Thread: An Anatomy of Surrender

Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.


Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, KhoÂ*meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

An Anatomy of Surrender by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2008

GOD DAMN MUSLIMS, they keep throwing chickens at us.

As an aside how could TFM be a post-menopausal widow and how did you fail to recognize such a pluperfect straight line in your own signature? (That has confused me since I first saw it. My apologies for the highjack but I am certain others are wondering too.)

Originally Posted by Invayne

Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho�*meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

An Anatomy of Surrender by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2008

Interesting post Invayne. I like the new picture , but the blue lips were best. I do not understand why the european democracies are so blind to the danger they are in. All it is going to take is for some mulah to organize the Muslims in those countries and start a fire storm that will be difficult to extinguish. Political correctness and tolerant acceptence can only go so far before it back fires on them. Not to neglect ourselves we need to be careful also.

More ominous is the fact that islam fanatics are faith based irrational actors on the world stage.

THat is why eliminating regimes that provide safe haven to these volatile and unpredictable automatons is essential to preventing a WMD attack against a western target that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

That is why a democrat must never be allowed to enter the white house while the threat of transfer of fissile material, nuclear technology, or actual nuclear weaponry and other WMD is possible.

furthermore, we aren't doing it solely for our own benefit, innocent and peaceable Muslims have been the primary victims of fanatic islamists.

also, it is insanity that progressives and libertarians are undermining our efforts to eliminate states that are at risk of producing and transfering WMD to non-state faithbased groups when during the cold war these same libertarians and progressives were ranting about the need to reduce WMD in among rational and pragmatic adversaries (the USA and USSR for example)

Originally Posted by Invayne

Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.


Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho�*meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

An Anatomy of Surrender by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2008

I think a significant minority of islamists are expansionist and hardwired automatons who want to kill non-believers, however the majority of Muslims just want stability, peace, and prosperity.

For example, muslim security forces across the globe are fighting and dying to kill these fanatics. In addition, it is ordinary muslims who have suffered the most from attacks by islamo-fascists.

American muslims who have relative prosperity and freedom have not turned against the USA. if european muslims turn against their hosts, it will be more the result of economic disenfranchisement from unfair and destructive socialist policies than religious beliefs

in summary, the primary causal mechanism will be economic which will make it easier to indoctrinate the poor into violent islamic fringe groups.

Originally Posted by Invayne

Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia.


Islam divides the world into two parts. The part governed by sharia, or Islamic law, is called the Dar al-Islam, or House of Submission. Everything else is the Dar al-Harb, or House of War, so called because it will take war—holy war, jihad—to bring it into the House of Submission. Over the centuries, this jihad has taken a variety of forms. Two centuries ago, for instance, Muslim pirates from North Africa captured ships and enslaved their crews, leading the U.S. to fight the Barbary Wars of 1801–05 and 1815. In recent decades, the jihadists’ weapon of choice has usually been the terrorist’s bomb; the use of planes as missiles on 9/11 was a variant of this method.

What has not been widely recognized is that the Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 fatwa against Satanic Verses author Salman Rushdie introduced a new kind of jihad. Instead of assaulting Western ships or buildings, Kho�*meini took aim at a fundamental Western freedom: freedom of speech. In recent years, other Islamists have joined this crusade, seeking to undermine Western societies’ basic liberties and extend sharia within those societies.

The cultural jihadists have enjoyed disturbing success. Two events in particular—the 2004 assassination in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh in retaliation for his film about Islam’s oppression of women, and the global wave of riots, murders, and vandalism that followed a Danish newspaper’s 2005 publication of cartoons satirizing Mohammed—have had a massive ripple effect throughout the West. Motivated variously, and doubtless sometimes simultaneously, by fear, misguided sympathy, and multicultural ideology—which teaches us to belittle our freedoms and to genuflect to non-Western cultures, however repressive—people at every level of Western society, but especially elites, have allowed concerns about what fundamentalist Muslims will feel, think, or do to influence their actions and expressions. These Westerners have begun, in other words, to internalize the strictures of sharia, and thus implicitly to accept the deferential status of dhimmis—infidels living in Muslim societies.

Call it a cultural surrender. The House of War is slowly—or not so slowly, in Europe’s case—being absorbed into the House of Submission.

An Anatomy of Surrender by Bruce Bawer, City Journal Spring 2008

Was this just to present an interesting idea or is there another point?

Originally Posted by EagleX

More ominous is the fact that islam fanatics are faith based irrational actors on the world stage.

THat is why eliminating regimes that provide safe haven to these volatile and unpredictable automatons is essential to preventing a WMD attack against a western target that results in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents.

That is why a democrat must never be allowed to enter the white house while the threat of transfer of fissile material, nuclear technology, or actual nuclear weaponry and other WMD is possible.

furthermore, we aren't doing it solely for our own benefit, innocent and peaceable Muslims have been the primary victims of fanatic islamists.

also, it is insanity that progressives and libertarians are undermining our efforts to eliminate states that are at risk of producing and transfering WMD to non-state faithbased groups when during the cold war these same libertarians and progressives were ranting about the need to reduce WMD in among rational and pragmatic adversaries (the USA and USSR for example)

That's why a Democrat needs to be in office; the Republicans have shown themselves to be incompetent at determining who poses the most immediate threat, inept at post conflict management of conquered territory, adept at squandering money and uselessly tying up resources to the detriment of our national security. Also Republicans refuse to fund the wars they start and services for veterans.

Originally Posted by william the wierd

As an aside how could TFM be a post-menopausal widow and how did you fail to recognize such a pluperfect straight line in your own signature? (That has confused me since I first saw it. My apologies for the highjack but I am certain others are wondering too.)

That's what he said about me after I called him a pinhead.

Originally Posted by Tick

Interesting post Invayne. I like the new picture , but the blue lips were best. I do not understand why the european democracies are so blind to the danger they are in. All it is going to take is for some mulah to organize the Muslims in those countries and start a fire storm that will be difficult to extinguish. Political correctness and tolerant acceptence can only go so far before it back fires on them. Not to neglect ourselves we need to be careful also.

I don't think they're blind, I think they're scared. They appease them in every way they can so they don't get their little feelings hurt and start killing people. It's not the ordinary citizens, it's the government. Unfortunately, right here in America, there are people that refuse to believe that radical Muslims will do us harm every chance they get.