This bit of Steyn's piece is something I'm fine with. I am not claiming that Islam shouldn't be criticized or that Muslims should be given a free pass. I'm also perfectly fine with his discussions of the cultural implications of Muslim immigration in Europe. No, I'm not preaching multiculturalism. Earlier in the thread, I endorsed the use of cultural filters on immigrants to make sure they are compatible with American and Western civilization, regardless of their religion and country of origin.
Steyn says, "But we never make any effort to delineate the line which separates “radical Islam” from non-radical Islam." I've tried to do that throughout the discussion on this thread. From my experience, the way their women are treated and act, the way they react to other religions, and the way they talk about the United States are all good indicators of where that line is.
When a Muslim friend votes libertarian, let's his mother and wife call the shots on a lot of things, doesn't expect women to wear headscarves, narrowly reads the Koran, largely ignores the Hadith and Sunnah elements of Islam, celebrated Christmas as a child to fit in, and surrounds himself with plenty of non-Muslim friends, that tells me he's not a menace likely to shout "Allah Akbar" and start killing other people.
When a local Subway sandwich shop owner who is the first in the nation to offer Halal meat with the approval of Subway nevertheless has a sign on his door supporting America, has no problem selling the standard Subway ham and pork offerings, has no beard, lets his daughters work at the shop without headscarves and dressed like normal American teenaged girls, let's his wife (also without headscarf) handle part of the business, pays young people's pop music, and is willing to chat with me amiably about his business, I'm not worried about him shouting "Allah Akbar" and killing other people.
And there are other Muslims that I've known that were quite, even shy, guys who clearly genuinely loved their wives and kids, never made a big deal about their religion, and didn't fit the profile of a jihadist. I'm not worried about them shouting "Allah Akbar" and killing other people. Maybe they are all masterful actors but somehow I doubt it because there are certain things a genuine frothing at the mouth jihadist would never abide buy including letting a woman tell them what to do or letting their unscarved daughters out among the infidel. And I see no justice in persecuting or advocating the murder of these people who do not mean anybody any harm unless.
The jihadists really aren't all that smart. What they did on 9/11 was a one time stunt that relied on the fact that, up until that point, people would let hijackers take control of a plane because, up until that point, hijackers would normally let people go. No handful of jihadists is ever going to be able to take control of a plane like that again, as we've seen demonstrated in cases like that of Richard Reid (the shoe bomber) where he was quickly subdued. Sure, they might blow up planes and kill a lot of people, but they will never again have the opportunity to use them as cruise missiles against buildings.
And this guy, the most successful terrorist since 9/11, gave so many warnings I'm stunned that anyone can claim that they don't know why he did it with a straight face. The guy tried to convert his colleagues during a lecture. Imagine if a Christian tried to stand up in front of a group of psychologists at a military hospital and witness the Word of Jesus to them. That's political correctness run amok and that's not what I'm advocating at all. Muslim's should not be given a free pass if they step out of line. But the all too obvious point here is that this was not some stealth jihadist. This guy did everything but send out, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow," emails to warn people of what he was thinking and might do. Most jihadists aren't really a surprise. The 9/11 hijackers gave off plenty of signals, too. The jihadists aren't cleverly hiding most of the time. They are in plain sight.
So what's a radical Muslim? Saudi-funded Wahabbist Islamic centers and mosques should be considered suspect because of both the doctrine they preach on their foreign funding. Wahhabism is one of the two sects behind much of the terrorism and murder. Women who wear face-covering veils and their families should be suspect. Headscarves can be a suspicious sign if it's clear the woman would prefer not to wear them (e.g., a young woman who takes it off among friends), though sometimes they are harmless. Women who look restricted, abused, imprisoned, or forced into arranged marriages are a big warning sign (the same thing is a warning sign for fringe Christian and Mormon cults, too), as is rhetoric reflecting a jihadist point of view (such as defending the murder of apostates or saying kind things about al Qaeda), or long trips to terrorist hot-spots like Pakistan. Getting a wife from another country, particularly one who doesn't speak English and seems subservient, is suspect. I can go on but my point here is that there are warning signs and we shouldn't ignore those warning signs (there were plenty in this case), but if there are no warning signs, we shouldn't assume that they are all Oscar-caliber actors waiting for their chance to murder infidels any more than we should assume that everyone we know is a potential Dennis Rader, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Timothy McVeigh, or Karla Homolka.