If Hillary Clinton has the temerity to try to run for elected office again, I hope the fact that HER State Department put American taxpayers' money behind this anti-American Islamist is hung around her neck. She has a record of her own now and she's not going to be able to escape it.

Where are the calls for separation of church and state? The government has no right to fund this trip.

Ah, MarkD, in Islam there is no seperation of church and state.

They are giving us the middle finger and some appeasers are saying thank you. I hate weak Americans.

"There to provide perspective."

Well frak me. Is it worth considering that maybe they should be considering the perspective of the people, which is loud, definitive, and hey - FREE.

Sowell's metaphor of a middle finger seems inapt, given how unexceptional a 15 story building would be in Lower Manhattan.

There is a mosque 4 blocks away from Ground Zero. Should those people be forced to leave as well? How far, exactly, does the hallowed ground where no mosques should be tolerated extend? Given the arson at a mosque construction site in Tennessee over the weekend, it would appear that hallowed ground extends quite far.

Does the current opposition to the Cordoba House, which implicates a Sufi-led group in attacks that were perpetrated by radical Sunnis, serve our long-term strategic interests? When all Muslims are held responsible for the crimes of a small group, it seems likely we will alienate those Muslims who are not radicalized.

"Monument to jihad"? That type of hyperbole reduces the effectiveness of your point, Amy. As Elle pointed out, the group sponsoring the project is led by Sufis. As a rough analogy, they are something akin to Unitarians for Christians or Reform Jews; hardly a sect one would associate with violent extremism.

As for Sowell's quote, well, there already is a Shinto shrine near Pearl Harbor (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izumo_Taishakyo_Mission_of_Hawaii). It was closed after the December 7, 1941 bombings and reopened in 1968.

And the Carmelite monestary housed in a building inside the periemter of Auschwitz that had previously been used by the Nazis to store poison gas? The pope did intervene, but only after the site had been used for five years and had seen increasingly intense confrontations (see: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01611.html). The site was finally relocated in 1993, nine years after it had originally been opened.

Given Sowell's poor command of the facts, I don't find his argument very persuasive.

Accuracy, Please, you may also want to read up on that Shinto shrine. When will Islam be disestablished?

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1437

It was Shinto, the native religion of Japan, that had not only given its wholehearted support to the war machine but had provided its very rationale: the myths and legends that led directly to the kamakazi pilots. Shinto taught that the emperor was a descendant of the very gods who had created their islands and that Japan thus had a mandate to rule the “world under one roof” (Hakko Ichiu).
In light of the persistence of such beliefs among a people nurtured with Shinto myths, it is understandable that many Americans felt it necessary to crush the Shinto faith once and for all. General Douglas MacArthur was in a quandary. Though he believed firmly in the freedom of religion, he saw the hold that fanatical Shintoism had on the Japanese mind. He pondered the matter for weeks; the solution finally came in the Allied Directive of December 15, 1945. Shinto was to be completely disestablished: it could not be taught in Japan’s public schools, state funding would be eliminated, and the emperor would be persuaded to denounce his divinity (to “de-god” himself, as the GIs called it). On January 1, 1946, Emperor Hirohito shocked Japan with a radio announcement -- broadcast repeatedly, so there could be no misunderstanding -- stating that it was a mistake to think of him as a descendant of the gods or that the Japanese were a superior people.

I pretty much gave up on talking to people about this when I was informed, with great heat, that
A: Noting that a lot of people didn't want a mosque in that location meant I was a bigot,
B: Noting some of the shady items in the imam's past meant I was a spreader of conspiracy theories, and
C: Doing both meant I was accusing all muslims in the US of being terrorists.
Considering this came from someone I expected actual clear thought and argument from, it was more than slightly shocking.

Parts of one of the planes that crashed into the WTC landed on the Burlington Coat Factory building. That is what makes it part of Ground Zero, not any arbitrary distance of X blocks. "A middle finger to America" is a perfectly apt description of the choice to build an ostentatious Islamic center in THAT building, out of all the others in Manhattan.

Yhe Muslims in the pre-existing mosques in the vicinity of Ground Zero have been going about their prayers & other business for years now. No one has tried to lynch them, all the hysteria over Islamophobes notwithstanding. Stop pretending that there's no difference between their tiny local mosques and what Imam Rauf & Co are proposing to fund with $ 100 million + from foreign fanatics in Iran & Saudi Arabia.

The fact that Rauf happens to be a Sufi is irrelevant. Read what's in the links that Amy has generously provided. There is nothing moderate about anyone who promotes & glorifies global sharia.

When all Muslims are held responsible for the crimes of a small group, it seems likely we will alienate those Muslims who are not radicalized.

If all Muslims or even a large majority of the imams (and/or others with a leadership in the Islamic faith) were to come out and say something against the radicals it would be different.

As it is, by nominally endorsing a small group for the crimes against a large group of innocent victims, it seems likely they will alienate those Christians, Jews and others who are not radicalized.

Jim P and Martin:

Muslims are a huge portion of the world's population; many of them distrust the U.S. but are not radical Islamists. The most likely path to success against the radicals is by isolating them so that they lose popular support and money. We don't do that by telling moderates like Rauf that they are unwelcome here (I've read the PJM article and am unconvinced. See this for a rational treatment of some of the man's comments. If you expect an Imam to talk like a Republican or Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has renounced Islam, you're unlikely to be satisfied.).

Muslims died too, on 9/11, and I'm not referring to the terrorists in the planes. I'm talking about American citizens in those towers and on the ground. Many more have died in the aftermath.

There is no ground that should be denied citizens of a living city, blocks away from a disaster where some of their kin died with those of many others. Is it a hallowed place, an urban downtown, where people from all over the world hawk their wares -even the most trite garbage somehow given value by the 9/11 connection -, make their sales calls, do their deals and raise their children and eat and shit and (occasionally) worship? Would you protest the strip clubs, the liquor stores, a gay bar? Or is it only hallowed in that we want to raise whatever thin claim we can to deny rights to people not like us?

There is only ground, land, that people want to develop; which right has already been granted them by the only responsible power: the government of New York City. Too much power has already been granted the Cordoba house (which has no real money to fund it yet, sorry, Martin. Not from Iran or otherwise), which may not even be built. This place has power not in reality, but in our imaginations.

If we are to win this conflict between radical fundamentalist Islam and the modern world – at least, win it without exterminating a huge portion of the word – we need to avoid the impulse to paint all Muslims with the same brush. We need to support the divisions between the vast majority who can work with us and the minority who would subject us. The outrage against the – lawfully organized, by an Islamic sect known for its peaceful means – Cordoba House conflates those groups and supports the arguments of the jihadis, not those who fight against them. The inability of the right to recognize this makes me pine for the lucidity of George W. Bush.

I find it disgusting when the various socalled different islamic factions sing the same song, over and over again.

And yet, Christopher, the city has denied a greek orthodox church it permits to rebuild their church in the ground zero area that happend to be there before 9/11 and was damaged in the attacks - why do you think that is?

That church was destroyed on 9/11. Its land was seized in an eminent domain action and will become part of the new complex being built there. Different thing.

When all Muslims are held responsible for the crimes of a small group, it seems likely we will alienate those Muslims who are not radicalized.

How do you know it's a small group? How "small" is that group? What is "small"? 1,000? 100,000? 10,000,000? What is the number of priests who have committed abuses? Is it "small"? Islam is the state sponsored ideology from Morocco to Indonesia. Marxism was the state sponsored ideology from East Germany to China. Why would you trust one discriminative ideology, but not the other? They are both closed ideologies, just as Shinto was prior to WWII.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world. A small portion of those people engage in or materially support terrorist actions. This is still a number large enough to cause significant harm, of course; it behooves us to take actions that don't serve to increase that number. Calling the Cordoba House a monument to jihadists' "victory" communicates two things to the world Muslim community, both of which reinforce the terrorists' narrative: that all Muslims, regardless of their behavior are part of the jihadist movement; and that what happened on 9/11 was a victory for the terrorists, instead of the beginning of their end.

Right, and the fact that the guy in charge of the project said we deserved means what to you exactly?
Also while only a small percentage of the billions of musims engage in terrorism a large number support them, and the vast mjority support them with silence. The smallest group of muslims - the one who protest such actions get smaller all te time as the silent majority stand to the side as the protesters get murdered.

Grow up and pay attention dumbass, not all ideologies are equal

Here's what he said about U.S. policies and the 9/11 attack:

“I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.”

Not that different from a former CIA vice Chair:

And what do they perceive? U.S. support for almost any ruler willing to protect U.S. interests -- routinely identified in Washington as oil and Israel. They see a Washington unwilling to act evenhandedly in the Arab-Israeli peace process and infinitely tolerant of a hard-line government in Israel that denies Palestinians land, dignity and statehood. They perceive double standards that allow Israel to violate U.N. resolutions, but not Iraq; that Israeli nukes are OK, but not nukes in Muslim hands. They see routine use of U.S. unilateral military power against Muslim targets that is unparalleled elsewhere in the world. They see themselves routinely humbled by use of overwhelming Israeli military power. They see U.S. military forces in the Gulf as being there to protect ruling families and not populations -- the essence of Osama bin Laden's charge.

Recognizing that some of why were attacked is our actions in the Middle East isn't the same as saying we deserved it. It is wrong to think that our policies over there don't affect the behavior of terrorists.

Oh and I'm quite grown up and I'm paying careful attention, thank you. And I'm aware that not all ideologies are equal. That's beside the point - the point is making good strategic decisions. The rage against this project is a poor choice.

SO to be clear the muslim masses view their poverty as a result of the US buying oil form their leaders - but not as a result of their leaders corruption and graft?

And FYI those leader fund the very mosques spewing that propoganda and funding terrorism. Nice catch 22 there isnt it?

Also how exactly are we suposed to be even handed in the Isreal-Arab 'peace' talks when the stated goal of the majority of muslim governments is nothing less the the complete desrtruction of Isreal and the death of every Jew in it?

Tell us, oh wise one, where the fuck is the middle ground between Isreals whish to survive and the muslim wish to kill them all? Let them kill half maybe?

Seriously Chris, wheres the middle ground there?

it behooves us to take actions that don't serve to increase that number.

Damn right. And it especially behooves us to takes actions that serve to decrease the number of jihadists in the US. Such as stopping all Muslim immigration, and booting out the Muslim non-citizens who are already here. We should have done that the day after 9/11.

What kishke suggested above @ September 1, 2010 5:04 PM is worth considering. Anyway, what is the point of those moslems migrating to the western world when in the end all they wanted is a separatist state? And what is the point of gullible americans helpng those moslems to develop anything or support them in their various tribal infighting when americans get no thanks for it?

I'm not writing here with the expectation of solving all of the issues of the conflict between Islam and the West in on blog thread, so my responses are going to stay focused on the topic we started with.

Lujlp:

First, understand that my quote above doesn't mean I think I'm all knowing or special. I've read and thought some. But I do think it's important to understand that people with more knowledge and training than I have of these issues think that the way we are perceived in the Muslim world makes a difference in the issues we've been discussing. I don't understand how anyone could think otherwise.

How would you react if you thought another country were mistreating you, your family, and your friends; lacking no meaningful recourse? No one sane is saying that this justifies terrorism or that these interpretations are wholly accurate. But everyone who understands an iota of the way societies works must grasp that it is a problem when people feel that way and that it will be expressed somewhere in an unconstructive fashion.

And FYI those leader fund the very mosques spewing that propoganda and funding terrorism. Nice catch 22 there isnt it?

I'm just not sure what you mean here, so I'll stab at it. Feel free to correct me. As I mentioned above, the Cordoba House, as far as I know, is more an idea than fully-funded project; it has not raised a great deal of money, and its sources so far are not terrorist aligned organizations. If you have reliable sources contradicting mine, please let me know.

Also how exactly are we suposed to be even handed in the Isreal-Arab 'peace' talks when the stated goal of the majority of muslim governments is nothing less the the complete desrtruction of Isreal and the death of every Jew in it?

The problems between Israel and the Islamic world are a huge issue. However, some prominent Muslim countries such as Egypt and Turkey are either at peace with, or official allies of, Israel. Many farther east have not stated their case and I suspect are more persuadable by their economic interests than anything else (e.g., Bangladesh, Indonesia). You're wrong. And part of succeeding means bringing more persuadable people and their nations to support Israel's right to live in peace.

Finally, to suspend Muslim immigration (impossible without suspending immigration, period, at a time when our economy needs immigrants especially the educated sort we get from places like India which would be suspect under your "no Muslim immigrants" plan) or to otherwise stigmatize all Muslims is anathema to our Constitution, and it doesn't help. Unless you think the only real option we have is just to go about exterminating all Muslims, changing our first amendment to exclude Islam, and fighting a war to the death against a quarter of the globe.

If you think that war, which would make all the wars before it seem trivial, is necessary, then I'm listening. Make your case. But if you think we have options short of that, it behooves us to avail ourselves of them.

Finally, I want to repeat myself. I'm not saying anyone has to love the Cordoba House project or its sponsors. I'm saying that there is no legitimate reason to oppose it. We have no evidence these people have done wrong, other than a few ill-chosen statements by one Imam who has a long and generally positive track record in serving as a bridge between the U.S. and the Islamic world. We don't have to love or embrace everything about this man. But what he's doing serves our long term interests better than opposing this project. Unless we want that new world war.

Don't anyone here understands that more and more nonbelievers will eventually get fedup with with too many of their extremely selfish, nasty and unfair islamic agenda.

By the way, why should there be threats of war just because someone opposed the mosque project? Isn't it getting abit too extreme?

By the way, why should there be threats of war just because someone opposed the mosque project? Isn't it getting abit too extreme?

Yes, and no. The thinking that lumps the generally peaceable, westernized Sufi leaders of the Cordoba house project in with, and blames them for the actions of, radical Sunni jihadists is thinking that equates all Muslims with being terrorists. If we really think all Muslims are terrorists, what other option is there?

to suspend Muslim immigration ... is anathema to our Constitution, and it doesn't help

Where in our Constitution does it say that we are obligated to accept immigrants at all, let alone those of a particular creed? And of course it would help us to allow less of our potential enemies into our country. As for immigration from India, last I checked, there are millions of Hindus there, many of them clamoring to immigrate here, none of them subscribing to a creed whose fulfillment requires them to undermine our society from within.

If we really think all Muslims are terrorists,

To repeat the old but true saying: Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims. And many of the ones who are not support or are in thrall to those who are. It is unwise to ignore that fact.

it seems likely we will alienate those Muslims who are not radicalized

I find that kind of hollow. It's OK to build a mosque, yet it's not OK to draw pics of Mohammed and put it on facebook? Non-muslims must always be sensitive of Islam, but not the other way? I think this alienates many non-muslims. Saddam had several wars, who knows what's happening in Libia, East Pakistan and West Pakistan had a bloody war, yet the vast complaints are about the behavior of "the west". Vietnam and the U.S. have diplomatic relations, and I think the damage there was far, far worse.

Imam Rauf wants the US, and every country on earth, to become an Islamic state under sharia law:

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/01/the-ground-zero-imams-troubling-texts/print/

There is absolutely nothing civilized about sharia. Muslims who propagandize global sharia are not Westernized, not moderate, and not our friends. It's that simple. There may be some very short-term strategic gains to be had in supporting them, but in the long term they are enemies of Western civilization who must be opposed. Not all Western Muslims are the same. At least some of them came here to get the hell away from bearded imams enforcing sharia. Rauf is one of those imams. Parsing his statements about Hamas & who was responsible for 9/11 doesn't change this.

Here's the Imam on sharia. You may read it differently than I, but he sounds very similar to conservative Christians:

We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.

But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.

Where there is a conflict, it is not with Shariah law itself but more often with the way the penal code is sometimes applied. Some aspects of this penal code and its laws pertaining to women flow out of the cultural context. The religious imperative is about justice and fairness. If you strive for justice and fairness in the penal code, then you are in keeping with moral imperative of the Shariah.

Even in socalled moderate predominantly islamic malaysia, I don't see any fairness or equality under their shabby rule. What hope is there for america for equality once they let in those islamic terrorists wannabe in their country.

Some people are so deluded by their islamic nonsense that they are so willing to be misled by some socalled westernised imam.

Are you fucking serious, or did I just have a stroke?

Modesty like loxking dozens of school girls in a burning building because it would be immodest for their faces to be seen(never mind the fact thet the headscarves were consumed in flames?)

Mutual respect like calling for the murder of a school teacher becuase her students named a bear after the child raping warlord their parents taught them to rever?

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness,
like the Life of murdered of cartoonists making valid political cometary? or the deaths of people who did nothing more the translate a work of fiction because the author of the book used a reference that pissed of one muslim cleric?

like the Liberty of dozens of 'apostates' form a religion that calls for their deaths forcing them into hididng?

like the Prusuit of Happiness of women sold into sexual slavery by their famillies for no other reason then to give the slave trading father a higher standing in the community? Or the half dozen young women in the US and Canada over the last nine months killed by their familles for being "too western"?

You know why this ground zero mosque is a big middle finger? Ever hear of the Sivas Massacre?

In an atempt to kill on of the translatoers of the Satanic Verses - a work of fiction(is death to the writers of fiction part of the common welfare?) A mob et fire to an entire fucking hotel. The murdered over 30 people, the cops stopped by and did nothing. The firefighters showed up in time to catch the translator who barly managed to escape the flames. Rather then put out the fire they beat him.

The hotel has been rebuilt - requests to have the hotel turned into a memorial for the 35 dead innocent people have been denied. The governemnt apparently has decided to make the hotel a memorial to, can you guess where this is heading??, Islam.

Thats right the site of a massacre of over 30 people murdered in the attempt to kill one man who did nothing other then translated a book from english to turkish is to be deticated to the religion that murdered them.

Are you getting it yet? Is any of this getting thru to you?

Read the quote. Rauf describes the kind of horrible stuff you mention as making him cringe. It seems to me that he has a different definition of sharia than that which leads to burkas and stonings and honor killings. Islam is not a monolith; the entire thrust of my argument in this thread is that it should not be treated as such.

Whatever they were or they are, I still hate them as they hated me.

Think about all of the countries that have sharia as the foundation of their legal systems (Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, etc.) Do the words "liberty", "justice", and "fairness" pop into your head? Rauf's honeyed propaganda bears absolutely ZERO relation to the reality of sharia in any country anywhere on earth. He's exactly like a tenured Marxist professor babbling on about how appalled he is by North Korea & Pol Pot & Chairman Mao & Stalin because REAL communism is all about power to the people. Only brain-dead douchebags in Che Guevara T-shirts are dumb enough to fall for that bullshit, and I can't believe you're falling for Rauf's transparent lies.

Maybe I am falling for lies. But I have encountered nothing that suggests that Rauf has much in common with the the purveyors of death and hate who I've read elsewhere talking about sharia. To me he sounds like a reformist who wants to change the commonly accepted meaning of the term; but perhaps I am wrong and he's another liar hiding his faith's evil message from us infidels. In that case, I guess we really have no choice but to figure out how to liquidate them all, right? Or are there other Muslims we can trust enough not to need to kill?

Maybe he is lying???

Jesus fucking christ man, do you have a degenerative brain disease or did you just ignore the posts and links to the translations of the guys arabic speaking engagements where he said the OPPOSITE of what he said in english to americans?

Yep. Maybe he is lying. I don't trust the people who are writing about his Arabic speaking engagements, who have a serious anti-Islamic agenda, and they are clearly being selective and using elipsis to potentially change the meaning. For example, what was originally being said here?

New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of Muhammad … so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with Sharia.

The post I linked above reflects my opinion on this rather effectively:

Could Rauf have phrased some of his remarks in less provocative ways? Probably, and it might have been better if he had. At least in that case we would be spending more time discussing the substance of what he was talking about rather than fixating on how he made an offensive comparison or how he used the wrong language. Of course, he was trying to get Westerners to see things from the perspective of many Muslims. It seems to me that the inflammatory language (blood on hands) and the comparison with the number of Al Qaeda’s victims were intended to provoke some recognition that there are identifiable causes for resentment and political violence. Rauf seemed to be saying, “You are unaware that this happened, or you have rationalized it as a good or necessary thing, but I’m telling you that it is widely perceived elsewhere as deeply unjust and wrong.” Perhaps they were also intended to have his audiences imagine how they might react if a foreign government had done these things to their country or co-religionists.

What I have read of this guy's thinking (he did after all write a book called What's right with Islam IS What's Right with America) is that his view is that the principles of Islam are not inconsistent with the American and Western democracy and values. To me, this is a good thing; we need people telling Muslims that.

Now, if you have decided a priori that no Muslim can be trusted, then I suppose you would be inclined to see Rauf as some clever trickster undermining our society. But I don't see anything in evidence to suggest that is true. If you have actual evidence, please enlighten me.

The personal insults are unnecessary, by the way.

Chris it as a earnest question regarding the state of your health, when I insult you you'll know - it means you'll have made a valid argument I cant debate against

But for a guy showing such sharp insights into the americal political structure ofer on the obomacare post you seem to have a total blind spot on this subject.

Seriously how is sharia - a code of laws which treats women as the property(ie SLAVES) of their fathers or husbands, makes their testimoy legally HALF the value of a mans - in any way compatibly with democracy?

And noone ever said no muslims can be trusted - you are projecting that.

You want to know what type of muslims can be trusted?
The ones that dont kill their daughters for wearing jeans or dating an non mulsim.
The ones that dont pretend sharia is the same as democracy.
The ones that live their lives in a manner tha doesnt require that everyone they come in contact wth be informed that they are muslim.
The ones considerate enough of others to schedual their time so they arent in the middle of the fucking street when its time for prayers.
The ones who dont use their religion as a pry bar on the courts and legislative bodies in our government.

Thats the tye of muslims you can trust, thats the type of religious person of any stripe you can trust.

Sharia is not a secualr form of government - it is the foundation for a theocracy, and nothing more.

I'll make you a deal Chris - point out one theocracy EVER at any point in history that didnt crash a burn, and I wont ever deabate the merits of sharia with you again.

I'll make you another deal - go to the vatican, stand in a square and insult jesus and the church in the most fouls ways you can imagine.

Then go to a country with sharia as the basis for law(not Iraq though as there are still US trop) and say the same things about Muhommed and Islam.

If you are treated by muslims te same way you were treated by the catholics I wont ever debate you on the mrits of the religion itself.

What do say?

What I understand of Rauf's thinking is that he doesn't interpret Sharia to mean what you write - the barbaric practices that treat women as property, punish rape victims with stoning, and so on. He certainly does not seem to live that way; his wife is his business partner, and dresses in Western fashion.

Here's a summary I found:

While the word "Shariah" conjures up horrific images of women being stoned and men having their hands chopped off for petty thievery, Rauf contends that the essential requirements of Shariah law have to do with social justice, and the barbaric practices that we read about are a result of the arrested development of those specific cultures. The project had brought together Islamic legal scholars in an effort to work out a modern Islamic version of the western concept of separation of church and state. Based on those standards, they say they will produce a book gauging the "State of the Islamic World" in cooperation with the Gallup polling organization.

Rauf's writings advance the notion that a government can be Shariah compliant without being theocratic or even nominally Muslim.

I'm not saying that I agree with everything that he advocates for; but I do think that Rauf's views do not threaten America, and that we would be better off in the long run if we don't demonize someone like him when there are truly dangerous versions of Islam that do threaten us.

And find a copy of sharia translated into english.

Chris, you dont only have to be concerened with sharp turns in the path of the country, you also have to be concered with the dozens of slight deviations which over time turn you just as surely in the wrong direction

Christopher, have you been around some of the worst horrible place in the world? Just see what is happenning around the world. The reality is that whereever there are islamic or islamic influences or the place was islamic influenced, it became bad and degenerated. Their bad islamic actions and their bad insensitive islamic policies are just one of their many bad examples.
They and other various faiths do tend to become more dangerous, if one is not careful or not aware about their inhumane tricks.

And whatever versions they have up their sleeves, it is irrelevent. It is bad when they want to dominate with their backwardness.