Can Western Democracies Survive Islam?

:
A Polemic

. JJ. Albert Rorabacher

i
 Can Democracy Survive Islam?: A Polemic

© John A. Rorabacher

ISBN: 978-0-9864774-2-3

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any manner without
written permission of the author.

Originally set in Palatino Linotype font

Published in 2009 by the author and

Dark Horse Press

E-mail:darkhorsepress@rogers.com
ii
 Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ vi

Preface ............................................................................................................................................. vii

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

The War on Terrorism ............................................................................................................... 2

Rules of Engagement ................................................................................................................. 2

Guerrilla Warfare ........................................................................................................................ 3

The Importance of Iraq and Afghanistan ......................................................................... 6

The Nature of Islam and Americanism .............................................................................. 7

The Force of Jihad ......................................................................................................................... 8

Jihad.................................................................................................................................................. 8

Imams, Jihads, and Fatwas.................................................................................................. 9

Demographic Realities ............................................................................................................ 11

Why It all Went Wrong ............................................................................................................ 14

Is Islam Destined to Rule the World? ............................................................................... 15

Why Attacks on Other Muslims? ........................................................................................ 15

Slavery, Concubinage and the Dhimmi System ............................................................ 17

Barbarism ................................................................................................................................... 18

Islamic Dogma and Anti-Intellectualism ......................................................................... 20

Failure of Western Policies .................................................................................................. 21

Can Anything be Done? ........................................................................................................... 26

The Psychology of Islam ................................................................................................... 30

Abandon Democracy? .............................................................................................................. 32

Islam’s Internal Civil War ...................................................................................................... 34

iii
There is a Glimmer of Hope .................................................................................................. 35

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................... 37

Endnotes ......................................................................................................................................... 41

iv
v
 Dedication

This work is dedicated to those who seek peace in the midst of troubled times.

vi
 Preface

This is not a diatribe, a condemnation, nor is it to be deemed a political, religious,

or philosophical denunciation of Islam. Nor is it intended to be invective. Rather, it is
a polemic having to do with the potential, long-term consequences of the politiciza-
tion of Islam, its drift toward fundamentalism, its growing intolerance of those clas-
sified as infidels, and the potential effects of its rapid increase in adherents.

As Jeffrey B. Webb stated in his The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Exploring God:

. . . our most spiritually gifted sages warn us time and

time again that we shouldn’t equate our limited and faul-
ty concepts of God with the actual Supreme Being of the
universe. Adherents sometimes ignore this sound advice
and use incomplete concepts of God as wedges of separa-
tion, leading to sectarian strife and, regrettably, religious
warfare. Where God comforts and heals, religions some-
times confuse and divide. This is especially true when God
is enlisted in the cause of human projects like the creation
of governments or the realignments of territorial boun-
daries. Non–religious ideologies such as Nazism and
Communism produced a vast harvest of death in the
twentieth century, and yet we still must count the human
costs that have resulted from the politicization of God.i, ii

vii
 In every modern conflict, either between nations or ideologies – assuming the
ideologies embrace the concept of God – God is called upon to protect and make
strong the combatants on both sides. If God can be called upon by opposing sides, it
seems obvious that neither side can claim to be entirely correct. The victor always
claims the victory but is it always with God’s blessing? Calling upon God, by whatev-
er name, is propagandistic when it comes to warfare. And to wage a war based on
religion goes against every tenet of most organized religions. Yet, today Islam finds
itself in the midst of a global jihad, a religious war, against non-believers. Can this be
in Mankind’s best interests?

The politicization of religion – any religion – usually results in its perversion. The
perversion of any religion is typically the result of twisted and manipulated teach-
ings by those who have an unholy agenda. Today, more than ever, religions and reli-
gious scholars and intellectuals must play their part in broadening the public’s un-
derstanding of religion and its role in promoting justice, rather than inciting
anarchy, murder, and terrorism.

When rabid fundamental ideas, held by a few, become the principle and motive
force behind a religion, the views of the majority are ignored, and with it, any hope
for the establishment or continuation of democratic principles.

The initial impetus for this work grew out of the author’s more than a decade of
standing on the sidelines of society, watching society change in ways that were
alarming. The most frightening of these changes has been in the way Islam has been
hijacked and perverted by religious fundamentalists, zealots, and activists for politi-
cal gain.

Since 9/11, the entire world has become preoccupied with perceived and real
threats. We cannot permit ourselves to lose sight of the fact that not everyone of
Arab descent, or who subscribes to Islam, is a terrorist. We cannot permit ourselves
to condemn, possibly the largest religion in the world, for the heinous acts of a few.
If we do, it will divide the world in ways we cannot now even comprehend.

viii
 Lincoln said it, but Abigail Adams was the first to say, commenting on the Civil
War:

. . . A house divided upon itself- and upon that foundation

do our enemies build their hopes of subduing us.iii

This sentiment is valid today. Democracies, around the world have begun to di-
vide, among and within themselves. The cause – the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
and its politicization. Can the world’s democracies endure religious-based division,
or will there be civil war? Are democracies to give up their pledge and commitment
to the principles of inalienable, individual human rights? Can democracies remain
democracies in the absence of these principles? And what will happen if Islam be-
comes the dominant religion in what are now perceived to be modern day democra-
cies?

Barrie
June 2009

ix
 Introduction

Canada and the U.S., as well as many other Western democracies, are fighting a
war of survival; and no one seems overly concerned; or, for many, they are com-
pletely unaware. We have either become largely complacent or unbelieving, unwil-
ling to see the facts. We have become complacent due to our desire to be politically
correct. fair, and tolerant. We believe that someone else will take care of the bad
guys, if you can even use that term. If we are to believe the facts, which most news
agencies and governments seem unwilling to report accurately, we are losing the
battle, whether verbal or militarily, for our way of life.

Although Osama bin Laden, as the leader of Al Qaeda is the one person we want
to blame for all the terrorist attacks around the world, he is little more than a fi-
gurehead, a convenient scapegoat. Yes, there is little doubt that he was involved in
the 9/11 attack, but the true problem is much larger than one person or group. Ter-
rorism may be the most violent expression of the war but that is not where the war
will be won or lost.

In fact, from all indications, there is little or no chance that, in forty years or so,
most of the countries of Europe (East and West), Canada and the U.S. – Western
style democracies – will even exist as we know them today. All Western democra-
cies could cease to exist without a single shot ever being fired. Ultimately, the coun-
tries we call democracies, and home, will simply cease to exist through the very me-

1
chanism that makes them so unique in world history – the concept of one man, one
vote, or universal suffrage. That’s right, our democracies, as amazing as they are
within the historical context, will cease to exist by virtue of the principle that the
majority rules. Put another way, democracy will vote itself out of existence.

The War on Terrorism

The U. S. is currently involved in preemptive attacks on tyranny and religious ex-
tremism in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some people believe both of these countries to be
just another Vietnam. In particular, some observers point to the historical fact that
Afghanistan has never been completely conquered or subjugated. Alexander tried
and failed. The English tried and failed. The Russians tried and failed. The Coalition
is trying and, unfortunately, in all likelihood, it will fail as well. The question is why?

Although there are myriad reasons why ‘the war on terrorism’ appears to have
developed into a never-ending conflict, the primary reasons for the U.S.-led Coali-
tion’s inability to end this war is that there are differences in the rules of engage-
ment (ROE) that the opposing forces employ, and there is the difference between
conventional military deployment and guerrilla warfare.

Rules of Engagement
In every war ever fought, where the rules of engagement prevent the combatants
from exploiting every opportunity possible, the combatant that was most hampered
has inevitably lost. Restrictive rules of engagement result in the loss of military lives,
because the soldiers are not permitted to adequately defend themselves or strike
preemptively, or asserting the full force of the military.

Also, the war tactics of terrorists makes it much more difficult for a conventional
militia. Terrorists ‘hide’ among innocent civilians, using them as a means of thwart-
ing larger and stronger military forces, using civilians as human shields because
2
they know that the military’s rules of engagement are designed to minimize colla-
teral damage – the death and injury of innocents. One need only watch newscasts to
see this in practice. Recent news footage, documenting the conflict between Hezbol-
lah and Israeli troops, shows masked Hezbollah combatants surrounded by women
and children, while the Israeli troops openly work their way down the streets, clear-
ing non-combatants out of harm’s way. The only thing differentiating the non-
combatants from Hezbollah’s fighters is, the combatants wore ski masks.

Terrorist tactics represent a difficult and especially complex challenge for demo-
cracies, because of the limitations and constraints that most democracies impose on
themselves in their struggles against such groups. These constraints prevent them
from imposing their full military power and hinders the means that can be used to
achieve a decisive victory. As a consequence, as Yoram Schweitzer suggests, sub-
national organizations, like Hezbollah and Hamas, are able to survive and preserve
their ability – even if it is limited – to continue attacking their rivals sporadically and
harming them enough to create the illusion that they are the victors. Time after
time, Israel and Hezbollah have faced off against one another, usually on Lebanese
soil. Each time, Hezbollah is driven back into hiding, yet, it claims victory, despite
the fact that they have suffered far more than the state they are fighting.4

Terrorists gain a significant advantage by exploiting their adversary’s commit-

ment to the belief that human life is sacred. Terrorists target their enemies’ civilian
populations intentionally and exempt themselves from having to take responsibility
for such collateral damage. Their end justifies their means.

Guerrilla Warfare
The insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq are often characterized as being guer-
rilla campaigns. However, these insurgencies do not fit the traditional, revolutionary
guerrilla model as put forward by Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Che Guevarra, or Mao.5

In its purest form, guerrilla wars are waged by a popular paramilitary front to
bring about the rapid redistribution of power within a society by deposing the es-
3
tablished ruling elites and instituting some form of populist form of government
through which the "voice of the people" can be heard. Initially, guerilla warfare was
almost exclusively associated with movements seeking the democratization of
their societies. Most such movements arise out of a question of political legitimacy
and seek to empower those elements perceived by the population as having the
moral right to govern. For Che, only a regime which enjoys the popular support of
the people could claim the legitimacy it needs to govern.6

The Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies do not fit the original model of guerrilla war-
fare or strategy, for a number of reasons. First, they are not based on a popular dis-
satisfaction with the status quo and are not dependent upon popular support. While
the populations of Afghanistan and Iraq were, in fact, terrorized by their govern-
ments prior to western involvement, and sought relief, the insurgents do not draw
upon popular support as their source of legitimacy. Their source of legitimacy
comes solely from their parochial interpretation of the Qur’an and a desire to insti-
tute a repressive, backward looking social and political order based on those archaic
views.

Second, most historic insurgencies have been based on a desire to democratize

their societies. Neither the Taliban nor Al Qaeda are seeking the establishment of
democratic forms of governance. Instead, they seek the institution of some form of
theocracy, where there will be strict adherence to the word of the Prophet as
handed down in the Qur’an.

Third, in traditional insurgencies, the movement must rely upon the citizenry for
food, shelter, manpower and military intelligence. To obtain this assistance it must
not only openly embrace the cause of the people, but also treat the population with
dignity and respect. The Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies do not treat the population
with either dignity or respect, and their primary support does not come from the
populous but rather from a small fanatical group of religious and politically moti-
vated zealots, and are frequently sustained by oil-related money.

4
 Finally, it must be recognized that there is a significant difference between true
insurgencies and terrorist groups. The ultimate goal of an insurgency is to challenge
the existing government for control, or force political concessions that result in a
sharing of political power. Terrorists do not require and rarely have the active sup-
port, or even the sympathy of a large fraction of the population. While insurgents
will frequently describe themselves as "insurgents" or "guerillas", terrorists will not
refer to themselves as "terrorists." They will call themselves freedom fighters, sol-
diers, or activists but not terrorists. Terrorists rely on public impact, and they are
conscious of the advantage that comes from avoiding the term "terrorist" in identify-
ing themselves.

Ultimately, the difference between an insurgency and terrorism is the intent of

the participants. Insurgencies and guerilla forces can adhere to international norms
regarding the law of war in achieving their goals, but terrorists routinely violate
both civil and military legal codes. Terrorists, justifiably claim that if they were to
adhere to any "law of war" or accept any constraints on the scope of their violence,
it would place them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the establishment. Since terrorists
are, by their very nature, absolutists, their goals are of paramount importance, and
any limitations on their prosecution of the struggle are deemed unacceptable. This
means that any tactic, technique, or advantage can be used or taken and it is all justi-
fiable.

The primary component of traditional guerrilla warfare that the Afghan and Ira-
qi insurgents have adopted, however, is the use of unconventional tactics and com-
bat, employing a small group of combatants who use mobile tactics (ambushes, ra-
ids, IEDs, etc.) to combat a larger and much less mobile formal army. The guerrilla
army uses ambush (drawing enemy forces into terrain unsuited to them) and mobil-
ity (advantage and surprise) in attacking vulnerable targets. These tactics have
proven exceedingly successful and they tend to wear the superior force down, the-
reby, morally and physically exhausting their enemy.

5
 Although guerrilla leaders often profess that their aim is to improve the condi-
tions under which their people live, history has shown, time and time again, that
more often than not, these individuals are frequently more repressive and tyrannic-
al than the regimes they depose. In most cases their idealistic rhetoric is simply a
smoke screen to secure popular support in their struggle for power. This is the situ-
ation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The insurgents have no interest in the well-being of
the masses. It is their sole purpose to remove every vestige of western influence, es-
pecially those having to do with the democratization of Islamic society and govern-
ment, replacing them with puritanical forms of Islam.

The Importance of Iraq and Afghanistan

George Packer, in his book The Assassin’s Gate, makes the point that, in general,
America is loath to fight for ideals.7 It fights for access to resources, markets, and
when attacked, but seldom for ideas. Obviously, in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are not
fighting to protect ourselves; and access to oil is a difficult sell as a reason for going
to war. Historically, the willingness to fight for what might be termed liberal democ-
racy has always been in doubt. Only Lincoln came out and stated that the cause of
the Civil war was because America was “conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. . . .”8

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. goal has never been that of a colonial pow-
er. As David Wurmser suggests, the war is being fought in an effort to realign Ameri-
can power and influence in the Middle East, away from theocratic domination and
toward democracy. We are, in fact, fighting for the concepts of liberty and freedom.
Our commitment to freedom, justice, tolerance, and a democratic way of life will, in
the end, be our undoing. The overthrow of Saddam was envisioned as an effort to
destabilize the Middle East. By toppling Saddam, it was thought that it would lead to
the destabilization of Syria and Iran, and tend to isolate Al Qaeda, the Islamic Jihad,

6
Hamas, and Hezbollah.9 Obviously, this has not happened. Each is stronger than ev-
er.

The Nature of Islam and Americanism

Islam, by its very nature, is reactionary and undemocratic, and typically produc-
es political regimes that are, most frequently, described as tyrannical. The Taliban is
only a recent manifestation of the politicization of an unyielding interpretation of
Islam, and from this movement, such organizations as Al Qaeda have gained support
and succor. By toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan, it was believed it would be like
cutting off the body of the snake, and the head (Al Qaeda) would eventually die. Ob-
viously, this has not happen, as witnessed by the resurgence of the Taliban and its
expansion and growth, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups want to destroy the Unit-
ed States; because Americanism, unlike Islam or the Taliban, is by far the most revo-
lutionary force in the world.10 ‘The American way of life’ is more of a threat to radi-
cal Islam than anything else.

The war being fought in the Middle East, has been, and is, in reality, a conflict be-
tween sclerotic, reactionary theocratic tyranny and western liberalism and democ-
racy.11 It is not a conflict between Islam and Christianity. It is a conflict concerning
whether everyone is created equal. It is not a religious conflict as much as the man-
ner in which the religions’ tenets are interpreted in secular life.

This is not to say that, in the West’s past, there have not been periods when reli-
gious domination, persecution, and intolerance did not hold sway over the people.
One need only look to the Inquisition(s) as evidence of unmitigated cruelty, barbar-
ism, and intellectual myopia.12 However, the West learned from these mistakes, and
ushered in a policy of tolerance and instituted policies that would separate the roles

7
and jurisdictions of church and state, i.e., the secularization of society, which was
built, primarily, on the basis of widespread education, increasing empiricism, scien-
tific rigor, and reductionism, along with increasing questioning of religious ortho-
doxy. In other word, enlightenment.

The Force of Jihad

Two simple ideas help explain the problems we face vis-à-vis Islam :

1. Many of Islam’s imams and clerics have overtly declared a holy war (jihad) on
all infidels – non-believers.

2. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, through conversion and
sheer growth in population.

Jihad
While the term jihad has various meanings, including to struggle in the way of
God or to struggle to improve one's self and society, it is most frequently used in
connection with one’s resistance against a visible enemy, infidels.13 The latter in-
cludes the Jihad as-sayf, or the Jihad of the Sword, the only form of war permissible
under Islamic law. Jihads, then, can be viewed as being of two types, non-violent and
violent. Non-violent jihad can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life,
spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among
other things. Muhammad is believed to have felt that the inner struggle for faith was
the ‘greater jihad’, prioritizing it over combat in defense of the global Islamic com-
munity.14

In the late 19th and 20th centuries, the term jihad has become, largely politicized
and has developed into a term used to represent the resistance to Western imperial-
ism and, at the same time, the forceful conversion of all infidels. This view devel-

8
oped, largely, out of the writings of Sayyid Qutb, the leader of the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood in the mid 1960s, and found affirmation in Al Qaeda and bin Laden. 15,
16

The tradition of jihad is based on Islamic history. Failure to protect the faith
meant a failure to protect its people. It has been the perversion of this tenet of Islam
that has come to mean the elimination of all infidels, or non-believers, either by
means of the sword or conversion. Unlike the Muslims of the 6th through 15th cen-
turies who were fighting to preserve the faith, modern militant Muslims are not
fighting to preserve the faith. Whether pushed by religious or political fervor, young
Muslims now fight in the name of Islamic totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is the fight
against liberalism and democracy. It is a fight against majority rule and where mi-
nority rights and group rights are equally as important as individual human rights. It
is from their resistance to the liberal interpretation of the Qur’an and equal rights
that the backward-thinking activists draw their strength.

Imams, Jihads, and Fatwas

In February 1998, the World Islamic Front issued a statement and a fatwa, a de-
cree, which included the following:

. . . and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the fol-

lowing fatwa to all Muslims:

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civi-

lians and military -- is an individual duty for every Mus-
lim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to
do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy
mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their
armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and
unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with
the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all to-
gether as they fight you all together," and "fight them un-
til there is no more tumult or oppression, and there pre-
vail justice and faith in Allah. 17

9
 The fatwa is loosely based on the Qur’an’s Sura 9:5 :

When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters whe-
rever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in
ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to
prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their
way. God is forgiving and merciful.

This is commonly known as the Verse of the Sword, and is frequently used and
misused by fundamentalists, fanatics, and terrorists, alike, to justify violence under
the guise of a jihad.

Fatwas are not automatically binding on all Muslims, only the followers of the
imam or individual issuing it. However, it is common for imams to accept and con-
done the fatwas of other imams, as long as it serves their purpose.

Islamic law is based on the Qur’an but subject to interpretation. The prevailing
interpretation becomes the law for all Islam. In the absence of a recognized religious
hierarchy, once a jihad fatwa has been issued, it is easily accepted by all. There are
those imams, however, that do not subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Verse
of the Sword, and reject the idea that a jihad of the sword is mandated by the Qur’an.
This latter group, however, currently tends to be in the minority.

It is commonly believed that one of the moving forces behind the World Islamic
Front is Osama bin Laden, and the leader of Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not a unified or-
ganization with an identifiable structure, but has links with Islamic fundamentalist
terrorist groups in over 40 countries who share its ideology of global jihad. The or-
ganization's complex structure, based on autonomous cells, and its use of suicide
martyrs, has made it difficult for Western intelligence agencies to counteract and
combat effectively.

Also, the regular use of terrorism as a social, political, and economic tactic diffe-
rentiates the Muslim jihadists from typical guerrilla fighters. This is not to say that
terrorism is not used by guerrillas but it is not their primary tactic.

10
 Demographic Realities
Demographers are fairly unanimous in the belief that for a population or culture
to sustain itself, it must have a fertility rate of at least 2.11. Anything less, and the
population or culture will decline. Once a fertility rate of 1.9 has been established,
no society has ever been able to reverse the trend, and the culture or population has
been doomed. Once the rate has dropped to 1.3 or less, it is impossible to recover,
and the culture or population disappears.

In light of the data depicted below in the figures, consider the following:

1) The 31 countries of the European Economic Union report an average fertility

rate of 1.38, well below the break-even level.

2) In France, the Muslim fertility rate is 8.1. Within 39 years, France could be-
come an Islamic republic. Muslims will be in the majority.

3) In England, in the last 30 years, the Muslim population has grown from
82,000 to over 2.5 million.

4) In the Netherlands, 50% of all newborns are Muslim. In 15 years, the Nether-
lands could become an Islamic republic. Muslims will outnumber the Christian
Dutch population.

5) In Russia in 2009, the Russian population was estimated to be 142 million, of

which 23 million are Muslim, and 40% of the Russian army is Muslim.

6) In Belgium, 25% of the population is Muslim, and 50% of all newborns are
Muslim.

7) The German Statistics office reports that Germany will be a Muslim state by
2050.18

8) Canada’s fertility rate is 1.6. Between 2001 and 2006 Canada’s population
grew by 1.6 million. Of that growth, 1.2 million came from immigration. The Cana-
dian Government states: Muslims will be the second largest religion in Canada by
2010. Between 1991 and Canada’s census in 2001, the Muslim population increased
128.9%, the combination of natural population growth and immigration. Statistics

11
Canada predicts that between 2001 and 2017, the Muslim population will have in-
creased by approximately 160%.19

9) In the U. S., the fertility rate is 1.6. If you factor in the Latinos and Latino im-
migration, the fertility rate increases to 2.11, the minimum needed to maintain the
nation. In 1970, there were approximately 100,000 Muslims in the U.S. Today, there
are over 8 million. Assuming an 6 percent annual growth rate in the Muslim popula-
tion, in 30 years Muslims will number nearly 43 million.20

10) The Catholic Church has reported that the number of Muslims has recently
surpassed the number of Catholics, worldwide.21 In 5-7 years, Islam will be the do-
minant world religion.

11) In Europe and North America, where fertility rates have fallen below main-
tenance levels, population continues to grow – growth sustained by immigration
and many of those migrating are Muslims.

In the final analysis, what do all these statements mean? First, Muslims will be
the dominant political force in much of Europe in less than 50 years. Second, most of
the nations of Europe are reproducing at a rate that will ultimately result in the de-
mise of traditional Western culture. Third, the reproduction rates in the U. S. and
Canada, are well below the rates necessary to maintain their populations or cul-
tures. Fourth, immigration has transferred large numbers of Muslims to Western
Europe, Canada, and the U. S., where their fertility rates far exceed those of other
ethnic or religious groups

Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists do not need to spend another cent on the
purchase of military hardware. They no longer require explosives or suicide bomb-
ers. All Islam requires, to take total domination of the world, is time. Not another
drop of blood need be shed to accomplish their goal of global domination. As the-
fastest growing religion and population in the world, they can gain political and so-
cial supremacy through non-violent means. All they need do in Europe or North
America is vote. Democracy will be the mechanism by which Islam will hold sway
over the planet.

12
 European Fertility Rates, 200522

The red line approximates the minimum replacement rate.

For the countries that make up Europe, only Iceland currently maintains a fertili-
ty rate sufficient to sustain itself!

Unfortunately, people like Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu Ayyub al-
Masri, Mullah Mohammed Omar, Mullah Mohammad Hasan, and Mawlawi Abdul
Kabir cannot or will not be patient and let ‘nature take its course.’ Instead, for them,
jihad means the implementation of cowardly terrorist attacks, where innocent men,
women, and children are killed, on both sides.

The basic philosophy of jihad is largely anathema to most Westerners and Chris-
tians. While the fanatic Muslims advocate or profess Allah’s commitment to the kill-
13
ing of all non-believers, to insure that they go to heaven; most Christians believe
that God tells us to love one another and that is how we gain access to heaven. How
do you bridge this basic difference in thinking? You can’t. They are irreconcilable.

Why It all Went Wrong

So what went wrong? Or, when did it all go wrong? In a nutshell, everything and
from the beginning. At one time, when Western civilization was in its infancy, Arab
culture was bristling with ingenuity and scientific breakthroughs. However, repres-
sive political despotism and Islamic dogma sapped the energy and destroyed the in-
itiative of both Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, in much of the lands conquered by
the historic expansion of Islam.

The most troublesome characteristics of Islam historically, remain deeply rooted

in modern Muslim society. Yet, surprisingly, Islam’s historic success is also attribut-
able to many of these very characteristics, and these characteristics have not dimi-
nished over time. They all remain potent forces and underlying themes within mod-
ern Islamic society. These include:

 The promise of an Islamic meme.

 The belief that Islam will achieve world-wide domination.
 A legacy of slavery, concubinage and the dhimmi system.
 Ritual behavior that the West would characterize as barbaric.
 The jihad ideology of war and violence, present in the root scriptures of Is-
lam.
 The fatalism and anti-intellectualism of Islamic scriptures, i.e., Islamic dogma.
 The emergence of the concept of the imam, as the rightful social, political and
spiritual head of the Muslim community, both large and small.23

14
 Is Islam Destined to Rule the World?
It was during the early seventh century that the concept of jihad, or holy war,
began. The Muslims considered all areas controlled by Islam as the dar al-Islam, or
the ‘territory of Islam,’ while all areas controlled by infidels were known as the dar
al-harb, or the ‘abode of war.’ Muslims feel that Islam is destined to rule the world.
Hence, there can be no permanent peace made with infidels.

Sura 9:33, of the Qur'an, reads:

He is the One who sent His messenger with the guidance

and the religion of truth, and will make it dominate all re-
ligions, in spite of the idol worshipers.

This same prophecy is echoed in 48:28 and 61:9. These passages have been in-
terpreted to mean that it is the responsibility of Islam and every Muslim to either
convert or kill all those who are unwilling to subscribe to the word of the Prophet.

Why Attacks on Other Muslims?

One of the more curious aspects of Islam’s commitment to dominate the world is
the willingness of its adherents to sacrifice others of their own faith with impunity.
Why is this?

Islam’s militants, are guerrilla fighters. They are not the majority. In fact, they
are a very small minority but the majority permits and tacitly condones their activi-
ties, even if it causes death and mayhem for non-combatants. As such, they are per-
mitted to hide within the larger population that appears, at least on the surface, to
be peaceful and peace-loving.

Western democratic societies have tended to err on the side of tolerance, when it
comes to religious differences in, and we are taught to condemn anyone or any
group that singles out another religion for vilification. We advocate religious free-
dom and attempt to insure that every religious orientation is afforded protection
under the law. The irony is that we protect the very rights of those whose stated

15
agenda is to eliminate all other religions and impose Sharia law. Does this make
sense? If we provide aid and comfort to an enemy of the state, is that not treason?

The U. S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 115, § 2381, clearly defines what consti-
tutes treason:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies

war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving
them aid and comfort within the United States or else-
where, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall
be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under
this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable
of holding any office under the United States.

Does this portion of the U. S. Code not apply to those avowedly at war with the
citizens of the U.S. because their war is based on religious differences? Does reli-
gious tolerance trump aiding and abetting those who are at war with us? While we
are busy bending over backward to make certain religious freedom is available to
all, Muslims, whose desire is to destroy all other religions, exploit that freedom and
protection to wage war against us!

Apparently, it does not matter whether others of the Islamic faith are margina-
lized, or attacked, or even murdered, so long as the goal of world domination is ul-
timately achieved. Daily, we read or hear about suicide bombers killing other inno-
cent Muslims, bystanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are simply at the wrong
place at the wrong time. It does not matter if they are aligned with the bombers con-
ceptually or not. They are expendable, and the bombers simply do not care. This is
the martyr’s ideology at its worst. The loss of the lives of others, as well as the life of
the martyr (shahid) are not only desirable but, theoretically, rewarded. One auto-
matically goes to Heaven if they die in pursuit or cause of Islam.

16
 There are numerous passages in the Qur'an that speak to martyrdom. Among
the most important is 3:169:

Never think that those who were slain in the cause of God
are dead. They are alive, and well provided for by their
Lord; pleased with His gifts and rejoicing that those they
left behind, who have not yet joined them, have nothing to
fear or to regret; rejoicing in God's grace and bounty. God
will not deny the faithful their reward,

and this has often been interpreted to mean that any fighter who is killed in a ji-
had attains automatic salvation. Not only does a martyr in the cause of Allah enter
paradise, but he does so automatically -- his admission is guaranteed.24 Thus, any
Muslim killed by a suicide bomber also gains shahid status and gains passage to
Heaven. Under this arrangement, it does not matter that innocent men, women, and
children are killed. The suicide bomber is actually doing the bystanders a favor. It is
difficult to argue that the act of the suicide bomber is anything but selfless, having
only positive consequences. There is no other way to characterize this line of
thought, other than to say it is rather perverse.

Slavery, Concubinage and the Dhimmi System

As used here, slavery and concubinage refer to the social institutions that permit
and justify the exploitation of women. In its most extreme manifestations, women
are viewed as little more than chattels, to be used in whatever manner the ‘lord,’ the
husband in the family, deems fit.

All those not part of the elite classes are considered to be little more than slaves.
In many areas where Islamic societies prevail, these practices are, in fact, illegal but
legislation has not eliminated the essence of these practices. For example, under the
Wahhabi tradition women must be completely concealed from sight by wearing the
chador or burqa. This represents a form of sexual slavery or concubinage in modern
society.

17
 During the early seventh century, Islam had become entrenched in the desert
area which we now know as Saudi Arabia. At the oasis of Khaybar, the Prophet
turned against the Jews, who, until then, had been a loyal ally of the Prophet. After
much destruction and bloodshed, the Jews surrendered under the terms of a treaty
known as the dhimma. Subsequently, all the Jews and Christians of Arabia submitted
to the Muslims under the terms of a treaty similar to the one granted at Khaybar.

Dhimmi is the Islamic system of governing populations conquered by jihad wars,

encompassing all of the demographic, ethnic, and religious aspects of the political
system. The word "dhimmitude" as a historical concept, was coined by Bat Ye'or in
1983 to describe the legal and social conditions of Jews and Christians subjected to
Islamic rule.25

Dhimmi status provided for ‘protection’ for Christians and Jews, however, it also
permitted oppressive taxation, social and legal discrimination, as well as religious
discrimination. While dhimmi, as a practical social, economic, religious, and political
institution is outdated, this same archaic system continues to color virtually all deal-
ings between Muslims and non-Muslims.

Barbarism
Doug Patton, a Conservative freelance writer and political advisor, in one of his
articles stated:

No other religion in the modern world is so vile, so hate-

filled, so violently aggressive in the pursuit of its goals,
[than Islam].26

Patton’s characterization of Islam, while perhaps a bit excessive, does coincide

with the views of many conservatives who see Islam as inherently evil. Unfortunate-
ly, Islam has become a dangerous religion, not necessarily based on its underlying
principles and teachings but because of how it is being implemented in what the
West would call secular life. At the other extreme, however, are the liberal apolo-

18
gists, who are scared about appearing anti-Muslim, racist, or bigoted, and refuse to
see the forest for the trees.

Whether conservative or liberal, it is difficult to excuse or even explain the fact

that, within many Muslim societies:

 Adulterous couples are stoned to death.

 Prostitutes are hanged in public.
 Women in the company of men who are not blood relatives are executed.
 Rape victims are punished – execution or the amputation of the hands, while
the rapists are frequently set free.
 Women cannot vote or get elected.
 Husbands can beat up their wives to their heart's content.
 Women cannot do anything outside of the house without her father’s or hus-
band's consent.
 Women cannot get custody of their children.
 Women are banned from a number of fields of education.
 Women must wear the hijab, burqa, abaya, or chador when outside the house
although they are not mandated by the Qur'an.27
 In more extremist countries like Iran, a woman arrested for wearing make-
up can be forced to clean up with cotton balls rolled in broken glass.
 In Pakistan, insulting Mohammed is punished by death (Contempt of Proph-
et's Act)
 Ritual beheadings of Christians and Muslim women can be invoked for a va-
riety of crimes/reasons.

Almost all or many of these ‘barbaric’ practices are not unique to just Islam. In
Christian history, equally gruesome examples of cruelty have been catalogued, espe-
cially during the Inquisitions, which persisted in Europe from the twelfth through
nineteenth centuries.28 During the so-called period of Enlightenment, many of the
concepts central to the advancement of the West were developed. Among these pre-
cepts were the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as the primary values
of society. During the Enlightenment, these ideas broke through the religious dogma
that had circumscribed European thinking for more than six centuries.29 A similar
period of enlightenment has not yet manifested itself in Islam.

19
 Although not as infrequent as one would imagine, the media routinely reports
cases of honor killings among Muslims in most western societies. Wherever Muslims
live there is the possibility of an honor killing, both of men and women. Such mur-
ders have been reported in Canada, the U.S., Sweden, Germany, the U.K., Italy, Iran,
Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Denmark, Turkey, Jordan . . . .

The U.N. ‘estimates’ that 5,000 women and children are murdered annually in
the name of honor. In Peroria, Illinois, Noor Almaleki was run over by her father for
being too westernized. In Kingston, Ontario, three of four women were killed for ‘liv-
ing like Canadian teenagers.’ In Britain, Tulay Goren was tortured and killed by her
father. German-born Müjde B. was murdered by her husband for being too indepen-
dent. Feroz Mangal and Khatera Sadiqi were shot by Khatera's brother as they sat in
a parked car. In Peshawar, Pakistan, Ayman Uda, was murdered by her own broth-
ers. In Orchard Park, NY, a moderate Muslim businessman beheaded his estranged
wife. The list seems endless.30

Islamic Dogma and Anti-Intellectualism

To this can be added the Arab cultural preoccupation with its own history. Mus-
tafa al-Kadhimi, an intellectual and Iraqi exile, once said “The problem with Arabs is
we live on our history. And that history is a big lie.”31 The lie of which he spoke was
not so much the existence or non-existence of historical events but the acceptance of
the dogmatic implications and interpretations of those events. It is this dogmatic
approach to the religion that makes it so dangerous, combined with the uncritical
acceptance of that dogma by the faithful.

The most detrimental contributor to Islam’s intellectual decline lay in the con-
flict between rationalistic thought and the sacred ‘sciences’ of Islam. When these
two approaches to knowledge collided in the twelfth century, one or the other ap-
proach to truth and knowledge had to give. In the end, rationalistic thought bowed
to dogma.

20
 It was the writings and teachings of Al-Ghazali that sealed the fate of Islamic
scientific and intellectual inquiry from the twelfth to the fifteenth century.32 The rise
and acceptance of Al-Ghazali’s radical distrust of human reason, effectively stalled
almost all advances in Muslim science and philosophy. While Muslim intellectual
thought was effectively suspended on the basis of religious dogma, intellectual and
scientific curiosity was beginning to awaken in western Europe.

As Western civilization developed, it surpassed the strides made by the Arab

world. This change cannot be attributed to the differences between Islam and Chris-
tianity. The demise of the Arab world was more due to the devolution of
Arab/Islamic values and governance. The Arab world became afflicted by corrupt
dictatorships, the repression of its own populations, the emergence of extreme ide-
ologies and paranoia, along with cultural and economic backwardness. As the West
developed, the Arab world declined. Not as a cause and effect but rather because of
the Arab world’s inability or unwillingness to participate. Arab society simply began
to decay, and this, surely, must have been a source of humiliation, ending in social,
cultural, and economic rage.

For more than three hundred years, the West blossomed, socially, politically, and
economically while Muslim societies hibernated. Finally, after three centuries of
quiescence, Islamic culture once again began to stir. In part, the resurgence of Islam
can be attributed to the exhaustion of the West due to its almost incessant involve-
ment in world and regional wars, the petroleum windfall and its profound economic
effects, and the demographic explosion in Islamic countries, while, at the same time,
the West was experiencing a demographic collapse.

Failure of Western Policies

Western policies toward the Arab world, and especially those of the United
States, have only served to inflame both Arab leaders and peoples. It has been said
before, but the United States has had a penchant for supporting one regime, then,
reversing course and begin supporting the opposition.33 One need only look at our

21
liaisons with the Afghan Mujahideen. When they were fighting the Russians, the U.S.,
albeit clandestinely, helped arm the Mujahideen. Later, the U.S. found itself fighting
against their former ally, who were still using the arms supplied earlier by the
Americans.

America has never had a clear and definite policy toward the Arab world. Its pol-
icies have always been based on expediency and exigency. Without having a set of
guiding principles with which to gauge success or failure in international relations,
the U. S. has floundered while dealing with the Arab world. As a consequence, the U.
S. has contributed to the decline experienced by the Arab world.

If the U.S. is ever to mend fences between itself and the Arab world, America
needs to right many of the historical wrongs it participated in. Although some of the
blame for the Arab world’s woes can be attributed to the West, we cannot overlook
the centuries of misuse of power by the Arab regimes, themselves. For these prob-
lems, the Arab world can only blame itself. The Arabs are in a historical rut that it
much deeper than that caused by the West; and if history is any indicator, it is a trap
that the Arabs simply appear to be incapable of escaping.

Whether right or wrong, Paul Wolfowitz and others, were of the opinion that if
the Arabs were unable to right their own wrongs, an outside influence would have
to intervene.34 The invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was per-
ceived as the shock that was needed to correct the course of Arab development. It
was hoped that the invasion would stimulate the modernization of Iraq and the
process would then begin to nibble away at the social, political, and economic struc-
tures in the surrounding area. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In-
stead, an entirely new invective toward the United States and its Coalition partners
emerged. Those already mobilized against the U.S. were renewed in their efforts, af-
ter years of quiet martyrdom. This initiated a new resilience and commitment on
the part of insurgents, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, which, has now spilled over into
Pakistan.

22
 The emergence of the Iraqi insurgency was aided and abetted by America, itself.
The American military was seen as an unstoppable force by the Iraqis. General
Frank’s battle plan was innovative, brilliantly conceived, and successful. He had suf-
ficient troops to easily overwhelm Saddam’s forces but he did not have sufficient
troops to secure and control the country at the end of the initial hostilities. The
Americans did not have a post-war pacification or reconstruction plan for Iraq. This
oversight seemed rooted in the belief that the elimination of Hussein’s Baathist par-
ty’s domination and control would somehow herald a period of Pax Iraqia; or may
have been due to political infighting between the agencies in Washington that
should have been responsible for post-war pacification and reconstruction. As a
consequence, nothing was done and no one was ready. Whatever the root cause, a
post-war contingency plan went unprepared. There was no modern Marshall Plan
for Iraq in either the short- or long-term, and all subsequent efforts to develop such
plans were, at best, stop-gap measures.

As a consequence, looters soon took over. The television images of post-war Iraq
showed looters emerging from government buildings and businesses carry anything
that was portable, including computers, desks, sinks, toilets, and even buildings’ wir-
ing, while American troops stood idly by. The troops had executed their wartime
battle plans flawlessly but they had no orders or directives regarding civil peace-
keeping. Once the battles had been fought, there were no contingencies plans that
included the military. Their job was done. They had accomplished what they had
been sent to Iraq to do.

It has been estimated that the damage done by the looters far outweighed any
damage done by U.S. bombing and urban street fighting, and firefights. The damage
caused by the looters has been estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

In their exuberance, some members of the U.S. military even seemed to be en-
couraging the looters. After all, it was a time of celebration. Saddam’s reign of terror
was over.

23
 Martial law could easily have been ordered but it was not. The looting and de-
struction continued unabated for days. Looting was not a military problem. It was a
matter for the civil authorities, but there were none. For the proto-insurgents, the
American inability or unwillingness to take control was evidence that there existed
a power vacuum. According to Noah Feldman, an on-sight legal advisor to the Coali-
tion Provisional Authority, “That told them [the insurgents] that they could fight
against us and we were not a serious force.”35 The U.S. was invincible militarily but
it was not capable of maintaining civil order and peace-keeping. The U.S. was vul-
nerable and the insurgents would exploit that vulnerability. The insurgents realized,
time was on their side. All they had to do was peck away at their foes, classic guerilla
warfare tactics. Wear your enemy down through a protracted conflict.

The U.S. has demonstrated, time and again, that, when it comes to a long term
commitment, it almost invariably falters. The U.S. hits hard, initially, then its resolve
dissolves as the American people lament the loss of their best and brightest during a
protracted military engagement. The public begins to mobilize and the govern-
ment’s resolve erodes. Soon, peace at any price becomes a tenable option, and the
U.S. walks away.

This cannot be allowed to happen in either Afghanistan or Iraq. The problem,

however, is that under Obama, a timeline for our pull-out has already been an-
nounced. There is, at least based on current readiness reports, no indication that the
Iraqi security forces will be prepared or willing to take over the counter-insurgency
role once the U.S. has departed. In the end, the status quo will return, with another
illegitimate, corrupt Islamic government taking power.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban just seems to grow stronger and stronger, with sup-
plies and assistance coming from a compromised Pakistan. The Taliban has run
rough-shod over areas of northern Pakistan and now controls much of the Swat Val-
ley. At one time the Taliban was within a stone’s throw of Islamabad. The current
regime in Islamabad, is sorely in need of political relief. It has sacrificed its legitima-
cy in an effort to secure political and social peace. However, with every day that goes
24
by, the government of Pakistan finds itself capitulating more and more and the Tali-
ban increases its ability to supply the rebels in Afghanistan and it has become a ‘legi-
timate’ claimant to political participation, and this threatens the elected government
in Islamabad.

As important as the growth of the Taliban’s political rise is, there is the genuine
possibility that it could become a legitimate participant in Pakistan’s government
and, thereby, gain access to nuclear weaponry. It is unclear whether or not the mod-
erates in Pakistani politics can or would be strong enough to resist the Taliban’s
support of terrorism. The possibility of either the Taliban or Al Qaeda obtaining nuc-
lear technology would cause a major shift in worldwide relations and alignments.
That possibility or eventuality is, at best, frightening.

In the end, the American strategy to destabilize the Middle East has become a
fiasco. The only destabilization has been in the home countries of the Coalition. With
announced pull-out of Americans in Iraq and Canadians in Afghanistan, the Taliban
and insurgents only need to continue their game of cat-and-mouse until the Coali-
tion forces have all rotated home. Then, they can put the full weight of their oppres-
sive forms of government and social policies into effect.

Some have said that the American involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan has
had its effect. We have destabilized Islamic society, and the next round of violence in
these countries will be civil war, a war between the fundamentalists and the emerg-
ing middle class. Islam has been, for centuries, festering from within. The middle
and upper classes have sought to implement social reforms, giving more human
rights and privileges to all citizens and classes, and especially to women. The fun-
damentalists, are opposed to this movement, and for good reason. It would mean an
enlightened, free thinking society, where religious dogma is replaced by rational,
non-religious thinking.

It is unfortunate that, unlike Christianity, which has evolved socially and liturgi-
cally, Islam has refused to modernize. It is still steeped in the original teachings of

25
the Prophet. The social, economic, and political setting within which the Prophet
lived have changed dramatically in the last 1,400-plus years. Islam, at least for the
hardliners, has not. They still wish to adhere to laws and practices that are out-
moded and outdated. Humanity has grown, matured and changed but not so the pu-
ritanical teachings of Islam. Only a civil war between the hardliners and those wish-
ing to live in a contemporary world will resolve the conflict over who is right. Who
will win is anybody’s guess.

Even if the world should become predominately Muslim, this will not resolve the
internal conflicts that exist within Islam. Woe be it to the world if the radical right,
the fundamentalists, the hardliners, win the fight for supremacy. Once Muslims have
a majority within any democracy, the non-Muslim population will soon find itself
the persecuted. Once the Muslims control the halls of government, it will only be a
matter of time before each democracy in the West will fall to feudal forms of gov-
ernment that have characterized most Islamic governments since time immemorial.
It will be through the very political system we have nurtured and protected that the
Muslims will be permitted to come to power. Democracy as we know it today will be
a thing of the past, unless the democratically minded middle class of Islamic society
is permitted to prevail, and is able to perpetuate the democratic system that gave
life to the West.

Can Anything be Done?

Unless the West is willing to change its policies, or even more menacing, its un-
derlying principles, there is, in all likelihood, little or no way to stop the Islamifica-
tion of the West. The majority of western democracies have developed into havens
for the persecuted from every corner of the globe. Immigration, especially for coun-
tries like Canada and the U.S., has been one of the primary factors in their growth,

26
prosperity, and dynamism. Now, the process that made the countries of the West
what they are today, may well be part of their undoing.

There is the underlying principle that the right of majority cannot violate the
rights of others, and minority rights are deemed to be important. Thus, the majority
cannot morally vote to enslave, repress, or persecute a minority. In a free society,
the rights of the individual are held to be sacrosanct, above any claim of even an
overwhelming majority.

Although democracies are based, at least philosophically, on the concept of ma-

jority rule, in reality, it almost always means an abridgement of others ‘rights’ in
some form or fashion, either those of the majority or the minority. Rights reflect a
fundamental compromise between voluntary consent versus brute force. Voluntary
cooperation by mutual consent is the purest form of democracy. The reign of force is
in no one's best interest. Freedom or force, reason or compulsion – those are the ba-
sic social alternatives. Immigrants recognize the value of freedom and that's why
they seek the refuge of democratic states.

Muslim fundamentalism, by its very nature, represents an abrogation of individ-

ual rights, since the interpretation of Islamic Law – the Sharia – emanating from the
Qur'an, Sunnah, and Hadith, is vested primarily in ‘Muhammad's companions’ and
Imams.

There is no formal or official hierarchy among Muslim clerics. Each Imam has his
own following. However, in reality, an informal hierarchy does indeed exist. Since
Islamic tradition says what the people, in general, consider good is also considered
as such by God; what the dominant Imam proclaims, becomes the prevailing world
view. It is because the word of the Prophet is open to a broad range of interpreta-
tions, that there is no overriding consensus. It is because of this lack of consensus
that gives individual religious leaders the liberty to pervert the intent of the Prophet
and the Qur'an, often with dire social and political consequences.

27
 Under fundamental Islamic beliefs, there is no concept of a moral entitlement to
be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liberty, and property.
There is also no concept of equality or inalienable human rights. Typically, Islamic
rule or governance has devolved into militaristic, strong man oppression based on
rule by force, with an absence of a voluntary balance between consent and force.

Under such circumstances, it is understandable why individuals and groups are

eager to secure a better place within which to thrive. Migration, then, becomes the
simplest means of escape from oppression. However, migration is not without cost
or consequence. Immigrants are almost always perceived as ‘foreigners’ by both
their predecessors and the native populations of their new home, especially when
non-Westerners settle in Western cultures. It is then that their religious differences
and cultural practices begin to alienate them from ‘the locals,’ and this tends to bind
them together. Surrounded by a network of people of similar cultural practices pro-
vides a sense of belonging and insulates them from the outside world. It is at this
point that their religious practices bind them more closely, forging a single identity
and sense of community, oftentimes erasing long-term ethnic animosities. Religion
becomes the adhesive that holds this group together.

It is this sense of community, within the much larger community of their new
homeland, that both isolates and strengthens their cultural and religious bonds,
forging them into a potential political power base. In this situation, there is little
time for assimilation. Their common bonds serve to form them into a potential polit-
ical constituency, if properly managed. People of like mind are much easier to mobil-
ize for political purposes.

As the Muslim populations in western nations increase, they will become the ob-
ject of political manipulation by aspiring political leaders. Differences will be down-
played, while religious similarities will become the underlying theme upon which
the politicians will feed and gauge their support. This politicization process, over
time, will bring the disparate subgroups within the Muslim immigrant population
under one banner. When this process is complete, and Muslims become the majority
28
of voters in each western nation, the direction and nature of democracy, as we know
it, will begin to shift. The concepts of one man, one vote, universal suffrage, the in-
alienable rights of individuals, tolerance, and the protection of minority rights, will
lose their standing’ because, these principles are not necessarily at the heart of the
Muslim religion or social order.

Islam, based on the word of the Prophet, prescribes the laws and principles and
philosophical basis for Muslim society. This is no different than for Christians and
Christian societies. For the Islamic fundamentalists, however, as it was during the
time of the Prophet, so it is today, despite more than 1,350 years since his death.
The world’s cultures, economies, and technologies have changed dramatically in the
last thirteen centuries, but not the words of the Prophet. Likewise, the words and
message of the Bible also have not changed but in Christian-dominated societies, the
role of religion through its prescription and social implementation has changed
dramatically. For lack of a better or more precise descriptor, Christianity has mod-
ernized or become more flexible over time, while Islam has remained much less so.
It is the steadfast compliance with rules and regulations that are over 13 centuries
old that marks and characterizes Muslim society and politics, even to this day.

Islam and Christianity have very similar roots but while one has remained mired
in social and political dogma, the other has permitted social evolution, emphasizing
human and individual rights and tolerance. It is not the religions that separate the
West from Muslim nations. At their hearts, they both preach essentially the same
moral message. Where they differ is in how their messages are translated into con-
temporary social and political structures. While Western societies were once domi-
nated by religion, they have become much more secular. This process of seculariza-
tion has not occurred in areas dominated by Islam, because, in the Qur’an as well as
codified Islamic law, there is no real difference between one’s religious and secular
life. They are one in the same.

Islam does not separate religion and politics. While it is a religion, it is much
more than a religion. Inherent in Islam is a political agenda that goes far outside the
29
realm of religion. It regulates the Muslim's social and domestic life, his legal system
and politics - his total life. To understand this political agenda it is necessary to have
a basic understanding of Islam. Among all Muslims, regardless of their sect -- Sunnis
or Shias – or their level of adherence -- orthodox or liberal – they all subscribe to the
commitment of world dominance, and every Muslim shares a responsibility for the
fulfillment of the prophecy of world domination. Every Muslim is, knowingly or un-
knowingly, a potential political and social soldier in Islam’s army.

The Psychology of Islam

Nicolai Sennels, a Danish psychologist recently published a book dealing with
the integration of Muslims into Danish society.36 In an English-language interview,
Sennels shared his psychological perspective on Muslim culture, its relationship to
anger, handling emotions, and its religion.37 He asserts that Muslims have a difficult
time integrating themselves into Western societies because of a number of differ-
ences between western and Islamic cultures.

First, in Western societies we have a tradition of using compromise and inner

reflection as the primary means of handling conflicts. This is seen as a weakness in
Muslim culture. To a great extent Muslims simply do not understand this softer and
more humanistic way of handling social affairs. Within Muslim societies, there are
very clear authorities and consequences for one’s actions.

Second, aggressive behavior is not only condoned, it is oftentimes expected with-

in Muslim culture, especially when it concerns issues of honor. Verbal or physical
revenge is frequently mandated under certain circumstances. While aggression
gives you low status in most western and many Asian cultures, in Muslim culture, it
generally confers high status.

Third, Muslim culture is a very strong and proud culture. This frequently results
in displays of anti-social behavior and contributes to a strong aversion against inte-
gration. One’s identification as a Muslim is very strong. It provides a very strong link
between community and religion, through the culture. Even Muslims who do not
30
practice their religion on a daily basis will, nonetheless, stand up for it, their com-
munity and culture, often in very aggressive ways.

Fourth, because of the strong ties between their religion and culture, Muslims
who immigrate to western countries are much less likely to integrate into those so-
cieties and cultures. They remain unified and apart from the cultures and societies
around them.

Fifth, those within western cultures who believe that Muslim immigrants can be
integrated are deluding themselves and fostering false hope. There is no current re-
search that suggests that Muslims, on a meaningfully large scale, have ever success-
fully integrated themselves into societies outside their own.38

It is from this unified sense of community and culture that the religion of Islam
draws its strength and the soldiers needed for the continuation of the battle for
world domination. The young are easily indoctrinated and lured into becoming the
future combatants for the Prophet and Allah. Every Muslim, from every country in
the world, is potentially a recruit for this war, either for religious or ideological rea-
sons; and the fundamentalist, jihad leaders exploit both in search of Islam’s best and
brightest.

Islamic scholars of all schools of thought are generally agreed that the teachings
of the Qur’an and Hadith support the view that a state of war exists between those
countries under Allah's Islamic rule and all others. Hence, it is offensive for Muslims
to live under western styled democratic governments. So while Muslims fight and
kill one-another (as is now the case in Iraq), they are united in their aim to take over
all countries not under Islamic law. This state of war already exists and needs no
declaration of hostilities. Jihad and terrorism are simply expressions of this war.

Many Islamic thinkers are convinced that, in the next fifty years, Islam will cap-
ture the Western world for Islam. Some western thinkers now agree. They have the
men to do it, they have the money to do it, and above all they are already doing it.

31
Muslims have world domination as their goal. This is a world-wide movement which
regularly has its own Islamic nations conferences. Its aims and strategies are well
planned, long-term and financed by an almost endless supply of Arab oil money. Is-
lam sees itself as a theocracy, not a democracy.

Abandon Democracy?
If western democracies genuinely believed that Islam is a bona fide threat to the
concept of democracy, would it not behoove them to take action to counteract that
threat? Would it not be a ‘rational’ response? Or, would it be more a ‘practical’ re-
sponse?

Fortunately or unfortunately, such a rational or practical response would de-

mand that democracies abandon the very core principles that have made them both
historically unique and attractive to immigrants from all over the world. To aban-
don, even one of the key principles of democracy, would only serve to begin the
process of undermining all that is democracy. The removal of even one of the smal-
lest bricks in the structure we call democracy, makes the removal of the next, and
the next, so much easier; until the structure crumbles completely.

Even so, what should western democracies do to insure their survival? What can
be done to counteract the threat that is borne of Islam? Is there anything that can be
done that would not represent an abrogation of many of the principles that make
modern-day democracies what they are, and we hold so dearly? In all likelihood,
there is nothing that can be done without diminishing or abridging people’s rights.

Is it worth abridging people’s rights to ensure that modern-day democracies will

continue to exist? Sadly, or fortunately, history has shown that more than once,
democratic principles have permitted the rise of tyrants. Is this what western demo-
cracies should allow to happen? Allow Islamic domination, in the hopes that some-

32
day, even under Islam, there will be a return to democracy? Even though democra-
cies have never proven themselves viable under Islam?

In general, modern democracies have shown a remarkable tolerance of religious

differences, and this tolerance is now believed to be sacrosanct. Before John F. Ken-
nedy was elected president in 1960, there was a genuine concern that ‘the Catholics
would takeover’ if he was elected. When all was said and done, American politics did
not change with his election. The U.S. did not become an extension of the papacy. It
was politics as usual. Can we say the same thing if the Muslims become the majori-
ty? Or, is Islam sufficiently different from the Catholic religion to make a difference
in how democracies operate at their most fundamental level?

Should western democracies curtail their current immigration policies? Over

time, the immigration policies of the West have grown increasingly lenient, lacking
their earlier restrictiveness. Although most countries continue to refuse entry to
criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases, there is no
restriction based on religious affiliation. In fact, there is a growing movement di-
rected toward the abolition of existing quota systems in the West. An end to immi-
gration quotas is predicated by the principle of individual rights. Many of those that
advocate the lifting of immigration quotas all-together base their position on the be-
lief that every person has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that na-
tion. One has rights not by virtue of being an American, an Afghan, a Ugandan, or any
other country but by virtue of being human. As the concept of ‘political correctness’
has grown and has become a guiding principle that has been translated into juri-
sprudence, a much more liberal interpretation of national law has resulted.

At least in the West, the most liberal proponents of the concept of open immigra-
tion hold that one doesn't have to be a resident of any particular country to have a
moral entitlement to be secure from governmental coercion against one's life, liber-
ty, and property. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, government is
instituted "to secure these rights"-- to protect both the people and these rights
against their violation by force or fraud.
33
 The implicit premise of barring foreigners is based on: This is our country, we let
in who we want. Implicit in this statement is the concept of we. Exactly who is ‘we’?
Governments do not own the country. Jurisdiction is not ownership. Nor does the
majority own the country. Then, who is we? Loosely defined, some individuals --
those with the most votes -- claim the right to prevent other citizens from exercising
their rights.

Can we discriminate against the Muslims based on the premise that they will
‘takeover’? The answer is NO. We have learned that discrimination has proven coun-
ter-productive. This does not mean that we should tolerate hard-line extremists,
who advocate the overthrow of our democracies. We can rightfully pursue and
prosecute them for their seditious actions and deeds. We cannot, however, perse-
cute them for their seditious rhetoric, since freedom of speech and freedom of reli-
gion are the cornerstones of most democracies.

Islam’s Internal Civil War

Shortly after the defeat of Saddam Hussein a televised panel debate ensued over
the possibilities of wholesale civil war between the Sunnis and the Shias and the
various ethnic groups, the embers of which had been smoldering just beneath the
surface of Iraqi society. One of the panelists, an editor of a Arab news publication,
indicated that if such a war were to develop, in all probability it would not be be-
tween the sects of Islam or even the various contending ethnic groups of Iraq, but
rather, between the aspiring middle class and the religious extremists.

Religious extremism is inconsistent with the aspirations of an active and grow-

ing middle class. Almost everywhere, the middle class, as both a social and economic
class, gains it strength through social and economic mobility. Neither of which, how-
ever, is consistent with Islamic fundamentalism.

34
 Social and economic mobility are typically dependent upon tolerance, equality,
and education. Under fundamental Islam, there is little tolerance, no equality, and
only limited secular education. For these reasons, the socio-economic middle class
has traditionally been comparatively small within most Islamic societies.

It is due to the rise of tolerance, equality, and secular education in the West and
its absence within most Islamic societies that Islamic societies lost their vitality and
have been caught in the quagmire of poverty. The wealth of most Islamic nations has
been, by and large, dependent upon the exploitation of natural resources and not the
development of thriving entrepreneurial economies, and has accrued to the social
and political elites and not the masses.

The civil war within Islam will be fought between the aspiring middle class and
the religious fundamentalists, for the existing middle class is cognizant of the eco-
nomic benefits that accrue from the access to education and technological advance-
ments, from tolerance, and the importance of human rights and equality. No one
wishes to be poor and it is from the cadre of the poor that the new middle class will
come. They are the most downtrodden. It is this group that, traditionally, has suf-
fered the most under fundamental Islam and it is from this group that the newest
members of the middle class will come. They will remain poor only if they are not
given or permitted access to the means to assert themselves, and fundamental Islam
has consistently exerted a stranglehold on the poor, depriving them of the tools ne-
cessary to eliminate their poverty.

There is a Glimmer of Hope

The only hope for Western democracies lies in the prevention of hard line fun-
damentalists becoming the spiritual and political leaders of the growing Islamic
community in Western nations. This is, obviously, much easier said than done, espe-

35
cially in light of the fact that even the most liberal of Muslims believe and are com-
mitted to the belief that Islam will rule the world.

In all likelihood, the only way to defuse the rise of hard line fundamentalists is to
empower the Muslim middle class. Traditionally, in most Muslim societies, the mid-
dle class has been exceedingly small, wedged between a socio-economic and politi-
cal elite and a large group of poor. Fundamentalists, in general, do not emerge from
within the middle class. Most evolve from either the power elite or the poor, both
seeking legitimacy or in search of power.

If the immigrant Muslim middle class can be cultivated, and if this cultivation in-
cludes the adoption of the concepts of individual and personal rights, the implemen-
tation of individual freedom, and the maintenance of or subscription to the belief
that individual rights are sacrosanct, and they may not be taken away, even by the
majority, the underlying principles of Western democracy will be maintained. And,
as with the dominant religions of the West, religious tolerance will be manifest, even
within Islam. This would then mean that modern society would not be at odds with
Islamic tradition, since Islamic tradition holds that what the people, in general, con-
sider to be good is also considered as such by God.

It is the transition from traditional Islam to a new contemporary Islam that pos-
es the most difficult obstacle to the assimilation of the Muslim population within
western cultures and nations. Without the modernizing force and influence of the
Muslim middle class, this process cannot and will not be achieved. Religious funda-
mentalism cannot survive in a tolerant and free society, one based on individual and
inalienable human rights.

The reform of Islam, whether intended to be social or religious, cannot be

caused, suggested, or imposed from the outside. It must be an internal process. The
West can welcome, applaud, even reward all modernizing or reconstructionist
movements within Islam, but it cannot do more. If Islam is to fully enter the modern
world, it must first begin to dispassionately reexamine its institutions and history.

36
To accomplish this end, Muslims must be willing to consider the efficacy or legitima-
cy of reinterpreting its scriptural roots and be willing to adopt a much more secular
view of society, especially as it relates to individual and human rights and the rule of
non-scriptural law.

However, even coopting the Muslim middle class does not and will not dispel the
underlying principle within Islam, that makes it such an aggressive and tireless
threat – the idea that Islam is commanded and destined to rule the world. This belief
is simply part and parcel of the Muslim psyche.

Conclusion
During the rise of Nazism in Germany, very few within the poulation were card
carrying members of the Nazi party. It will be admitted that many enjoyed the re-
turn of German pride, and many more were just too busy to care. The vast majority
of Germany’s citizens simply sat back and let the Nazi Party rise to power. In almost
no time, the Nazis owned Germany, the majority had lost control, and the world was
on the brink of world war.

This observation is not meant to equate the rise of Nazism with the rise of Islam.
It is meant to draw a comparison. Often, the ruling majority in democracies sit back
and let the unthinkable happen.

For the moment, the fanatics are in charge of Islam. Following the recent elec-
tions in Iran, it was not the clerics or imams who were marching in the streets, ob-
jecting to the outcome of the elections. It was not the majority that sent the militia in
to disperse the protesters. The protestors were mainly young and educated. They
were silenced, beaten, killed, jailed, and tortured. Who, then, sent in the riot police
to put down the protestors? The country’s head cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the
leader of that country’s Guardian Council. The Guardian Council would brook no

37
overt demonstration by the common citizen. There was no right of assembly. There
was no freedom of speech.

The fanatics are responsible for many of the 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is
the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, support or sanction honor-killings, both
within Islamic societies, as well as in most western democracies. It is the fanatics
who forcibly take over mosques. It is the fanatics who so zealously condone the
stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach
their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

From the point of view of most Westerners, these are acts of barbarism and only
happen in Islamic societies. The reality, however, is that many of these practices oc-
cur in most western democracies and they are seemingly impossible to stop. Are
they caused by western influences? No. However, they are sanctioned by Islam and
it does not matter where the Muslims live. Western civil and criminal law seem po-
werless to intervene, until it is too late. Western secular law provides the guideposts
for secular behavior but its power is felt only after those guideposts have been ig-
nored, and a crime has been committed. Islamic law is both proscriptive and restric-
tive, and often mandates or condones what, by western standards, would be consi-
dered a crime.

Is it wrong? That depends on who one asks. Within most organized religions of
the world, stoning, beheadings, and honor killings would be deemed unconsciona-
ble. Within Islam, however, it is a matter of honor and tradition and, therefore, con-
doned and defensible.

These types of practices are permissible when religious dogma and politics
merge. And it is because of the misuse of religious power in western societies in the
past, that religions have been forced to secularize, i.e., the separation of religion
from modern forms of government and governance. Unless Islam succumbs to secu-
lar forces, the West will change in many fundamental ways. If Islam is permitted to

38
become the dominant religion in what are now perceived as secular democracies,
we can only look forward to theocratic rule, with all its consequences.

The Muslim creed is simple and straightforward, and the methods to be used are
equally simple and clearly spelled out in the Qur’an. The methods to be used in-
clude:

a) Jihad: All means are valid, both violent and peaceful, so long as they promote
Islam.

b) Eliminate all authority other than Allah and His Prophet.

c) Eliminate nationalism in all its shapes and forms, in particular, nation-States.

d) Unite all Islamic movements into a single global Islamic movement to estab-
lish the Islamic State.

e) Reconstruct the world of Islam into a system of Islamic States linked together
by such institutions as are necessary to express the unity of the Ummah [all Mus-
lims].

f) Eliminate all political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical influences of

the western civilization that have penetrated the world of Islam.

e) Re-establish a dominant and global Islamic civilization based on the concept

of tawheed [the worship of one god, Allah].

f) Create the institutions necessary for the pursuit of al-amr bil ma'ruf wa al-
nahy 'an al-munkar [that which Allah approves, and the forbidding of that which
Allah disapproves].

g) Establish 'adl (justice) [Sharia law] in all human relationships at all levels
throughout the world.

While it is important to be vigilant, it is also a mistake to simply label Islamic ter-

rorists as extremists, because that suggests that they are going beyond what is justi-
fied. Within Islam, it is justified and has proven to be an extremely effective tactic.
Our preoccupation with terrorism has only served to divert the West's attention

39
from more dangerous and less confrontational threats to the West – the Islamifica-
tion of the West through migration and high biological increase.

However, western cultural and political development makes it virtually impossi-

ble to effectively combat the expansion of Islam. We would have to give up our core
values to defeat Islam’s spread. If we do that, democracy ceases to exist. If Islam con-
tinues to spread through migration and biological increase, democracies, as we
know them, will be voted out of existence. Both scenarios portend the end of democ-
racy. The end of the Age of Democracy is within sight, and with its demise, a unique
page in world history will be finally turned. The passing of democracy is difficult to
contemplate, when so many have given so much to keep its candle burning. Farewell
brief candle.

Democracy to Islam:

You do not need to blow out my candle, just to

make yours burn more brightly.

Author’s aside: A number of people have commented on various drafts of this

polemic, both liberals and conservatives. Surprisingly, these readers subscribe to
one or more of the following beliefs:

1] Democracy will never die. It is much too resilient. If history is any indicator,
most democracies become their own worst enemy devolving into tyrannies.

2] Democracies will survive, if for no other reason, than people who have lived
under the umbrella of democracy will be unwilling to give up the concepts of free
speech and liberty, even if they convert to Islam. History, again, has shown that
peoples once conquered by or converted to Islam have never returned to democrat-
ic forms of government.
40
 3] To combat the takeover of western democracies by Islam, will necessitate that
the current liberal ‘rules of engagement,’ will have to be adjusted. In other words,
policies of intolerance will have to replace current liberalism. Seditious speech and
actions, barbaric practices, and non-respect for the West’s liberal traditions would
have to become punishable offenses, until such time as Islam submits to the process
of secularization. If history teaches us anything, once democratic principles begin to
give way, democracy crumbles like a house of cards; and Islam has never been secu-
larized.

4] Muslims will, eventually, become integrated into the democratic societies

within which they settle. Recently, Sennels and others have spoken out against this
misguided idea.39 Nowhere has Islam been successfully integrated into larger, non-
Muslim societies. Islam may co-exist with other societies, as in India, but it has never
been integrated, becoming a functioning part of a greater amalgam.

Endnotes

i Although this work was originally intended to be purely a polemic and was not supposed
to contain formal references, it became apparent that attribution for quotes and some ideas
demanded some footnoting.

ii New York: Alpha Books, 2005.

iiiNumerous people have utilized, essentially the same idea, that a country or government
cannot endure as long as it is divided against itself. The earliest such comment comes from
the Bible, Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation;
41
and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. . . . (King James Version)” The
quote used here comes from Abigal Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, as quoted in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_House_Divided_Speech.

4 See, Yoram Schweitzer (August 2006). Guerilla Warfare and Terrorism: Blurring the
Definition of Victor, Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University.

5 See, for example, Niccolo Machiavelli (2003). Art of War, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press; Sun Tzu (2006). The Art of War, Middlesex: Echo Press; Ernesto Guevara (1961). La
guerra de guerrilla (Guerrilla Warfare), Norfolk: Headquarters, Fleet Marine Force, Atlan-
tic (in English); and Mao Tse-Tung and Zedong Mao (1961). On Guerrilla Warfare, trans.
by Samuel B. Griffith, II, Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

6 Major Jackie K. Clark (1988). Che Guevara: Fundamentals of Guerrilla Warfare, Quan-
tico: Marine Corps Command and Staff College, Marine Air-Ground Training and Education
Center, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Chapter IV, The Nature of Guerrilla
Warfare.

7 George Packer, (2005). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, p. 50.

8 Ibid.

9 See, Christopher Wurmser, (1999). Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam
Hussein, American Enterprise Institute.

10 Packer, p. 58.

11 Attributed to Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, in a conversation with Vice President Dick
Cheney. See George Packer, op. cit., p. 51. See also, Bernard Lewis, (2002). What Went
Wrong?: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, New York: Oxford University
Press; and Fouad Ajami, (1998). The Dream Palace of the Arabs: A Generation’s Odyssey,
New York: Pantheon Books.

42
12 Historians recognize, at least, four inquisitional periods in the West – the Medieval In-
quisition (1184–1230s) , the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834), the Portuguese Inquisition
(1536–1821) , and the Roman (Catholic) Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860 ).

13John Esposito, (2005). Islam: The Straight Path, Oxford University Press, p. 93; and Ste-
phen Humphreys, (2005). Between Memory and Desire. University of California Press, pp.
174-176.

14 Rueven Firestone, (1999). Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam. Oxford University
Press, p. 17.

15 Douglas Farah, (May 7, 2007). “Qutbism and the Muslim Brotherhood”,

http://www.douglasfarah.com/article/194/qutbism-and-the-muslim-brotherhood.com.

16 William McCants of the US Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center, quoted

in Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic-Fascism by Dale C. Eikmeier. From Parameters, Spring
2007, pp. 85-98.

17See, Shmuel Bar, (2006). Jihad Ideology in Light of Contemporary Fatwas, Washington,
DC: Hudson Institute, Center on Islam, Democracy, and the Future of the Muslim World.

18 Gudrun Schultz, (Thursday November 9, 2006). German Population Plunge “Irreversi-

ble,” Federal Stats Office Admits Expected that one third of all European children will be
born to Muslim families by 2025, LifeSite News.com,
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/nov/06110903.html.

19 Jack Edwab, (2005). “Canada's Demo-Religious Revolution: 2017 will bring considerable
change to the profile of the Mosaic.” Association for Canadian Studies/Association
d'études canadiennes. Available online at: http://www.acs-aec.ca/oldsite/Polls/30-03-
2005.pdf. See also, http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/canada/.

20Muslim American Market, (Accessed: 11 November 2009). http://www.allied-

media.com/AM/.

21 Alessandra Rizzo, (Mar 31,2008). Muslims more numerous than Catholics,

http://www.mujahideenryder.net/2008/03/31/islam-is-officially-the-worlds-largest-
religion/:
43
“VATICAN CITY – Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world’s largest religion,
the Vatican newspaper said Sunday. For the first time in history, we are no longer at the top:
Muslims have overtaken us,” Monsignor Vittorio Formenti said in an interview with the Va-
tican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano. Formenti compiles the Vatican’s yearbook. He said
that Catholics accounted for 17.4 percent of the world population — a stable percentage —
while Muslims were at 19.2 percent.”

22 Source: Eurostat, 2008 and www.euphix.org

(http://www.euphix.org/object_document/o5404n28150.html.

23 See, Arbulan’s Islamic Expansion and Decline (2007). Chapter 15.

24 See, Jonah Winters, (1997). "Martyrdom in Jihad" (unpublished paper; University of To-
ronto. "Martyrdom in Jihad"; http://bahai-library.com/personal/jw/my.papers/jihad.html.

25 See: http://www.dhimmitude.org/ and

http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.html.

26Doug Patton, (December 6, 2007). “Islam's Barbarism is no ‘Religion of Peace’,” Huma-

nEvents.com, http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23788.

27 See, the Qur’an, Suras 24, Verse 31 and Sura 33, Verse 59. Sura 24:31 describes how
women should be ‘covered’ but it only mentions women should draw their veils over their
bosoms, which is consistent with the ideal of modesty. Sura 33:59 seems to address the type
of clothing to be worn by Muslim women, as opposed to non-Muslim women, to differen-
tiate them. In neither is there a definitive description that would constitute or mandate the
wearing of the burqa, abaya, or hajib.

28 See endnote 12, above.

29 See, for example, Peter Gay, (1996). The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, New York:
W. W. Norton & Company.

30See, Cinnamon Stillwell, (January 23, 2009). “Honor killings: When the ancient and the
modern collide,” San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-

44
bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/01/23/cstillwell.DTL.

31 As quoted by Goerge Packer, op. cit., p. 94.

32 See, William H. McNeill, (1991). The Rise of the West, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, pp. 502-503.

33 See for example, Adnan M. Hayajneh, (2004). “The U.S. Strategy: Democracy and Internal
Stability in the Arab World,” Alternatives, Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol.
3, Nos. 2 & 3; Enayatollah Yazdani, (2008). “US Policy towards the Islamic World,” Alterna-
tives, Turkish Journal of International Relations, Vol. 7, Nos. 2 & 3. There is a very large
literature that explores the uneven relationships between the Arab world and the West, in
general, and the United States, in particular.

34 See, George Packer, op. cit., p. 51, passim.

35 As quoted by George Packer, op. cit., p. 138.

36 Nicolai Sennels, (2009). Blandt kriminelle muslimer: en psykologs erfaringer fra

Københavns Kommune, (in Danish), Odense: Trykkefrihedsselskabets Bibliotek.

37See, Felix Struening, (31 March 2009). “Danish Psychologist: “Integration of Muslims in
Western Societies is not possible,”” Europe News, http://europenews.dk/en/node/21789.

38 Ibid.

39 See Sennels; and Struening, above. See, also, for example: Daniel Greenfield, (Thursday,
August 13, 2009). “What Will a Muslim Europe Look Like?”, CFP (Canada Free Press),
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13695; The German Papers,
(11/2/2004). Can Muslims be Integrated?, Spiegel Online International,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,329111,00.html; Steve Doughty, (8 May
2009). Just one in 10 British Muslims feel integrated into society, study claims, Mail Online
News, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178794/Just-10-British-Muslims-feel-
integrated-society-study-claims.html.

45