Friday, April 13, 2007
Robert Spencer Recommendations
We were out one night and a fellow traveler said that he thought we should kill all the muslims. I said "No. They just follow a bad ideology. When we say islam is a religion of peace, we are propagating a dangerous lie. People are just too lazy to read the koran, or anything analytical on the subject." But, I started thinking about some of the suggestions, from more rational souls, and decided to post them. Here are Robert Spencer's suggestions from his book "The Truth About Muhammad", and tomorrow I will post Mark Stein's suggestions. BTW, I agree more with Robert Spencers,,,,
"1. Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace. This is false, and falsehoods are never productive. There is in fact no need for the president of the US or that prime minister of Great Britain or any Western leader to make any pronouncements about the nature of Islam at all. They would be much wiser to limit themselves to declaring that their foes wish to impose Islamic sharia rule upon their countries and the world, and that they are going to lead the resistance to that.
2. Initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources. During WWII, the US invested millions and set the brightest scientific minds in the world on the atomic bomb project. A similar effort must be made today to end the Western dependence on oil from the Islamic world – a dependence that deforms the foreign policies of Western nations, preventing them from taking all the steps that they must take in order to defend themselves from the jihad that Muhammad preached.
3. Make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology. If Western states acknowledged the existence of a global imperialist Islamic imperative, they could make aid to states like Egypt and Pakistan – in which secular governments generally tolerate the proliferation of jihadist teachings in mosques and Islamic schools – contingent upon the active rejection of those teachings and positive steps against them by the governments of each state. These countries and others profess to reject the contemporary jihad of Osama bin Laden and like-minded mujahedin; let them make good on their rejection, if it is sincere, by developing programs for Islamic schools that explain why Muhammad’s exhortations to warfare and supremacism no longer have merit in today’s world or in the future.
4. Call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology. Instead of endorsements of the US Constitution and American values, Islamic institutions in the US are filled with jihadist propaganda against Jews and Christians. A 2005 report by the Freedom House Center for Religious Freedom found material in American mosques teaching hatred of non-Muslims and stating that apostates from Islam should be killed, in accord with Muhammad’s directive. Here again, American Muslim organizations profess to reject the jihad of Osama bin Laden, but have been slow to back up their words with deeds. Five years after September 11 there are still no organized, comprehensive programs in American mosques and schools to teach against the jihad ideology or confront the elements of Muhammad’s life that today fuel jihadist violence and subversion. This is not surprising given the pedigrees of such groups (the Council on American-Islamic Relations, for example, emerged from the Islamic Association of Palestine, a Hamas front) and the centrality of jihad in Islamic theology, but government officials and the mainstream media nevertheless generally treat these groups as moderate. Courageous officials and politicians, if any exist today, should challenge these groups to put up or shut up – to produce genuinely moderate and reformist initiatives that teach against Muhammad’s warlike example, or to stop posing as moderate groups. And government and law enforcement officials should accordingly stop regarding these groups as trustworthy, loyal moderates who accept Western pluralism without reservation.
5. Revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view. Western nations should develop immigration applications that ask hard questions about the applicant’s views on pluralistic societies, religious freedom, women’s rights, and other features of Western societies challenged by elements of Muhammad’s teachings and Islamic law. Of course, savvy intelligence officials would not expect honest answers in all cases, but the very presence of such questions would make it clear that those who hope ultimately to transform Western republics into sharia autocracies are not welcome in those republics, and those who are found in them will be prosecuted and expelled. The need for immigration policies with such a focus has been obscured by fears of ‘racism,’ but this is not a racial issue. Muhammad’s teachings are available to all races, and people of all races adhere to them. "