Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Dennis Prager--"The Islamic threat is greater than German and Soviet threats were"

I came across this column today by Mr. Dennis Prager. I don't recall having read his work before, but based on this one piece, he's a superb columnist and writer who clearly sees the naked threat to civilization. This column should be required reading for everyone, especially everyone in the US Congress right now, considering that silly and dangerous amnesty bill that's now in play.

Mr. Prager's column for today is a sober warning, as we (at present, only haltingly) confront global evil on an unprecedented scale.

Here is the entirety of Mr. Prager's column. It's compelling enough that I included it in its entirety:

Only four types of individuals can deny the threat to civilization posed by the violence-supporting segment of Islam: the willfully naive, America-haters, Jew-haters and those afraid to confront evil.

Anyone else sees the contemporary reality -- the genocidal Islamic regime in Sudan; the widespread Muslim theological and emotional support for the killing of a Muslim who converts to another religion; the absence of freedom in Muslim-majority countries; the widespread support for Palestinians who randomly murder Israelis; the primitive state in which women are kept in many Muslim countries; the celebration of death; the "honor killings" of daughters; and so much else that is terrible in significant parts of the Muslim world -- knows that civilized humanity has a new evil to fight.

Just as previous generations had to fight Nazism, communism and fascism, our generation has to confront militant Islam.

And whereas there were unique aspects to those evils, there are two unique aspects to the evil emanating from the Islamic world that render this latest threat to humanity particularly difficult to overcome.

One is the number of people who believe in it. This is a new phenomenon among organized evils. Far fewer people believed in Nazism or in communism than believe in Islam generally or in authoritarian Islam specifically. There are one billion Muslims in the world. If just 10 percent believe in the Islam of Hamas, the Taliban, the Sudanese regime, Saudi Arabia, Wahhabism, bin Ladin, Islamic Jihad, the Finley Park Mosque in London or Hizbollah -- and it is inconceivable that only one of 10 Muslims supports any of these groups' ideologies -- that means a true believing enemy of at least 100 million people. Outside of Germany, how many people believed in Nazism? Outside of Japan, who believed in Japanese imperialism and militarism? And outside of universities, the arts world or Hollywood, how many people believed in Soviet-style totalitarianism?

A far larger number of people believe in Islamic authoritarianism than ever believed in Marxism. Virtually no one living in Marxist countries believed in Marxism or communism. Likewise, far fewer people believed in Nazism, an ideology confined largely to one country for less than one generation. This is one enormous difference between the radical Islamic threat to our civilization and the two previous ones.

But there is yet a second difference that is at least as significant and at least as frightening: Nazis and Communists wanted to live and feared death; Islamic authoritarians love death and loathe life.

That is why MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) worked with the Soviet Union. Communist leaders love life -- they loved their money, their power, their dachas, their mistresses, their fine wines -- and were hardly prepared to give all that up for Marx. But Iran's current leaders celebrate dying, and MAD may not work, because from our perspective, they are indeed mad. MAD only works with the sane.

There is much less you can do against people who value dying more than living.

The existence of an unprecedentedly large number of people wishing to destroy decent civilization as we know it -- and who celebrate their own deaths -- poses a threat the likes of which no civilization in history has had to confront.

The evils committed by Nazism and Communism were, of course, greater than those committed by radical Islam. There has been no Muslim Gulag and no Muslim Auschwitz.

But the threat is far more serious.


John Sobieski said...

radical Islam, militant Islam, Islam - what's the difference?, except in the tactics used to conquer the West.

The Anti-Jihadist said...

If Prager's (optimistic) stats are correct, then there are 900 million other Muslims other than the 'radical' or 'militant' ones.

I think we've all been thoroughly disabused enough of the notion that any serious 'moderate' movement is going to seriously oppose the militants. Even if such a movement was possible (it isnt), there is no such sign of any such movement springing up anywhere in the Islamic world or the infidel world.

So, these 900 million should be seen for who and what they are--silent accomplices to Jihadist mass murder. They are cowed into silence, are apathetic ("as long as nothing happens to me"), or are sympathetic to Jihad's clarion call in the Muslim world. They provide the huge sea for the more devouted Jihadist folks to swim in, and in fact provide cover, concealment, support, and a constant source for new recruits.

little-cicero said...

This is a wise piece by a wise man to whom I try to listen every day on his syndicated radio show.

Much of the wisdom lies in his discretion. He does not characterize all Muslims as violent or radical, because they are not. The average Muslim in America will not believe that his religion should dominate the earth even by way of peaceful evangelism. That is because they have American values. Consequently, you will find vastly more radical Muslims in Iran than in America.

So is it possible that this is merely a struggle of values? The Islamic culture seems to be largely more violent than American culture (which, by the way, is more violent than European culture). Make note of the fact that pre-Mohammed Arabs were about as violent as post-Mohammed Arabs, and it becomes clear that this is more about culture and values than it is about religion.

A European interpreting the Qu'ran (all liberal value on tolerance aside) would interpret "jihad" as a sort of evangelist struggle, but an Arab frustrated with the Western presence in his country will interpret it as all-out war.

Being a fan of Prager, I should tell you that this is in tune with his beliefs. Of course I do not deny that the Qu'ran is a violent document, but some values come from outside religion, and influence religious interpretation itself.

eyesallaround said...

I love Dennis Prager and try to listen to him when I can. Not surprisingly, I agree with him:>) I think the biggest danger though lies in the fact that their inspiration is religious. They actually believe that their god wants them to do these horrible things, so their normal human consciences are being over-ridden.

little-cicero said...

Do they have "normal consciences" as you indicate, or are their consciences tainted by a corrupt, violent values system?

eyesallaround said...


I think we're saying the same thing. I say "over-ridden" you say "tainted".

Either way, every human has a conscience and will feel guilt when they do something wrong, unless they feel that a higher power is commanding them to do it. You see this frequently in sociopaths. Son of Sam heard it from his neighbor's black lab! Communists used the higher power of the state and tens of millions were killed.

I think we're on the same page:>)

eyesallaround said...

I think I might have meant schizophrenics there.... Sociopaths have no conscience. Schizophrenics hear voices (as I recall)...

little-cicero said...

Well, it is a nuanced difference no doubt, but it seems that our conscience is a product of our culture as well as our self interest, so if this culture produces callused and zealous consciences, there is no overriding of religion, rather there is no conscience to begin with. The religion forms the mindset rather than transforming it. Nuanced indeed, but significant if we're speaking psycho-sociologoically.

friendlysaviour said...

The trouble I see with diferentiating between one Moslim and another, one violent and militant, one westernised and docile is this; the koran is absolute.

Their scholars can discuss the relative merits of verses of the book but can never deny any of the verses as the word of allah.
That means that no matter what the "docile" moslims believe, when push comes to shove, the violent aggressive moslim will win the argument and the battle, every time.

For docile moslims in the West to affirm there moderate beliefs, they would have to start a new schism in Mahhomedanism.
This will result in the moderates being just as much an enemy of the Wahhabi, for instance, as the Infidel is already.

So the war will go on.
It is a defective system as are all religions, no earthly arrangement can be perfect.
Christianity for all it's fueding has ressulted in a manageable sytem of living, combining ideas from many cultures and allowing freedom of choice about religion, amongst other benefits, enjoyed by westernised, moderate moslims amongst us.

Thse moderate moslims have not got the spunk to stand up and differ from the radicals in their old backyards.
They have shown this time and agin, following 9/11, Madrid, Bali and countless other massacres.
We are kidding ourselves if we think that the moderates will ever change.
They cannot. They can only stand by.

If the West is severely challenged at home, where will you find the moderate moslim?
Will he be there ont he barricades with the Patriots, or will he hide indoors waiting to see who gets the upper hand.
The moderates have had time enough to change and make clear to the "old Country" that they do not stand with them in the jihad against the infidel, the Western Democracies.

Their inaction speaks volumes to us, if we but listen.
If we study the actions for instance of those that claim moderation, CAIR for example, do they stand up to serious examination?
Study the Moslim Council of Britain, do they stand up to investigation, either?
They are sent by the Brit Government to negotiate with terrorist "insurgents" in Iraq, and it is beneficial for their public image and that of moderate islam, for them to be seen to be doing so.

Has anyone heard one word of condemnation from them, though, when an American, or a Canadian (recent) Christian Peace activist is BEATEN, TORTURED and then MURDERED?
Of course not.
America has been chosen along with Britain as the great satans to be attacked.

The moderate moslims act in a sense of self-preservation, more than concience about murder.
Does not the koran tell them to murder in the name of islam's ultimate conquest? We know it does, specifically.

Why kid ourselves about this fact?
The moderate moslims do not want to get their hands dirty, fighting and doing violent jihad. They have so much to lose here.
Their nice cars, their comfortable houses, their children's future,and their wives safety.

Do I suspect that in the heart of most moderate moslims, their exists the dream, the notion, that their time will come?
That one day the words of the koran predicting that ultimately the moslim culture will be dominant and the words of that book will be shown victorious.
Of course I do. Don't you?

eyesallaround said...

I still don't see the difference, but then I've never been accused of nuanced thinking! lmao:>)

little-cicero said...

As far as domination of beliefs, both Christianity and Judaism strive to dominate with beliefs (Christianity seeks to spread religion whereas Judaism seeks to spread Biblical Law to all pagans in the world) obviously the Koran does so with less nuance and can be interpreted as seeking to do so through force, and this should be acknowledged by the media.

However, moderate Muslims are right in their interpretations. It is the terrorists who ignore the messages of peace in the Koran, whereas the moderates ignore nothing- they simply interpret the more militant passages in the most peaceful manner possible. We MUST embrace this teaching, not oppose it by saying "Eh you're all the same anyways, take your Peaceful Koran and shove it!"

Of course they're much too timid in their opposition to radicals, but you explained it yourself: they're rightfully afraid of becoming the traitors of Islam that the radicals will make them out to be. Moreover, the problem with moderacy is that it always comes with a lack of passion. Moderates always speak more softly than radicals.

Pastorius said...

Little Cicero,
Have you read the Koran and the Hadiths? You talk as if you think it is reasonalbe to interpret them as peaceful. It is not.

The further in to the Koran you get, the more violent it becomes, and its latter chapters supersede the revelation of the earlier chapters.

The Anti-Jihadist said...

Generally, the so-called 'Moderates' don't 'peacefully' interpret the violent verses--rather, they just ignore them. When confronted with such things, these same 'moderates' usually deny that such verses even exist or claim that it's all taken out of context. Many terrorists are former 'moderates' who were shown the pure Islamic light of Jihad.

Cubed © said...

bld said...

"The trouble I see with diferentiating between one Moslim and another, one violent and militant, one westernised and docile is this; the koran is absolute."

That is definitely THE problem, and it's the reason that until Islam is gone, there will be lots and lots of people in every single generation, from now until the sun explodes, who will behave this way. If we don't solve the Islam problem, we will forever be condemned to live looking over our shoulders to avoid the next intrusion.

Unfortunately, Islam is not a philosophy which endorses a "live and let live" policy.

little-cicero said...

You're right to doubt my understanding of the Qu'ran as I have never read it. I didn't mean to seem as if I had read it. I have seen some of the misinterpretations in play though, and it seems that it is a relatively fluid document. For example, how do you know that the instructions for conquest were not aimed solely at Mohammed in his building an early military movement? This is not a rhetorical question if you can answer it.

If that is the meaning of a large number of these instructions (they were addressed to Mohammed weren't they?) then are they not similar to comparable Old Testament verses (which by the way were not wrong to be violent, while the cause of Mohammed was wrong)?

friendlysaviour said...

cicero, ..you have to understand that for every moslim, the quaran is the exact WORDS OF ALLAH.
There can be no if, what, or but about it.
YOu either believe and follow what the imman tells you or you are in denial of the words of the God.
The penalty for such divergence is fatal.
THe other aspects that are important are the actions of Mahammed. The thinks he said, did and thought were ecorde by his followers.
All of them carry great weight with the believers.
Just because we can reason and think rationally does not mean that a moslim ca do likewise. If he does he will certainly not tell anyone his thoughts.
You have got to understand the power of the koran to the moslim mind.
Haven't you seen what happens to people who deny islam?
Haven't you seen what happens to young Americans sent to Iraq if the
moslims get to them.
I an beginning to think that you actually do know a lot more than you say. If you do not, then please stop asking questions to which you can find the answers yourself.
Your site seems quite well-sorted and you must have the intellect to do your own research.
You really owe it to yourself.
You could do no better than read the book I mentioned "The Dawning of a New Dark Age." by M. Alexander.
The web has all your answers, so research, thats all.

friendlysaviour said...

Good news today, American journalist Jill Caroll released today!

Chris said...

Nazi and Soviet evils..what about the british and american evils? see no angel.

british have done some of the worst crimes, when dodecanisa were liberated from the nazis brits came and did worst things up to 1948, they were killing civilians and democrats in cold blood even the ones that helped them in ww2 and the worked together with the ones that supported the nazis, while many people who fought on their side in middle eas were jailed because they were leftists or democrats. It is better not to make comparisons, oppresion does not need comparisons.

little-cicero said...

Honestly, I think you are overstating the necessary research here. The Bible, the Q'ran, the words of Osama Bin Laden, and the statistics of innocent people slaughtered by those inspired by those words, that would give me an accurate understanding.

As far as interpretation, it is a factor in the ambiguous passages of scripture, just as it would be in like passages of the Q'ran. There is a black and white meaning behind any valid religious document (if it is indeed God's words, which the Qu'ran is not) but we cannot always see it because our eyes are clouded by personal agendas. Something as simple as "Thou shalt not kill/murder" is interpreted as "kill" by some and "murder" by others (Being that the latter is the Hebrew translation, I find it to be valid). An anti-death penalty person will buy into the former.