Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Everything's Coming Up Jihad

June has been a banner month for Muslim lawsuits against the NYPD. First "Muslim Advocates" filed a lawsuit against the NYPD on behalf of some New Jersey Muslims attending mosques that the NYPD had assessed as a potential terrorism risk. The "Muslim Advocates", like every other Muslim "civil rights" group, has a history of covering up and defending terrorism.

The media is full of sympathetic interviews with Muslims, who are baffled as to why the NYPD might be surveiling mosques and Imams. Farhoud Khera, the head of Muslim Advocates, complains, "There was explicit reference to the fact that they weren't targeting Syrian Jews or Iranian Jews or Egyptian Christians, but really, the focus was on Muslims."

The extensive Coptic Christian and Persian Jewish terrorism sprees aside, the goal here is to get the NYPD to play the same "Three Blind Monkeys" game that Federal law enforcement has taken up. And the only answer is the TSAization of the NYPD, as the last remaining counterterrorism force will prove that it isn't singling out Muslims, by surveiling Methodist churches and Chassidic synagogues for signs of terrorist sympathies.

Less notable, but in some ways more significant, Farhan Doe, a Muslim rejected by the NYPD because he said gays should be imprisoned, has sued the police for rejecting him because of his views. Farhan Doe isn't alone in believing that, but unlike non-Muslim applicants, he comes out of a cultural and religious background in which imprisoning people because they offend your morals is the duty of law enforcement.

Farhan's, (predictably, Jewish), lawyer says that his client has the right to believe whatever he pleases, and he has a point. But the question is with enough Farhans in the political, judicial and enforcement arms, how long will the rest of us have that right?

Tolerating people who will not tolerate you is fine, so long as they draw the line between ideas and action. The NYPD isn't surveilling New Jersey mosques because there are some bigots in blue who dislike immigrants, as the Associated Press, the American Civil Liberties Union and the whole lawyer-media complex would like you to believe. It's doing it because New York City's biggest serial killers and aspiring serial killers are Muslims who kill in the name of their ideas.

Their biggest idea is that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam "victorious over all religions, even though the infidels may resist." (Koran 61:9) And when the infidels resist, that's when you kill their soldiers, sue their police officers, and blow up a few buildings. Then you complain to the media that the infidels are persecuting you by spying on the mosques where the "Big Idea" is declaimed to the faithful and refusing to allow you to join the police force just because you think that Islamic law supersedes American law.

The Clash of Civilizations is all-encompassing. It doesn't just cover the big thing, like ramming planes into skyscrapers, but also the little things. Police forces don't enforce law, as much as social harmony. The Nineties were a grand experiment in changing troubled neighborhoods by improving their quality through selective enforcement on quality of life offenses. The NYPD's successes were credited to that experiment. But who decides what social harmony and the social good are?

For Mayor Bloomberg, it's banning large sodas. For Farhan Doe, it's banning homosexuals. When there is no limit to government infringement on rights, then the law is a collection of bugbears and control mechanisms. Islamic law on covering up women got its start when one of Mohammed's companions spotted one of Mo's wives at night and was able to tell her apart due to her height. This somehow made for a convincing case for compelling every woman to be covered up head to toe.

It's senseless, but so is fighting obesity by banning people from buying large sodas. When the obsession of a few men is turned into law, then the result is equally contemptuous of the individual as a rotting sack of vile habits which he has to be forced to abandon by the majority of the law. Once you abandon the rights of the individual to the fiat of activists, judges and politicians-- then laws can be made by anyone who wants them badly enough. The same process of judicial activism, hysteria, violent attacks, and pressure groups that created gay marriage can one day lock up the happy couples. It's only a matter of who is making the laws.

The Arab Spring has revealed the ugly truth that, given the vote, the Farhans in Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey will vote to imprison gays, oppress Christians, suppress women and all the way down the long awful checklist of the Islamic formula for a moral society. Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is a fantasy in America, but it's how most people agree things should be in the Muslim world. The media is selflessly dedicated to lying about that simple fact, no matter how many of their reporters get raped, taken hostage or killed, until the truth becomes impossible to conceal.

Back in cosmopolitan New York, the idea that we're about to go the way of Cairo is absurd, but then  Cairo was also once a cosmopolitan place. (At least until the more cosmopolitan parts of it were burned down.) Oslo, Paris and London still are, but, like Weimar, the clock of cosmopolitanism in those places is ticking down to its final hours. The secret of all societies is that they are all democracies in their own way. A government can repress its people, shoot them in alleyways and run them over with  tanks-- but it cannot be at odds with their values for very long.

The jet-setting dictatorship of the enlightened who clink champagne glasses over international law is a global Weimar that will collapse in a rotten heap when enough men shouting, "Allah Akbar" march through their streets. And the timeline for that is set by biology and airline schedules, but it's also set by power and the acceptance of the inevitable. 

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has suggested that it might be possible to outlaw burning the Koran because it gets people killed. This is shorthand for saying it upsets Muslims, who then go out and kill people. Given a choice between doing something about the Muslims who are killing people or the freedom of speech that infuriates them, Breyer, like most of the transatlantic left, chose to do something about freedom.

But homosexuality also upsets people like Farhan Doe. What happens when they decide to kill people every time an episode of Glee airs? Do we outlaw Glee? If we can outlaw burning the Koran, then why not? If it's a question of pressure groups, the followers of Mohammed can easily top rallies and "It Gets Better" videos. And when the time comes, they will. Is a society that is unwilling to draw the line at the Bill of Rights, really going to draw the line at Greenwich Village and Castro Street?

Why don't we do as Farhan Doe suggests and lock up gays? Ask a liberal and the answer will be sputtering outrage, just as if you were to ask an Imam from Al-Azhar why you shouldn't lock up gays, the response would be sputtering outrage for the opposite reason. There might be some mention of the Bill of Rights, but the Bill of Rights is dead in the age of the Living Constitution. If rights are whatever the sophistry of a panel of Federal judges says that they are, then they are no different than Bloomberg's soda laws or Mohammed's Burqa mandate or ObamaCare's health insurance mandate.

In a society like this, laws are like levers. If enough pressure is applied in the right place, they get put up or torn down. Farhan Doe on his own wouldn't be able to lock up too many homosexuals, though as a police officer, he would have plenty of discretion for taking in people on the usual charges like "Disturbing the Peace" or "Failure to Obey a Police Order" that can be used to arrest nearly anyone at any time.

But what happens when a police force has a lot of Farhan Does working on it? For the answer to that, we can take a trip to sunny Dearbonistan, where Christians were arrested for "Disturbing the Peace" and "Failure to Obey a Police Order", which as it turned out was a legalism for "Being Christian in a place claimed by Muslims".

Dearborn Police Chief Ron Haddad (not to be confused with Ron Haddad Jr of Illinois, charged with domestic terrorism) testified that a protest outside an area mosque should not be allowed to take place, because its Imam had told him that it would be worse than a thousand deaths. Presumably three of them would be worse than September 11.

That's how it works. Add enough Farhans together and suddenly the system operates on a different set of assumptions that signify that the clash of civilizations has happened, and civilization has lost.

For decades now, the civil rights movements have been dedicated to taking away other people's rights in the name of entitlement. That has brought us to a state of affairs in which religious institutions are obligated to cover abortions, white students are seated at the back of the college admissions bus behind black students, and wedding photographers are sued for not wanting to shoot gay weddings. This is not a society that frees people from oppression, it's a society that oppresses everyone in the name of someone else's greater good.

The Muslim Brotherhood's arms in America operate as civil rights groups, and Islamization is a civil rights movement, as much as any of them. Like them, it believes in taking away the right of other people to be left alone, to live and let live and to be treated equally under the law. Like every radical group it is demanding the right not to be investigated by the police, the right not to have its ideology treated as the contemptuously vicious creed that it is, under the "Red-Baiting" or "Islamophobia" clause, and the right to aspire to one day take away everyone else's rights.

There are police forces in the Muslim world, but they're tasked with arresting blasphemers, jailing runaway brides and conducting virginity tests on women found alone in the same room with a man. And occasionally hanging the homosexuals, who as Messr Ahmadinejad assured us don't exist, because as soon as they exist, they are killed, resolving the paradoxes of Islamic morality and Schrodinger's cat in one instant.

The difference between their forces and ours is... Farhan Doe.


Some dude said...

I truly wonder what is the difference between our society and theirs.

There are no sellout lawyers in their society, because such a man would be killed quickly. On the other hand i suspect there are also no lawyers who will stand against their own bad practices either for much the same reason.

I am infortunately quite sympathetic to the Muslim who said gays should be imorisoned. As a matter of policy I think its worthless. But is our gay/hellenistic culture all that much better?

Not long ago, the untied states had laws banning a lot of gay practices, that particular era was famous for its hypocrites and honorable gays who wouldnt toe the line. That was also considered to be a.much freer era than today.

We can say we've softened our society too much. But its hard not to see our hyper militerization. Pur cruelty to our own, even while we over indulge dishnorable minorities who come here.

Daniel Greenfield @ the Sultan Knish blog said...

Their society is corrupt, more corrupt than ours, because it has no true law. Any agenda can be dressed up as Islam.

Take a few thugs, tell them there's paradise waiting for them and give them free reign to do anything in the name of giving power to true Islam.

That's Mohammed, but it's also Al-Qaeda.

The fancier version of that takes place all the time. Countries run under Islamic law are full of people who claim to speak in the name of Islam, tearing each other to shreds over money and power, and doing it all in the name of Islam.

I wrote about some of that this week in the Palestinian Authority here Thieves of Palestine but it's commonplace throughout the Muslim world.

dwight said...

Stop the presses!

"Their biggest idea is that Allah had sent Mohammed to make Islam "victorious over all religions, even though the infidels may resist." (Koran 61:9) And when the infidels resist, that's when you kill their soldiers, sue their police officers, and blow up a few buildings. Then you complain to the media that the infidels are persecuting you by spying on the mosques where the "Big Idea" is declaimed to the faithful and refusing to allow you to join the police force just because you think that Islamic law supersedes American law."

A stunningly succinct statement. If this doesn't stop us in our thoughts...

Dovber Schwartz said...


fsy said...

The only word for the Breyers of the world is "cowards".

Unfortunately, I am also one, having grown up that way for many different reasons, but at least I do not make an ideology out of it and impose my cowardice on others.

Madman2001 said...

Great analysis, Daniel. I particularly like linking Bloomberg's silly (but undermining) large soda ban with the Doe's idea of "banning" gays.

Brett_McS said...

Has the army cleared itself of Islamists after the Fort Hood shooting spree and the various "isolated" fragging incidents? I don't know, but I'm guessing "not".

Anonymous said...

Ignorance is bliss. That's the motto of most Americans right now. They just don't wan't to believe this is really happening.


Lemon said...

The only enemy the American establishment names today is its own citizens.

Anonymous said...

Coherent, well argued, logical and well written piece. Brilliant!

And the msm wonders why they are dying on the vine? Because something this clear and insightful would never be published. It would not make it past the insular elitist group-think in the editorial echo chamber.

Second point; does anyone wonder how many jihadi followers were just given citizenship by the Manchurian pretender at 1600 Penn?

-Hayek fan-

wheatington said...

Another great article. My one quibble: I believe we are in a War FOR Civilization. If we lose the world becomes uncivilized.

Post a Comment