A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
From Anarchists to Islamists « Back to Story
Showing 13 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Jerym eedy: if you win over the trust of Muslims in general., you will notice millions or a at least a fraction of the Muslim populace are unbelievers, sceptics and even Athiests. But they are forced remain in closet because there is a fear of punishment. In a society, where law/punishments reigns and Muslims form even a minority, criticism is not permitted. Critics do get snubbed, daughters find it difficult to get husbands. In Muslim societies where law is lax, critics can get beaten up and even get killed. So to protect oneself and ones's family, one has to go with the societal practices
Most Muslims practice and sympathise with all tenets of Islam. The training starts at the cradle in eating food, rituals, accepting Quran as the word of God and in the reinforcement of praying 5 times a day. From birth till death. Hence the trouble.
our red scare of the 1910s-1920s, and labor violence of the 1880s and going forward
did not want to kill infidels, it 'merely' wanted to rearrange society
our enemies these days come from a 1300 year tradition, The LOng War, ideological and cultural and total supremacist, where infidels may live in subjugation and humiliation and risk
some of us can tell the difference even if this author cannot or some readers and posters here
crudely put, in terms leftos may understand, we distinguish between 'ordinary' crimes vs 'hate' crimes
all Islamic warfare is hate crime by being based in ideology
most of these other crimes were not ideological crimes, Red rimes might have been, and when wealth is a protected class, then eat-the-rich becomes hate speech
crudely put, Islam is not a religion,k it is an army with a chaplain
It was the moderates in the Christian church that eventually curbed it`s policy of violent conversion from within and I`m sure that there must be many Muslims who share our belief that any alternative to mutual tolerance is to terrible to contemplate.
We need them.
Really - do you think that the Democrats in Congress will for one second limit immigration from muslim countries - these people vote for Democrats, if anything we will get an increase. And the Republicans, the RINO's, are also actively promoting an increase in immigration, for reasons that are incomprehensible, and consistent only with the narrow self interest of the individual Republican Senators in support of amnesty.
Without immigration the Democrats would today be a small regional party. With immigration they have transformed the country. The voters were neverconsulted about any of this - but then again, lying and decett are part and parcel of the Democratic Party's way of doing business. And many in the Republican Party are little better - craven cowards who take a go along, get along approach, in an effort to avoid the slings and arrows of Democratic media.
Nothing better illustrates the divide between government and the governed in the United States like immigration. The Democrats used the best impulses of the people against them, in a cynical effort at maintaining/increasing power. And Republicans, ever the fools, went along with it.
So don't talk about using limitations on immigration as a response to terrorism - it will never happen. When it comes to immigration, the people interests are last to be considered.
I guess the main difference nowadays between the anarchists of those days would be that the Islamic ones are tied into a political religion that mandates killing and annihilating every Westerner who won't convert.
Lake Worth, the resident troll, as knowledgeable as ever; it shows right at the top of the list:
Christopher and Wade Lay, 1 dead,
2004 in Tulsa, OK
OK, so how many terrorists two bank robbers make, and what is the actual ideology behind robbing a bank - Corzineism, i.e., urgently seeking funds wherever they might be? The dead security guard, a victim of "shootout terrorism" perhaps?
Pray, sir, give us some more of your wisdom.
Calling Islam “Islam”
Originally Posted By Bosch Fawstin On April 26, 2013 @ 12:52 am In Cartoon Corner,Daily Mailer,FrontPage
I wrote this a few years ago, and I think it’s worth posting again, particularly after the latest jihadist attack in Boston. I noticed, after the attack this week, that a number of people are using more proper terminology to identify this enemy, which is very important in taking on the enemy. I recall watching panel discussions after 9/11, with each panelist using a different term to describe the enemy we face. That annoyed the hell out of me as I think it’s incredibly important to identify the proper terms when speaking about our enemy, and to NEVER create terms, for whatever reason. To me, the only difference between “Islamism” and Islam is three letters. Below I try my best to make the case why we should always call Islam “Islam.”
Western intellectuals and commentators refer to the enemy’s ideology as:
“Islamic Fundamentalism,” “Islamic Extremism,” “Totalitarian Islam,” “Islamofascism,” “Political Islam,” “Militant Islam,” “Bin Ladenism,” “Islamonazism,” “Radical Islam,” “Islamism,” etc….
The enemy calls it “Islam.”
Imagine, if during past wars, we used terms such as “Radical Nazism,” “Extremist Shinto” and “Militant Communism.” The implication would be that there are good versions of those ideologies, which would then lead some to seek out “moderate” Nazis. Those who use terms other than “Islam” create the impression that it’s some variant of Islam that’s behind the enemy that we’re facing. A term such as “Militant Islam” is redundant, but our politicians continue praising Islam as if it were their own religion. Bush told us “Islam is peace” — after 2,996 Americans were murdered in its name. He maintained that illusion throughout his two terms, and never allowed our soldiers to defeat the enemy. And now we have Obama, who tells us, from Egypt:
“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
If only he felt that way about America. Washington’s defense of Islam has trumped the defense of America and this dereliction of duty could well be called Islamgate.
Islam is a political religion; the idea of a separation of Mosque and State is unheard of in the Muslim world. Islam has a doctrine of warfare, Jihad, which is fought in order to establish Islamic (“Sharia”) Law, which is, by nature, totalitarian. Sharia Law calls for, among other things: the dehumanization of women; the flogging/stoning/killing of adulterers; and the killing of homosexuals, apostates and critics of Islam. All of this is part of orthodox Islam, not some “extremist” form of it. If jihadists were actually “perverting a great religion,” Muslims would have been able to discredit them on Islamic grounds and they would have done so by now. The reason they can’t is because jihadists are acting according to the words of Allah, the Muslim God. From the Koran:
“Slay the idolators wherever you find them…” Chapter 9, verse 5
“When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads until you have made a great slaughter among them….” Ch. 47:4
Beyond the doctrine, there is the historical figure of Mohammad, who, more than anyone, defines Islam. How would you judge a man who lies, cheats, steals, rapes and murders as a way of life? This evil man is Islam’s ideal man, Mohammad. Whatever he said and did is deemed moral by virtue of the fact that he said it and did it. It’s no accident that the only morality that could sanction his behavior was his own. Nor is it an accident that Muslims who model themselves after him are the most violent.
For the 13 years that Mohammad failed to spread Islam by non-violent means, he was not so much peaceful as he was powerless. It was only through criminal activity and with the help of a large gang of followers that he managed to gain power. But he wanted his moral pretense too, so he changed Islam to reflect the fact that the only way it could survive was through force. And so, acting on Allah’s conveniently timed “revelation” that Islam can and should be spread by the sword, Mohammad led an army of Muslims across Arabia in the first jihad. From then on, violence became Islam’s way in the world. And today, acting on Mohammad’s words, “War is deceit” — in the sense that Muslims use earlier “peaceful” verses from the Koran as a weapon against the ignorance and good will of their victims. Those “peaceful” passages in the Koran were abrogated by later passages calling for eternal war against those who do not submit to Islam. How Mohammad spread Islam influenced the content of its doctrine and therefore tells us exactly what Islam means.
Note also that the only reason we’re talking about Islam is because we’ve been forced to by its jihad. And where are Islam’s “conscientious objectors”? Nowhere to be found, for even lax Muslims have been silent against jihad. But that doesn’t stop desperate Westerners from pointing to them as representatives of “Moderate Islam.”
Far from being a personal faith, Islam is a collectivist ideology that rejects a live-and-let-live attitude towards non-Muslims. And while the jihadists may not represent all Muslims, they do represent Islam. In the end, most Muslims have proven themselves to be mere sheep to their jihadist wolves, irrelevant as allies in this war. Recovering Muslims call the enemy’s ideology “Islam,” and they dismiss the idea of “Moderate Islam” as they would the idea of “Moderate Evil.” When, based on his actions, Mohammad would be described today as a “Muslim Extremist,” then non-violent Muslims should condemn their prophet and their religion, not those who point it out.
Islam is the enemy’s ideology and evading that fact only helps its agents get away with more murder than they would otherwise. Western politicians have sold us out, so it’s up to the rest of us to defend our way of life by understanding Islam and telling the truth about it in whatever way we can. If we can’t even call Islam by its name, how the hell are we going to defend ourselves against its true believers? One could argue that we’d be better off if the West would just choose one of the many terms currently used for the enemy’s ideology. For my part, I call the enemy what they are, “Jihadists,” and our response, “The War on Jihad.” But behind it all, it’s Islam that makes the enemy tick.
Despite my frustrations with the refusal of many to call Islam “Islam,” I know that those who speak out against Jihad put themselves in danger, and I respect their courage. But it’s important that we acknowledge Islam’s place in the threat we face and say so without equivocation. Not saying “Islam” helps Islam and hurts us. So let’s begin calling the enemy’s ideology by its name. Let’s start calling Islam “Islam.”
Postscript: Below is Bosch’s response to those critics, especially Muslims and Leftists, who make the issue about Muslims and not Islam; who always allege that critics of Islam are condemning 1.5 billion people, that Muslims are good people and innocent, etc etc. So below he responds with an excerpt from his piece Non-Muslim Muslims and the Jihad Against the West:
For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, here are some of my thoughts on that:
First, my name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim, so I have some insight into this, coupled with the fact that I studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11.
There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent coreligionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.
So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Another problem with Muslims who aren’t very Muslim is that they lead some among us to conclude that they must be practicing a more enlightened form of Islam. They’re not. They’re “practicing” life in non-Muslim countries, where they are free to live as they choose. But their “Islam” is not the Islam. There’s no separate ideology apart from Islam that’s being practiced by these Muslims in name only, there’s no such thing as “Western Islam”.
Non-observant Muslims are not our problem, but neither are they the solution to our problem. Our problem is Islam and its most consistent practitioners. There is nothing in Islam that stays the hand of Muslims who want to kill non-Muslims. If an individual Muslim is personally peaceful, it’s not because of Islam, it’s because of his individual choice, which is why I often say that your average Muslim is morally superior to Mohammad, to their own religion. The very rare Muslim who helps us against Jihad is acting against his religion, but that doesn’t stop some among us from thinking that his choice somehow shines a good light on Islam. It doesn’t. A good Muslim according to us is a bad Muslim according to Islam.
Forget something? Do a body count:
-- Christopher and Wade Lay, 1 dead,
2004 in Tulsa, OK
-- Jim David Adkisson, 2 dead, 2008 in Knoxville, TN
-- Keith Luke, 2 dead, 2009
in Brockton, MA
-- Scott Roeder, 1 dead, 2009
in Wichita, KS
-- James Von Brunn, 1 dead, 2009
in Washington, DC
-- Robert Andrew Poplawski, 3 dead, 2009 in Pittsburgh, PA
-- Joshua Cartwright, 2 dead, 2009 in Ft. Walton, FL
-- Shawna Forde, Jason Eugene Bush, Albert Robert Gaxiola, 2 dead, 2009 in Pima County, AZ
-- Raymond Franklin Peake, 1 dead, 2010 in Carlisle, PA
-- Andrew Joseph Stack, 1 dead, 2010 in Austin, TX
-- David “Joey” Pedersen and Holly Ann Grigsby, 4 dead, 2012 in WA, OR, CA
-- Wade Michael Page, 5 dead, 2012 in Oak Creek, WI
-- Brian Lyn Smith, 2 dead, 2012 in LaPlace, LA
-- Isaac Aguigui, Anthony Peden, Christopher Salmon, and Heather Salmon, 2 dead, 2012 in Long County, GA
That's RWNJ terrorism and ideology driven murder since 9/11/2001. In contrast Nidal Hasan killed 13 at Fort Hood and another three jihadist crimes killed 4 people in CA, WA, and AR.
There's abortion connected killings including killing girls who have gotten abortions. Not included here.
Forget something? The anarchists recruited paranoid schizophrenics, who found meaning in the rant-and-rave hatred of society's leaders. Jihadists exploit similar mental disorders -- for years the Palestinians used Major Depression as a key to turning out suicide bombers. For the RWNJ killers, it's heavy on the paranoia. Listen to Rush and its all about how White people are oppressed and beaten down by all-powerful Blacks and sex-crazed women.
Bombing churches? And how is it that bombing Black churches recurs decade after decade? Answer that one, then whitch about who's "homophobic, anti-American, and anti-Semitic."
Well, Hoover became one of the (paranoid) generals who was always fighting the last war. Experience is no template for the next version of terrorism--because the next one is going to be different from the last one.
Sacco and Vanzetti became leftist martyrs precisely because they were murdered by the government, not for having committed any crime (certainly none that were prove in court), but simply because they believed in anarchism.
Historians call the time period you glory in the "Red Scare" or an era of Hysteria precisely because it was an obvious example of how the government overreacted. Palmer made a fool of himself on May Day 1920 when he predicted a revolutionary outbreak, had all the major cities lined up with troops and armed to the teeth and then, well, nothing happened. The American people had finally grown tired of his ridiculous fear mongering.
The problem with the Red Scare era was that Palmer, the Lusk Commission, many others, and even Coolidge grossly exaggerated the threat of Bolshevism in the US by constantly asserting the US was on the verge of a communist revolution. Palmer paid for his demagoguery and heavy handed raid/deportation tactics by getting trounced in the 1920 presidential election. "The Fighting Quaker" became the "Quaking Fighter".
As for the fringe section of anarchists who believed in bombs, an important moral distinction should be made: anarchists attacked only those who they believed were responsible for their oppression. Unlike the Islamists, they didn't target civilians. Isn't that the exact distinction the US military uses to justify bombings?
The Red Scare resulted from the new thrill that Marxism gave to the gullible, and it lasted but ten years. Most U.S. domestic terrorists are fringe group members who act beyond those groups' conventions, or they're lone wolf malefactors. Islam, on the other hand, has a 1400 years-long history of conquest by violence and incremental migration that has run in long cycles but has alwys seized opportunities to conquer and to enlarge the umma. Moreover, Communists in the U.S. were never popular per se, but did enjoy a measure of popularity, chiefly as union organizers (and no one really loved the Weather Underground): but the point here is that all non-Moslem U.S. terrorists belonged to movements far smaller than Islam and vastly less mature and less deeply ingrained than Islam, or were lone cranks. At least in the late 1940's and early 1950's Congress had the sense and decency to investigate Communist infiltration and to expose Red spies in our highest political and defense councils and our DOJ prosecuted Red atomic and political spies, while today our deluded Dear Rulers ban federal employees' mention of "Jihad, Islam, & Moslems," and at the same time our overlords hire & appoint Moslem Brotherhood operatives to our nation's highest councils and to sensitive posts throughout governance. Islam is highly toxic because it is ingeniously decentralized, because it appeals to the uneducated who form its shock troops, and because it has now got plenty of oil cash with which it funds mosques, sleeper cells, UN initiatives to ban free speech, and buys Western influence-peddlers. p.r. firms, and chairs in our institutions of higher learning. The Reds of the Red Scare had no such power and pathetically much shorter reach. But most tellingly, Communists never had the pull of a lonog-established religion/theocracy and never enjoyed the constitutional protections extended to religions - protections of which Moslems today take enormous advantage and through which they exercise powerful leverage which Communists - let alone lone wolf cranks - never enjoyed. Not to mention that in its present cycle of resurgent power Islam has made relentless violent and stealth jihad against the West for more than forty years (and against Israel from long before Israel became an independent state) - a sustained effort which the Red Scare's often intramurally-tendentious firebrands never did and never could muster.
What about non-left wing terrorism? Oklahoma City, church bombing during the civil-rights era, blowing up of abortion clinics and the assassination of abortion doctors.
I seem to recall a famous Boston Tea Party once upon a time...? But Johnson writes: "Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, who, despite murdering two men in a shoe-factory robbery in 1920, became a leftist cause célèbre by the time they were executed in 1927." Leftist Cause? Communist Party cause. Katherine Ann Porter once told me, in 1951, she had been one of those picketing the Courthouse for the CP during the trial; had been arrested daily with the other picketers, and led off by white gloved cops, whom she called the Tea Party squad. Until, working as volunteer secretary in the CP office in Boston, she happened to overhear the two top organizers in the other room discussing the trial and observing that Sacco and Vanzetti were certainly being set up, two innocents, not subversives, but it would serve THE CAUSE of the Revolution where they to be convicted and executed. Appalled at such cynicism, young Ms Porter packed her bag and left them and Boston behind...disillusioned completely. Nothing has changed much since then, except pre-emptive surveillance, now all the rage.