Principles in Practice: The Blog of the Objective Standard

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Creeping Christianity in the U.S. Military

Posted by ARI Media at 9:50 AM

Irvine, CA—An active-duty soldier has sued the Department of Defense, alleging discrimination by the U.S. Army on the basis of his atheism. Specialist Jeremy Hall claims that, for example, he was ostracized by Christian soldiers when he refused to hold hands around the table and join in a Christian prayer at Thanksgiving. His federal lawsuit asserts he was also kicked off the promotion track for lacking religious faith.

"This lawsuit highlights one aspect of the insidious process by which the religious right's 'faith-based' agenda is corrupting American institutions," said Thomas Bowden, an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute. "In the faith-friendly atmosphere of the Bush administration, religionists are taking big swings at the wall of separation between church and state. The allegations in this suit are consistent with recent controversies over evangelical proselytizing at the Air Force Academy and mealtime prayers at the Naval Academy.

"The military is duty-bound to actively shield its soldiers from ostracism and persecution such as that alleged in Specialist Hall's suit. Servicemen, like all Americans, are legally and morally entitled to exercise freedom of thought, which includes the freedom to accept or reject religion according to their own best judgment.

"In their interactions, soldiers should be required to cooperate based on their common values—a patriotic commitment to America's self-defense and to carrying out the specific tasks that goal requires. Religious dogma only undermines such rational cooperation, as centuries of faith-based warfare and persecution demonstrate.

"The religious right must be put in its place before it irreparably damages the wall between church and state. Americans are entitled to expect that the military, the courts, and the President will unite in protecting the First Amendment rights of all citizens. That means opposing, not promoting, attempts to inject religion into American institutions such as the armed forces."

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

With or Without Nukes, Iran Is a Mortal Threat by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 10:07 PM

Imagine that your neighborhood is overrun by a gang. These brutes are wielding crowbars, knives, and pistols in a frenzied spree of home break-ins and mugging and murder. Now suppose the police reveal that their grand strategy for dealing with this gang is to block them from getting submachine guns—as if without such weapons, the gang would no longer bother people.

Would you sleep soundly at night?

Or would you be outraged? Of course you would, because this gang—even without more powerful weapons—is already a serious menace that must be stopped.

Now, what would you say if this ridiculous what-if scenario resembled our actual response to the very real threat from Iran?

Ever since taking U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.

On the campaign trail, for instance, the candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they'd negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke—on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.

But the uncomfortable truth is that if the mullahs got a nuke, Iran would not suddenly undergo a Jekyll-and-Hyde transformation from a friendly neighbor into a rabid enemy. Iran long ago proved itself a threat that must be stopped; a nuclear arsenal would only make it a far worse threat.

For three decades the ayatollahs of Iran have been using proxies—such as Hezbollah—to carry out murderous attacks. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps helped create and train Hezbollah, which hijacked a TWA airliner and which kidnapped and tortured to death American citizens. Iran pulled the strings behind the 1983 bomb attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon and later the barracks of U.S. Marines, killing 241 Americans. Iran also orchestrated the 1996 car bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, where 19 U.S. servicemen died.

There's more: The 9/11 Commission found that "senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives," and that "8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi 'muscle' operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001." During the Afghanistan war, Iran welcomed fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Today, according to the U.S. military, Iran is running training camps near Teheran for Iraqi insurgents, who return to Iraq to practice and train others in their bomb-making skills. There's also growing evidence that Iraqi insurgents get bomb technology from Iran. 

What's going on here?

A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America. The inspiration for this war is Iran's jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"—because it has already done so.

But too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran's ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon—despite its power—cannot be the whole story, since we don't worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.

This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran's arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.

Our leaders' narrow concern with Iran's nuclear capability cannot make the regime's longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.

Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Israel and the Front Line of Civilization

Posted by John David Lewis at 6:41 PM

I just returned from a speaking engagement at Tel Aviv University (pictures from the trip are on my website). My honorarium was four days of sight-seeing in Tel Aviv, Abu Gosh, Jerusalem, En Gedi and Masada, and a series of meetings with writers, policy analysts, academics and writers. I came back with one overriding conclusion, which stands for me stronger than it did before my trip: Israel stands at the front-line of the war between civilization and barbarism. As Eric Hoffer wrote over forty years ago, “as it goes with Israel, so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the holocaust will be upon us all.” (“Israel’s Peculiar Position,” LA Times 5/26/68)

Israel is America’s best friend in the world today. It is Western in every fundamental respect: Its secular government has prevented both civil war and tyranny since its founding; its citizens’ rights are largely protected; its press is free and open; its court system is independent of executive fiat; and its economy is vibrant. It has its share of lunatics, but they have not taken over the culture. It is “middle-eastern” only in location.

While driving through Israel, one cannot help but remember that the area can become a military front at any moment. A sign in the road points left to Ramallah, home of Yasir Arafat—you can drive there (we did not), but an Israeli soldier will soon stop you to warn that the army cannot protect you if you go further. Straight ahead is the road to Jerusalem, which is just a few miles away. It’s all so close.

In less than half hour’s drive, the seacoast climate of Tel Aviv changes to the desert climate of Jordan. Bedouin camps—temporary structures, some with camels in front—squat between towns with high-tech industry. Jerusalem itself is deeply permeated with religious fanaticism of all kinds, and with neighborhoods defined by ethnic identities. The line that divided Israeli tanks from those of Arabs during the numerous attacks on Israel is a street—you can walk down it.

On the highway—a modern road built by the Israelis—I see towns surrounded by trees. The trees were nearly all planted by the Israelis. This is something little known in the U.S.: The Israelis have planted tens of millions of trees in a desert that had never before been planted, and they remain committed to planting in the Negev Desert, especially near Beer Sheva. Trees did not exist here before 1948. The so-called “Green Line” originally dividing Israel from its neighbors is called such because it literally is a line of green.

At one point we come over a hill, and there are two towns ahead. The one on the left is an Israeli “settlement”—to use the popular phrase in the western press today—and on the right is an Arab town. To the left is a sea of trees among the buildings, and to the right, none. What the press and politicians in America call “illegal settlements” are Israeli towns, with factories, high-tech industries, and homes—built on hills where there was previously nothing but sand—bringing economic life and civilization to the desert.

There can be no basis for calling these towns “illegal” because, prior to Israel’s establishment of civilization in the area, no law and no government existed there (so-called “International Law” notwithstanding). It is also little known in the United States that when the Israelis announce their intent to withdraw from these areas, thousands of non-Israeli inhabitants—Muslims and Arabs—pick up and move to Israeli-controlled areas (Daniel Pipes has recounted some of this). Life under Hamas is hell, life in Israel is good, and most locals know it.

As usual, Israel is blamed for the inability to make peace with a foe that is dedicated to destroying her. American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expresses a dominant view in the U.S. State Department when she rants against Israeli towns as an “impediment to peace.” Yet observe the Palestinian leadership’s response to Rice: "With the arrival of that black scorpion with a cobra's head, Condoleezza, I began to worry that she would use her venomous fangs and hiss to kill this initiative and new spirit that we should protect” said Hamas Minister of Culture 'Atallah Abu Al-Subh,in remarksaired on Al-Aqsa TV on June 15, 2008.

The deepest cause of the conflict between Israel and those purporting to lead the Palestinian people is philosophical: the deep inculcation of jihad into the minds of Palestinian youth, in the form of a violent ideology that has nothing to offer except the destruction of Israel and claims to paradise as a reward for death. Samples of this ideological material have been collected at the Israeli Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center; follow the link to “Captured Material.”

Until the motivations for jihad against Israel are admitted, confronted, and repudiated, the causes of war will remain in place, festering in the minds of each new generation of children. All else—the “settlements,” the check-points that prevent non-Israelis from freely partaking of the Israeli economy, the claims to economic devastation, the “historic connection” to a soil that the Palestinians never planted—is pretense. To see this, all one need ask is why Israel’s return to the 1967 borders would remove a cause of war, given that Israel was attacked when she held those borders. And, of course, for Israel to retreat to those borders now would leave foreign enemies a few miles from Tel Aviv. This would be national suicide for Israel, a new holiday for Hamas, and the end of civilization in the Middle East.

The Israelis have made the desert bloom. Tel Aviv—with its skyscrapers and trees—was entirely undeveloped before the Israelis came and replaced primitive huts with modern buildings. The first Israeli settlers purchased land from inhabitants, and built a city where none existed. Today, their economy is robust and is expected to grow nearly 4% in 2009. And remarkably, despite the constant threat of war and the ceaseless missile attacks, Israeli society is largely unmilitarized. Yes, there is a draft—but outside of a military base I saw no soldiers in Tel Aviv, and rarely saw a military vehicle on the highways.

By driving enemies back and building walls to keep them out, the Israelis have been able to create a peaceful island in a sea of violence. (When was the last time you heard of an “Israeli Day of Rage” and saw Israelis shooting automatic weapons into the air in celebration?) Given the intensity of attacks on Israel, one must wonder whether this ability to live in peace isn’t the real bone of contention with her enemies.

My trip to Israel made even more obvious to me that Israeli interests and American interests are in perfect alignment. The achievement of Israel’s goals—a permanent end to the war, and the establishment of peace under a rational government—are American interests. And the Israelis know it. Never in any country I’ve visited (I’ve been to over a dozen) have I seen so many American flags. Never have I walked into a shopping mall and seen a line of life-size mannequins of American soldiers with the host country’s flag on their shoulders. If only the American people and their politicians knew that Israel is our premier—and perhaps only—cultural and political ally in the world today. If only Americans realized the consequences of abandoning that ally.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Bush's War Policy: The Top Campaign Non-Issue? by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 7:35 PM

It's staggering to think that as we march toward a seventh year at war, Iraq (let alone Afghanistan) is hardly an issue on the campaign trail. Of course, nobody has forgotten about the war. But there's been no substantive debate on it, either.

John McCain, echoing many conservatives, regularly touts the supposed gains of the "surge." Upon his return from visiting Iraq, he declared, "We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground." Barack Obama even grudgingly conceded, at one point, that the "surge" was working. And when liberals do challenge President Bush's war policy, they complain not about its goals, but about the crushing financial cost.

The war's a backburner issue in the campaign because—strange as it may sound—critics and cheerleaders of the President's policy judge it by the same spurious benchmark. They focus myopically on whether insurgents have been kicked out, for the time being, from one street, in some neighborhood of Baghdad. If that's success, then the issue can be pushed out of mind.

But nobody would have bought that as a vision of success, in the devastating aftermath of 9/11. And nobody should buy it now. The only rational benchmark for success is whether Washington's policies have made the lives of Americans safer from the threat of Islamists. Judged by that standard, Bush's war policy is an abject failure.

Bush vowed to "pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism," and warned that either "you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Bush's war policy, however, was not to target the greatest threat, but instead to minister to those in greatest need. It was to show compassion to oppressed Iraqis and Afghans, to raise them out of poverty, to give them elections.

Six-plus years into a "war on terror," Washington has done nothing to counter the spearhead of the global jihadist movement, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States has allowed it to grow stronger. Iran races to acquire nuclear weapons; it taunts and threatens our naval vessels; it arms and trains insurgents in Iraq in attacking Americans; it backs jihadists across the region—all with impunity.

What about Iraq? Four thousand-plus U.S. troops died so that hostile Iraqis could elect a new gang of anti-Americans to sit in Baghdad's parliament. Iraq's government is still dominated by Islamist groups, which still operate death squads, and it is still deep, deep in Iran's pocket.

Across the Middle East, Washington campaigned for elections in the strongholds of various Islamist groups—such as Hamas and Hezbollah—that it should have worked to destroy. Many people, true to their ideological beliefs, voted to give these groups more political power. Naturally, the jihadists feel encouraged. According to a new study, the Iranian-backed Hamas has amassed at least 80 tons of explosives in Gaza since 2007, and it has also got its hands on anti-tank weapons. So expect another Islamist war emanating from the terrorist proto-state of "Hamas-stan," which Bush's policy helped create.

In Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to the U.S. National Intelligence Director, al Qaeda is gaining in strength and prepping new recruits who can blend into American society and attack domestic targets. Jihadists are now fighting to re-conquer Afghanistan, and to "Talibanize" large patches of Pakistan. The Afghan-Pakistan border, reports the National Intelligence Director, "serves as a staging area for al-Qaeda's attacks in support of the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as a location for training new terrorist operatives, for attacks in Pakistan, the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the United States."

This is what Bush's war policy has achieved: an enemy that has no fear of us, that spits in our face, and that is gearing up to kill more of us.

This is what a "compassionate" war policy, aimed not at defeating our enemies but at serving the welfare of Iraqis and Afghans, had to achieve. It is a policy that put their lack of freedom and lack of wealth ahead of our moral right to end the threat of Islamist aggression. Bush's policy held that it was our duty to enable these hostile peoples to vote their political conscience—while evading the fact that so many avidly support jihadist goals.  

Shame on Republicans for promising to stay the same disastrous course and toss thousands more troops onto the sacrificial pyre of Iraq. Shame on Democrats for squandering the opportunity of a campaign year to offer us a real Plan B—an alternative policy that would actually combat state-sponsors of terrorism.

Each of us deserves—and should demand—more of our leaders. We deserve a foreign policy that truly upholds our right to security.

Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, May 26, 2008

What We Owe Our Soldiers by Alex Epstein

Posted by ARI Media at 2:23 PM

Every Veterans Day we pay tribute to our fellow Americans who have served in the military. With speeches and ceremonies, we recognize their courage and valor. But justice demands that we also recognize that we should have far more living veterans than we do. All too many of our soldiers have died unnecessarily—because they were sent to fight for a purpose other than America's freedom.

The proper purpose of a government is to protect its citizens' lives and freedom against the initiation of force by criminals at home and aggressors abroad. The American government has a sacred responsibility to recognize the individual value of every one of its citizens' lives, and thus to do everything possible to protect the rights of each to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This absolutely includes our soldiers.

Soldiers are not sacrificial objects; they are full-fledged Americans with the same moral right as the rest of us to the pursuit of their own goals, their own dreams, their own happiness. Rational soldiers enjoy much of the work of military service, take pride in their ability to do it superlatively, and gain profound satisfaction in protecting the freedom of every American, including their own freedom.

Soldiers know that in entering the military, they are risking their lives in the event of war. But this risk is not, as it is often described, a "sacrifice" for a "higher cause." When there is a true threat to America, it is a threat to all of our lives and loved ones, soldiers included. Many become soldiers for precisely this reason; it was, for instance, the realization of the threat of Islamic terrorism after September 11—when 3,000 innocent Americans were slaughtered in cold blood on a random Tuesday morning—that prompted so many to join the military.

For an American soldier, to fight for freedom is not to fight for a "higher cause," separate from or superior to his own life—it is to fight for his own life and happiness. He is willing to risk his life in time of war because he is unwilling to live as anything other than a free man. He does not want or expect to die, but he would rather die than live in slavery or perpetual fear. His attitude is epitomized by the words of John Stark, New Hampshire's most famous soldier in the Revolutionary War: "Live free or die."

What we owe these men who fight so bravely for their and our freedom is to send them to war only when that freedom is truly threatened, and to make every effort to protect their lives during war—by providing them with the most advantageous weapons, training, strategy, and tactics possible.

Shamefully, America has repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. It has repeatedly placed soldiers in harm's way when no threat to America existed—e.g., to quell tribal conflicts in Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo. America entered World War I, in which 115,000 soldiers died, with no clear self-defense purpose but rather on the vague, self-sacrificial grounds that "The world must be made safe for democracy." America's involvement in Vietnam, in which 56,000 Americans died in a fiasco that American officials openly declared a "no-win" war, was justified primarily in the name of service to the South Vietnamese. And the current war in Iraq—which could have had a valid purpose as a first step in ousting the terrorist-sponsoring, anti-American regimes of the Middle East—is responsible for thousands of unnecessary American deaths in pursuit of the sacrificial goal of "civilizing" Iraq by enabling Iraqis to select any government they wish, no matter how anti-American.

In addition to being sent on ill-conceived, "humanitarian" missions, our soldiers have been compromised with crippling rules of engagement that place the lives of civilians in enemy territory above their own. In Afghanistan we refused to bomb many top leaders out of their hideouts for fear of civilian casualties; these men continue to kill American soldiers. In Iraq, our hamstrung soldiers are not allowed to smash a militarily puny insurgency—and instead must suffer an endless series of deaths by an undefeated enemy.

To send soldiers into war without a clear self-defense purpose, and without providing them every possible protection, is a betrayal of their valor and a violation of their rights.

This Veterans Day, we must call for a stop to the sacrifice of our soldiers and condemn all those who demand it. It is only by doing so that we can truly honor not only our dead, but also our living: American soldiers who have the courage to defend their freedom and ours.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

The Threat of Totalitarian Islam: A panel discussion at Harvard University

Posted by ARI Media at 7:47 AM

What: A panel discussion on the nature and threat of totalitarian Islam, followed by a Q&A

Who: Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute; Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum; and Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch

Where: Harvard University, Emerson Hall, Room 105, Cambridge, MA

When: Tuesday, May 6, 2008, at 7:30 pm

Admission is FREE. However, the organizers of the panel have informed us today that non-students must now RSVP in order to attend this event. If you are interested in attending, please RSVP to events@aynrand.org by 5 pm Eastern time tomorrow May 6.

Description: What is the nature of totalitarian Islam--is it limited to terrorism or is it a broader movement? Are non-Muslims its only victims? Who precisely is the enemy? Does the West bear responsibility for creating this movement?  What policies can defeat it?

Defenders of Islam around the world have striven to silence critics with threats, protests and acts of violence. How should the West respond to demands for censorship, as in the Danish cartoon controversy?

Panelists will address these critical issues in a lively discussion.

Bios:

Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute and is a contributing editor to The Objective Standard. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. He is frequently interviewed in the media and appears weekly on the new Fox Business Network to debate and discuss current economic and business news. His columns and opinion-editorials are published on forbes.com and in many major newspapers. Dr. Brook lectures on Objectivism, business ethics and foreign policy at college campuses, community groups and corporations across America and throughout the world.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for the New York Times Syndicate. Abroad, he appears weekly in Israel's Jerusalem Post, Italy's l'Opinione, Spain's La Razón, and monthly in Australia's and Canada's Globe and Mail. His Web site, DanielPipes.org, is the single most accessed Internet source of specialized information on the Middle East and Islam. Dr. Pipes has appeared on ABC World News, CBS Reports, Crossfire, Good Morning America, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Nightline, O'Reilly Factor, The Today Show, the BBC and Al-Jazeera.

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and the author of seven books on Islam and jihad, including the New York Times bestsellers The Truth About Muhammad and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer is a weekly columnist for Human Events and FrontPage Magazine, and also writes a weekly Qur'an commentary for HotAir.com. He has led seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and General Staff College, the Joint Terrorism Task Force, and the U.S. intelligence community.

For more information: e-mail media@aynrand.org

Please note: The above event is organized, hosted and sponsored by an individual campus club. Although ARI provides financial support, educational materials and speakers for eligible student clubs, campus clubs are organizations independent of ARI. ARI does not necessarily endorse the content of the lectures and sessions offered.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels: , ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Monday, April 14, 2008

Defender of Civilization: Andrew Bostom

Posted by John David Lewis at 12:58 AM

Those interested in cutting to the truth about the Islamic Totalitarian threat that is descending upon—and arising among—all of us should pay special attention to the works of Andrew Bostom. His blog is a must-read, and his articles in The American Thinker are not to be missed.

Bostom’s major works are The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History (Prometheus, 2008). The latter (to be released next week) promises the same profound expertise and virtuous commitment to the truth as found in the former. His works are required reading for anyone who wants to understand the nature of jihad and the hostile attitudes of Muslims toward Jews throughout history.

Dr. Bostom is not a scribbler. He is a scientist, and he approaches his subject with the meticulous loyalty to facts and evidence that define a man of reason. His works do not merely present his conclusions; they detail how his conclusions accurately reflect the relevant facts and available sources. In an article three years ago, for instance, he took on the widespread Muslim claim that “jihad” refers to some kind of “inner struggle” as against external war. In historical terms, “it is a complete crock” he wrote to me in an email—and his article “Sufi Jihad?” shows us why.

Bostom cites a series of Sufi thinkers—the ones who are supposed to favor the spiritual meaning of Islam rather than the violence of the creed—to show that these mystics were in fact dedicated to violence. To take the most important: Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), a towering figure in Islamic thought, a Sufi Muslim who followed the Shafi’I school of Islamic jurisprudence, and an allegedly non-violent man, wrote this of jihad:

[O]ne must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year . . . one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them . . . [if one of them] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked. . . . One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide . . . on offering up the jizya [the tax levied on the dhimmis, the subjugated peoples], the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear . . . their houses may not be higher than the Muslim's. . . . They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths . . . [dhimmis] must hold their tongue. . . . [cited in Kitab al-Wagiz fi fiqh madhab al-imam al-Safi'i, Beirut, 1979, pp. 186, 190–91; 199–200; 202–203. English translation by Dr. Michael Schub.]

Some today claim that “jihad” means some kind of contemplative inner struggle, that non-Muslims under Muslim rule enjoy equal protection under the law, that there are no slaves in Islam, that non-Muslims need not wear an identifying patch to single them out, or that there is respect for civilians in Islamic thought. But to make this claim, one must disagree not merely with a modern commentator. One must repudiate the most authoritative Islamic mystic since the founding of Islam.

Such is the value of Dr. Bostom’s contribution. He has done the heavy lifting required to bring these kinds of sources to us and to show—not merely by the force of his own conclusions, but in the words of such Islamic authorities themselves—the intellectual origins of the war against the West today.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Saturday, April 05, 2008

The Price of Bush's Commitment to Palestinian Statehood by Elan Journo

Posted by ARI Media at 5:10 PM

On his recent visit to the Middle East, Vice President Cheney voiced the Bush administration's belief that a Palestinian state is "long overdue" and vowed to help make that goal a reality. Many conservatives and liberals agree with the administration that America should help fulfill the long-deferred Palestinian aspirations to statehood. The idea is that in doing so we would go a long way toward dousing the flames of Islamist terrorism.

But does U.S. backing for Palestinian statehood advance our security?

Only if you think we're better off fostering a new terrorist state.

That may seem excessively harsh given President Bush's mantra that Palestinians just want "the opportunity to use [their talents and] gifts to better their own lives and build a future for their children." The Bush line we keep hearing is that the terrorists and their supporters are but a fringe element that will be marginalized under the new state, which will coexist "side by side in peace" with Israel and the Western world.

But listen to Palestinian clerics at Friday sermons, calling for violent attacks on Israel. Look at the lurid posters in the homes and shops of ordinary Palestinians, passionately glorifying "martyrs" and terrorist kingpins. Look at their coordinated digging of tunnels to smuggle in weapons and explosives. Look at the popular collusion with Islamist militants and their stream of recruits. Recall the years of ferocious attacks against Israeli towns.

If the mass of Palestinians just want peace and a better life, they would not despise and war against the only state in the region, Israel, that protects individual rights and that offers a standard of living far superior to (even the richest) Arab regimes. They would be far better off, freer and safer, if they put away their rocks, bullets and dynamite belts and sought to live and work in Israel (as some once did).

Instead, they flood the streets to protest negotiations about peaceful co-existence with Israel. Ideologically, their dominant factions are the Islamic totalitarians of Hamas and the nationalist terrorists of Fatah. These differ only in their form of dictatorship—religious or ethnic. Both promise their followers, one way or another, to wipe out Israel.

That hostility to Israel, the only free nation in the Middle East, should make any U.S. president stand firmly against the Palestinian cause. Particularly in a post-9/11 world, Washington should recognize that U.S. security is strengthened by preventing Islamist terrorists from securing another stronghold and training ground.

Given the overwhelming evidence that it would undermine U.S. security, what explains the Bush administration's come-hell-or-high-water promise to do "everything we can" to back a Palestinian state? It is the administration's belief that America has a duty to ease the suffering of the world's wretched, regardless of the cost in lives to us.

That's why, after Palestinians brought Hamas to power in a landslide, Washington responded with "compassion" for their "humanitarian" needs. Of course the United States and its European allies felt compelled to "isolate" the Hamas regime by cutting off direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. But they refused to believe the Palestinians themselves should be held responsible for how they voted, because they're already dirt poor. This meant suspending our judgment and absolving Palestinians of culpability for choosing murderers to lead them. So, despite the embargo on aid to the Hamas-led government, in 2006 U.S. aid to Palestinians increased by 17 percent to $468 million, propping up their terrorist proto-state.

This policy's result is to endorse, facilitate, and vitalize Palestinian aggression. We've seen the unleashing of a popularly supported Hamas-Hezbollah war against Israel in 2006 and ongoing attacks springing from Gaza. Al Qaeda has reportedly already set up shop alongside other jihadists in the Palestinian territories. Just imagine the mushrooming of terrorist training camps and explosives factories under a sovereign Palestinian state. Imagine how emboldened jihadists will feel operating under a regime that Washington has created and blessed.

This is the price of a policy based not on furthering U.S. security, but on undeserved pity. This is the price of willfully ignoring the vile nature of Palestinian goals, treating these hostile people as above reproach and rewarding their irrationality.

Isn't it time we demand a policy that puts our security first?

Elan Journo is a resident fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand—author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Labels:

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Sunday, March 23, 2008

An Islamist 'Declaration Against Terrorism'

Posted by John David Lewis at 4:11 PM

In the "question" period of my recent talk at Georgia Tech, a student's fifteen-minute monologue included the claim that a recent Islamic conference in India had condemned terrorism—and that the western press had ignored this conference.

MEMRI covered the conference, which was attended by some ten thousand clerics, scholars and teachers. The "declaration against terrorism" issued by the conference included the following:

This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference, attended by the representatives of all Muslim schools of thought, organised by Rabta Madaris Islamiah Arabia (The Islamic Madrasas Association) Darul Uloom Deoband, condemns all kinds of violence and terrorism in the strongest possible terms.

The declaration continues:

The Conference expresses its deep concern and agony [over] the alarming global and national conditions [presently prevailing in the world], in which most of the nations are adopting an attitude against their citizens—especially the Muslims—that cannot be justified in any way, in order to appease the tyrant and colonial master of the West.

This last means the United States. The conference was a typical anti-American gathering.  Predictably, the declaration went on to decry the oppression of Muslims inside India:

Now the situation has worsened [to such an extent] that every Indian Muslim—especially those associated with madrasas, who are innocent with good record of character—are always gripped by the fear that they might be trapped by the administrative machinery anytime.

How should this "grip of fear" by Muslims be ended? The declaration demands that the Indian government shift the fear onto anyone criticizing Islam, by forcibly banning freedom of speech for critics of Islam:

This conference strongly demands that the Indian Government curb those maligning the madrasas and Muslims. The administrative machinery should be [required] to conduct impartial investigations into activities [of] disturbing public peace in the country, and to punish only those found guilty. . . . This All India Anti-Terrorism Conference [calls on] all intellectuals, writers and [journalists] to analyze the national and international affairs independently and honestly, and [to] avoid biased and partial attitudes.

"Disturbing the public peace" and displaying a "biased and partial attitude" includes saying and writing anything critical of ("maligning") the teachings of the Islamic schools. "They" (meaning "all intellectuals, writers and journalists") must "render full support to the Islamic madrasas . . .  following the Islamic Shariah and teachings with full confidence."

The declaration is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a call to implement Islamic law over every aspect of human thought and action, and to prosecute anyone critical of Islam.

Is this is the best example that the critic in my audience could come up with for a condemnation of terrorism by Muslims?

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Memoirs of a 'Criminal Mind': Georgia Tech, March 13, 2008

Posted by John David Lewis at 7:39 PM

On March 13, I gave my talk “‘No Substitute for Victory’: The Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism” to an audience of about forty at Georgia Institute of Technology. In the talk, based on my article in The Objective Standard, I rejected all forms of theocracy, but emphasized the danger posed by the Islamic state and argued for the destruction of its most obvious manifestation, the regime in Iran. I was prepared for opposition to the idea of war with Iran, and I acknowledged up front that those who recognize that religious law is wrong might disagree with my conclusion that a war against the Iranian state is necessary. But I was not prepared for the strident defense of Islamic law and jihad—and for the condemnation of me for even raising the issue of Islamic jihad—that was to come.

The onslaught began with the first “question,” actually a monologue that lasted nearly fifteen minutes. The monologist claimed that: (1) there is a long history of separation of church and state in Islam; (2) Islamic law is good; (3) whenever imposed, Islamic law has brought peace; (4) jihad is a “wonderful idea” and does not mean war; (5) Islamic Totalitarianism poses no threat, since 500 million Muslims reject terrorism; (6) the tax leveled against subjugated peoples is just, because they are protected by Muslims in return; (7) I am “ignorant of history” if I do not acknowledge the “truth” of these claims.

I listened to him without interrupting—and even asked a legitimately annoyed member of the audience to allow him to finish—so that he could fully reveal himself. In answer, I re-read a series of quotes in which Islamic leaders—as well as a young girl on Lebanese television—call for jihad, war, and death; and I pointed out to the monologist that he must be quite angry at these Muslims for their incorrect view of jihad. But instead of being angry at those who give his presumably peaceful religion a bad name, he condemned me for reading their quotes. This is evasion par excellence—to condemn those who raise Islam’s violent past and present rather than have to face the fact that the vision of idyllic peace that one associates with one’s religion has no basis in reality.

(I at least got a good laugh out of this exchange when I concretized the meaning of the tax on subjugated peoples. Suppose a Mafia thug came to your door, I said, and he offered to protect you for, say, $100 a month. You would ask the thug, “From whom do I need protection?” to which he would reply: “Us.”)

Following this was more of the same: combinations of Islamic apologizing and ad hominem attacks. I was told, for instance, that I could not possibly understand Iran if I had never been there myself. By this standard, history as such is impossible; no one today can know what it was like a decade, a century, or a millennium prior to his birth. But the apologists have no problem suspending this standard for themselves when it serves their purposes, in this case to glorify Mohammad (“a peaceful man”) and 7th-century Arabia.

But one “questioner” in particular stands out: After reading a sentence from my article Notes on the Near Eastern Roots of Islam, with no context or explanation for the audience to even understand what it meant, he attacked me by saying that I should remember “logic” and the fact that I was at a “scientific” school before making statements such as those that I had made. But rather than explain to me what was illogical or unscientific about my views—let alone ask a question in the question period—he continued his ad hominem attack by stating that my views were so obviously wrong that only a “criminal mind” (a phrase he repeated) could have come up with them. Again, he never stated what was wrong with my quote, never established any reasons for his conclusion, and never asked me to clarify my reasoning—he took his assertion of the “criminality” of my mind as a self-evident fact.

On the face of it, the “scientific logic” he employed was nothing more than arbitrary name-calling—obviously a cherished technique by his “method.” But what motivated his calling me a “criminal mind”—twice?

The topic of my talk was theocracy and Islamic law. Islamic governments, as ideological states founded on claims to divine revelation, must jail—or worse—those who speak out against the clerics. This was the thug’s ideal: In lieu of rationally demonstrating the “truth” of his beliefs, he would criminalize me, or jail me, or perhaps kill me, to stop the spread of ideas contrary to his. In Iran, this ideal has already been achieved; there I would have been arrested, condemned, and thrown into solitary confinement. But in America, the thug’s ideal is frustrated; without the power of the law to silence me he was reduced to name-calling.

What deeper attack on civilization, freedom, the mind, and human life could be possible than to propose the establishment of thought crimes in an American university? His was the voice of a dark-age Nazi brownshirt longing for the day when he can destroy those who vocalize ideas that make it difficult for him to evade the irrational nature of his whims. Who is it that should be empowered to peruse articles and determine which ones constitute crimes? The thug made that very clear. Unfortunately, with but one exception, the Muslims in the audience did not say anything against him.

For a taste of what develops when people like the ones I faced have their way, read this article about a university lecturer in Iran who was sentenced to death in Iran for the “crime” of polling Iranians about their attitudes towards America. This is the real meaning of Islamic law: the destruction of the mind, and death to those who use their minds.

The content of my article is irrelevant in the face of such attacks on the mind. But, for the record, the passage that the thug read was this: “There is a need for an external enemy, as a point of focus for the rage which would otherwise turn into civil war.” And here are the next two sentences: “The Arabic tribes were in constant warfare, until Islam pointed their energies outwards, into conquest. To this day, the civil wars return to such areas whenever there is no external enemy, or no dictator to keep order by force.” I wrote this because it is true. Dictatorship or anarchy is largely the rule in the Middle East today—as it was under Mohammed in Arabia, which he conquered internally and then turned outward to foreign conquest.

On display the night of my talk were the theory and practice of Islamic totalitarianism—the soul and the fist—in the evasions about Islamic history and its practices today, and in the open wish to criminalize those stating these truths.

There were, however, two bright spots to the evening. The first was a man who described himself as a thirty-year emigré from Turkey. He noted with pride that his homeland had a thoroughly secular government and he praised Kemal Ataturk for bringing Turkey into the modern age, for instance, by banning the headscarf. But today Turkey’s secular government is being undercut—by Americans who describe its government as “moderate Islamic” and thereby blur the line between theocracy and secularism. This opens the door to the establishment of Islamic law. The man’s message was this: There can be no compromise between theocracy and secular government; it is either–or. To accept “moderate Islam” into government is, in principle, to establish theocracy. I wonder if he realized that, by the standards of the brownshirt in my audience, he was a criminal for holding such a view.

The second bright spot of the evening was a young woman who asked me excitedly about Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness. As the young woman struggled to understand Rand’s challenging ideas, our conversation continued into the hall and outside. She apologized for the actions of the audience; I told her not to be concerned with them, only herself. I am certainly glad that, for now at least, she lives in a society where she can remain focused on her own intellectual development—and safely ignore those who would stifle or slaughter her “criminal mind” before the wings of her intellect have a chance to grow.

Labels: ,

PermaLink | Email this link to a friend | Write TOS about this post

Friday, February 01, 2008

Hippies + Guns = Banned Marines

Posted by Craig Biddle at 12:07 PM

Nick Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism reports that members of the City Council of Berkeley have decided to use their guns to keep U.S. Marine Corps recruiters out of the commune. Would that the U.S. military could cease defending Berkeley. It would make for a great reality TV show: “Hippies vs. Jihadis.” I’d watch.

While we probably can’t do that, we can make the commune more authentic, and thus let its members feel some just pain. Sign the petition at CMDC, and help isolate the commies from the vices of capitalism. Here’s the post from Mr. Provenzo:

Sign the Anti-Berkeley City Council Petition and Defend the Marines!

::Posted by Nicholas Provenzo at 9:48 AM

I've created an online petition in defense of the Marines against the resolutions of the City Council of Berkeley which declare that United States Marine Corps recruiters are "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" within Berkeley city limits and applaud those who choose to "impede" the Marines in their recruiting mission.

If you support holding the City Council accountable for its resolutions, you pledge not to conduct any business within the Berkeley city limits or patronize any company which has its headquarters within Berkeley. Furthermore, you signal your desire that the U.S. Congress and the California State Legislature suspend all federal and state payments that support any activity conducted by the Berkeley City Council until such time as the Council chooses to rescind its anti-Marine resolutions.

To sign the petition, click here.

Lastly, these things work best when they go viral. If you support the petition enough to add your name, don't hesitate to share it with your friends.

Labels: ,

PermaLink |