Saturday, September 11, 2010

America Officially in Dhimmitude

Harmony is not appeasement. In other words, if one guy says to another "if you speak, I will kill you," and the other shuts up, it is not an example of harmony. Harmony, in this context, is a state in which two sides agree to coexist peacefully which, in turn, objectively requires mutual respect for individual rights, i.e., the freedom to act without coercion or force. A law-abiding citizen can not live in harmony with a criminal. Yet, such a contradiction is exactly what Obama seeks to impose on Americans with regard to Islam.

In a recent
CNN interview, "ground zero mosque" Imam Feisal Rauf issued a veiled threat against Americans, saying, in essence, that if we don't allow the Mosque, we will face the wrath of angry Muslims.
If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse. The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack. And I’m less concerned about the radicals in America than I’m concerned about the radicals in the Muslim world...

...And if we do move, it will strengthen the argument of the radicals to recruit, their ability to recruit, and their increasing aggression and violence against our country.
Meanwhile, Muslims around the world demonstrated and threatened violence against Americans if Quran's were burned. This comes on the heels of generations of violence against the West, including the recent call by a Muslim cleric for the beheading of a Dutch politician and the issuance of fatwas against "offensive" cartoonists and authors. In essence, the Muslim world says over and over: "we will not tolerate dissent or criticism, and if you dare exercise your right to criticize our religion, we will kill you." And, have they killed.

So, what has been the response of our government - those charged with protecting our freedoms -to threats issued by foreign nationals, declarations of war against our country, and state sponsored violence against America and her allies? Obama declares:

As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam.
What Obama really means is that we are not fighting back against Islamists who are at war with us. To say "we are not at war," is like saying "I'm not in a fight" while someone is punching you in the face. And related to protecting the First Amendment right of those proposing to burn the Quran, such as Pastor Terry Jones, Obama states:

This is a way of endangering our troops, our sons and daughters ... you don't play games with that," Obama told a Washington news conference in which he included an earnest appeal for religious tolerance in the United States to preserve multi-faith harmony.
If you were speaking publicly on some topic, and someone threatened to kill you, imagine your reaction if the response of the police or FBI was, "you idiot - don't play games with that - just don't speak - you are endangering the police who have to protect you. " How is Obama's response any different? Again, the problem is that Obama and his ilk equate "harmony" with appeasement. Evidently, Obama's view is that shutting up promotes "multi-faith harmony" and that the federal government's job is not to protect us from violence but to goad free people into not offending or provoking their enemies. This is why he sent his minions to brow beat Jones into not going forward with his protest:
Obama had appealed to him [Jones] on television, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a personal phone call, not to burn the Islamic holy book. Gen. David Petraeus, head of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, said carrying out the plan would have endangered American troops.
In my view, the federal government's official position is that of dhimmitude. This is a state where conquered non-Muslims (Infidels) adopt an "attitude of concession, surrender and appeasement towards Islamic demands." Writer Bat Yeor defined it as follows:

"As for the concept of dhimmitude, it represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. The origin of this concept is to be found in the condition of the Infidel people who submit to the Islamic rule without fighting in order to avoid the onslaught of jihad. By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation. As they were forbidden to possess weapons and give testimony against a Muslim, they were put in a position of vulnerability and humility."[8]
For America's leaders to placate the Muslim mobs by denouncing and silencing Jones represents a shameful surrender to the Islamists. In essence, our leaders are saying "if you threaten us, we will back down." Like any extortionist, are the Muslims now less likely to attack, or have they been emboldened? The answer is obvious.

If I were President of the United States, here would be my statement related to the proposed Quran burnings:
As the Commander in Chief of a nation of free people, it is my sworn duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic. Among the rights acknowledged and protected under the Constitution is the right to free speech. Any individual, organization, or nation which threatens or attacks an American citizen in the free exercise of their Constitutional rights should expect to be annihilated.
Only such a policy will lead to actual harmony.

15 comments:

garret seinen said...

Doug, well said and I agree entirely.

Just an observation. I saw part of the Iman's interview on CNN and watched him advise the USA to tread lightly so as not to arouse the ire of the Muslim world. It made me think of the shear destructiveness to individual egos, growing up under Muslim rule must inflict on most of its victims.

To survive in such a society, open discussions could never develop. One would always be terrified of offending the official doctrine and forfeiting a head. Arbitrary judgments by the religious police would generate terror.

Appeasement would become a normal state of affairs. I would not be surprise if this man actually believe that Islam is all powerful, yet any rational person with a secular mind-set must be aware the Muslim's only strength is our weakness. If we were determined to win, a war would be over in minutes.

We have show the entire Muslim world our weakness. They dance in the streets at our pain because they fear offending their 'religion'. Cheers,gs

John Stevens said...

How is preventing a private organization from building something based on an irrational ideolgy not protected by the very constitution you cite? First of all, cherry picking media-fueled threats to America doesn't convince me that, in reality, this mosque is intending to break american laws, harm americans, etc. your justifications for preventing transactions by muslims is absolutely consistent with Rand's critique of racism- you are ascribing qualities (violent, anti-american, etc. etc) exhibited by individuals to an entire, decentralized, contradictory, and in no real sense homogeneous millions of humans who happen to be muslim.

Doug Reich said...

John,

You said: "How is preventing a private organization from building something based on an irrational ideolgy not protected by the very constitution you cite?"

I explained my position on this in recent posts:

Part 1:
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-islam-religion.html

Part 2:
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-islam-religion-part-ii.html

And
http://dougreich.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-ron-paul-is-wrong-on-mosque.html

You said: "you are ascribing qualities (violent, anti-american, etc. etc) exhibited by individuals to an entire, decentralized, contradictory, and in no real sense homogeneous millions of humans who happen to be muslim."

Although I think I address this in the posts, I have to say that I think you are making a major error wrt the concept of racism.

Racism is the arbitrary attribution of characteristics based on race. In this case, Islam is an ideology with certain core tenets widely understood. It is not a race or a genetic condition. Analogously, if we know someone is a Nazi, that would mean certain things about his beliefs because, well he is a Nazi. Now, you could debate what those general beliefs are and whether violence and theocracy are essential to that religion's ideology, etc. and I state my position in my posts. But to understand this ideology's core beliefs and extrapolate the logical consequences or observe them, is certainly not a question of "racism" which is a smear generally thrown out by the left in order to quash any actual debate about this ideology.

Michael said...

I think the issue is one of political vs moral tolerance and I also think that today's subjectivism has blurred that line.

Also the word Islamophobia is a fake term intended to silence dissent and disagreement.

As far as rahuf is concerned I would have liked him to speak to the prisoners, dissidents and activists instead of the tribal leaders of the Gulf states who have not affected change in those societies whatsoever. He should tell them how their systems are inhuman and bigoted to say the least.


As for the pastor I have to say that I can never quite manage to agree with any burning of books, or similar media. Anytime someone birns a product of Johannes Gutenberg's magnificent invention, it makes my flesh crawl.

having said that I will defend his right to do so

mo said...

here is a good op-ed by Jasser published in the WSJ:


"I must ask Imam Rauf: For what do you stand--what's best for
Americans overall, or for what you think is best for Islam? What
have you said and argued to Muslim-majority nations to address
their need for reform? You have said that Islam does not need
reform, despite the stoning of women in Muslim countries, death
sentences for apostates, and oppression of reformist Muslims and
non-Muslims.

"You now lecture Americans that WTC mosque protests are
'politically motivated' and 'go against the American principle of
church and state.' Yet you ignore the wide global prevalence of far
more dangerous theo-political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood
and all of its violent and nonviolent offshoots. . . .

"Imam, tell me if you can look into the eyes of children who lost a
parent on 9/11 and convince them that this immodest Islamic center
benefits them. How will it in any way aid counterterrorism efforts
or keep one American any safer? You willfully ignore what
American Muslims most need--an open call for reformation that
unravels the bigoted and shoddy framework of political Islam and
separates mosque and state. "

"Imam Rauf may not appear to the untrained eye to be an Islamist,
but by making Ground Zero an Islamic rather than an American
issue, and by failing to firmly condemn terrorist groups like Hamas,
he shows his true allegiance.

"Islamists in 'moderate' disguise are still Islamists."

Doug Reich said...

Mo,

I have spent some time listening to Jasser and he is certainly a welcome change in that he overtly advocates separation of mosque and state and wishes for a kind of pro-western, pro-freedom Muslim reformation. But....

What I do not understand is how the two can be reconciled. My understanding is that political Islam is inherent to Islam. That is, theocracy, submissions to the Caliphate, the imposition of Sharia Law, etc. are all part and parcel of this religion. If you stripped this from Islam, what would be left?

To me, it would be similar to if during WWII one Nazi were saying, "really, we can have a Fuhrer, and we believe in a Master race, etc. but we can co-exist as Nazi's under the American constitution."

Certainly in religion, anything is possible. I'm sure he can read the Quran in some way that supports his position, but I think it will be a hard sell. Practically speaking, I think it is good for Muslims like Jasser to propose these kinds of reform. It can help. But, I think we should be careful not to think because one voice supports this kind of reform, that Islam is open to this.

mo said...

i think it will be a difficult uphill battle. How can he do it. perhaps you will be interested in reading about those guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu'tazili

Doug Reich said...

Mo,

That's an interesting link, thanks.

Let's remember that from the time of Aquinas to the American Revolution was about 500 years. Let's hope it's faster for the Muslim world. In the meantime, we must protect ourselves realizing that he (or the mu'tazili branch) does not represent mainstream Islam and won't for a long time.

mtnrunner2 said...

Doug,

I've come to the conclusion that religion can only be reconciled with being a peaceful citizen by basically being a poor or very selective adherent of said religion. I mean, if you cherry-pick all the good stuff out of world religions you're left with just a small percentage of the full scripture. But, I certainly think that's a good thing, and I'll take it, vs. having a bunch of literalist zealots around.

John Stevens,

Re: the mosque I'm just going to add what I've said already elsewhere (and to my knowledge is at least compatible with what Doug has said), which is that the crux of the matter is the fact that we are *at war* with totalitarian Islam. That makes all the difference. Free speech and property rights are inalienable but also contextual. If we are at war with a certain enemy, it alters the context.

Given today's culture of cowardice, I admit that's hard to wrap one's head around. However, take an example from a real, total war: WW2. If, soon after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, a Shinto organization wanted to open a cultural center on Pearl Harbor and name it "The Emperor's Place", we would have blocked it -- and probably deported the people proposing it -- on the grounds that it constituted a spit in the face of the country and a moral victory for the enemy. Such a thing would have provided no end of moral support for Japan, and the same is true with an Islamic center so near the Ground Zero site. It does not even matter if they are currently providing our enemies material support. It's the nature of the structure and where they want to build it that matters, *within a wartime context*. Without that wartime context, I would say blocking its construction would be unacceptable.

mtnrunner2 said...

Doug,

>Racism is the arbitrary attribution of characteristics based on race.

I just realized something. Multiculturalism treats ideological choices in the same manner as non-volitional characteristics like race, as givens.

I've noticed before that liberals such as Obama don't' "see" free choice; it's as if it does not exist for them. Therefore, it literally doesn't even occur to them to champion individualism, ever. Choice has no reality for them.

I wish I had more time to think about this. Maybe on my next mountain run, I'll stop on the summit and ponder multiculturalism and volition :)

mo said...

oh no doubt Doug. A someone who lived there for 16 years I understand what you're saying. Its just a shame that even the western world doesn't appreciate the freedoms they have. I immigrated to NZ a couple of years ago. When I lived in the middle east internet censorship was pretty rampant and now they're doing the same thing in NZ. Except for a small minority most people are either complacent or don't care. They take for granted the freedoms they have.

Doug Reich said...

MTN,

You have hit the nail on the head.

You said: "Multiculturalism treats ideological choices in the same manner as non-volitional characteristics like race, as givens. I've noticed before that liberals such as Obama don't' "see" free choice; it's as if it does not exist for them."

Multiculturalism is a species of collectivism. Collectivism denies individualism, treating humans as mindless appendanges of some greater whole. see for example, http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/collectivism.html

Whether the greater whole is based on race, religion, culture, etc. is not essential in principle. I think most modern academics believe we are conditioned by ethnicity, race, class, sexuality, whatever. The important point is that they hold we are conditioned or non-volitional, i.e., we have no choice about our fate in life. It is the antithesis of individualism. Therefore, judgement is not applicable.

That is why Obama and his ilk will not attack Islam and support western culture. Neither is logically superior in their view.
Everything is equal. The only problem they see is when one asserts that his beliefs are true or his way of life superior - that is The Cardinal Sin to the modern intellectual.

The beheading of infidels or the stoning of rape victims does not offend them. Any assertion of objectivity is the biggest evil they can imagine.

mo said...

it would be nice to expand on multiculturalism in a future post with examples. All i know is that it is tribalism and group-think. But maybe it can be part of individualism or rather approached from an individualistic framework

Mo said...

here is some more good stuff doug:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461503431290986.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook#U301211885653IBH

madmax said...

Off topic:

But I wanted to make you aware of this intelligent Objectivists' take on fractional reserve banking:

http://jjmcvey.blogspot.com/2010/09/fractional-reserve-banking-revisted.html

http://jjmcvey.blogspot.com/2010/09/fractional-reserve-banking-revisted_22.html

http://jjmcvey.blogspot.com/2010/09/fractional-reserve-banking-revisted_24.html

If you are already aware of it, my apologies. If not, it departs from your analysis in certain ways, I think...