"Allah is our goal
The Prophet Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is our leader
The Qu’ran is our constitution
Jihad is our way
And death in the way of Allah is our promised end."

“The Message of the Teachings”, By Hasan Al-Banna, Founder, Muslim Brotherhood

It has often been said that life imitates art.

In the mid-1980’s, there was a low-budget alien from outer-space movie, entitled I Come In Peace, the premise of which involved an alien being arriving on Earth, who upon encountering a human being would declare, “I come in peace,” and then brutally murder that person.

On and on throughout the movie, the alien commits murder after horrific murder, each proceeded by a declaration of peaceful intent.

For decades, with increasing frequency and destructive intensity, an alien Islamic world has time and again wrought death and destruction upon the world at large; each time preceded and followed by declarations of peaceful intent.

While the non-Muslim world largely continues to believe those declarations, those, who have preyed upon it, have without remission also openly declared their intention to continue doing so.

For whatever reason, the Western world seems to want to believe the former and not the latter, even though the latter is always accompanied by evidence of blood and carnage, and death in the way of Allah as a promised end.

Over several decades, law enforcement agencies, have developed an evolving science of criminal profiling, allowing them to discern in most cases the personality type of specific categories of criminal predators.

While there are many personality traits, and often widely divergent personality types involved, the one trait that is uniform to all violent predators is a narcissistic personality. With the exception of the truly insane, ALL criminal and anti-social behavior is volitional. People do the anti-social things they do, because they choose too, because they WANT too. They do so because of the psychic and emotional rewards such behaviors offer. The one constant is that of narcissistic self-indulgence and self-focus, and the unwillingness or inability to care about or even recognize the humanity of others.

Other than within Islam, nowhere have such behavior and narcissism become a necessary element of spiritual expression.

While proclaiming a direct prophetic lineage extending from Abraham, inclusive of many biblical prophets including Moses and Jesus, Mohammed preached a religious doctrine, in which all are compelled to believe in God, or suffer death; eliminating the principle that one could believe or not believe, or choose or not choose the salvation of God, with God now requiring the absolute submission and surrender of free will of man.

Within Islam, faith was to become less a mechanism for coming to a belief in God, than for demonstrating that one has submitted to God.

Central to the Islamic faith is the principle of predestination, with Mohammed preaching the belief that all that has ever happened, and all that ever will happen, has been predetermined by Allah from the beginning of eternity, with the idea of agency and free will of man being not only irrelevant, but an affront to the will of Allah.

Conveniently, predestination excused the murderous violence of Muslims, in that such violence was clearly the will of Allah and one obviously does NOT condemn the will of Allah.

Quite conveniently, the will of Allah removed from Muslim men any personal responsibility for their violent, predatory behavior.

The Islamic faith is perfect as are the faithful men who profess it. Therefore, while a man may commit a sinful act, it is the act that is imperfect and not the man.

The paradoxical nature of sin within Islam is that while the Koran addresses the sins of man, it specifically attributes all that is evil in the world to the actions of non-Muslims.

If there is sin within Islam, it is clearly the fault of others.

Alas, nowhere within his “perfection” of spiritual doctrine, was there a greater and more radical redefinition of spiritual concept and principle, than with the societal role and treatment of woman, signaling that perhaps God had suddenly developed profound women “issues.”

Mohammed justified his radical redefinition of spiritual principles upon the basis of the Islamic doctrine of “naskh,” or doctrine of abrogation, under which well established religious principles may be changed at the will of Allah, as such change conveniently suited the purposes of Islam, and by the word Islam, pretty much Muslim men.

There was uncomfortably, and remains within this principle, a decidedly large logic problem, in that it implies that an infallible, all powerful and all knowing deity has either been wrong or has changed his mind regarding principles of spiritual salvation.

Also, relative to the Islamic principle of predestination, the doctrine of abrogation seemingly presumes that Allah was predestined to be wrong or predestined to change his mind, while also convenient introducing an element of moral relativity, justifying any action that benefited Islam, and again, pretty much Muslim men.

This principle also redefined the nature of “good and “evil”; making “good,” any act or situation beneficial to Muslims, and “evil,” any act or situation not beneficial to Muslims. If an act or situation, no matter how destructive or repugnant, benefits Islam, it is by its very nature moral, justifiable, and entirely acceptable under this principle.

Conveniently, as a means of disavowing the horrific or inconvenient within Islam, Muslim apologists often point to the Koran as proof that a particular horrific or inconvenient aspect of their culture is in fact, not really a part of their culture after all, because it is not specifically referenced within the Koran.

Arguing that something not specifically addressed within the Koran is not Islamic is a convenient mechanism for dissembling with the truth as there are a great many aspects of Islam that are unquestionably Islamic, also not specifically mentioned within the Koran.

There are in fact within Islam, not one, but three sources of religious authority, (1) the Koran, the actual words of God as transmitted through Mohammed; (2) the Sunna, the actions of Mohammed, or how he lived his life, and depending upon one’s particular sect, (3) the Hadith, or the things which Mohammed said, approved, or disapproved.

Shari’a law is considered to be the divine word of God, governing and dictating every aspect of human interaction; extending primarily from two sources of authority, the Koran, and the Sunna, with most of Shari’a extending not from the Koran, but from the Sunna.

Its rule is absolute and applies to all Muslims and non-Muslims living within Islamic society, as well as to the behavior of faithful Muslims living outside of Muslim society.

The laws of Shari’a encompass five categories, that which is obligatory, that which is recommended, that which is neutral, that which is disapproved, and that which is forbidden.

No reasoning Muslim would ever disavow Shari’a as not being fundamental to Islam, and it is Shari’a, rather than the Koran itself, upon which the West should focus its attention, as it is Shari’a that directly and unequivocally sanctions the horrific and inconvenient within Islam.

As specifically stated within Shari’a law, it is a heresy and an offense punishable by death to criticize or ever question the tenets of Islam, which has become a not uncommon constraint often applied to those who question or criticize Muslim men.

Since Islam is perfect, any criticism of a faithful Muslim may be by extension presumed to be criticism of Islam, and therefore intolerable, ESPECIALLY if such criticism is uttered by a woman.

As a matter of perspective, there is the belief within Islam that there are three things that invalidate the prayers of a faithful Muslim, the presence of a dog, a donkey, or a woman. If either intrudes upon a man in prayer, God will refuse to accept such prayer, which would seem to suggest that God considers these creatures as loathsome; raising the obvious question, “What kind of God doesn’t like dogs?”

Perhaps he has a greater appreciation for cats.

Regardless of God’s preferences, Mohammed clearly was a prophet who thought at the very least that women, if properly housebroken, made good pets, and while he often voiced his opinion that it was more than acceptable on occasion to beat a dog, a donkey, or a woman, the Koran was surprisingly mute on the subject of if and when a woman made a mess on the carpet, whether it was ever acceptable to rub her nose in it, and so that debate within Islam rages and continues.

The word Islam means to submit, or to be in submission, and nowhere within Islam is such submission more rigidly enforced than upon women who are required always to be in obedient submission.

A Muslim woman, who is therefore disobedient, oppositional; critical or rejecting of a Muslim man, may be by extension, considered to be an apostate and rejecting Islam, which is an act and a heresy for which the punishment is or may be, death by beheading, depending upon the momentary disposition of the males within her family.

It is this principle of Islamic perfection that makes possible the most barbaric and inhumane acts of violence toward women without comment or condemnation arising from within the Muslim community.

Occasionally, when such actions have been perpetrated or have become known within the non-Muslim world, vague apologetic statements of condemnation do occur, usually along the lines of, “Islam condemns the murder of innocent people”.

What non-Muslims need to understand about such statements is that they apply only to faithful Muslims, and are expressed solely for assuaging western sensibilities.

The concept of innocence does not apply to non-believers or apostates, as innocence is a state of being to which only a faithful Muslim may make claim. With such statements, Muslim apologists speak only of themselves.

Within Islam, the concept of murder, or the shedding of innocent blood, applies only to a faithful Muslim, as the blood of a non-believer or an apostate is the blood of one who is NOT an innocent. While it is possible to kill a non-believer or apostate Muslim, it is NOT possible to murder a non-believer or apostate Muslim.

While the murder of a faithful believer may be condemnable within Islam, killing a non-believer or an apostate is entirely irrelevant, and not even a serious topic for discussion.

What is not well understood by non-Muslim’s, is that within the category of an apostate, may readily fall those women who criticize, or are in any way oppositional, or rejecting of a Muslim man, and whose subsequent butchery is considered not only NOT murder, but an act of compassion and righteous redemption.

Nowhere within any other religion has the butchery of a human being ever been considered an act of spiritual redemption or affirmation, and while completely alien to western theology, within Islam, the beheading of a disobedient woman may actually be seen as an act of benevolence and compassion toward her, by removing from her the possibility of committing further mortal offense before God.

In an extremely perverse sense, the honor killing of a woman may actually be seen religiously, as a benevolent blessing upon her by those who engage in the righteous act of slaughtering her. Within such a religious culture, such an act is less condemnable than commendable, hence the absence of outrage and the resounding silence within the Muslim community.

Islam is a male oriented religion serving the spiritual needs of men, with women serving their temporal needs and desires, and it is a given that when one refers to Islam, one is referring only to men.

It has been said that to be born female within Islam is both a curse and a potential death sentence, wherein being female is to suffer a life long form of Stockholm Syndrome in which survival is wholly dependent upon identifying with ones tormentor.

Islam’s regard for women was directly ordained and supported by Mohammed in both word and deed, proclaiming that women were in every way inferior to men, physically, emotionally, morally, spiritually, and intellectually.

As specifically determined and approved by Mohammed, the sexual submission of women was and remains absolute and expressly ordained by Islamic law and spiritual principle.

Mohammed viewed women as not only inferior, but as potential agents of Satan sent to test and tempt the righteous, and among his prophetic revelations was the admonition to the faithful, that Hell was overwhelmingly populated by thankless and disobedient women.

Because of the deficiencies of women, their inheritance was set by Mohammed at half that of a man.

The testimony of a woman was also valued at half that of a man, with the consequence that no woman could ever of her own accord sustain a legal claim against any man.

Obedience and absolute sexual servitude were required of women, with any woman being disobedient or denying her husband or master, sexual congress, being cursed and rightfully subject to corporal punishment (Koran 4:34).

The Koran teaches that a man may go into a woman whenever he chooses, and to enjoy her in whatever manner he chooses, with condemnation, curses, and beatings, being the wages of sin for a woman who denies her husband or master the use of her body, so much so that a woman who wishes to pray rather than engage in intercourse is guilty of a grievous sin.

By Mohammed’s determination, there is within Islamic doctrine the belief that men are pure and women are impure, with the world religiously divided into two halves, one half, Dar-al-Harb, (the world of war) consisting of unbelieving infidels and disobedient women, and a Muslim half, Dar-al-Islam (the land of Islam, or the world of peace) consisting of righteous believers, who pursue as an act of faith, war against the former; demonstrating their spiritual obedience to God by first subjugating the impure within their own home, and within their own society.

Islam’s scriptural authorities require faithful Muslim’s to “humiliate” non-believers, and to bring them to an understanding of their state of degradation. The humiliation and degradation of women has become, despite Islam’s denials, an extension of this spiritual directive, with sexuality being the tool for the expression of Islamic dominance, as well as a weapon with which to punish the disobedient and the unbelieving.

Muslim male supremacy requires all women to submit, including women within non-believing countries, and as noted specifically within the Koran AND Shari’a law, there is no such thing as the rape of an unbelieving female, as such intercourse, forcible or otherwise, was approved by Mohammed as an absolute right of entitlement of Muslim men, as specifically addressed by the Koran in 4:24.

Additionally, in order for a Muslim woman to maintain an accusation of rape against a man, that act must be witnessed by four men, who likewise must be willing to testify against the accused Muslim male (Koran 24:13).

That there is even a perceived need within Islam to delineate under what circumstance rape is approved or disapproved, or that religiously sanctioned rape was even a subject for Mohammed’s spiritual consideration, is to the Western mind both instructive and appalling.

Throughout the non-Muslim world, rape committed by Muslim’s is a religiously sanctioned and overt, deliberate act of subjugation, and while the epidemic of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants worldwide may seem like random acts of criminality, they are in fact specifically sanctioned within both the Koran and the Sunna.

That non-Muslim women are specifically targeted is indicative of this aberrant sexual expression as a form of warfare, as an act of taking that belonging to an infidel, as a rightful entitlement of the faithful, and as an act of expressing moral indignation at the offensive and open rebellion of such women by their failure to be in submission to God, and by the term God, Muslim men.

But it is not only non-believing women who are violated with impunity.

Within Islamic communities, Muslim women and girls who have no male family members too protect them, are routinely raped, sodomized, and violated by Muslim men who know that there is virtually no possibility of societal condemnation and no threat of retaliation. Young women and girls who complain become outcast or worse, possibly suffering death for their accusation, or for having dishonored their families.

Within Denmark, for example, Muslim men comprise less than 4% of that country’s population, but commit an estimated 80% of all sexual assaults.

Within Paris, another European city with a sizable Muslim minority, rapes of Muslim and non-Muslim women, are at epidemic proportions with roving gangs of Muslim men gang raping women and girls with absolute impunity, certain that neither their own, nor the French judicial system can or will hold them legally accountable.

In 2002 however, several Muslim girls within the Parisian Muslim community did the unthinkable and complained to police that they had been gang raped by Muslim men.

Upon their arrest, local police were picketed by the wives, mothers, and sisters of the accused, incensed that their men had been arrested for something that was clearly not their fault. In the eyes of these women the young girls were at fault for their own violation, and saw their own male family members as having been victimized by them.

It is a given within a religiously sanctified, Islamic rape culture, that Muslim men are not only NOT legally accountable for rape, but are NOT responsible for their own sexual behavior or for any behavior or circumstance that reflects poorly upon them.

Perversely, in many Islamic communities, it is not at all uncommon for young female family members, to be freely offered up to the men of other families, to be gang raped by those men, as a means of settling some offense or dispute between the families.

But it is not just women and girls within Islam who are often victims of sexual predation, but also adolescent boys.

Along with its culture of rape is the often and pervasive sexual exploitation of young males, and it is within Islam, often the elephant within the room about which no one wishes to speak.

Though condemned by the Koran as an activity expressly forbidden between adult males, it is an extremely common and prevalent practice engaged between adult males and children.

As engaged in between adult males, it is condemned, and often subject to extreme sanction, including execution. However, as engaged in between adult males and pubescent and even pre-pubescent boys, it is a millennial Islamic institution, supported by scriptural references and promises to faithful Muslim’s that there will not only be for their sexual pleasure within paradise, the Houris, immortal females of unsurpassed beauty and purity; free of all of the “inconveniences” of mortal women, but sensuous young boys, “as precious as pearls”.

There is within this negative sexual dynamic a trickle down effect, from adults, to older, to younger boys.

Older boys, who have been feminized, in turn feminize younger boys, who in turn feminize even younger boys. Fellatio and anal intercourse often become individual and even group activities in which boys as young as six or seven years of age regularly engage with adults and with each other. The cultural effect of such endemic feminization within a hyper-masculine culture that loathes and denigrates femininity as impure, is that generations of boys grow to adulthood, denying, yet acutely aware of their exploitation, shame, sexual confusion, rage, and fragile sense of masculinity.

Islamic society is a society where rage, shame, and victimhood are pervasive, dominating cultural characteristics, with, contrary to the representations of liberal western media, the source of most of its rage, humiliation, and victim mentality, to be found within a culture of shameful and often violent sexual exploitation not only of women and girls but also of adolescent male children, acts that ARE specifically referenced within the Koran, the Sunna, and the Hadith. It should also be noted that within Shari’a, the sexual penetration of an infant is not recommended.

There is also within Islam, a cultural dynamic seen nowhere else within any society, and that is the degree of disconnect between education and brutal inhumanity; where one is as likely to find a university educated Muslim reveling in orgiastic, sexual bloodlust, and brutality toward others, as one who is illiterate.

While elsewhere within the world there is a perceptible correlation between education, civility, humanity, and respect toward others, within Islam such is the exception rather than the rule.

Clearly there is a component within Islam that drives this behavior that is absent within other cultures, a component that is without question, internal rather than external to Islam.

The hyper-masculinity of Muslim men with their obsession with their own perfection and the imperfection of women, has mutated into the widely accepted Islamic custom of honor killing, as a perverse form of denial of imperfection. A female whose behavior, real or imagined, might bring dishonor upon her family, is killed to remove any imperfection that may reflect upon the perfection and perceived masculinity of the men within her family.

Compounding the horror and perversity of such acts is that it is seemingly not merely sufficient to kill the offending female, but to do so in as vicious and brutal a manner as possible, almost as if the degree of masculinity recovered and reaffirmed is somehow in direct proportion to the degree of butchery involved.

Often such acts are in similitude of the dynamic of Muslim gang rape, where several male family members participate in the slaying, each acting in reassurance of their own masculinity, as well as for the approval of the other men within their family and community.

Perversely, such acts of horrific brutality often become a source of family pride as they become publicly known within the community, and where having acted as a butcher of women within ones family is to be accorded reverence by ones peers, and perhaps even an elevation in ones social status.

While such acts are rationalized as acts to restore family honor, family honor is in reality the expression of impotent rage at the possibility that others may see in the transgression of the offending female, the weakness and masculine impotence of the men within that family, unable to control the actions of someone as insignificant, impure, and inferior as a female.

Within Islam, the focus of honor is always upon the male and his perceived masculinity within his community.

To a Muslim male, life is theater in which his masculinity is always on stage, always in the spotlight, and always subject to scathing review, and where the possible treachery of impure females always poses a threat to that communal perception.

There is within Islam, an extremely dysfunctional, psychosexual dynamic that along with its rape culture and sexual exploitation of adolescent males foments a desperate rage that Muslim men have with life and that which carries, nurtures, and gives life. The degree of fear, loathing, and even hatred for all that is female, expresses itself in the rage and brutal violence that Muslims exhibit not only toward women and toward each other, but toward the world at large.

There are among such men, an endless supply of Jihadists and potential martyrs, who may be easily manipulated into believing that their redemption and value as beings lies in the violent sacrifice of their own lives as well as the brutal slaughter of others.

It is within this cultural dynamic that is to be found the source of the gross overkill and sexual torture that has become the common and consistently characteristic signature of Muslim violence toward their non-Muslim and apostate captives.

On September 1, 2004, in the Russian Federation town of Beslan, Muslim terrorists descended upon a school, taking more than 1,100 people hostage, including nearly 800 school children.

Over the next several days Russian security forces attempted to negotiate a peaceful resolution, ultimately failing, with the resultant carnage of the deaths of 334 hostages of which 186 were children. Nearly all the survivors were in some manner wounded, if not emotionally scared for a lifetime.

On November 26, 2008, in Mumbai, India, Muslim terrorists simultaneously undertook coordinated attacks upon as many as eight separate targets, and over the next two days fought pitched battles with police and security forces, eventually resulting in the deaths of at least 173 and injuries to more than 300 additional people.

In each instance, immediately upon seizing a target and establishing a defensible perimeter, some portion or room of the seized building, was established, solely for the purpose of pursuing a large scale assembly line process of rape, sodomy, sexual torture and mutilation, and seemingly as an after act, the ritual beheading of captives.

Immediately upon seizure, and while in the process of ongoing negotiation with Russian security forces, those within selected from among their captives, those who would be sexually violated and abused; they were in their regard as captors, equal opportunity violators, with men, women, boys and girls, each in their turn grossly violated, sexually mutilated, and as an after act, killed.

More than 100 were children.

On and on, hour after hour, while terrorists engaged in the artifice of negotiation, each in their turn took their merciless pleasure with their chosen victim captives, much of which was recorded on video film for the later amusement and sexual pleasure of those involved and for the pleasure and amusement of their associates.

There exists in fact within the Islamic world, a tremendous demand for such videos, and they are often to be found in the possession of apprehended terrorists, often along with an appreciable collection of kiddie porn.

To its shame and discredit western media and academia remain virtually silent on the prevalence of such forms of Islamic spiritual expression.

Mumbai, was in its relation to those taken captive, an identical replay of the sexual horror of Beslan, where sexual-psychopathology WAS central to the spiritual expression of religiously sanctioned violence.

From the objective perspective of a criminal profiler, a crime scene evidencing a protracted torture and profound suffering of the victim, indicates that the death itself was only incidental or secondary to the primary act of inflicting protracted suffering, a character trait consistent with sexual-psychopaths for whom their true satisfaction is found within the ongoing act of torture and not the inevitable conclusion. For such killers, the actual demise of their victim is anticlimactic.

Clearly, while the ultimate objective of the terrorists was to inflict death upon as many of their captives as possible, their main focus was unquestionably indulging and satisfying their own horribly perverse sexual urges.

There have been innumerable books and articles written upon the subjects of sexual dysfunction within Islam, homosexuality, pedophilia, psychopathology, sexual-psychopathology and a near endless list of maladjusted behaviors, characteristic of Islam; a recitation of their observations upon what is unquestionably, exclusively and universally, a form of Islamic violence, and spiritual expression.

Yet, while the west, its media, academia, and politically-correct leadership, endlessly debate whether hyper-violent Muslim’s are representative of Islam’s central character, there is no such debate or confusion within an Islamic world that knows exactly who these people are and what they honestly represent.

That the Islamic world remains largely silent in the face of each, increasing outrage reveals exactly how the Muslim world feels about the behavior of their profoundly destructive brethren, and how acceptable their behavior really is within the Islamic communities including those within the west.

The degree of western success or failure in understanding the problem of Islamic bloodlust violence will certainly depend upon how objectively it defines the problem.

The problem, to the degree it has currently been defined, has been entirely defined by the Islamic world itself.

Apologists within the Muslim world have conveniently defined the problem of horrific, sexual violence as being perpetrated by radical, fringe elements within what they otherwise characterize as the religion of peace.

Their characterization has been widely accepted and embraced within the west and is misdirection away from the real issue.

Rather than Muslin hyper-violence being characterized as characteristic of radical Islam, the problem is more accurately characterized and defined as being a problem of active Islam.

The politically-correct West continues to it’s discredit to characterize Islam as being divided into spheres of RADICAL Vs. MODERATE, when the more accurate characterization is that of a problem of ACTIVE Vs. PASSIVE Islam.

Those who engage in extreme violence as acts of spiritual expression, are in fact ACTIVELY and FAITHFULLY acting out in accordance with, and supported by the Koran, Shari’a, and a millennial history of Islamic culture, and they are supported and even encouraged by those who PASSIVELY embrace and silently accept their brutally inhumane actions.

To argue that the problem is largely the actions of a minority is to dismiss the fact that the majority support and embrace the same religious doctrine, the same Shari’a laws, and the same cultural norms.

Sexual behavior is widely presumed to be personal behavior except among those of the politically-correct liberal left, who consider ALL behavior as political; because all behavior is political, the liberal institutions of the west persist in characterizing the excessive violence of Islam, regardless its overtly sexual content, as proceeding from the political rather than the personal, thereby entirely missing the point and the root cause of such violence.

The failure to correctly assess the true character of Islamic violence will continue, and as long it remains characterized as political expression, such violence will continue as liberally understandable, and tolerable, if not acceptable.

The liberal, western world continues to relate to the Islamic world as if there existed between competing and opposing cultural and religious ideologies of agency and compulsion, a point of common intersection.

The misconception blinding the west in their belief that the Muslim world can be accommodated and that Islam and the West share interests in common, is its misperception that the desire of innumerable individuals within Islam to embrace democracy is an opportunity to institute democratic ideals, if not western culture.

What they fail to understand is that within Islam, those who desire to be free of Islam’s religiously sanctioned violence are Islam’s heretics, its true radical fringe, and its walking dead who have rejected Islam’s narcissistic, malignantly violent, ideology and by that rejection, have become apostate.

There will never come a time within Islam where the blasphemous heretic will dominate or come to power, a reality that Western liberal democracies are just not willing to face. When push comes to shove, Muslims who viciously prey and war upon each other, and those who passively stand by, will ALWAYS choose to ally themselves with one another against the infidel and the apostate.

There is within this faulty belief system, an appalling ignorance and arrogant condescension toward the Muslim world that presumes that Islam’s cultural norms are the moral equivalent to those of the west.

By failing to hold Islam accountable to a minimal standard of human decency, and by engaging Islam and its outrageous violence upon a non-judgmental, morally equivalent plane, our efforts only serve to reinforce Islam’s outrageous sense of entitlement. Our indulgence and silence, and our tolerance for Islam’s destructive behavior will only breed more, rather than less of such behavior, and serve to encourage the moral certainty of active Islam.

The West’s continuing pursuit of a passive strategy as the only safe, politically acceptable solution to Islam’s ultra-violence and of hoping desperately that Islam’s moderates (passive Islam) will somehow influence Islam’s radicals (active Islam) to change their ways is hopelessly misguided.

The idea of placing the fate of the West in the hands of those, who have neither an active nor passive interest in Western culture and values, is an interesting one, and extends from a political culture that has become increasingly seen within Islam as overwhelmingly feminine, and therefore overwhelmingly loathsome.

Like any good enabler and abused woman, we within a liberal western culture, passively hope and wait for the abuser to change his ways, while adopting a dependent posture of submission and weakness, and hoping to GOD, that the next time he is enraged, he does not sexually torture, behead, and deliver us a death in the way of Allah as our promised end.

In the mean time, regardless of what we do to placate, our noses will continue to be rubbed in it.