« A Tale of Two Houses | Main | Why We Fight »
October 18, 2007
Coming to a School Near You...Next
This post by Carol Iannone on the Phi Beta Con blog over at NRO is so good it's worth reprinting here in its entirety
A couple of weeks ago, the New York Post reported that the foot washing basins are coming to New York University.The Muslims also have to wash their arms, ears, nostrils, faces, necks, and heads, so they may still need the sinks.
Here is a description of the washing before prayer from an Islamic website. (I've lost the link but there are numerous websites giving these instructions.) This is done five times a day every day:
— Before Wudu you make your intention. Then start with washing the hands as far as the wrists. You perform this 3 times.
— Rinse out the mouth with water using the right hand. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the nostrils by sniffing up water and blowing it out. You perform this 3 times.
— Wash the face 3 times .
— Wash each arm up to the elbow. You perform this 3 times.
— Wipe or rub the head with the inside of the fingers. You perform this once.
— Clean the inside of the ears with the index fingers and the back of the ears with the thumbs. You perform this once.
— Wipe the back of the neck. You perform this once.
— Wash the feet up to the ankles. You perform this 3 times
Read on, it gets worse.
The website also says that there are special rules for situations where water is not readily available, but the example offered is the desert.CAIR has published guides for employers, schools, prisons, hospitals, etc., on the special needs of Muslims that they say must be accommodated in these places. These pamphlets appear to be the source for a lot of what we're hearing of Muslim demands. For example, they insist that no Muslim should be expected to serve or sell alcohol. They do not say that Muslims should avoid taking jobs where alcohol is part of the work. On the washing business, they recommend using the sinks in restrooms for the ritual washing. In hospitals and nursing homes, aides should help Muslims who cannot perform the ritual washing by themselves. Students in public schools should be allowed to perform the ablutions and the prayers. In schools or the workplace, Muslims performing the prayers cannot be approached for any reason but an emergency and no one may walk in front of them. In public schools, they want qualified Islamic experts to be brought into the classrooms to explain Islam, and they call it an error to say that Allah is the Muslim God. He must be seen as the same God as of Judaism and Christianity, even though Islam calls Abraham a Muslim and says he nearly sacrificed Ishmael not Isaac, and the Muslim "Jesus" cannot be called the Son of God, did not die on the cross, and was not resurrected, all of which completely negates the entire Christian faith.
One wonders how this can be going on in public schools when the Supreme Court has ruled that even voluntary prayer is disallowed, when we have people mounting lawsuits to take "under God" out of the pledge and going into paroxysms of protest at the merest hint of God or Christianity in the public sphere. So much fear is focused on Muslims being violent that this kind of thing is being overlooked. People are grateful that they're just washing their feet instead of becoming suicide bombers. But it is proof that Muslims are not assimilating, that they expect America to accommodate them, and not vice versa, and that it is not just jihad but everyday ordinary Muslim practices that will present problems to America.
One recalls how the supporters of mass immigration always insist that new immigrants are assimilating just as immigrants did in the past, and how they call people racists, nativists, and xeonophobes for the mildest demurral. But it is obvious from reading the guides that Muslims are counting on their growing numbers to make more and more demands on society while the rest of us sputter in protest or sheepishly go along. They are not even willing to modify or adapt an intrusive practice that is inconsiderate and discourteous to the majority of people with whom they work and study who must use the resrooms for ordinary purposes. As for the idea of installing special foot basins, it is obviously an unwarranted public accommodation of religion, but because the Muslims' washing their feet in the sinks is so repellant (leading to "wet floors, dirty conditions," and "uncomfortable moments"), and because political correctness and the principle of non-discrimination has gone so far, and because of the practiced nonchalance of today in which everything is supposed to be accepted, no one protests. Not even those who would grow hot with rage at any public display of Christianity.
The CAIR guides also make plentiful use of the concept of "diversity." And Islamic spokesmen have learned to use the language of rights, pluralism, inclusiveness, in their debased multiculturalist meanings, to further their encroachments, such as demanding halal foods in public school lunchrooms. A spokesman on televison seemed to think that this is what America owes Muslims, that this is the promise of inclusiveness, tolerance, pluralism, etc., that there should be this much accommodation of Muslim demands. And of course no one is telling him otherwise. No one is telling him that if they want this level of religious observance, America allows them to create their own religious schools with their own money, not to renovate the public scools to fit their customs. Likewise, when it comes to serving or selling alcohol, no one is telling them that American freedom and prosperity means that Muslims do not have to take jobs that require dealing with alcohol.
But it's not just the Left to blame for this state of affairs. The Right with its claims of America as a "universal nation" is also to blame. Theodore Dalrymple writes about how Scotland and Italy are succumbing to sharia laws. Dalrymple lives in Europe so he doesn't see that it is also happening here, despite all the happy talk about Muslims in America assimilating better than in Europe.
I believe that Muslims would adapt if they met any resistance, but they see all this diffidence and fatuous servility toward them and so their only thought is to proceed with their sense of entitlement and make more demands. (A Muslim student at NYU did feel uncomfortable, which could be the basis for some kind of change in behavior: "Having other students 'just walking in and seeing us have our feet in the sink - it's awkward,' she added.")
The president has unfortunately led the way in this, albeit out of good intentions. He has gone so far into the "universalism" that he has come to believe that America stands for nothing but openness and inclusiveness, has no culture whatsoever, and exists only to accommodate every group that deigns to gift us with their presence in full multicultural fashion. Thus his annual White House iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan.
According to one article:"President and Mrs. Bush host an iftar dinner every year because they want people around the world to know how much they respect Islam and the many Muslims living in the U.S. who are free to worship as they want, and are an integral part of our society," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.Actually it sends the opposite message. Not that they are part of us, but that they are separate and require separate homage to their religion at the White House. Also, the dinner is meant to prove that Bush is not an enemy of Islam, but those who believe that are not going to be put off by the annual dinner. The dinner just encourages them to expect more servility and to look for other ways in which Muslims are not being specifically served or accommodated.
It is not really called for that an American president host White House dinners in honor of Islam in order to show Muslims that he respects them. The American Constitution respects them and he is supposed to uphold the Constitution. Actually, believe it or not, time was when we would expect the groups to show that they respect America, not that our president would have to make a display of showing his respect toward them. And of course the WH makes no mention of the fact that Muslims' being "free to worship as they want" is presenting a burden to others and is producing behavior that is entirely out of keeping with American standards of public comportment.
Furthermore, the president has accepted the Muslim view of God. Cal Thomas expresses dismay that Bush has professed on Al Arabiya television that the Muslim God is the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus that we know from the Bible. Bush does this explicitly in the name of "universality," indicating that becoming universal means eventually losing what is most dear.
Ditto to everything Iannone says.
What insanity.
Posted by Tom at October 18, 2007 8:33 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/1008
Comments
If Bush had invaded Afghanistan and Iraq stating that we were at war with islam, it would have been a catastrophe. As it is, while I agree with you that we _are_ at war with islam, it has taken a while to reach the point where I recognize it as a fact. Eventually, most Americans will realize it as well, and when they do, _then_ we'll be able to direct more militant actions to prevent their 5th column activities. If we're still able to....
On the plus side - if OBL hadn't attacked, it might have been another 20-50 years before we realized that our enemies were among us, and they might have had the strength to overtake us before we were even aware they were there.
Those foot basins might make life easier for short people using the facilities...! Also nice for dogs to drink from...
Posted by: suek at October 19, 2007 11:19 AM
suek
Actually I do not think we are at war with Islam, and apologoize if I was unclear and conveyed that impression. What I do think is that we are at war with Jihadism, which is a bit different.
For my full thoughts on the subject, see my six part review of Walid Phares' book Future Jihad
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at October 20, 2007 9:36 PM
Read part 6 ... will read more later...but...how can you say we're not at war with islam?
Al Qaeda - means the foundation. The koran commands muslims to perform jihad and make the world Dar es Salaam.... While it's true that it's possible for jihad to be interpreted as personal stuggle, the fact is that historically it has meant exactly what it is today - war on everybody who isn't muslim. Convert or die. Fortunately for us, not every person born into islam is ready to risk his life for his religion. We urge Christians to "give" their lives for their spiritual salvation, but relatively few really fulfil that requirement. Most of us choose to just live life, make families and do the best we can to get along. If your position is that most muslims just want the same thing, ok...I can live with that. The problem is that their religious leaders are constantly pushing for them to take actions - either militarily or politically - the war we have at home. At war or not, jihad or not, muslims _believe_ that islam is a given for the world and it's just a matter of time before we all come to the call and obey sharia. You may not consider that something to be resisted by any means, but I do. And _that_ - resistance - is called war, by my standards, although it might be a "cold" war in a sense. There is no doubt in my mind that the war is very intense and deathly in some areas, but the war for political dominance in Europe and America is equally intense, even if not deathly at this time.
And I agree that OBL probably jumped the gun. I'd be willing to bet that 10 years from now, muslims may still revere his actions, but they'll also criticize him for having lost for islam because he wasn't patient enough.
Posted by: suek at October 25, 2007 11:21 AM
Like this...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23020
Posted by: suek at October 25, 2007 12:48 PM
Ok, suek, suppose for purposes of argument that you are right, that we are "at war with Islam"
1) By saying that we are at war with "Islam" you are making what is known in logic as a universal statement. Is this what you are saying, that we are at war with all Muslims everywhere?
2) How do you propose we defeat "Islam"?
3) We're trying to build stable somewhat-democratic countries in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are working with Muslim Afghanis and Iraqis to do so. If we're at war with "Islam", I take it you think these to be fools ventures?
I read the article in Human Events. It might surprise you that I'm in agreement with the author that the school represents a form of the jihadist war against us. When you read the other parts of the series I linked to earlier, you'll see that this is part of the Wahabbist plan to infiltrate the west and break down our defenses.
But that's the key word: "Wahabbist". Sufi Islam does not partake in the Jihad, for example. Not all Muslims do, and no, not all their leaders call for Islam to destroy us etc. I don't see any Turks involved in Jihadist activities either.
I'd prefer you read the whole series but if you won't then here's the short version: Our enemies the Jihadists are made up of three groups, and here they are:
The first two are of the Sunni Salafist school of Islam. One is the Wahabbists, the other the Muslim Brotherhood (or "Muslim Brothers"). The goal of both is to reestablish the Caliphate (which was Sunni).
The Wahabbist tactic is to infiltrate the west, establishing Mosques, starting Middle East Studies centers in our universities, and speaking soft pleasantries to our State Department. They are funded by Saudi oil money.
The Muslim Brotherhood works to infiltrate Arab countries and take over their governments. They've succeeded in Sudan and stand poised to take over Egypt when Mubarak dies. Hamas is a MB organization as well.
The third group are the Khumeinists. They operate out of Iran but theirs is not a national but a religious ideology. Their objective is to establish a regional Imamate. Hezbollah was created by the Khumeinists to pursue the objective of destroying Israel.
It's a bit more complicated than that of course, but I'm not going to buy into any "Islam is evil" or "Islam is our enemy" jive. If "Islam" is our enemy what are we supposed to do, kill all Muslims ? Throw all Muslims out of the west? We can't do those things and you know it. Besides, it isn't true that "Islam" is our enemy. Many or even most Muslims are our enemy (but it's more a sliding scale than yes or no) but not all of Islam.
Islam needs to be reformed much like Martin Luther, John Calvin and others reformed Christianity, yes. This is a big complicated subject and I don't have time to go through it here, suffice it to say that we might be able to create the conditions for such thinking in Iraq but ultimately Muslims must modernize their religion.
suek wrote
"if OBL hadn't attacked, it might have been another 20-50 years before we realized that our enemies were among us, and they might have had the strength to overtake us before we were even aware they were there."
Yes, this is actually very true (read the series!) But it does not make the case that "Islam" is the enemy.
Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at October 26, 2007 7:23 PM



