The View From 1776

-------------------
Larry Auster, at View From The Right, posts a forthright explanation for Muslims’ refusal to accept the laws and customs of Western nations where many thousands of them now live.  Muslims everywhere not only fail to condemn beheadings and suicide bombings of thousands of innocent people; they cheer Al Qudea barbarians.  Experience here and in England, France, Holland, and Germany demonstrates that Muslims themselves will not identify for legal authorities their fellow religionists who are known within the Muslim community to be terrorists. 

Liberals’ atheistic secularity leads them to oppose anything resembling profiling of potential terrorists, when every grain of common sense makes obvious to anyone not willfully blind that profiling is both legitimate and effective.  Liberal-Progressives’ reluctance comes from their history in the 19th and 20th centuries endeavoring to replace our Constitutional government with socialism.  Every time our public authorities question the subversive actions of liberal-Progressives, socialist media like the New York Times shriek “hysterical Red Scare tactics.” We now know from KGB archives that, far from hysteria, the charges, whether against State Department personnel or the notorious Hollywood black-list, communist-party cadre, were in fact true.

Liberal-Progressive organizations like the ACLU, of course, know that the charges are true.  That’s why they fight like cornered tigers against the Patriot Act or any program that can put a spotlight on both their own anti-Constitutional designs, and those of Islamic terrorists.  Judicial activism aimed at broadening the definition of the First Amendment was the top priority on the ACLU’s agenda, beginning with the First World War. 

Their circular argument has always been that the Bill of Rights protects liberal-Progressives in their actions intended to destroy the Bill of Rights itself, along with the whole Constitution.  While pursuing their objective in different ways, the aims of Islamic terrorists and liberal-Progressives are the same: to wipe out the Christian heritage of the United States and forcibly subject our nation to their political and religious domination, the one secular and materialistic, the other Islam.

The bottom line with regard to Islam is that it is both a political and a religious faith that refuses to accept the fundamental tenets of our Constitution.  A devout believer in Islam cannot accept any political authority except that of the ulemas and the caliphs who rule in conformity with their interpretation of the Koran.

If liberal-Progressives succeed in gutting the Patriot Act, however, they can’t expect any sympathetic exemption from violence by Muslim terrorists.  Muslims dislike atheistic, secular liberals even more than Christians.

The following is Mr. Auster’s post describing the Vatican’s realistic assessment:

TOP VATICAN HISTORIAN SPEAKS THE SAVING TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM

In the midst of my criticisms yesterday of Pope Benedict, I said that I admired and liked him. That may have sounded like hypocritical cover, but I meant it. And here’s a reason why. Even as the pope was issuing what I described as liberal boilerplate about the Muslim riots in France, his own Vatican was showing a true and realistic and therefore confrontational attitude toward Islam, something that would have been inconceivable under the ecumenism-soaked pontificate of his predecessor. At a meeting held this month at the Pontifical Lateran University on “Christianity and Islam, Yesterday and Today,” monsignor Walter Brandmüller, president of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, delivered a speech on “Christianity and Islam in History."

Unlike the Bernard Lewises and the Daniel Pipeses and the Francis Fukuyamas and the Olivier Roys and the entire respectable intellectual establishment of the secular West, Brandmüller focused, not on some secondary social problem afflicting Islam, such as “poor development” or “discrimination” or “cultural dislocation,” that supposedly makes Muslims today troublesome (as though they hadn’t been troublesome for the last 1,400 years), but on the character of Islam itself, as a religious/military/political movement seeking power over the world. If our so-called leaders and intellectual lights understood the simple, true points made in the below excerpts from the speech, the current nonsense about “moderate Islam” versus “radical Islam”—nonsense that leads us to try to “engage” with Muslims and “democratize” Muslims and “assimilate” Muslims and “integrate” Muslims instead of defending ourselves from Muslims—would vanish in the wind.

I thank Paul Cella for bringing this important and very encouraging speech to our attention. Here are excerpts:

But on the part of the Muslims, from the earliest times, even while Mohammed was still alive, conversion was imposed through the use of force. The expansion and extension of Islam’s sphere of influence came through war with the tribes that did not accept conversion peacefully, and this went hand in hand with submission to Islamic political authority. Islamism, unlike Christianity, expressed a comprehensive religious, cultural, social, and political strategy. While Christianity spread during its first three centuries in spite of persecution and martyrdom, and in many ways in opposition to Roman domination, introducing a clear separation between the spiritual and political spheres, Islam was imposed through the power of political domination.

It therefore comes as no surprise that the use of force occupies a central place in Islamic tradition, as witnessed by the frequent use of the word “jihad” in many texts. Although some scholars, especially Western ones, maintain that jihad does not necessarily mean war, but instead a spiritual struggle and interior effort, Samir Khalil Samir again clarifies that the use of this term in Islamic tradition—including its usage today—is essentially uniform, indicating warfare in the name of God to defend Islam, which is an obligation for all adult Muslim males. Those who maintain that understanding jihad as a holy war constitutes a sort of deviation from the true Islamic tradition are therefore not telling the truth, and history sadly demonstrates that violence has characterized Islam since its origin, and that Mohammed himself systematically organized and led the raids against the tribes that did not want to convert and accept his dominion, thus subjecting the Arab tribes one by one. Naturally, it must also be said that at the time of Mohammed warfare was part of the Bedouin culture, and no one saw anything objectionable about it. [. . .]

If this characterization of Islam is destined to remain unchanged in the future, as it has been until now, the only possible outcome is a difficult coexistence [yes, co-existence, which we maintained for 40 years with the USSR while containing it, not being friends with it] with those who do not belong to the Muslim community: in an Islamic country, in fact, the non-Muslim must submit to the Islamic system, if he does not wish to live in a situation of substantial intolerance.

Likewise, on account of this all-embracing conception of religion and political authority, the Muslim will have great difficulty in adapting to the civil laws in non-Islamic countries, seeing them as something foreign to his upbringing and to the dictates of his religion. Perhaps one should ask oneself if the well-attested difficulties persons coming from the Islamic world have with integrating into the social and cultural life of the West are not explained in part by this problematic situation.

We must also recognize the natural right of every society to defend its own cultural, religious, and political identity. It seems to me that this is precisely what Pius V did.

Pius V was the pope under whom the forces of Christendom won the great naval battle of Lepanto against the Ottomans in 1571. Brandmüller, bless him, is saying that Europe must defend itself from Islam—culturally, politically, and even through the use of military force.

Visit MoveOff Network Members