Making Muslim Terrorists

How the police state creates enemies.

The Muslims Are Coming!: Islamophobia, Extremism, and the Domestic War on Terror, by Arun Kundnani, Verso, 256 pages, $26.95.

The term "identity politics" is typically used less as a designation than as a sneer: disapproving shorthand for Balkanized multiculturalism. Arun Kundnani's new book The Muslims Are Coming! sees the subject through a different lens. For Kundnani, an adjunct professor of media, culture, and communicationat New York University, identity politics isn't something the left does to get goodies from the government. It's something the government does to justify and expand the power of the national security state.

This isn't necessarily a new argument. Its roots go back at least to Foucault, and it has been elaborated in numerous venues—Melissa Gira Grant's forthcoming book Playing the Whore, for example, talks about the way that "prostitute" as an identity was created by the state as a way to codify, regulate, and criminalize a range of acts. But Kundnani's account of the creation of the category "Muslim" is riveting, thanks to its detail and its relevance. Before 9/11, as many a Muslim commenter has pointed out, Arab and other Muslim immigrants in the U.S. were well on their way to whiteness; they were even being courted assiduously by the Republican Party. Then the planes flew into the towers. All of a sudden, they were not white at all but Muslim: a despised and marginalized minority.

The word "Muslim" had existed for centuries, of course. But now it took on new connotations. Rather than a relatively innocuous religious marker of little interest to the authorities, the identity "Muslim" was a threat and a profile, something to be regulated, policed, feared, and controlled.

It wasn't just the events of 9/11 that created a marginalized Muslim identity. The U.S. and the U.K. both did a great deal of ideological and logistical work to create something that, in Kundnani's phrase, "could be an object of police inquiry." Conservatives' contribution was to create the now familiar fantasy of a war of cultures. In this narrative, Islam was not a complicated, multinational, centuries-long tradition comprised of millions of different individuals. It was a single, monolithic, repressive glob tainting irredeemably everything it touched. "Muslim" became one identity, and that identity was evil.

On the surface, liberals presented a more nuanced view. Rather than seeing Islam as innately evil, they have argued (and governments have echoed) that there is a good, "moderate" Islam, and that "radicalized" "extremists" are perverting this moderate core. The goal then becomes to shore up the good Muslim identity by identifying vectors of radicalization. In this view, Muslims as a group are not evil—just weak, vulnerable, and in danger of sliding into corruption. They are potential terrorists, and the goal of the liberal state is to prevent them from actualizing.

In practice, this has meant that Muslims are systematically and enthusiastically profiled, their communities swamped with informers and their communications monitored. Social services have been integrated with police, so that youth counselors, teachers, and imams become informants, pointing out adolescents (and even kindergartners) who need saving/watching so that they can be mentored and their data entered into the surveillance network. Kundnani doesn't have exact figures, but he estimates that the various police/FBI/security staff devoted to America's Muslim communities is roughly equivalent to the ratio of police to population in Eastern European nations. Not surprisingly, the aura of fear and repression—the sense of being constantly watched, the knowledge that some of your friends are spies—is similar to accounts of life behind the Iron Curtain.

This narrative of evil-or-weak Muslims does not prevent terrorist activity. It creates it, often literally. Based on the idea that all Muslims are potential terrorists, the FBI has taken to using agents provocateurs to foment plots. If the FBI provides logistical support, weapons, and know-how, and then pays impoverished and often mentally ill people large sums of money, can it convince Muslims to commit terrorist acts? The answer, unsurprisingly, is yes. Farooque Ahmed, for example, was convinced in 2010 to participate in an FBI-conceived plan to try to bomb the D.C. Metro. His arrest actually increased the danger of terrorism; broadcasting his (that is, the FBI's) plan raised the possibility of a copycat plot. And while the FBI spends its time manufacturing terror plots, it has little time to follow through on real threats, even though the agents provocateurs' stings give, in Kundnani's words, "the superficial appearance of an efficient counterterrorism program."

The police-state manufacture of Muslim identity can promote terrorism in other, less direct ways as well. Kundnani points out that the American imam Anwar al-Awaki had for years been decisively opposed to terrorist violence against civilians. The U.S. government had even reached out to him on occasion as a "moderate" voice; in 2002 he gave a sermon at Capital Hill. But as part of its post-9/11 targeting of Muslims, the FBI began a series of raids on educational and charitable Islamic organizations in Virginia, where al-Awlaki lived. This convinced him that Muslims were not treated like American citizens, and it eventually led him to relocate to Yemen—where he was arrested and, according to his own account, tortured with the knowledge of the American government. It was only after these experiences that he began to preach that violence against America was legitimate.

Al-Awlaki had certainly been radicalized, but not by some sort of creeping "extremist" doctrine. He was radicalized by U.S. national security policy. 

Kundnani mentions at various points in his book that it is not just Islam that has been radicalized, but the West as well. If U.S. policy has played a central role in creating a radical Muslim identity, as Kundnani argues, it seems reasonable to go further and conclude that militant terrorists have created a radical American identity. Osama bin Laden wanted to start a great cultural war, and to do that he needed to make an enemy. In large part he succeeded. Before 9/11, America (at least publicly) repudiated torture and was increasingly open to Muslim immigration. After 9/11, the U.S. jettisoned human rights and engaged in multiple wars against Islamic nations. It also curtailed Muslims' political liberties at home: Pro-Palestinian sentiment, for example, became one way that authorities identified supposedly suspicious individuals for policing. If al-Awlaki became the Muslim radical we wanted, we—with our torture and drone strikes and military occupations—became the radical anti-Muslim state bin Laden had prayed for.

The process of creating identity doesn't go just one way. When our national security apparatus creates Muslims to police, it in turn allows itself to be shaped by those terrorists to which it claims to be opposed. Violence is matched with violence, terror with terror. They make us and we make them. The product of all that making is not freedom.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Before 9/11, as many a Muslim commenter has pointed out, Arab and other Muslim immigrants in the U.S. were well on their way to whiteness; they were even being courted assiduously by the Republican Party. Then the planes flew into the towers. All of a sudden, they were not white at all but Muslim: a despised and marginalized minority.

    I was just commenting on how conservatives despise the individual and embrace groupthink these days. US vs THEM - with "them" being non-white, non-Christian enemies.

    I am even considered "evil" by the far right these days and I am a white Southern male. But the GOP plantation is not for me.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think identity politics is about the government creating identities to justify the security state. I think it's more about politicians creating identities for their constituencies--so that their constituencies will support them, more or less, no matter what they do, so long as the constituency in question still thinks of their support as a function of their group identity.

    Shrike is about the best example of that kind of identity politics we have. Say anything neutral about Reagan or Bush, and Shrike's political identity quickly becomes apparent. Reagan hating or Bush hating: Shrike's take on them has little to do with issues (no matter what Shrike says); it's just that whatever identity Shrike imagines belonging to has preconceived, identity appropriate reactions to them.

    It's also interesting how important other people's identities are to those like Shrike. Of course, they disagree with whatever rednecks, Christians, et. al. are saying! Because those are opposing identities. In fact, people like Shrike can never really know if they agree with you--until they know how you feel about Reagan and Bush or rednecks and Christians...

    Because for people like Shrike, what they know is a function of who they are--or at least who they perceive themselves to be. That's why Shrike's name is about what Shrike thinks of Sarah Palin. That's the first thing Shrike wants you to know about Shrike's identity. Everything else follows from that identity.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Good point about his screen name. Rather than using it to identify something about himself, he uses it to identify with something he hates. Very telling.

  • Mike M.||

    Shrike is David Weigel, and Weigel is absolutely consumed with Palin, Glenn Beck, and the TEA Party in general.

    Seriously, if you read his columns, he talks about all the same shit; they're just more professional and sanitized versions of what he spews here.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You think? I've heard this before but never gave it much credence.

  • Mike M.||

    I don't think, I know. Nobody else on earth calls people "ratfuckers", and sometimes he'll even post something here at virtually the same exact time he does on his Twitter account.

    As just one example, he did this when Philip Seymour Hoffman died; he posted his RIP on Twitter and then posted it here at Reason just a few minutes later.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Shrike is David Weigel

    And Tony is Paul Krugman .

    *searches for tinfoil hat*

  • Jesse Walker||

    Nobody else on earth calls people "ratfuckers"

    Um...

  • Mike M.||

    That's a big reach. Give me another example of a person who right now openly and routinely calls people he doesn't like "ratfuckers" with evidence to back it up and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong though.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I do. Been using that term for years, although I prefer pigfuckers. But you're going to need to take my word for it.

    I wonder if I'm somebody famous? ;-)

  • Jesse Walker||

    From the two years prior to the Weigel/Journolist story.

  • Mike M.||

    Yes, I'm aware of the origins of this obscure term that most people have never even heard of. I'm not talking about 40 years ago though, I'm talking about right now.

  • Jesse Walker||

    As the Google search that I linked to shows, Weigel wasn't the only person using it at that point. It had a bit of a revival in the late Bush II era. Not among the masses at large, of course, but among politically engaged people, especially on the left.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, when I read that all the rat-fuckers should light themselves on fire, that seemed pretty consistent with what I always figured was going on in Weigel's heart.

    Incidentally, I think Feeney's column the other day about how he doesn't really get gun rights was telling, too--in the opposite way from the revelations about what Weigel was saying behind closed doors.

    I've got a lot more respect for Feeney, now. It was hard to tell why he seemed to be off key on certain issues before--but after that post, it seems clear to me that he honestly just doesn't feel those issues. And there ain't nothin' wrong with that!

    It's not like in Weigel's case, where we all kind of knew instinctively that Weigel was always hostile to us in his heart of hearts. And yet Weigel was hired by the Post to explain libertarians and the Tea Party to the masses? We all knew that was a joke.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Way to derail by 'ad hominem', Ken.

    The father of modern conservatism, Leo Strauss, actually practiced the kind of US vs THEM this article explores.

    Strauss, who hated Popper and Open Society,, thought liberalism had led to too much materialism and societal permissiveness. So conservatives opposed to the new libertine/liberal/sexual revolution had to create a new enemy after the demise of Soviet communism. To halt the rise of the individual/free women "THEM" needed to be projected as evil (Muslims, liberals, atheists, Hollywood, gays, etc) - and this concept is nicely explored in The Power of Nightmares.

    Watch it.

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com.....ightmares/

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    link dead - here is the youtube trailer

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaLPFayD8FA

    Every libertarian should see this - it embraces the concept of the power mad state in a bipartisan way.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Go play, Shrike, the grown ups are talking.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The father of modern conservatism, Leo Strauss..."

    Leo Strauss was not the father of modern conservatism. I don't know where you got that. Was it from a left wing website?

    Strauss may have been the father of academic neoconservatives--but he was not the father of conservatism.

    The father[s] of modern conservatism were Buckley and Barry Goldwater, with Ronald Reagan batting cleanup.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N....._New_Right

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Again you evade the topic on this thread - how the state needs to manufacture enemies to increase its power.

    All three of the conservatives you mention were superb in the manufacture of enemies - especially Reagan.

  • seguin||

    Underhanded insult/bullshit didn't work Weigel? Switch to accusing someone else of trying to derail a thread to derail people pointing out your stupidity?

    Typical Weigel. An enraged idiot flailing blindly. Fuck off, you moron.

  • OneOut||

    Reagan invented the CCCP ?

    Who knew ?

  • gaoxiaen||

    ...with Ronald Reagan pointshaving. FIFY

  • Irish||

    The father of modern conservatism, Leo Strauss, actually practiced the kind of US vs THEM this article explores.

    I'll tell you what, go ask the average modern conservative for their opinion on Leo Strauss. For a 'father of modern conservatism' you'll find 90% of them won't even know who he is.

    Then ask them their opinions on Buckley, Reagan, or Thatcher. Those three clearly have more claim to being fathers and mothers of modern conservatism than fucking Leo Strauss.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Buckley, Reagan, or Thatcher

    Quaint relics to the post 9/11 Cheney/Bush administration.

  • johnl||

    Bush and Cheney aren't conservatives. Those are centrists.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think of the Cheney Administration as being Southern Democrats, like Lyndon Johnson.

    Wars to promote democracy?

    Check.

    Expansion of the Great Society through the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit?

    Check.

    The Bush Administration was a throwback to when the South was Democratic--like in Johnson's day.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Perhaps. When I was captive on the GOP plantation I supported William Weld - a liberal Republican who was later ostracized.

    And "ratfucking" made a comeback due to the appearance of one of its great practitioners, Karl Rove.

  • SH||

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I was just commenting on how conservatives despise the individual and embrace groupthink these days.

    Well, 8% of them do.

  • MariantheLibrarian||

    Yea. "Whiteness." Really? Maybe Arun needs to read the Wikipedia article on Race. Or is Wikipedia too low brow, working class for you? I hope not. I personally, though far from an expert on this subject, wish that the Muslim community in the USA would find their MLK- like- figure. Then I wish that he or she would dispel ideas like Whiteness, find some happy medium when it comes to overt religious practices and learn to invest in Israel. How about that? Where is the leadership here? It will happen I'm sure/hope. It will take time. America has to heal first. Understandably. Keep up the good work Reason. You cater well to the young, free-spirited, dare I say irresponsible (dare I say "non-married" or "non-family-oriented") element in all of us.

  • Acosmist||

    I'd rather read Foucault.

  • Swiss Servator, mehr Käse!||

    +1 pendulum?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    "In this narrative, Islam was not a complicated, multinational, centuries-long tradition comprised of millions of different individuals. It was a single, monolithic, repressive glob tainting irredeemably everything it touched. "Muslim" became one identity, and that identity was evil."

    Stopped reading after this shreek-level straw man.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think there is something to the suggestion that the Bush Administration, in particular, used Muslim terrorist identity as a competing identity to try to create a winning constituency for himself.

    They offered Republican identity up as the opposite of Muslim terrorist identity, specifically. But it was more complicated than just Muslims bad, Republicans good. For a long time, if you were against helping Team Bush liberate Muslims, then you were a dirty racist against Muslims.

  • Irish||

    Exactly. Bush actually said on multiple occasions that the problem wasn't Islam, it was radical Islam, fundamentalist Islam, etc.

    The Bush administration was idiotic, but it's a total like to claim they were saying all Muslims are terrorists.

  • Will4Freedom||

    But didn't Republican's tell us there is no such thing as 'blowback'?

    They just hate our freedoms, or something like that.

  • bassjoe||

    As has been obvious since 9/11, there's a bipartisan consensus to destroy our freedoms. We don't need the Muslim to do it for us.

  • OneOut||

    If that's the case that they hate us because of our freedoms then they must hate us a lot less than they once did.

  • Homple||

    Islam exhibits a certain, shall we say, rambunctiousness, all over the world. Is this all caused by the USA's police state?

  • bassjoe||

    What? Humanity displays rambunctiousness, religion doesn't matter.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think there's a good argument to make that oppression breeds a certain kind of resistance, and, yeah, as a function of the Cold War, we were underwriting all kinds of oppression.

    Once the Cold War was over, we kept supporting those dictators specifically because they were oppressing Muslim fundamentalists. I'm a big fan of the idea that once you attack the United States, it really doesn't matter why--the world is no longer big enough for both us and you.

    But that being said, if you ask me whether our foreign policy during and after the Cold War contributed to the rambunctiousness of Muslim extremists, and I'd have to say the answer is yes.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Eh, Ken, Islam doesn't need any help from the rest of the world in that regard. It's very 1600s Christianity that way. I agree that the US sticking it's oar in has only made the problem worse, done so for a variety of reasons that were of debatable value. (Cold War, Israel, etc.)

    The shit being done in our names these days there is no fucking excuse for.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    done so for a variety of reasons that were of debatable value. (Cold War, Israel, etc.)

    Oh, we were on the Islamocrazies list long before that, as the writings of Sayyid Qutb give evidence. Not that it justifies intervention in any way. Indeed, it's even more reason to steer clear of the entire region.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Not arguing any of that, if Islam does anything well it's identifying the Other. It's always possible to make it worse for ourselves, though.

    I'd be happiest letting the various Islamic factions have a nice long go round of factional bloodletting until hopefully some kind of reform movement would take hold. Would it happen? Who knows. But I'd certainly be willing to give it a shot.

  • Irish||

    Sayyid Qutb is my favorite crazy theocrat. The man basically twisted his frustrated sexual life into a bizarre political philosophy.

    On women:

    A girl looks at you, appearing as if she were an enchanting nymph or an escaped mermaid, but as she approaches, you sense only the screaming instinct inside her, and you can smell her burning body, not the scent of perfume but flesh, only flesh. Tasty flesh, truly, but flesh nonetheless.

    He also had a hilarious quote about how much he hates handsome and muscular American men, but I can't find it.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    There was a Law & Order episode where a young white guy became a jihadist because some girl laughed at him in bed.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Wasn't something like that supposed to have happened to Castro?

  • gaoxiaen||

    I like his take on women. Maybe I misunderstand it.

  • ||

    As I recall, the Barbary Pirates were spewing the same babble as the islamocrazies today.

    They were always who they are now, and it probably has more to do with culture than islam. I would be willing to bet pre-islam middle east was full of people doing the same things using the same justifications but with just the names changed.

  • Homple||

    "Once the Cold War was over, we kept supporting those dictators specifically because they were oppressing Muslim fundamentalists."

    I think rather that we supported them because we wanted a dependable oil supply and not because those seen as interrupting the supply belonged to one religious sect or another.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I agree that there was more than one reason for our support, but, whatever the reasons were, our support for the dictators who were oppressing them contributed to the rambunctiousness of Muslim fundamentalists.

  • OneOut||

    Leave it to liberal fantasy writers to blame Islam's "rambunctiousness" on the United States.

    Kipling said it shortest and best over 100 years ago when he said,

    "Islam has bloody borders"

  • Archduke von Pantsfan||

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Well, at least they're consistent.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    they're consistent.

    Joe Morgan would be pleased.

    Sorry FJM flashback

  • AnCapNow!||

    By this logic, NAZI is just an identity.
    Islam is what it is, as is amply demonstrated by their behavior where they live, and around the world, here is some 2007 data:

    As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
    United States — Muslim 1.0%
    Australia — Muslim 1.5%
    Canada — Muslim 1.9%
    China — Muslim 1%-2%
    Italy — Muslim 1.5%
    Norway — Muslim 1.8%

    At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:
    Denmark — Muslim 2%
    Germany — Muslim 3.7%
    United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
    Spain — Muslim 4%
    Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

  • PapayaSF||

    Even Norway and China have problems with Muslims.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Incidentally, Norway and China have problems with Norwegian Islamophobes and Tibetan Buddhists, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

  • PapayaSF||

    One nut isn't much of a case, and your reference to Tibet is totally silly.

  • Ken Shultz||

    So, when you wrote that Norway has "problems with Muslims", what did you mean exactly?

  • PapayaSF||

  • Ken Shultz||

    So, they got a letter in the mail from an Iraqi based terrorist group demanding a homeland in Norway.

    Yeah, that's a problem.

    I'm reading statistics that say 80% of the Iraqis living in Norway have been there for less than 10 years, and there are less than 30,000 of them in Norway. Only about 7,000 have been born in Norway (to two Iraqi parents), and most of them are, presumably, less than ten years old.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqis_in_Norway

    Still, even if accepting all those refugees from Iraq was a bad idea, I doubt those terrorists, however many of those Muslims in Norway really are terrorists, will actually get a homeland in Norway. And I'd take the threat in that letter a lot more seriously if there had actually been a terrorist attack perpetrated by Muslim extremists.

    Was there one?

  • PapayaSF||

  • Ken Shultz||

    "AFTER overwhelmingly agreeing by a show of hands that they were “normal” Sunni Muslims and not radicals or extremists, delegates to a “peace conference” in Norway earlier this year indicated their full support for the death penalty for adulterers and gays."

    Hardcore scene, back in the day, the neo-Nazi skinheads I knew claimed to be "normal" and not radicals, too. Just everyday average Americans!

    If I'd asked them for a show of hands as to how many of them were normal, I bet they'd all have put their hands up.

    And that second article, the one that starts:

    "The article below is about the apocalyptic level of culturally-enriched violence in Grønland, a district of the city of Oslo."

    ...that's kind of a tell.

    Looks to be from an anti-Muslim hate site. "The Muslim Issue Worldwide" with a bloody hand is their logo?!

    Incidentally, what do you plan to do with all this fear and aggression you apparently feel towards Muslims?

    Do you want to go conquer their countries and teach how they should really live?

    Are you trying to throw the Muslims out of America?

    If what you're saying about Muslims is true--what do you hope to accomplish with this information?

  • PapayaSF||

    Of course articles about the bad effects of Muslim immigration (or about problems with Muslims in general) are going to show up on Muslim "hate sites." Do you think the NY Times or NPR is going to cover that?

    I don't want to conquer anyone, I just don't want Western countries conquered by Muslims. And much of Europe is well on its way, judging by birthrates.

    It's impossible to "throw Muslims out of America," but we should not import any more.

    What I "hope to accomplish" is to shake libertarians out of their PC fairy tale torpor about religion: some religions are worse and more dangerous than others, so stop pretending otherwise.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Your right to freedom of religion is for your benefit, but other people's rights don't exist for your benefit--they exist for the benefit of the people who hold them. Do you understand that?

    Are you saying you would deport all Muslims if it were possible?

  • PapayaSF||

    To me, the benefits of other people's religions end where my nose begins. And as a libertarian (though not a purist), I oppose oppressive and aggressive religions, and Islam is the most oppressive and aggressive of them all, these days. Islam is especially problematic because, according to the Koran and all currently leading schools of interpretation, it recognizes no distinction between church and state.

    No, deportation is impossible and undesirable. But if I could snap my fingers and eliminate the religion of Islam from the world, I'd do it.

  • AnCapNow!||

    From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

    They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. (United States).
    France — Muslim 8%
    Philippines — Muslim 5%
    Sweden — Muslim 5%
    Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
    The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
    Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

    At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

    When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons).
    Guyana — Muslim 10%
    India — Muslim 13.4%
    Israel — Muslim 16%
    Kenya — Muslim 10%
    Russia — Muslim 10-15%

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I heard a rumor that some dude in central Europe wrote similar things about Jews ninety years ago.

  • wareagle||

    are or were Jews involved in the killings of people not like them? Not so much.

  • PapayaSF||

    Exactly. It's not an article of Jewish faith that they will eventually rule the world. The Jews have also run exactly one country since Roman times, and that's not too bad of a place. In contrast, every Muslim-ruled country sucks in major ways at best, and at worst, totally.

  • AnCapNow!||

    After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
    Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

    At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:
    Bosnia — Muslim 40%
    Chad — Muslim 53.1%
    Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

    From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:
    Albania — Muslim 70%
    Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
    Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
    Sudan — Muslim 70%

    After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:
    Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
    Egypt — Muslim 90%
    Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
    Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
    Iran — Muslim 98%
    Iraq — Muslim 97%
    Jordan — Muslim 92%
    Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
    Pakistan — Muslim 97%
    Palestine — Muslim 99%
    Syria — Muslim 90%
    Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
    Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
    United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

    100% will usher in the peace of “Dar-es-Salaam” — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:
    Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
    Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
    Somalia — Muslim 100%
    Yemen — Muslim 99.9%

  • Irish||

    After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

    What examples does he give of State run genocide?

    Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
    Jordan — Muslim 92%
    Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
    United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

    The only genocide in recent memory in Bangladesh came when Pakistan started massacring Bangladeshi people. Bangladesh itself has not been the perpetrator of a genocide.

    Jordan is one of the wealthiest nations in the middle East and is the 39th freest nation on Earth. That's still not particularly free, but it's only slightly behind Belgium and Norway. They're a moderately wealthy country with no serious human rights violations.

    Morocco has been averaging a 4-5% growth rate for the last 15 years and is a pretty liberal economy. They're more free market than an awful lot of Europe, and i'm not sure where you got the idea that there's an ongoing genocide in Morocco.

    As for the UAE, they're one of the richest places on the planet due to their oil money. They're constitution also includes things like equal protection under the law, presumption of innocence, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech. In fact, they have freedom of religion as well. You'll have to excuse me for not following your logic when you say UAE is a genocidal country.

  • AnCapNow!||

    Except for the austrian woman being charged for sex out of wedloc in the UAE, and being told she must marry the rapist to have the charge dropped.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....acker.html

    If an invading force adheres to the NAP more than the natives, then that invading force is the good guy.

    The NAP applies to individuals, not states.

  • Irish||

    Except for the austrian woman being charged for sex out of wedloc in the UAE, and being told she must marry the rapist to have the charge dropped.

    Horrible story. Of course what you said was:

    After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

    So this one story is like genocide because?

  • AnCapNow!||

    Forced conversion is equivalent to genocide when religion/ideology are at issue, as opposed to race.

  • Calidissident||

    I think you need to look up the definition of the word "genocide."

  • Brian Macker||

    Actually you are the ignorant one. Genocide includes any act designed to exterminate a group as such. That includes expulsion, transfer of children, reeducatiin, etc. All well within the acts commited by Mohammad and advocated in the Qur'an. Requiring jizya payments in order to undermine a rival religious group is genocidal.

  • Calidissident||

    That's ethnic cleansing. Genocide specifically refers to killing people.

  • Ken Shultz||

    If forced conversions are genocide, then if I decide to convert to another religion, am I committing suicide?

  • Calidissident||

    If you're an AnCap, how is the invading force justified when they're financing their invasion via forced taxation?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    I think you've been Merikened, Irish.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    If only Murk were an AnCap.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    He picked a Jewish name the other day.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'm sure that's due to his great understanding and esteem for the culture.

  • playa manhattan||

    He has friends and he has done research. You're very special, HM.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    As for the UAE, they're one of the richest places on the planet due to their oil money. They're constitution also includes things like equal protection under the law, presumption of innocence, freedom of movement, and freedom of speech.

    I think your view of the UAE is far too rosy. Nevertheless, the arguement to make is that the UAE has the highest rate of immigration on the planet, with 83.5 percent of its population being foreign-born.

  • PapayaSF||

    Yeah, he went overboard at the 80% mark with "genocide." But it is true that those 80%+ Muslim countries are generally awful, backward places with terrible civil and human rights records.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    *looks up

    Jihad Watch is sending missionaries to Reason now?

  • AnCapNow!||

    "Truth is no Defense"

  • Ken Shultz||

    Archie Bunker always thought his racism wasn't racism because it was true.

  • AnCapNow!||

    Muslim is not a race.
    Your post below shows what you would call racism against Anglo-Saxon Christianity.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee] noun, plural a·nal·o·gies.
    1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.

  • Ken Shultz||

    +1

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    It's stupid fucking analogy.

    There's no comparison between judging people based on their skin color and judging people based on an adherence to a religious doctrine dedicated to conquest, mass murder and slavbery (OH, EXCUSE ME,

  • Ken Shultz||

    You don't think racism is a good analogy for bigotry?

    You can change the word to "bigotry", and it's still works.

    Archie Bunker always thought his [bigotry] wasn't really [bigotry] because it was true.

    See? Still works. Especially in response to 'merican ribbing people for suggesting that truth is no defense.

    And since you apparently need this all spelled out for you, yeah, that means just because you think your bigotry against Muslims is true?

    That doesn't mean it isn't bigotry.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    It's stupid fucking analogy.

    There's no comparison between judging people based on their skin color and judging people based on an adherence to a religious doctrine dedicated to conquest, mass murder and slavery (OH, EXCUSE ME, "Muslim rambunctiousness").

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ok, but just exactly what "race" are Muslims again?

    Religious views aren't an inherent trait that a person never had any choice in or can do anything about, like the amount of melanin in one's skin.

    A religious tradition is something that a person, more or less, freely chooses to participate in, or not, and his or her character can and should be judged by the views they espouse.

  • Irish||

    If you're indoctrinated into a religion from birth, most people are never even going to consider choosing not to be part of that religion.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Additionally in those cases one who rejects the dominate culture can feel very conflicted about not going along with the herd when the herd is whipped up.

  • Irish||

    It's especially bad in theocracies where apostasy may be punishable by death. I have a hard time saying that someone in Saudi Arabia freely chose to be a Muslim.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I have a hard time saying that someone in Saudi Arabia freely chose to be a Muslim.

    Again, the Saudi religious police have yet to perfect their telepathic monitoring devices, so it still possible to be a Muslim dissenter in Saudi Arabia by hiding in plain sight.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    most people are never even going to consider choosing not to be part of that religion

    Eh, I was raised in a specific religious tradition, and yet, as an adult, I chose a radically different religion to follow. This is not all that uncommon in North America.

    And even in places that don't have a strong tradition of freedom of conscience like we do this phenomenon still occurs. For example, I know plenty of Friday-Mosque-only Saudis, who publicly identify with their religion only because they like their head attached to their neck, yet if given the choice, would be irreligious or even adopt another religion that fits their own views.

    Therefore, especially in a place like America, where such pressures don't exist, if someone says "I am an adherent of X", I tend to take their word at face value. That is, those are the values that they freely adopted and found in accord with their moral reasoning.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    where such pressures don't exist

    Surely you have enough psychology to know that this is not completely true even in America?

    I, too, chose a radically different spiritual path and am glad I did but I'd be lying if I said that it does not have consequences both in places you might expect and in some that you might not.

    I'm fine with my choice, and Islam is a lot harder on folks that don't toe the lion that American Christianity.

    Just saying you might be blowing that off a little to easily.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Surely you have enough psychology to know that this is not completely true even in America

    The only situations in America that are even comparable to the psychological pressures of the Saudi death penalty for apostasy (for example) are, wait for it, the phenomenon of "honor killings" in certain immigrant communities.

    Islam is a lot harder on folks that don't toe the lion that American Christianity.

    Just saying you might be blowing that off a little to easily.

    Perhaps. Never having been a Christian, maybe I'm just not use to "Christian privilege" or something.

    Still, the thrust of my argument is that religious views are not an inherent quality of an individual. Bigotry against an individual's religious views is a different animal than racism, and to call it such only serves to confuse the issue.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Bigotry against an individual's religious views is a different animal than racism, and to call it such only serves to confuse the issue.

    No argument from me there.

    My point is that herd mentality comes into play at a point earlier than death threats. It's human nature. A survival mechanism for much of human history and it's force can be as subtle as it is real.

  • AnCapNow!||

    Is condemning another's religios views nececessarily bigotry?

    What about condemning another's ideology? Behaviour, etc?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    Is condemning another's religios [sic] views nececessarily [sic] bigotry?

    I don't know, do you advocate initiating force against an entire group based upon the actions of some within that group?

  • AnCapNow!||

    Hmmm, would I drop bnombs on a factory that builds weapons that are used against me?

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    War is not moral...EVER!

  • AnCapNow!||

    In self-defense, it is.

  • gaoxiaen||

    It's "tow the lion" here.

  • Brian Macker||

    Christians don't practice the murder of apostates. Muslims do.

  • Francisco d Anconia||

    My wife, who is Syrian on her mom's side, believes the term Radical Muslim is a mischaracterization of our foe. There are many Muslims out there NOT crashing jets into buildings. Instead of blaming the religion, she blames the Middle Eastern (Arab) culture as the driving force behind the radical behavior. The religion is then used as an appeal to the masses.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    she blames the Middle Eastern (Arab) culture as the driving force behind the radical behavior. The religion is then used as an appeal to the masses

    Some things never seem to get old. Imperialistic urges for one.

  • Mercutio||

    Some things never seem to get old. Imperialistic urges for one.

    There will never be a shortage of those seeking to wear the boot stamping on a human face forever.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Instead of blaming the religion, she blames the Middle Eastern (Arab) culture as the driving force behind the radical behavior.

    Having seen Indonesia and Malaysia turn from pretty chill places to countries that try to out Saudi Saudi Arabia (thanks to all those Wahabi mosques that were built over the past 30 years with Saudi money), I tend to agree. 30 years ago, you could open a Malaysian phonebook and recognize that you were in Malaysia. Today, I could put a page side by side with one from a Jordanian phonebook and you'd be hard pressed to spot the difference (transliterated into the Latin alphabet, of course).

  • PaulW||

    Would make sense if it weren't for countries like the Philippines and many African countries.

    It is not an Arab issue, it is an issue with inability for Islam to adapt to a changing world. It may have been a pretty good Middle Ages religion, but it is still stuck there in so many ways.

  • Brian Macker||

    It was crap during the middle ages and only at a few times looked good if compared to the worst of other cultures.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How many countries in the world are there that Anglo-Saxon Christians haven't invaded at one time or another? I can't think of very many. Is there any other ethnic group that can say that? Historically, aren't Anglo-Saxon Christians the most warlike, invasion happy cultural group in the world?

    You're not one of these people that thinks Muslims are going to take over America, are you? Because the idea that Christians are trying to take over the Middle East is much more plausible than Muslims coming here and putting Hazel Meade in a burka, and I think the idea that we want to take over the Middle East is ridiculous.

  • AnCapNow!||

    Ahh, the old deflection. Go to Dearborn, Michigan, and open a pork hot-dog stand. There have been several pushes for the misogyny known as Sharia in the US, and the UK has 85 Sharia courts.
    I don't think we shuld try to take over the ME, but we should be able to ientify enemies of freedom, instead of whitwashing them and saying it must be the west's fault that they behave in that fashion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No, it wasn't a deflection. It was more of an example. Despite what some Anglo-Saxons did in Africa, often in the name of Christianity, I don't really see Christians as an imminent threat to the world, now. But I know a lot of Christians--and Anglo-Saxons, too--and most of them seem pretty harmless.

    I also know some Muslims. I used to go to Mosque on occasion. You see a lot of people there trying to teach their children right from wrong--hoping they'll stay away from drugs and not get pregnant. Muslims seem to really like pizza! So, I've never been to Dearborn, but I've been to heavily Muslim communities in various places in LA.

    Nice people! I've heard some of the women tell me how much they love America--because of the freedom. I heard one Imam say that Muslims were freer in America than anywhere else in the world, and I saw another encourage young Muslim men to join the U.S. military and help liberate their Muslim brothers in Iraq.

    So, anyway, I've got some empirical, bottom up observations I've made with my own eyes that don't seem to match up with your top down statistics. Statistically, a country is probably more likely to be invaded by Anglo-Saxon Christians than attacked by Muslim terrorists, isn't that right?

  • AnCapNow!||

    To undertstand Islam, go to a Muslim nation and ask a non-Muslim.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Statistically, a country is probably more likely to be invaded by Anglo-Saxon Christians than attacked by Muslim terrorists, isn't that right?

    No, that isn't right. And it's not even wrong, it's as Asimov said, "wronger than wrong".

    If you take a look at the current ongoing armed conflicts in the world the vast majority of them occur in what Charles Krauthammer via Samuel Huntington referred to as the "bloody borders of Islam". Now, it is perfectly acceptable to debate the amount of influence, if any, that Islamic views of the justification of inter-religious violence has upon the causes of these conflicts. What you cannot do is misrepresent the actual situation, which is what you have done in your last paragraph.

  • playa manhattan||

    If Mexico is shaded, Venezuela should be too.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Thailand as well. It seems that map was last updated in 2012.

  • Calidissident||

    I think he's talking historically.

  • wareagle||

    the section with more than 1k deaths per year is particularly telling - six Islamic connections plus Mexico. Not every Muslim is a terrorist but you stand to win in betting that a terrorist is a Muslim.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What you cannot do is misrepresent the actual situation, which is what you have done in your last paragraph."

    I wasn't misrepresenting anything; I was trying to make a point.

    Historically, you spin the wheel of fortune over the last thousand years or so, and when your country lands on any point in history, what's more likely?

    A) That you're under terrorist attack by Muslims, or B) that you're being invaded by Anglo-Saxon Christians?

    The correct answer is "B".

    If you're trying to extrapolate general trends about Islam (in all its guises to all Muslims from all over the world) by looking at what's happening today? Maybe you need to scale out a bit and look at the bigger picture historically.

    Meanwhile, I can't think of anywhere in the world that Anglo-Saxon Christians haven't invaded at one point or another. We invaded Archangel, so scratch Russia off the list...

    I don't think we invaded Chile or Peru, but Fujimori and Pinochet were our allies, there, so we didn't have to! The British did embarrass the hell out of the Argentinians...

    It's a remarkable observation, especially in the context I made it, that Anglo-Saxon peoples have invaded pretty much everywhere at one time or another--and yet you can't really look at any of us today and say that English speaking Christians are so scary because everywhere they go, that means doom.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What you cannot do is misrepresent the actual situation, which is what you have done in your last paragraph."

    I wasn't misrepresenting anything; I was trying to make a point.

    Historically, you spin the wheel of fortune over the last thousand years or so, and when your country lands on any point in history, what's more likely?

    A) That you're under terrorist attack by Muslims, or B) that you're being invaded by Anglo-Saxon Christians?

    The correct answer is "B".

    If you're trying to extrapolate general trends about Islam (in all its guises to all Muslims from all over the world) by looking at what's happening today? Maybe you need to scale out a bit and look at the bigger picture historically.

    Meanwhile, I can't think of anywhere in the world that Anglo-Saxon Christians haven't invaded at one point or another. We invaded Archangel, so scratch Russia off the list...

    I don't think we invaded Chile or Peru, but Fujimori and Pinochet were our allies, there, so we didn't have to! The British did embarrass the hell out of the Argentinians...

    It's a remarkable observation, especially in the context I made it, that Anglo-Saxon peoples have invaded pretty much everywhere at one time or another--and yet you can't really look at any of us today and say that English speaking Christians are so scary because everywhere they go, that means doom.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "To undertstand Islam, go to a Muslim nation and ask a non-Muslim."

    Well, I haven't done that, but here in the U.S., I have talked to plenty to Muslims about how they feel about America, and the impression I get is generally positive.

    I don't think they like being demonized much, and they've got some reservations about our foreign policy, but then I don't like being demonized as a libertarian much, and I'm much more vocal about my opposition to American foreign policy, so...

  • Lyle||

    The vast majority of Muslims are normal people who just get up in the morning and do their thing like everyone else. I totally agree. I lived in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood in Germany as an exchange student. Nice people.

    That said, amongst them like with all other groups are some not so nice people. From the greater Muslim community comes Islamists and Islamist violence. Unfortunately there is no way to get around this fact.

  • OneOut||

    If you go back to the poster who listed the population densities in various Nations that should answer your question as it clearly explains Muslim group behavior.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Those countries have other things in common--in addition to being predominantly Muslim.

    Free market starved, legacy of colonialism, legacy of oppression, seriously fucked up government, with other types of ethnic strife thrown in, etc., that'll get you similar results between British/Irish and Croatia/Serbia, too.

    When people are especially poor, they tend to be more fundamentalist. When fundamentalists are especially oppressed, they tend to become militant. Doesn't it work that way everywhere?

  • OneOut||

    Is it just a coincident then that where there are Muslim majorities that your last paragraph comes into play ?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It isn't just when there are Muslim majorities that poor people tend to be more fundamentalist, and it isn't just when there are Muslim majorities that oppression radicalizes people. I think it's a pretty universal thing.

    I think that could help explain everything from Crazy Horse and the Christian Identity movement to the Black Panthers.

    The idea that the poor tend to be more fundamentalist and the oppressed tend to be more militant really shouldn't be controversial. Why would Muslims be any different?

    If you're trying to suggest that Muslims are more oppressed than other groups because they're Muslims, I think that's ignoring a lot of history, too. Much of North Africa and the Middle East didn't emerge from Colonialism until recently.

    Here's a page with a map of when colonialism ended for North African and the Middle East.

    http://ocw.nd.edu/arabic-and-m...../lecture-4

    Those gulf states didn't get their independence until the 1960s and 1970s.

    And when almost all those countries emerged from colonialism, they dictators to contend with--dictators backed by various parties in the Cold War. Major problem! Serious oppression.

    Those dictators are just starting to fall now!

    So you're gonna look at all those forces and blame it all on Islam?

  • Homple||

    "Those dictators are just starting to fall now!".

    And are being replaced with more dictators because Anglo Saxons, the Crusades, Ferdinand and Isabella issuing the Allhambra decree in 1492, men and women dancing to "Baby it's Cold Outside" in Greely, CO back in 1949....

  • Ken Shultz||

    Point is that they're just now getting a chance to figure some of this stuff out.

    If I had to choose between government by the army or by religious fanatics, I'd be pretty discouraged.

    Sort of like having a Civil War between religious fanatics and slave holders. If they get to where we are without having to fight a Civil War, like we did, then they'll have done better than us.

  • SweatingGin||

    "Go to Dearborn, Michigan, and open a pork hot-dog stand. "

    Probably just Merkin, but I happen to live a couple of miles from Dearborn. Grew up there. Large Muslim population. So far as I remember, honey baked hams is still on Ford road. Can get bacon in every non-specifically mid-eastern store.

    Some places advertise halal food. Plenty of non-halal around.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Is it un-Christian to eat halal (or kosher) food?

  • Geoff Nathan||

    There are dozens of restaurants in Dearborn that serve pork--at least half a dozen Chinese restaurants, for example.

  • Lyle||

    Christians taking over the Middle East is much more plausible?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I said Anglo-Saxon Christians.

    How many troops do Muslims have in the United States?

    How many troops controlled by Anglo-Saxon Christian have been in the Muslim world over the last 20 years?

    Even from a cultural imperialistic standpoint, they're worried about their kids being Americanized by the music they listen to, the movies and television they watch... Can you even name a pop star from the Muslim world?

    So, by way of comparison, if you think Muslims are going to take over America, you're out of your mind. It's a paranoid fantasy.

    Meanwhile, even after the Arab Spring, we have a friendly security relationships with a number of the dictators who are running things over there.

    Anglo-Saxon Christians set the borders of their countries...

    So, yeah, Anglo-Saxon Christians taking over the Middle East is much more plausible than Muslims taking over America. Fundamentalist Christians can't even get what they want in this country--and they're part of the majority religion.

  • Lyle||

    I don't think Muslims are going to take over the United States you imbecile.

    I do think Islamists are wrongheaded and bad like the KKK were, and can be dangerous to people and liberty the world over.

    America also isn't an Anglo-Saxon Christian country by the way. That's about as stupid as thinking Muslims are going to take over the United States.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I don't think Muslims are going to take over the United States you imbecile."

    Try to keep up with the conversation.

    The statement about Anglo-Saxon Christians being more likely to take over the Middle East was a direct response to the suggestion that Muslims should be feared becasue they're trying to implement Sharia in the U.S.

    "America also isn't an Anglo-Saxon Christian country by the way."

    Culturally, that's exactly what we are.

    Our culture has been dominated by Protestant Christianity for some 400 years, and our institutions and government have been dominated by English ideas about liberty and government since Day One.

    We evolved from 13 English colonies, and while other influences have crept in increasingly since World War II, one of those thing those disparate influences have consistently complained about is how hard it is to change the prevailing culture.

    You're not one of those people who thinks American white people don't have a culture, are you?

  • PaulW||

    Historically Islam was just as violent as Christianity, if not more so. The biggest difference is location. Christian nations historically have a large percent of sea faring nations, it is much easier to get to the New World and up and down Africa from Western Europe, which is why colonialism was much more rampant.

    Either way, both religions sucked back then, but Christianity has evolved with the times and technology, Islam has not. The reason for this lies more with the Koran and its inflexibility than it does with "Christian oppression".

  • OneOut||

    There is not a lot of innovation in the Muslim world. They don't appear to approve of individualism.

    Shipbuilding in the Muslim world never advanced as it did in the West.

  • OneOut||

    There is not a lot of innovation in the Muslim world. They don't appear to approve of individualism.

    Shipbuilding in the Muslim world never advanced as it did in the West.

  • PapayaSF||

    True.

  • JeremyR||

    You don't know much about history, do you?

    How did Islam spread in the first place? Because Muhammed's uncle conquered much of the known world. They were only stopped in Europe by a very narrow margin.

    Its whole basis in conquest, its whole reason of being is to conquer the world.

    By contrast, other than the British (who are actually mostly genetically Celtic) still, how many Anglo-Saxon empires were there? I can't think of any. And did the British try to enslave people? Actually, they used their "empire" to attack slavery.

    And the real problem is cultural. Hazel Meade might not be in a burkha, but I see plenty of women in them when I go shopping (not just the scarf/head covering, the whole damn thing). And I live in St. Louis, not Detroit or whatever where there are a lot of muslims.

    It's a culture war and we're losing. And if you don't think culture matters, look Ukraine.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The parts of the Ottoman Empire the British didn't assume control of after WWI, they invaded during World War II.

    I suppose they left some of it to the French, but still...

    "Its whole basis in conquest, its whole reason of being is to conquer the world."

    Yeah, but Anglo-Saxon Christians ended up actually invading the rest of the world, right?

    What the Muslims couldn't do by faith, we accomplished in small pieces, sometimes by demonizing whatever enemy or convincing ourselves that we were fighting in self-defense or to save some other people.

    Remember when we were going over there to save the Iraqis? Oh, it was also about WMD.

    We did the same sort of thing in the Philippines. Well, somebody had to save those poor people from the Spanish!

  • PaulW||

    The Philippines loves us, at least.

    And we stopped invading in the name of Christianity a long time ago. Iraq is more of a geopolitical strategical error, not a religious crusade.

    Historically the biggest offenders were the Spanish, and if you look at their history you can see why. They were forced into Islam by the sword and then forced back into Christianity by the sword. That is the way they knew how to spread religion.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Hazel Meade might not be in a burkha, but I see plenty of women in them when I go shopping (not just the scarf/head covering, the whole damn thing). And I live in St. Louis, not Detroit or whatever where there are a lot of muslims.

    It's a culture war and we're losing."

    Have you heard about how gay marriage is doing in opinion polls?

    We're losing a culture war to Muslims?!

    You're off your rocker.

  • PaulW||

    I fail to see how my paragraph denies what you wrote?

    The topic was colonialism and how Christian nations invaded pretty much every country in the world. Because they had ships. I'm well aware of the violence that spread Islam, the true reason for the Crusades, etc. Islam is a religion based on violence. Christianity was perverted for it, but it has since recovered. Islam can never recover because violence is at the soul of the religion.

  • JeremyR||

    And let me add, the Middle East was originally Christian, before the Muslims conquered it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Everything the Muslims conquered in their holy wars, the British conquered, too--and then a whole lot more in the rest of Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia, besides.

    Then there's what they had in China and India.

    You still not getting the point?

  • PaulW||

    Yes, Christianity and Islam were bad during the empire building days. Great point. Pretty sure stoning a woman who was raped was okay at one point in the Christian world as well.

    You've convinced me, since our ancestors stoned women as well, we're basically the same people and we shouldn't judge them!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Conservatives' contribution was to create the now familiar fantasy of a war of cultures."

    If you don't think Muslim nations aren't fighting a cultural war, you're just not paying attention. See Organization of Islamic Cooperation for recent details

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Good put. The text of Mahathir Mohamad's addresses to the OIC are chilling. The man is a fucking lunatic.

  • Lyle||

    Islamists aren't just coming, but they're here.

    Nothing wrong with Muslims though. Just please, don't become an Islamist.

  • AnCapNow!||

    A Muslim who currently enjoys a position of power said:

    "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers... "

  • Lyle||

    Please Reason, don't ever publish anything by Noah Berlatsky again. He reasons Al-Awlaki was radicalized by U.S. foreign policy. That's just stupid. He was an Islamist that radicalized himself and then radicalized others.

  • AnCapNow!||

    Put "Behead those who insult Jesus" into a google image search to see the horror of the current Christian Holy War.

  • Irish||

    Theodore Dalrymple has an awesome article up mocking the New York Times for a pearl clutching piece about heroin.

    The article, by Deborah Sontag, told the story of a 21-year-old woman, Alysa Ivy, who died in the small town of Hudson, Wisconsin, from using heroin. In recent years, more and more people in America, mostly young and white, have been dying in this way—most recently, the acclaimed actor Philip Seymour Hoffman. Why? According to the Times, the cunning and charm of heroin is to blame. Heroin “has wormed its way into unsuspecting communities,” wrote Sontag, adding that “statistics [for heroin-related deaths] lag behind heroin’s resurgence.” Wicked, wicked heroin!
  • ||

    They're animists, dude. They're totemizing heroin, just like all drugs. It's regular as clockwork.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    This is the same Theodore Dalrymple that recently argued in a debate that drugs should remain illegal (on the other side was no other than...Nick Gillespie)?

    http://www.intelligencesquared.....-dalrymple

  • Irish||

    I know. He confuses me. I like him about 80% of the time, and then he does something absurd.

    I don't know how he can square his arguments in favor of drug prohibition with virtually every other argument he's ever made. He's big on personal responsibility but then drugs come up and he suddenly wants Big Daddy Government to protect our children.

  • Acosmist||

    Is this the same Bo Cara that approves racist terms against blacks?

    And he's not banned?

    Murican, you may have a loophole!

  • Bill Dalasio||

    According to the Times, the cunning and charm of heroin is to blame. Heroin “has wormed its way into unsuspecting communities,”

    Of course, that is a lousy explanation. Are we to assume that heroin only recently became cunning and charming?

  • On The Road To Mandalay||

    Anyone who wants an education about Islam (Muslims are those who follow that religion and "submit to God," need to read "Jihad" by Paul Fregosi. The book will serve as a reality check for those who have forgotten real history and decided to listen to propagandists and those who like to spin fairy tails.

  • Homple||

    Why not go to original sources? You can find translations of the Koran and the Hadiths. Just be sure you don't incur the displeasure of a fundamentalist by being seen with your greasy infidel fingers on the Holy Book.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't understand why so many people (on all sides of this issue) seem to think that there has to be one singular reason why all Islamic terrorists do what they do.

  • wareagle||

    I am far less concerned about why they do it than the fact that they do. We're not ascribing this behavior to any other group on this scale.

  • Calidissident||

    "I am far less concerned about why they do it than the fact that they do"

    If you don't understand the "why" then does that not limit your ability to form a policy that does the best job of countering it?

  • PapayaSF||

    This piece is another reminder that not only leftists are susceptible to the "If other people hate us, it must be because we did something wrong" foreign policy fallacy.

    Libertarians are also susceptible to the "All religions should be equal before the law, therefore all religions are the same" fallacy. Nope.

    Of course not every Muslim is a terrorist. Yes, other religions/cultures have done bad things. But it's ignorance or willful blindness to ignore the rising wave of Islamic radicalism and terrorism, while Western imperialism has been fading away. The essence of Islam is far more violent, expansionist, fundamentalist, and anti-libertarian than any other major religion. Plus, terrorism and Sharia law have an embarrassingly high level of support among Muslims in general.

    Muslims made Muslim terrorists. Their historical excuses are irrelevant. The fact that the US, by taking some actions against Muslim terrorists, has made a few more is irrelevant. I'm sure more Japanese disliked the US after 1944, too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have responded to Pearl Harbor.

    It's a tricky situation because "Islam" is not a country. It's against our modern nature to perceive entire religions as enemies. But the sad fact is, Islam sucks from the libertarian p.o.v. It's a real threat. Don't try to excuse it or explain it away.

  • JeremyR||

    Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood (who for some reason, this place wanted to rule Egypt), “Islam does have a policy embracing the happiness of this world….We believe that Islam is an all-embracing concept which regulates every aspect of life, adjudicating on every one of its concerns and prescribing for it a solid and rigorous order.”

    To use another quote, "Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

    The whole basis of Islam is controlling people. Submission to god. That's what Islam means.

    The whole basis of Christianity (and Judaism) is free will. If a religion based on that gets misused, how much potential for abuse does a religion based on being controlled and submissive have?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Generally, Muslims believe in what Christians would call predestination.

    To them, it's not so much that you've been rejected by God because you choose to sin; it's more that you choose to sin becasue you've been rejected by God.

    That's not exactly a universe without free will; it's more like a universe where God already knows and has accounted for everything that's going to happen--and everything you're going to choose.

    So, choosing to submit to God's will isn't exactly a world without choice. If it were, those Imams I saw wouldn't have been so quick to condemn murdering civilians in the name of Islam. They would have said, "Oh well, I guess that was just God's will".

  • PapayaSF||

    Non-Muslims in Muslim nations generally don't have a lot of "choice."

  • Ken Shultz||

    I suppose that's true.

    Although there is more than just one strain of Islam, and some of those strains are more tolerant than others.

    But I still wouldn't say the whole basis of Islam is controlling people--although someone might make a good argument that the basis of Islam is people controlling themselves.

  • PapayaSF||

    The trouble with the "some of those strains are more tolerant than others" view:

    1) The tolerant strains have been in retreat for generations.

    2) The tolerant strains don't have the big money behind them.

    3) The tolerant strains are inherently less able to compete with the intolerant strains. There were also "tolerant strains" of socialism in Russia in 1917, and look what happened to them.

  • David_B||

    This article is the biggest load of bollocks.

    So all the violence, hatred and oppression that occurs in Islamic nations is all the fault of the white western world?

    And all misogyny, slavery, child sexual abuse, clitorectomies, and beheadings.

    The racism, sexism, prejudice and discrimination.

    All sanctioned by Islamic sharia law by the way.

    All the fault of the big bad west being nasty to the poor innocent Muslims?

    Don't make me sick.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    Reading (most) of the comments here, it seems there is a lack of understanding of and reluctance to accept the truth about Islam.

    Islam will accept nothing less than the 100% conversion of infidels.

    The Quran requires a full conversion or death (you choose).

    We can all stand around and talk about how it will never happen here, but unless we wipe them off the face of the earth, they will keep expanding their religious utopia to the rest of the world. They will never compromise, they can't, because it goes against their religious doctrine.
    If you value our Western way of life, then you need to be prepared to defend it, and at least admit the threat when there is one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Reading (most) of the comments here, it seems there is a lack of understanding of and reluctance to accept the truth about Islam."

    It seems to me that people's fear of Islam is such that it might have been manufactured as a way to coalesce some kind of group identity to support the government's war policies after all!

    "The Quran requires a full conversion or death (you choose)."

    They required conquered people who weren't Muslims to pay taxes. At one point, in the former Persia, they had so many people converting to Islam, the government outlawed conversion--because they needed the tax revenue!

    There's a part of the Quran that says righteous Christians have nothing to fear on judgement day.

    "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and those Christians, whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness -- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."

    http://corpus.quran.com/transl.....5&verse=69

    I know you're terribly frightened of Muslims, and it can be very upsetting to hear that your fears are unfounded, but the things you think and feel when you're scared are often blown way out of proportion. You probably won't do it, but you really should try to go to a mosque in your area if you can--it would dispel a lot of that fear to see the people you're so scared of acting like...nothing to be afraid of.

    And you really don't want to go through life afraid of the dark--it's unmanly.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    I'm not afraid of muslims, in fact I grew up with them.
    Spent the first 18 years of my life in a very heavily muslim populated large city in Europe.
    So, when trying to justify your multi-culturalism please bear in mind there are others who know what the muslims want, have experienced it first hand, and are merely trying to open peoples minds to what the barbarians want, and what they will do.
    I'm all for giving people a second or even third chance at being a decent human being; we're way past that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You're not afraid of Muslims, you just go around telling people that the Muslims want to kill us if we don't covert?

    Do you really believe that or don't you? Fear mongers who know they're lying are even worse than fear mongers.

    At least you're not proud of being afraid.

  • BLEEDINELL||

    History will validate my opinion.
    Just trying to warn you, but I know you'll keep believing what you want to believe.
    I'm not yelling "fire" in the theatre here. This fire's been burning for a while.

  • PaulW||

    Here is my issue:

    Women's rights in the Muslim world are atrocious.

    Religious freedom is the Muslim world is atrocious.

    Freedom of association in the Muslim world is atrocious.

    Those are generalizations, yes, and there are exceptions, but I take exception to you implying that a dislike of Islam is some sort of ignorant fear of the unknown. As a supposed libertarian, Ken, you seem hell bent on defending a culture that is amoral to libertarianism at its core. It is an authoritarian religion.

    Islam is a disliked religion due to the facts, not your fantasy of what it could be or highlighting the contradictory statements within the religion itself. It is not disliked because of the Muslims who practice being good human beings. We're all aware that there are good Muslims. There are good people within every group. I'm sure you could have even found some good Nazis to "prove" that Naziism wasn't bad.

    Go to one of their rallies! You'll see that they're are many good Nazis!

  • PaulW||

    Wow, there are, not they're are. :( Edit button please.

  • PapayaSF||

    +1

    And don't forget: freedom of speech in the Muslim world is atrocious, and gay rights are close to non-existence.

  • Jonathan G||

    You have some points correct and I'm in full favor of catching terrorists wanting to blow things up. But we *still* have the Constitution and the 4th amendment particularly. If there's a suspect in a bombing plot then get a warrant for arrest.

  • Jonathan G||

    I'm all for catching terrorists who look to blow things up, but not at cost of the 4th amendment. The Constitution applies to all individuals and American citizens. Be consistent.

  • ian388||

    Start working at home with Google! Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. It's a great work at home opportunity. I can't believe how easy it was once I tried it out. Linked here www.Pow6.com

  • David_B||

    It's unbelievable how readily people are willing to defend the indefensible when they think they have some vague moral high ground.

    These are the same sorts of morons that probably defended the Nazis prior to world war 2.

    Islam is a 'totalitarian' theopolitical ideology of hatred and oppression. Nothing else really needs be said. Where's the confusion?

    Next thing we'll have these same useful idiots defending Communism and Fascism, saying how the West should stop being so darn nasty and disruptive to the poor innocent Communists and Fascists.

    You people really need to screw your heads on, seriously.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement