What have these authorities been doing up until now? Playing tiddy winks?" Mohamad Ibrahim Shnewer, a U.S. citizen born in Jordan, was charged earlier this week with conspiring to kill at least 100 soldiers on U.S. soil. The FBI says that the 22-year-old, the alleged mastermind of the terror plot, drove a cab in Philadelphia, and is quoted as having stated, "My intent is to hit a heavy concentration of soldiers."

It is estimated that Muslims account for the majority of cab drivers in many major U.S. cities—including the nation's capital. And more than a passing number of them have solid ties to terrorism, federal and local authorities say. After September 11, the U.S. Park Police, which enforces laws on federal roads leading into such places as CIA headquarters, as well as, in and around the Federal enclave including such buildings as as the US Capitol and the White House, ran a search of Islamic terror suspects against a database of traffic stops in the Washington, D.C., area going back decades.

The probe came back with a nearly 25 percent hit rate. A U.S. Park Police official stated that many of these were cab drivers."

The official, a veteran police detective who wished to go unidentified, says roughly 80 percent of cab drivers in the Washington area practice the Islamic faith. Their numbers concern police, who believe they make up part of the terror support network in America. "If they're not suspects themselves, they pick up suspects at airports and take them to safehouses here. It's a jihadi network."

Nhe federal Park Police work with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies assigned to the National Counter Terrorism Center, or NCTC, headquartered in McLean, Va., a Washington suburb. The FBI is now closely monitoring the activities of taxi drivers in the area, bureau sources confirm.

A great many of them worship at the large Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., another D.C. suburb. On Fridays, FBI case agents say they typically observe 50 or more cabs and limos parked among other cars in the parking lots used by the radical mosque, which has included several Hamas and al-Qaida terrorists among its members.

Some of the 9/11 hijackers also attended services at Dar al-Hijrah, while receiving assistance obtaining housing and IDs from mosque members and officials, some of whom are admitted members of the dangerous Muslim Brotherhood. In between fares, many taxi drivers congregate at the Starbucks located down the road in a shopping center in Baileys Crossroads, which has the highest concentration of Muslims of any area outside Dearborn, Mich.

The shopping center is within a few miles of the Pentagon, and right across the street from two luxury apartment high-rises that erupted into cheers when the World Trade Center fell on 9/11. Law enforcement has dubbed the Skyline Towers the "Taliban Towers" after conducting several counterterrorism investigations involving tenants.

Washington is not alone. Other major cities are dealing with radical Muslim taxi drivers. Elsewhere on this front, Miami-Dade County Police Department officials have admitted that after 9/11 a group of Muslim cab drivers at Miami International Airport held a celebration on a carpeted area of the concourse reserved for Islamic prayer. Some were overheard allegedly saying, "Finally, the Great Satan got what it deserved."

"They brought out party platters," a Miami-Dade police detective said. "We tried to ID the taxi drivers who celebrated and give their names to the FBI." New York also has had its share of "taxi jihadists," as law enforcement calls them. Take Mahmud "The Red" Abouhalima, a former Manhattan cabbie. He helped plant the explosives-packed van that the terrorists used to try to blow up the World Trade Center in the first attack on the towers in 1993. Those who knew him say he transformed his cab into a mobile Islamic institute, filled with copies of the Quran, jihadi books and tapes of sermons recorded in Arabic.

Like the Jersey jihadists accused of targeting Fort Dix, Abouhalima lived in New Jersey, which has a large Muslim population. Police believe he also was the intended getaway cab driver in the murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane.

More recently, in Nashville, a Muslim cab driver for United Cab this year was charged with assault and attempted homicide. Ibrahim Ahmed allegedly tried to run down two Vanderbilt University students. One was seriously injured.

Surprisingly, the 9/11 attacks emboldened many Islamic taxi drivers. In Minneapolis, for instance, they've asserted the tenets of their faith, refusing airport passengers carrying duty-free wine and even blind riders accompanied by seeing-eye dogs. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, and dogs are considered unclean. About three of every four cabbies at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport practice Islam. Even after authorities last month agreed to slap fines on them for refusing "infidel" fares, some refuse to bend. "I am Muslim. I'm not going to carry alcohol," insisted Abdi Mohamed, a driver for Bloomington Cab.

Savvy to the American game of special status for minority whiners, Muslim taxi drivers also have demanded special accommodations at airports. In Kansas City, for one, airport authorities recently built several foot-baths in a restroom for Muslim drivers after they requested them to help them prepare for Islamic prayer. Kansas City International Airport police report that about 70 percent of the taxi drivers there are Muslim.

A great many taxi drivers are immigrants from the Mideast or Pakistan. Last November, Homeland Security agents rounded up dozens of Pakistani immigrants across the East Coast working illegally as cabbies. Pakistan is an al-Qaida hotbed. Before last year's congressional election, a U.S. lawmaker was widely criticized for suggesting Muslim cabbies were a terrorist threat.

Republican Sen. Conrad Burns said the U.S. is up against a faceless enemy of terrorists who "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night." The longtime senator, often in hot water as a result of his own unfortunate wit, lost his seat to Democrat Jon Tester in 2006.

There is little room for these Somali taxi drivers to maneuver under the US Disabilities Act. It is clearly illegal under the ADA in the United States to engage in such activities. If a driver wants a debate, he can hire counsel and face a prosecutor in a court of law. Any case brought to trial would only examine the facts of the case in respect to the law. Did the defendant deny access to a cab to a disabled person, due to their having a service dog? The answer would be yes. Was the cab driver told by the disabled person that the dog in question was a service dog? The answer would be, yes, again. After being informed of this, did the cab driver still deny access to the disabled person with the service dog? The answer would be yes. When applying for a cab medallion or cab business license, is the individual licensee or company informed of the relevant portions Civil Rights Act of 1964 (with amendments) and the Americans with Disabilites of 1990. The answer would be yes. I think the defendant would probably settle out of court on the advice of their attorney, rather than pursue an unmeritorious case. The cab driver would wind up paying a fine and agreeing to allow service dogs into the cab in the future, or would pay the fine and leave the taxi cab business for good. That would and should be the outcome.