T Nation

Mosques Behaving Badly

Several take-aways from this article. 1. Islam is not a religion in the modern Western sense, (i.e. a spiritual matter between you and God), it is an all encompassing religio-politico-socio-military system. Mosques have a religious purpose, but they also have a military purpose. So the idea that a mosque is a “civilian target” in the Western sense of the term is flawed, because mosques are also centers of military activity. They are ammo depots, command-and-control centers, and torture/interrogation centers. 2. The reason we cannot allow “the free flow of people” across borders indiscriminately is because people carry with them ideas and behaviors that may be at odds with the founding principles of a particular nation or ethnic group, and Islam is at odds with everyone.

I’m hard pressed to name a single race/ethnicity or nation that Islam does not have an active jihad campaign against. The sun never sets on the jihad, in other words. Moreover, 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings, and the current rape wave in Sweden and the rest of Europe were and are failures of border security. The events couldn’t have happened if the perpetrators weren’t allowed into the country. That we still let Arabs come to the US on “student” visas boggles the mind. To the article:

“‘There are the bloodstains on the wall, and here it is dried on the floor,’ says Abu Muhanad as he walks through a torture chamber in a Baghdad mosque where more than two dozen bodies have been found.” – from this news article (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/08/19/iraq.mosque/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

A Master-List of Mosques Behaving Badly should be compiled. That list should include, from U.S. military records, all the shoot-outs in Iraq (and Afghanistan) with people who fired on American soldiers from mosques, or who ran to mosques in order to avoid capture and then used them as places from which to attack Americans (until the Americans stopped, as they eventually did, from holding back).

Such a list should also include the mosques in Western Europe that have been found to contain false papers (sometimes in false ceilings, as in the mosque in Milan on Viale Jenner), including forged passports and national identity documents. And don’t forget the mosques that have been discovered to contain AK-47s, explosives, and videocassettes of beheadings of Infidels, and audiocassettes to whip up the Believers to even greater deeds of derring-do against the Infidels. Yes, all that stuff has been found in mosques, that weaponry, those forgeries and counterfeits, those hysterical whippings-up of hatred for Infidels – see what Saudi-supplied “literature” has been found in American mosques. By now the security services of the Western world are so used to all of that that they practically yawn at what they find, and often the rest of us find things out piecemeal, from a story here and a story there. But no one connects the dots.

Meanwhile in churches, last I looked, I could find hymnals, the Book of Common Prayer, candles lit in memory of the recently departed, information on volunteering for the food bank and soup kitchen, and disaster relief at home and all over the world, including such relief, notably, in Muslim countries.

Compare. Contrast.


And think what the ever-increasing presence of those mosques – so many of them now built, and maintained, by money from abroad – mean to the indigenous Infidels (and to non-Muslim immigrants, some of them refugees from Muslim supremacism and persecution), to the fabric and the quality of their lives.

For it is clear that the governments of the Western world must now, in order to protect their citizens, monitor those mosques. That means those governments will have to hire agents who 1) know Arabic and other relevant languages, Urdu, Turkish, Farsi, and who are 2) either non-Muslim, but can pass as Muslims (Copts, who are forced to receive some training in Islam, might be helpful; so too would Maronites, Arabic-speaking Jews, Chaldeans, Pakistani Christians, and Berbers who have turned) or, in a very few cases, those who may still call themselves Muslims, but becaues their beliefs have been so etiolated, are more accurately described as “Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only” Muslims. One would be foolish to rely on Muslim agents of the true-blue believing kind, to monitor the khutbas and other goings-on in mosques.

Monitoring the mosques all over the non-Muslim world, of course, is a tall order. And a very expensive one, added to all the other huge expenses incurred in the campaign to make Infidel lands safe from the very people who are, paradoxically, still allowed in, in even greater numbers, as “Muslim refugees” from Muslim lands (this makes no sense) when it should have been clear to eveyone by now what has come of this, and to some it was clear long ago what would come of this immigration of Muslims to the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels. Or rather, it would long ago have been clear, that is, to all who had bothered to study the texts, and the doctrines, of Islam, and the history of Islamic rule over non-Muslims.

These costs that spiral ever upward also include the added expenses incurred by the local police to monitor individuals, but also the costs for the lawyers and judges who must give their time to approving, or explaining, taps and search warrants and suchlike. They include the extra costs of guarding power plants and LNG terminals, and ports, and airports, and bus terminals. They include the costs of marshals on planes, of extra security around government office buildings, and national monuments (e…g., the Statue of Liberty). They include the costs of guarding Christian and Jewish day care centers and schools, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, even some cemeteries, because of increased threats. areas on and on.

Economists need to figure out just what the cost of this internal security against Muslim terrorist threats actually is. It would be instructive for taxpayers to know this: the real cost, in terms of all this monitoring and societal anxiety, and the constant need to worry about the latest demands – for a prayer room in schools, or a lawsuit demanding that a Muslim woman be shown with her face completely covered for her driver’s license, or all the other demands, big and small, ludicrous and plausible, that are made by Muslims who do not believe in pluralism. (That is, they do not believe in it except insofar as in the West they must use it to their own advantage, and only until they attain sufficient numbers.)

It would be instructive for taxpayers to know the full cost of protecting ourselves against (and accommodating with the other hand) those who do not believe that power should flow from the expressed will of the people, but from the codified will of Allah in the shari’a. It would be enlightening to know how much they cost, those who do not believe in the equality of the sexes, nor in individualism, nor in free and skeptical inquiry. Indeed, it is hard to see how, and in what way, Muslims who are true believers can possibly share many of the beliefs that are essential to, and defining of, our civilization. Why then do we so blithely allow ourselves to welcome into our midst, without the slightest qualms, those who do not wish us, our ideals, our society, our legal and political institutions whose principles are flatly contradicted by the Sharia’, ,our solicitude for individual rights, our very beings, well?

When those who have a duty to ensure that all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam, appear in Infidel lands, how can this be anything but permanent trouble for those determined to retain their legal and political instiutions and social understandings – that is, the very things that constitute those “obstacles” to the spread, and dominance, of Islam?

We have enough to worry about, at this moment in the heedless history of our giddy globe, and enough serious threats to our well-being. Why should we do things that necessarily will cause us to expend even more of our time and energy and money and attention on a threat that can be diminished, if – at the very least – we merely, and sensibly, and justifiably, do not permit the Muslim presence in the Lands of the Infidels to increase, do not permit its institutions dedicated to the spread of Islam in Infidel lands to be funded by malevolent states such as Saudi Arabia? On what theory are we required to endure any of this? When in human history have people done this to themselves? What sort of nonsense is this?