[link|http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20020416.shtml|The way it is when they're in charge]

Excerpt:

Ye'Or points out that for orthodox Muslims, the world is
divided into the dar al-Harb, land controlled by non-Muslims
that forms the "territory of war," and the dar al-Islam, the
land where Islamic law prevails. Historically, a peace is not
a peace -- and a time of peace longer than a decade is
occasion not for relaxation but for feeling inadequate and
fidgety. Infidels should never be allowed to rest on their
laurels, famed 14th century Muslim jurist Ibn Taymiyya
asserted, for any land they possess is held illegitimately.

This does not mean that Jews and Christians living in
Muslim-ruled lands were killed or imprisoned. They regularly
received dhimmi status, which afforded them temporary
protection from some abuses, but no permanent status.

Dhimmis in Muslim countries over the centuries typically
had to pay discriminatory taxes and acknowledge publicly
their status as second-class citizens. They were on the hook
for additional sums and had to supply forced labor on
demand. They were ineligible for any public office and
without right even to testify in court.

Dhimmis were not allowed to possess weapons, marry
Muslim women, meet with others on the streets, or ride
horses or camels (the two "noble animals"). Dhimmis had
to wear special clothes, walk with eyes lowered and accept
being pushed aside by Muslims. Dhimmis had to have low
doors on their houses, with no lights on the doors.

Some particular aspects varied from age to age and region
to region. In the 9th century, Jews in some Muslim areas had
to wear on their shoulders a patch of white cloth that bore
the image of an ape; Christians, since they ate pork, wore a
pig image. In 11th century Seville, Jews were not to be met
with the greeting, "Peace be unto you," because they were
not supposed to have any peace.

Other edicts affected not just finances but self-respect. A Cairo rule in 1761 was that "no Jew or Christian may appear on horseback. They ride only asses ... " In Persia in 1890, Jewish women had to "expose their faces in public (like prostitutes). ... Every Jew is obliged to wear a piece of red cloth on his chest. A Jew must never overtake a Muslim on a public street. ... If a Muslim insults a Jew, the latter must drop his head and remain silent. ... The Jew cannot put on his coat; he must be satisfied to carry it rolled under his arm. ... It is forbidden for Jews to leave the town or enjoy the fresh air of the countryside. ... Jews must not consume good fruit."

I say:

This explains a lot. If they were so insecure when they were in charge, that they had to bully non-Muslims in this way, it's no surprise they respond to no longer being in charge by throwing a huge tantrum. It's bad enough they can't be graceful losers. Turns out they're sore winners too.

(Yes, the Jews once suffered humiliations and persecutions in Christendom as well. But the West got over all that. At least the part that wasn't Aryan mystic in religion. We found enough of a basis of self esteem that we didn't have to persecute our betters. In the end, we embraced them, learned from them, and made one a PM of England. By contrast, the Muslim world has yet to get over all that. In fact, outside of Turkey, they're not even close.)

That business about the World Trade Center? A temper tantrum on a grand scale. Those suicide bombers? Just a more elaborate variation on holding your breath and turning blue.

We in the dar al-Harb are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we play by their rules, we're not allowed to win, because it's against the rules for us to win. And we have to play, because they won't leave us alone. It's against the rules for us to be left alone. So let's play by our rules, and play to win. If we spank them long enough and hard enough, we might just be able to bring about an attitude change. Or failing that, they'll all hold their breath, pass out, and die of anoxia.

What the Muslim world ultimately needs is some basis for legitimate self esteem, so they won't feel the need to put us in, um, *their* place. But they're never going to have that until they change their whole approach to dealing with the outside world. It's a chicken-and-egg problem. So let's forcibly change their attitude and see what develops. It's in the best interests of both sides.

No, all that inventing algebra and preserving Aristotle stuff won't do. It was too long ago. Bringing that up just reminds them of how far they've fallen, before they're ready to accept the blame for having fallen. They need to accomplish something positive *now*. And right now they're not even ready to try.