The West's Paralysis over Western Muslims

View from the Right ^ | March 17, 2005 | Lawrence Auster

[rmlew]

The lack of paintings or sculptures is an anti-idolitary tradition. The prohibition against the construction of and reverence for graven images is found in Judaism too.
I believe that the lack of incense and starkness is a sign of Wahabbi or Salafi influence. Other Sunni schools, Salafis, and Shi'ites do not follow this.

Mosques serve a purpose other than just being a place of worship. They are a sign of Muslim power. In Muslim countries, no Synagogue or Church can be as tall as the smallest mosque.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[donbosco74]

Thanks.

So if the tallest church can't be as tall as the smallest mosque, what would that mean for a country like Germany with the tall church spires, if Mohammedans were to take control?

I forgot to mention that my book says that mosques are also used for other types of gatherings, not just for prayer. It gives some examples but I don't recall them right now.

[dennisw]

Thanks for posting this. I could not find it even though I had the link to Front Page for it. Now I know that David Horowitz got rid of it ... for whatever reason

[rmlew]

The first is that Europe is already lost. Europe simply does not have the ability to reverse the policies that let the barbarians in. European leaders would have to admit how wrong their core beliefs turned out to be, which they will never do. But even if a new cadre of leaders can be found, the native Europeans are too few and too old to throw out the young and vigorous barbarians they have invited in. The Europeans have passed the demographic point of no return.
If the European countries decided to remain Western, they would need to reChristianize (religion and fecundity are related), and change EU and national laws on immigration. None of this would be easy, and it would have to be a group effort given the existance of the EU.
Fortunately, the Muslim population is no greater than 15% in even the most overrun countries. Change would be possible, although some violence would surely break out.

I believe we have to try what we are doing now first if we are to avoid tipping the balance to the wrong side. In my opinion, John Kerry would have won if the general population had thought President Bush was too hard on Muslims. And John Kerry would have taken the U.S. the way of Europe.
Most American support immigration restrictions and enforcement of current laws. Over 70% support increased restrictions on Msulim immigration and a net outflow. The problem is that the business community and media would be against it. Worse, as with most immigration measures, the real harm would come from "moderate" Republicans who would back up the hysterics of the left. (Jack Kemp and the Bushes did far more to hurt us over Prop 187 than La Raza.)

We are trying to isolate the conflict to a few "radical" Muslims, thus avoiding a war with the entire Muslim world. So far, against all odds, we are succeeding.
Please. On September 15, 2001 a President other than Bush could have asked Congress for the authority to deport every Muslim non-citizen and to enforce laws against non-Muslim illegals.Instead, Bush turned the Islamist lobby, CAIR and and AADL, into the mainstream and called Islam a religion of peace.

If this high stakes gamble fails, a general war against Islam will eventually ensue. Many of our "allies" will try to make peace with our enemies (as they already are). Many Americans will side with our enemies as well (as they already are). We will stand almost alone in the world, and divided at home. We will need all the unity we can muster, or we too will fall.
Frannce and Germany merrily becomes Eurabia, while China is effectively helping the worst Muslim regimes. Russia vascilates between domestic anti-Muslim activities and foreign anti-Americanism. That leaves part of the Anglosphere, Eastern Europe, and India on our side.

I fail to see how promoting a strengthened EU,Turkish entry into the EU, or kowtowing to CAIR helps us.

[nuconvert]

Sorry for confusing you with the author. I'm not feeling very well today.

No one said more can't be done. But to say that Bush hasn't done anything, is just false.

I don't think my travelling anywhere will prove or disprove that MOST muslims don't have any desire to assimilate. I'm sure there are Arabic ghettos, Korean ghettos, Puerto Rican, etc.
The vast majority of muslims in the world are Asians. Maybe what you and the author mean by muslims is Arab Wahabbists? If so, then make the distinction.

I'm just giving some explanations for why his article may have been pulled based on my reading it. These were just 2 issues that stood out.

[Happy2BMe]

ANOTHER (WHAT THE HECK IS GOING ON IN THE WHITE HOUSE) - ping.

(And about that 'War On Terror' thing . .)

Americans' Tax Dollars Fund the Wahhabi Lobby

=========================================

Freedom House recently published a report about the Saudi-funded propagation of virulent anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Jewish exterminationist ideology in thousands of Saudi-funded Wahhabi mosques throughout the U.S.

The Bush administration has done nothing about this, but continues to admit Saudi immigrants and travelers into the U.S. and to maintain good relations with the Saudi Kingdom.

[Travis McGee]

Radical Islam is an insane murder cult; moderate Islam is its Trojan Horse in the West.

[donbosco74]

Ditto.

[dervish]

In my opinion, John Kerry would have won if the general population had thought President Bush was too hard on Muslims. And John Kerry would have taken the U.S. the way of Europe.

xxxxxxx

I disagree. Pres Bush won because he was perceived as strong on terror. Being tougher, like on immigration, might have brought in some Buchanan Conservatives who said they were not voting for Bush in protest.

[dervish]

Nice article.

I think Horowitz is having a bad week. Also I vaguely remember that CAIR is suing him so perhaps there is a need to be circumspect. CAIR is suing all over the place. The Muslims know all too well how to use the systems they despise.

I had a conversation with a Dutch woman in the week after the killing of van Gogh and her grief was at the outburst of anti-Muslim feeling which to her was a sign of the dying "liberalism" of her country. When I pointed out that the Muslims had killed the liberalism, what else can you call murdering a filmaker because you don't like his film, police removing the Ten Commandments from the murder scene because it "offends" Muslims, she did not get it.

[spodefly]

Interesting article and thread.

BTTT

[Valin]

Bump for later.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Ernest for the ping. I suggest everyone save a copy of this column for posterity.

I found it to be truthful, not hostile.

Hostility would be Koranic verse toilet paper.

Hmm... not a bad idea...

[nopardons]

bttt

[lainde]

Great article!

[rmlew]

Mr. Auster asked me to point out that he is speaking of EUROPEAN Muslims, and the non-assimilating, alienated quality of this community has been referred to again and again in the mainstream conservative press. It's not something he's made up.

I think that Mr. Auster is a little optimistic.
I went to school with an Egyptian Muslim. While he assimilated, his 2 brothers and sisters did not. I believe that one sister is back in Egypt. Her husband was arrested as a member of Gamat Al-Islamya. The rest are members of the Muslim brotherhood or associated orgs.

[Bogolyubski]

Thanks for posting this article, rmlew. Auster is truly one of the most under-appreciated conservative writers around. While there are those who like to label him a Paleo, he's no Buchananite, but one who fully supports Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation - and has been interviewed on an Israeli nationalist radio program. He nailed Buchanan over his anti-Israel screed penned in the wake of the Passover terror attacks.

Auster, Bat Yeor, and Srdja Trifkovic are some of the lonely voices crying in the desert telling us the truth about Islam and what its plans are for the west, including the United States - which are the same now as they were 1400 years ago. Even Ariel Sharon seems to have bought in to the whole liberal mythology about Islam's "moderate" nature, sadly. Liberalism is incapable of meeting this threat, whether in the unvarnished leftism offered by John Kerry or the form masking itself as conservatism under George W. Bush and his Neo-Jacobin corporatist allies.

[Convert from ECUSA]

"As I wrote at FrontPage last May, even the most hard-boiled thinkers among us think that our domestic safety rests on the assimilation of U.S. Muslims, and security measures against terrorism. Three and a half years after 9/11, the West still sleeps, managing the jihad threat instead of doing something about it. And the West will continue to sleep, so long as it refuses to renounce the liberal belief that the highest values of our society are tolerance and inclusion, the liberal belief that all differences can be settled by reasoned discourse, the liberal belief that we must strive forever to find common ground with people who are irreconcilably different from us. So long as liberalism with its non-discriminatory embrace of the Other remains the core of Western identity, the West will be unable to know itself, to value itself, and to defend itself. And the Muslim conquest of the West will continue."



The author hit the nail on the head, right on the money!

[nuconvert]

"he is speaking of EUROPEAN Muslims"

What are "EUROPEAN Muslims"? Again I say, if he's speaking of Arab Wahabbists in europe, then make that distinction.
I'm sure he's aware there are different muslim sects. Wahabbists (who are a minority sect and who are regarded as a cult by other muslims) do not assimilate and I assume this is to whom he's referring.
But if he doesn't want to sound like he's condemning all muslims (which, I believe, may be a big part of why his article was pulled, then he should choose his words more carefully. ( as with the Bush statement of Pres. Bush doing "nothing", that I referred to previously).