Sent by Tim Connors on 05-21-2008:
I was disappointed to see a disparaging reference to General John Vines in Bruce Bawer's critique of our willingness in the West to succumb to jihadist ideology. I thought the general theme of the piece was correct--we cannot defeat this enemy without being sure of our own values. However, Mr. Bawer's insinuation that, by including two texts on a professional reading list that take up a multicultural viewpoint, that General Vines was "whitewash(ing) jihad, dhimmitude and sharia" to his staff was wildly off the mark.
Let me reveal my prejudice. I served under General Vines's command in the 101st Airborne and later while he commanded Task Force 82 in Afghanistan. He is the best leader and toughest soldier whose command I was ever privileged to serve under.
General Barry McCaffrey, who gained notoriety commanding the Army's 24th Infantry Division in the first Gulf War, and later as President Clinton's Drug Czar, agrees. After conducting an assessment of the situation in Iraq in 2005, he said, "LTG Vines is the most experienced and effective operational battle leader we have produced in a generation." That is tall praise, and deserved in my judgment.
Professional reading lists in the military include many texts, some of which challenge officers to defend American values--you better be able to if you are going to send soldiers into dangerous situation to defend those values. One of the favorite texts in Special Forces circles, for example, is The Ugly American. As a cadet at West Point, I was required to read Marx and Hitler. We need to know how our enemy thinks. Few things are more important for professionals.
Accordingly, we should expect that our military professionals are reading controversial texts such as Sayyid Qtub's Milestones. Similarly, this professional inquiry should extend to the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, as well as Frank Gaffney and Mark Steyn.
General Vines is a patriot, dedicated soldier, and a genuine hero. He has fought in many conflicts defending America and American values. He has earned better than to be casually included with the cast of characters portrayed in Mr. Bawer's piece.
[The writer is Director of the Manhattan Institute's Center for Policing Terrorism]
Sent by John L. Work on 04-29-2008:
Thank you for a most excellent piece on our ongoing surrender to the forces of Sharia. You are indeed a master scholar and courageous writer.
I noticed that you alluded to the work of Diana West, who is also a master scholar of the jihad and its many facets.
Please continue your work. America needs you. I'm not particualrly optimistic about our chances for survival, given the spineless press corps that has evolved since WWII.
Sent by Richard LeComte on 04-29-2008:
As a Christian and a Netizen, I know it is the price of freedom that I uphold the right of atheist popularizers like Dawkins and Hitchens to publish their books and express their views in the media. I have the perfect right to ignore them. Certainly Islamists have the right to express their views as well, but freedom of expression does not extend to crying fire in a crowded movie house, and it does not extend to threats that chill the very freedom of speech itself.
I'm glad Bawer is standing up for freedom of speech, and I wonder if he might find allies not in the halls of liberal institutions, but in the homes of right-wing, gun-toting Christians with "defend freedom" bumper stickers, as well as in the ACLU and in the editorial offices of non-religous, libertarian magazines.
Sent by Joe Lammers on 04-28-2008:
Excellent article! The cowardice of European (and, increasingly, U.S.) politicans in facing the threat of Islamism threatens our futures as free societies. In fact, it may already be too late for Europe, due to demographics.
Sent by Win on 04-28-2008:
Your concept of Muslim culture is at best a crude caricature and your understanding of the Muslim world is misconstrued as a single amorphous social movement with no internal dissent. Your article mentions the divide between Sunni and Shia, but in no way recognizes that there are many secular Muslim who are in fact being endangered by our inability to understand that the cultures practicing Islam are diverse and even contradictory to Sharia in some instances--such as is the case in Malaysia.
Now I am not completely educated and haven't spent an appropriate amount of time studying the topic to consider myself a worthy debate opponent. I have, however, met many Muslims from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Pakistan, Indonesia, and other countries. If you think that these people honestly seek to inject "radical Islam" into the place they have gone to, I would suggest you meet some honest immigrants on a non-academic level and observe if they are truly the demon you contend.
Sent by Timothy Nelson on 04-28-2008:
This article speaks volumes regarding what some (including me) call the secularists, secular left, or secular humanists. It would appear that a philosphy built on secular humanism is incapable of defending the freedoms under which secular humanism can flourish.
Mr. Bawer winds up his article saying that the U.S. is more effective in combating Islamofascism because of the First Amendment. I disagree. American society has not yet succumbed to this because we have many more churchgoers than in Europe. The very people the Left in The United States and in Europe deride and hold in comtempt are in fact the ones defending Western values.
So much for the man of the Left saying, I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it. Hah. They haven't got the guts.
Sent by Rick Johnson on 04-28-2008:
How refreshing to see this in a magazine associated with New York! Carry on, Mr. Bawer!
Sent by Shahid Insaf on 04-27-2008:
Very courageous and accurate article, Mr. Bawer. I was born a Muslim, and came to the U.S. 13 years ago, hoping that the evil of Islam had been left behind. The battle against this monstrous cult becomes even more difficult when the supposed defenders of our freedoms--our elected leaders--default so completely on their responsibilities. Truly tragic.
Sent by Richard on 04-27-2008:
Bruce Bawer should be commended for warning us about
a serious threat to secular democracy and civil liberties in the West. We simply cannot allow appeals to postcolonial guilt and multiculturalism to rescind our system of common law and constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take warholy war, jihadto bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 180105 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists weapon of choice has usually been the terrorists bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.
What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeinis 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Khomeini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.
The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particularthe 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islams oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspapers 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammedhave had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideologywhich teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressivepeople at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmisinfidels living in Muslim societies.
Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowlyor not so slowly, in Europes casebeing absorbed into the House of Submission.
The Western media are in the drivers seat on this road to sharia. Often their approach is to argue that were the bad guys. After the late Dutch sociologist-turned-politician Pim Fortuyn sounded the alarm about the danger that Europes Islamization posed to democracy, elite journalists labeled him a threat. A New York Times headline described him as marching the dutch to the right. Dutch newspapers Het Parool and De Volkskrant compared him with Mussolini; Trouw likened him to Hitler. The man (a multiculturalist, not a Muslim) who murdered him in May 2002 seemed to echo such verdicts when explaining his motive: Fortuyns views on Islam, the killer insisted, were dangerous.
Perhaps no Western media outlet has exhibited this habit of moral inversion more regularly than the BBC. In 2006, to take a typical example, Manchesters top imam told psychotherapist John Casson that he supported the death penalty for homosexuality. Casson expressed shockand the BBC, in a dispatch headlined imam accused of gay death slur, spun the controversy as an effort by Casson to discredit Islam. The BBC concluded its story with comments from an Islamic Human Rights Commission spokesman, who equated Muslim attitudes toward homosexuality with those of other orthodox religions, such as Catholicism and complained that focusing on the issue was part of demonizing Muslims.
In June 2005, the BBC aired the documentary Dont Panic, Im Islamic, which sought to portray concerns about Islamic radicalism as overblown. This stunning whitewash of radical Islam, as Little Green Footballs blogger Charles Johnson put it, helped keep the British public fast asleep, a few weeks before the bombs went off in London subways and buses in July 2005. In December 2007, it emerged that five of the documentarys subjects, served up on the show as examples of innocuous Muslims-next-door, had been charged in those terrorist attacksand that BBC producers, though aware of their involvement after the attacks took place, had not reported important information about them to the police.
Press acquiescence to Muslim demands and threats is endemic. When the Mohammed cartoonspublished in September 2005 by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten to defy rising self-censorship after van Goghs murderwere answered by worldwide violence, only one major American newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, joined such European dailies as Die Welt and El País in reprinting them as a gesture of free-speech solidarity. Editors who refused to run the images claimed that their motive was multicultural respect for Islam. Critic Christopher Hitchens believed otherwise, writing that he knew quite a number of the editors concerned and can say for a certainty that the chief motive for restraint was simple fear. Exemplifying the new dhimmitude, whatever its motivation, was Norways leading cartoonist, Finn Graff, who had often depicted Israelis as Nazis, but who now vowed not to draw anything that might provoke Muslim wrath. (On a positive note, this February, over a dozen Danish newspapers, joined by a number of other papers around the world, reprinted one of the original cartoons as a free-speech gesture after the arrest of three people accused of plotting to kill the artist.)
Last year brought another cartoon crisisthis time over Swedish artist Lars Vilkss drawings of Mohammed as a dog, which ambassadors from Muslim countries used as an excuse to demand speech limits in Sweden. CNN reporter Paula Newton suggested that perhaps Vilks should have known better because of the Jyllands-Posten incidentas if people who make art should naturally take their marching orders from people who make death threats. Meanwhile, The Economist depicted Vilks as an eccentric who shouldnt be taken too seriously and noted approvingly that Swedens prime minister, unlike Denmarks, invited the ambassadors in for a chat.
The elite media regularly underreport fundamentalist Muslim misbehavior or obfuscate its true nature. After the knighting of Rushdie in 2007 unleashed yet another wave of international Islamist mayhem, Tim Rutten wrote in the Los Angeles Times: If youre wondering why you havent been able to follow all the columns and editorials in the American press denouncing all this homicidal nonsense, its because there havent been any. Or consider the riots that gripped immigrant suburbs in France in the autumn of 2005. These uprisings were largely assertions of Muslim authority over Muslim neighborhoods, and thus clearly jihadist in character. Yet weeks passed before many American press outlets mentioned themand when they did, they de-emphasized the rioters Muslim identity (few cited the cries of Allahu akbar, for instance). Instead, they described the violence as an outburst of frustration over economic injustice.
When polls and studies of Muslims appear, the media often spin the results absurdly or drop them down the memory hole after a single news cycle. Journalists celebrated the results of a 2007 Pew poll showing that 80 percent of American Muslims aged 18 to 29 said that they opposed suicide bombingeven though the flip side, and the real story, was that a double-digit percentage of young American Muslims admitted that they supported it. u.s. muslims assimilated, opposed to extremism, the Washington Post rejoiced, echoing USA Todays american muslims reject extremes. A 2006 Daily Telegraph survey showed that 40 percent of British Muslims wanted sharia in Britainyet British reporters often write as though only a minuscule minority embraced such views.
After each major terrorist act since 9/11, the press has dutifully published stories about Western Muslims fearing an anti-Muslim backlashthus neatly shifting the focus from Islamists real acts of violence to non-Muslims imaginary ones. (These backlashes, of course, never materialize.) While books by Islam experts like Bat Yeor and Robert Spencer, who tell difficult truths about jihad and sharia, go unreviewed in newspapers like the New York Times, the elite press legitimizes thinkers like Karen Armstrong and John Esposito, whose sugarcoated representations of Islam should have been discredited for all time by 9/11. The Times described Armstrongs hagiography of Mohammed as a good place to start learning about Islam; in July 2007, the Washington Post headlined a piece by Esposito want to understand islam? start here.
Mainstream outlets have also served up anodyne portraits of fundamentalist Muslim life. Witness Andrea Elliotts affectionate three-part profile of a Brooklyn imam, which appeared in the New York Times in March 2006. Elliott and the Times sought to portray Reda Shata as a heroic bridge builder between two cultures, leaving readers with the comforting belief that the growth of Islam in America was not only harmless but positive, even beautiful. Though it emerged in passing that Shata didnt speak English, refused to shake womens hands, wanted to forbid music, and supported Hamas and suicide bombing, Elliott did her best to downplay such unpleasant details; instead, she focused on sympathetic personal particulars. Islam came to him softly, in the rhythms of his grandmothers voice; Mr. Shata discovered love 15 years ago. . . . She entered my heart, said the imam. Elliotts saccharine piece won a Pulitzer Prize. When Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes pointed out that Shata was obviously an Islamist, a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review dismissed Pipes as right-wing and insisted that Shata was very moderate.
So it goes in this upside-down, not-so-brave new media world: those who, if given the power, would subjugate infidels, oppress women, and execute apostates and homosexuals are moderate (a moderate, these days, apparently being anybody who doesnt have explosives strapped to his body), while those who dare to call a spade a spade are Islamophobes.
The entertainment industry has been nearly as appalling. During World War II, Hollywood churned out scores of films that served the war effort, but todays movies and TV shows, with very few exceptions, either tiptoe around Islam or whitewash it. In the whitewash category were two sitcoms that debuted in 2007, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporations Little Mosque on the Prairie and CWs Aliens in America. Both shows are about Muslims confronting anti-Muslim bigotry; both take it for granted that theres no fundamentalist Islam problem in the West, but only an anti-Islam problem.
Muslim pressure groups have actively tried to keep movies and TV shows from portraying Islam as anything but a Religion of Peace. For example, the Council for American-Islamic Relations successfully lobbied Paramount Pictures to change the bad guys in The Sum of All Fears (2002) from Islamist terrorists to neo-Nazis, while Foxs popular series 24, after Muslims complained about a story line depicting Islamic terrorists, ran cringe-worthy public-service announcements emphasizing how nonviolent Islam was. Earlier this year, Iranian-Danish actor Farshad Kholghi noted that, despite the cartoon controversys overwhelming impact on Denmark, not a single movie has been made about the crisis, not a single play, not a single stand-up monologue. Which, of course, is exactly what the cartoon jihadists wanted.
In April 2006, an episode of the animated series South Park admirably mocked the wave of self-censorship that followed the Jyllands-Posten crisisbut Comedy Central censored it, replacing an image of Mohammed with a black screen and an explanatory notice. According to series producer Anne Garefino, network executives frankly admitted that they were acting out of fear. We were happy, she told an interviewer, that they didnt try to claim that it was because of religious tolerance.
Then theres the art world. Postmodern artists who have always striven to shock and offend now maintain piously that Islam deserves respect. Museums and galleries have quietly taken down paintings that might upset Muslims and have put into storage manuscripts featuring images of Mohammed. Londons Whitechapel Art Gallery removed life-size nude dolls by surrealist artist Hans Bellmer from a 2006 exhibit just before its opening; the official excuse was space constraints, but the curator admitted that the real reason was fear that the nudity might offend the gallerys Muslim neighbors. Last November, after the cancellation of a show in The Hague of artworks depicting gay men in Mohammed masks, the artist, Sooreh Hera, charged the museum with giving in to Muslim threats. Tim Marlow of Londons White Cube Gallery notes that such self-censorship by artists and museums is now common, though very few people have explicitly admitted it. British artist Grayson Perry, whose work has mercilessly mocked Christianity, is one who hasand his reluctance isnt about multicultural sensitivity. The reason I havent gone all out attacking Islamism in my art, he told the Times of London, is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.
Leading liberal intellectuals and academics have shown a striking willingness to betray liberal values when it comes to pacifying Muslims. Back in 2001, Unni Wikan, a distinguished Norwegian cultural anthropologist and Islam expert, responded to the high rate of Muslim-on-infidel rape in Oslo by exhorting women to realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it.
More recently, high-profile Europe experts Ian Buruma of Bard College and Timothy Garton Ash of Oxford, while furiously denying that they advocate cultural surrender, have embraced accommodation, which sounds like a distinction without a difference. In his book Murder in Amsterdam, Buruma approvingly quotes Amsterdam mayor Job Cohens call for accommodation with the Muslims, including those who consciously discriminate against their women. Sharia enshrines a Muslim mans right to beat and rape his wife, to force marriages on his daughters, and to kill them if they resist. One wonders what female Muslims who immigrated to Europe to escape such barbarity think of this prescription.
Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and one of Britains best-known public intellectuals, suggested in February the institution of a parallel system of sharia law in Britain. Since the Islamic Sharia Council already adjudicates Muslim marriages and divorces in the U.K., what Williams was proposing was, as he put it, a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resources. Gratifyingly, his proposal, short on specifics and long on academic doublespeak (I dont think, he told the BBC, that we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights, simply because it doesnt immediately fit with how we understand it) was greeted with public outrage.
Another prominent accommodationist is humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University, author of an August 2007 essay in the New York Times Magazine so long and languorous, and written with such perfect academic dispassion, that many readers may have finished it without realizing that it charted a path leading straight to sharia. Muslims full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected, Lilla wrote. For the West, coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle.
Revealing in this light is Burumas and Garton Ashs treatment of author Ayaan Hirsi Aliperhaps the greatest living champion of Western freedom in the face of creeping jihadand of the Europe-based Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. Because Hirsi Ali refuses to compromise on liberty, Garton Ash has called her a simplistic . . . Enlightenment fundamentalistthus implicitly equating her with the Muslim fundamentalists who have threatened to kill herwhile Buruma, in several New York Times pieces, has portrayed her as a petulant naif. (Both men have lately backed off somewhat.) On the other hand, the professors have rhapsodized over Ramadans supposed brilliance. They arent alone: though hes clearly not the Westernized, urbane intellectual he seems to behe refuses to condemn the stoning of adulteresses and clearly looks forward to a Europe under shariathis grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna and protégé of Islamist scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi regularly wins praise in bien-pensant circles as representing the best hope for long-term concord between Western Muslims and non-Muslims.
This spring, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, writing in the New York Times Magazine, actually gave two cheers for sharia. He contrasted it favorably with English common law, and described the Islamists aspiration to renew old ideas of the rule of law as bold and noble.
With the press, the entertainment industry, and prominent liberal thinkers all refusing to defend basic Western liberties, its not surprising that our political leaders have been pusillanimous, too. After a tiny Oslo newspaper, Magazinet, reprinted the Danish cartoons in early 2006, jihadists burned Norwegian flags and set fire to Norways embassy in Syria. Instead of standing up to the vandals, Norwegian leaders turned on Magazinets editor, Vebjørn Selbekk, partially blaming him for the embassy burning and pressing him to apologize. He finally gave way at a government-sponsored press conference, groveling before an assemblage of imams whose leader publicly forgave him and placed him under his protection. On that terrible day, Selbekk later acknowledged, Norway went a long way toward allowing freedom of speech to become the Islamists hostage. As if that capitulation werent disgrace enough, an official Norwegian delegation then traveled to Qatar and implored Qaradawia defender of suicide bombers and the murder of Jewish childrento accept Selbekks apology. To meet Yusuf al-Qaradawi under the present circumstances, Norwegian-Iraqi writer Walid al-Kubaisi protested, was tantamount to granting extreme Islamists . . . a right of joint consultation regarding how Norway should be governed.
The UNs position on the question of speech versus respect for Islam was clearand utterly at odds with its founding value of promoting human rights. You dont joke about other peoples religion, Kofi Annan lectured soon after the Magazinet incident, echoing the sermons of innumerable imams, and you must respect what is holy for other people. In October 2006, at a UN panel discussion called Cartooning for Peace, Under Secretary General Shashi Tharoor proposed drawing a very thin blue UN line . . . between freedom and responsibility. (Americans might be forgiven for wondering whether that line would strike through the First Amendment.) And in 2007, the UNs Human Rights Council passed a Pakistani motion prohibiting defamation of religion.
Other Western government leaders have promoted the expansion of the Dar al-Islam. In September 2006, when philosophy teacher Robert Redeker went into hiding after receiving death threats over a Le Figaro op-ed on Islam, Frances thenprime minister, Dominique de Villepin, commented that everyone has the right to express their opinions freelyat the same time that they respect others, of course. The lesson of the Redeker affair, he said, was how vigilant we must be to ensure that people fully respect one another in our society. Villepin got a run for his money last year from his Swedish counterpart, Fredrik Reinfeldt, who, after meeting with Muslim ambassadors to discuss the Vilks cartoons, won praise from one of them, Algerias Merzak Bedjaoui, for his spirit of appeasement.
When, years after September 11, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged publicly that the West was at war with Islamic fascism, Muslims and multiculturalists furious reaction made him retreat to the empty term war on terror. Britains Foreign Office has since deemed even that phrase offensive and banned its use by cabinet members (along with Islamic extremism). In January, the Home Office decided that Islamic terrorism would henceforth be described as anti-Islamic activity.
Western legislatures and courts have reinforced the spirit of appeasement. In 2005, Norways parliament, with virtually no public discussion or media coverage, criminalized religious insults (and placed the burden of proof on the defendant). Last year, that countrys most celebrated lawyer, Tor Erling Staff, argued that the punishment for honor killing should be less than for other murders, because its arrogant for us to expect Muslim men to conform to our societys norms. Also in 2007, in one of several instances in which magistrates sworn to uphold German law have followed sharia instead, a Frankfurt judge rejected a Muslim womans request for a quick divorce from her brutally abusive husband; after all, under the Koran he had the right to beat her.
Those who dare to defy the Wests new sharia-based strictures and speak their minds now risk prosecution in some countries. In 2006, legendary author Oriana Fallaci, dying of cancer, went on trial in Italy for slurring Islam; three years earlier, she had defended herself in a French court against a similar charge. (Fallaci was ultimately found not guilty in both cases.) More recently, Canadian provinces ordered publisher Ezra Levant and journalist Mark Steyn to face human rights tribunals, the former for reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, the latter for writing critically about Islam in Macleans.
Even as Western authorities have hassled Islams critics, theyve honored jihadists and their supporters. In 2005, Queen Elizabeth knighted Iqbal Sacranie of the Muslim Council of Britain, a man who had called for the death of Salman Rushdie. Also that year, London mayor Ken Livingstone ludicrously praised Qaradawi as progressiveand, in response to gay activists who pointed out that Qaradawi had defended the death penalty for homosexuals, issued a dissertation-length dossier whitewashing the Sunni scholar and trying to blacken the activists reputations. Of all the Wests leaders, however, few can hold a candle to Piet Hein Donner, who in 2006, as Dutch minister of justice, said that if voters wanted to bring sharia to the Netherlandswhere Muslims will soon be a majority in major citiesit would be a disgrace to say, This is not permitted!
If you dont find the dhimmification of politicians shocking, consider the degree to which law enforcement officers have yielded to Islamist pressure. Last year, when Undercover Mosque, an unusually frank exposé on Britains Channel 4, showed moderate Muslim preachers calling for the beating of wives and daughters and the murder of gays and apostates, police leaped into actionreporting the station to the government communications authority, Ofcom, for stirring up racial hatred. (Ofcom, to its credit, rejected the complaint.) The police reaction, as James Forsyth noted in the Spectator, revealed a mindset that views the exposure of a problem as more of a problem than the problem itself. Only days after the Undercover Mosque broadcastin a colossal mark of indifference to the reality that it exposedMetropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair announced plans to share antiterrorist intelligence with Muslim community leaders. These plans, fortunately, were later shelved.
Canadian Muslim reformist Irshad Manji has noted that in 2006, when 17 terrorists were arrested in Toronto on the verge of giving Canada its own 9/11, the police did not mention that it had anything to do with Islam or Muslims, not a word. When, after van Goghs murder, a Rotterdam artist drew a street mural featuring an angel and the words thou shalt not kill, police, fearing Muslim displeasure, destroyed the mural (and a videotape of its destruction). In July 2007, a planned TV appeal by British cops to help capture a Muslim rapist was canceled to avoid racist backlash. And in August, the Times of London reported that Asian men (British code for Muslims) in the U.K. were having sex with perhaps hundreds of white girls as young as twelvebut that authorities wouldnt take action for fear of upsetting race relations. Typically, neither the Times nor government officials acknowledged that the Asian mens contempt for the white girls was a matter not of race but of religion.
Even military leaders arent immune. In 2005, columnist Diana West noted that Americas Iraq commander, Lieutenant General John R. Vines, was educating his staff in Islam by giving them a reading list that whitewashes jihad, dhimmitude and sharia law with the works of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito; two years later, West noted the unwillingness of a counterinsurgency advisor, Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen, to mention jihad. In January 2008, the Pentagon fired Stephen Coughlin, its resident expert on sharia and jihad; reportedly, his acknowledgment that terrorism was motivated by jihad had antagonized an influential Muslim aide. That Coughlins analyses would even be considered controversial, wrote Andrew Bostom, editor of The Legacy of Jihad, is pathognomonic of the intellectual and moral rot plaguing our efforts to combat global terrorism. (Perhaps owing to public outcry, officials announced in February that Coughlin would not be dismissed after all, but instead moved to another Department of Defense position.)
Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which theyre determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.
The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that theyre incapable of defending it when its imperiledor even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passivelyand some, approvinglywhile their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.
But we certainly cant expect them to take a stand for liberty if we dont stand up for it ourselves.