I suspect the real number of Americans refusing to vote for any Muslim candidate is much, much higher than 31 percent. This is one of those questions where people lie to polls, I’ll bet. When you tally the pro Muslim propaganda pouring out of our media and government, I’m surprised even 31 percent had the courage to say “no”. Remember, in the aftermath of 9-11, our president carried around a Koran and did everything he could to promote Mohammad, short of building (so far) a mosque onto the West Wing of the White House. The major networks have been in overdrive, detailing our (American) racism, while presenting one anecdotal story after another of wise, tolerant, educated followers of Islam. Even *before* 9-11 , my local newspaper (The Dallas Morning News and its television station, Channel 8) was “in partnership” (DMN’s own words) with the Holy Land Foundation in “celebrating” and “educating” (again, DMN’s own words) the public about Ramadan. Yes, this is the same Holy Land Foundation that Steve Emerson identified as a Hamas terrorist front over 10 years ago. The same Hamas terrorist front, which, after 9-11, had its offices raided by the FBI, its operation shut down after it was finally put on the terror list, and has one of its founders still running around the West Bank planning bombings.

Do you really think Americans will tell a poll taker what they think in such an atmosphere?

“Do you really think Americans will tell a poll taker what they think in such an atmosphere?”

Well, at least 31 percent did, as well as the other smaller numbers who said they wouldn’t vote for a Jew and so on. So the terror Paul describes does not evidently paralyze people answering polling questions.

“our president carried around a Koran and did everything he could to promote Mohammad, short of building (so far) a mosque onto the West Wing of the White House.”

Just last night I was thinking, why doesn’t some conservative producer create a conservative version of “The West Wing,” about an ideal conservative president instead of a left-liberal president? But then, aided by Paul’s comment, reality intruded. Considering what “conservatism” has actually become in the hands of Bush, the name of this tv show would be “The West Mosque.”

In a somewhat unrelated development, I was heartened to read in the Spanish newspaper El Mundo (which naturally indicated strong disapproval) that the the contingent of Spanish troops in Iraq adopted an insignia featuring the cross of Santiago, together with twin columns representing the pillars of Hercules (the Strait of Gibraltar). Santiago is the patron saint of Spain and is known as “Matamoros” — the Moor killer. This struck me as such a profound statement in their belief in Spain and in Western civilization, and of course hostility to Islam, that I could scarcely believe it. Would that the U.S. could be so forthright in faith in our cause and country. Of course, Spain’s military finds itself in an analogous situation to our own, that is, far more patriotic than the country at large. I hope that this could be a harbinger of things to come for the West.
(Sorry, could not find a link. I read it this past week.)

That’s great about the Spanish soldiers bearing an insignia with the cross. The last time I know of that the cross was invoked at a high level in American national life was in Calvin Coolidge’s 1925 inaugural address: “America seeks no earthly empire built on blood and force. No ambition, no temptation, lures her to thought of foreign dominions. The legions which she sends forth are armed, not with the sword, but with the cross.”

Well, if we have to endure “The West Mosque” starring W. Bush al’Saud, it should be on a double bill with “Harem Scare’em” strarring Billy-Bob Clinton. :)

I wrote to Dr. Pipes last year asking him to clarify the distinction he makes between moderate and fundamentalist Mohammedans in respect to a particular teaching.

Most of us here probably are familiar with the Hadith that teaches that at the end times Allah will bring the Jews back to the Holy Land so that the Muslims can slay them. The rocks and trees behind which Jews take shelter will start to talk and betray their hiding place urging nearby Muslims to come and kill them.

This Hadith was cited by Khomeini as being in effect in this generation, and is also quoted in the Hamas Charter among others. But I have been amazed to find how many ostensibly ‘moderate’ Muslims believe it. (It was first called to my attention by a friend of mine years ago when we worked in a shoe department. He really believed it.)

I had recalled how as we conquered Japan, we compelled Emperor Hirohito to make a recording in which he renounced any divine basis to his authority. We also in effect outlawed certain aspects of Shintoism. This prompted the thoughts in my letter to Dr. Pipes.

Shouldn’t Mohammedans be asked to renounce this Hadith as a sort of acid test? It seemed to me that doing so would give the lie to the so-called ‘moderate,’ and would at least highlight some real problems in assuming that they can assimilate to Western culture.

Dr. Pipes’s reply seemed off-base. He reiterated his belief that Islam can evolve and asserted that nothing in its scriptures need be taken literally any more than in Christianity or Judaism.

So I asked myself — if this Hadith is then only understand in a figurative way… OK, how does one ‘figuratively’ exterminate the Jews? How is that a ‘figure?’ What spiritual lesson is to be derived here?

Even if it could somehow be understood figuratively, (which it is clearly is not by many Mohammedan militant groups,) it should still be renounced. For that matter, I think Mohammedans should be called upon to take a clear stand over their prophet’s marriage to a 6-year-old girl, consummated when she was 9. When this happens in our societies we call it pedophilia. Any Mohammedan who would live among us should call it what it is.

Having read dozens of Dr. Pipes’s articles, I recognize the valuable service he has rendered. And I’m always conscious of what it means to call into question the work of an expert in an area where I am not. But I really wonder whether the distinction he makes isn’t partially based on some real wishful thinking.

On Pipes, I don’t know whether he really believes in this “good Islam” idea, or whether he feels it’s the way he has to express himself in order to play a role in the mainstream. I suspect it’s a combination of both. I think his position is, if America continues to put pressure on “moderate” Muslims to disavow the “extremists,” that will have the desired effect of weakening the overall Muslim influence. In other words, since Muslim “moderates” are largely a myth, going after the “extremists” has the same effect as going after the Muslim community as a whole, since the “extremists” in essence ARE the community as a whole.