So I have a few issues here that I want to discuss, a dilemma or two if you will. To begin I want to offer my support for the Pope. Benedict XVI has, knowingly I believe, upped the ante a bit. I believe that he knew what the response in the Muslim world would be to his speech - he expected it and maybe hoped that some who have been blind to what Muslim fanatics think and feel would begin to maybe understand a little more what the threat to the West is, and believe me, it is a threat. Let's not forget that itwas only through Charles Martel's defeat of Muslim armies in the Battle of Tours in October 732 that prevented the Islamic spread through Europe, after Islamic armies had conquered the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Eastern Europe. The Crusades were the result of the spread of Islam, as Christianity responded to the murder of Christians and the sacking of holy sites throughout the Middle East. This is historical fact, unfortunately not taught as such very often in the name of political correctness and appeasement, the sort of which landed us in the second World War.

Anyway, I, as well as many others, have the feeling that Benedict knew and understood what the response would be. He mentions Islamic violence and that Islam brought evil, and what happens? Muslims respond violently by calling for the death of the Pope - his crucifixion even. Not even the followers of Christ are safe as the murder of Sister Leonella, an Italian nun in Somalia, illustrates. This has the potential to be the Danish cartoon fiasco magnified many times. However, the fact that the Pope has angered Muslims and shown them to act violently, when accused of being violent, will hopefully be a wakeup call for the West. But, here is where the dilemma lies.

I have never trusted Muslims, or Islam, and here's why. Mohammed (NO pbuh here) is anathema to my beliefs as a Catholic. To believe that he was, indeed, a prophet, I have to suspend my Christian beliefs. This is one reason I am suspect of most of the "religious" people I know but that's another blog entry. So, as a Catholic I simply cannot believe that Mohammed was a prophet. Then there is the historical record, another major point of contention. Historically, Mohammed was a war lord, a fighter, a leader of armies. And how did he manage to control these armies? Through the use of a political ideology with religious symbolism and ideas stolen from Judaism and Christianity, based upon the Arab god of the moon, Allah. It's pretty simple from the historical perspective. Through the use of being G-d's "messenger," he was able to control a number of disparate tribes and groups and launch war on all of those who failed to head his call to his "religion," gaining great wealth in the process - something Christ certainly never sought.

While Christ had preached love, peace and forgiveness to those who followed him, Mohammend preached death and destruction for those who would not convert, of course with the exception of dhimmitude and the payment of jizya for Christians and Jews already living in areas which came under Muslim control. Side note here: when many (most?) modern Imams state that they abhor the death of innocents, keep in mind that a non-Muslim, an infidel by definition, cannot be an innocent - nice bit of semantics, huh? Anyway, these were my thoughts as I welcomed the new person to our team at work - an Iraqi Sunni, wearing hijab, whom I already knew from a rather intersting interaction I had with her just after the current war in Iraq began.

Just after the war began I was working in my current department as a graduate assistant while pursuing my Master's degree in History. This person, also a student at the time, was interviewed by the student newspaper about her thoughts on the Iraq war. I disagreed (okay, so I was pissed off!) and wrote a letter which, to my surprise, was published. So, as Ron White says "we knew each other." I was a bit apprehensive when I found out that she had been hired, but was determined to help her be successful in any way I could in her new position. I have been quite surprised by our discussions.

Though we still disagree on whether going to war to oust Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, she is very glad the the monster Hussein is no longer in power. Now keep in mind, she is a Sunni and we have always heard, thanks to the media and some in the government, about how the Sunni's (Saddam) controlled Iraq and were the "bad guys," one reason we supported the Shi'a just after the first Gulf War who, by the way, are supported by Iran and are intent on destroying any shred of democracy in the region. Okay, okay, back on task! Anyway, we have talked about things a lot and her belief, as a person who grew up in Iraq and still has numerous family members there, is that the Sunni/Shi'a split was not as important as Baath party membership. We had a particularly enlightening discussion about this and what she had to say made sense. Looking at the situation now, it seems like some sort of partnering with Sunnis would be advantageous to the United States. Let's not also forget the 12th Imam of Shi'a and the current nutjob in power in Iran and what bringing about that war for Islam would do to the West (yep, another blog coming up on that one!)

So, back to this person. She has become a very valuable asset to our organization. At least once a week she comes to my office, closes the door, and just rants - yep, rants. I wish I could help her, and have tried to resolve some issues that have come up, but one thing I have learned is that she just wants to do her job and raise her family like any other American, which she now is. Her mother-in-law is American and lived in Iraq for over thirty years. Though she is Muslima, she appreciates the opportunities and advantages that this great country has to offer and would not want her children to be educated anywhere else. I have an incredible amount of respect for her as a person and co-worker and, though it's hard, try not to see the hijab. A lot of people think that the idea of a moderate Muslim is a myth, thanks to CAIR and the MSA and their lies and propaganda, but I truly believe that the political ideology which Islam is founded upon is a miniscule part of this person's life, and I feel honored to work with her - when she leaves, she will be missed. Now on to Jihad - yee haw!

Aukai Collins is a piece of human debris as a father. Reading his My Jihad, he mentions having two daughters, but only gets excited when speaking about his son. Most of the book is full of the worst kind of braggadocio, and he is a tough man to pin down. I am not going to review the book here, maybe another time, but for all of his faults, two things stand out. One is the fact that Islamic terrorism directed toward civilians made him turn himself in to work for the FBI and CIA. He had no problem whatsoever killing soldiers who were fighting against Muslims, but felt that the murder of civilians did not follow the true meaning of Jihad in the Quran. Don't know what I think about this so it's just thrown out there - make of it what you will. However, his discussions about Chechnya are quite remarkable.

If you have followed the war in Chechnya, you no doubt have heard about Russian atrocities committed against the Muslim population of Chechnya - the destruction of Grozny was the worst kind of war crime, as thousands of civilians were deliberatley targeted. Collins was in the middle of it and only left when he felt he could do more to raise money for medical supplies, according to him. He fought against the Russians in both of the Chechen wars, killing Russian soldiers with glee, and sees no problem with this, but I have a few questions. There is a video out there on the internet showing the beheading of a Russian soldier; a knife is plunged into his neck and drawn forward as he cries out in pain, yet Collins comments on how some of the Russian soldiers were just poor conscripts caught up in war not of their own. These videos were important in luring Mujaideen to Chechnya to fight but also illustrate why many of us in the West could not get behind and support the fight for Chechnya, at least not on the side of the Chechens. How do we know this was not one of the "poor conscripts" caught up in something beyond his control? The cruelty of the murder is simply astonishing The biggest problem I have, though, is, again, with Beslan. Collins describes Shamil Basayev, the mastermind behind Beslan, as being essentially a great guy - a true Muslim and great, respected, warlord. Then why did Basayev decide to kidnap and kill kids?

There is, to be truthful, some evidence that the kids were not supposed to be killed, that the premature explosion of one of the bombs set up in the gymnasium is what set off the final battle in Beslan. Otherwise, why did the terrorists wait three days and call for numerous North Ossetian officials to come to Beslan? They DID terrorize the kids, kill adults, and pursue their objectives in, well, an objectionable manner as Islamic terrorists tend to do, but what would Collins make of this? We don't know. Just after 9/11, which he does not seem to think really involved Muslims, Collins became a bounty hunter, traveling to Mexico repeatedly to bring back to justice American citizens who had escaped and made their way south. Collins is now in jail in Durango, Mexico after being arrested on weapons charges (you can contact him there, by the way, and send him clothing and supplies if you so desire. I sure ain't gonna post his address here though!). He was given a four year sentence, and some believe he should not be there. Regardless, there he sits waiting for release so he can get back to Arizona.

So, again, we're back to my dilemma. Collins saw many innocents killed in Chechnya and claims to have been there as a protector, yet when his fellow jihadists murdered innocent civilians in Egypt, he went to the US government and offered his help. Does this man, who feels allegiance to his country but has fought jihad, who, even though an obvious failure as a father and a husband but a protector of his people, meet the criteria as a patriotic American? I don't know, but a lot of folks think so.

So there it is, my little dilemma. I have always believed the idea that there are moderate Muslims to be contrary to the face much of Islam presents to the world, indeed, if one looks at Islam's beginnings, moderation plays no part. The current fiasco with the words of Benedict would seem to illustrate that there is no tolerance, no moderation, in Islam, not even, as Charles Krauthammer writes, "no irony." But we have a woman who is proud to be an American and wants to succeed and give her kids a good life, and an American jihadi who went to his government and offered his help, and who now is in prison for bringing law breakers to justice. I still believe that radical, political Islam is at least the same threat that Nazism was, only this time with nukes thanks to Iran, but what the hell else am I supposed to think now?

Anyway, any thoughts or comments would be appreciated.