Trump and the Muslim problem
Donald Trump dominates the news cycle again. Of all the outrageous statements he’s made in the past, his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” may be the one considered the most outrageous.
Other Republican candidates either denounced it or tried to qualify and explain their own positions as different in most respects. The left happily seized on it and took the opportunity to call Trump a horrible man in various ways, and tried to make it seem as though his statements reflected on all Republicans and the right in general.
If you look at today’s Memeorandum page you can see what I’m talking about: Trump, Trump, Trump and the Muslims, practically all the way down.
Trump’s proposal is not only broad but vague. Would citizens be included in the ban, if they left the country? How would this be enforced? What about constitutional issues—although Trump himself seems to have no interest in those? Why “Muslim” and why not “from Arab or Muslim countries where the population and/or government support Islamic terrorism”? What about Muslim European citizens—and there are plenty of them? How does one determine who’s a Muslim and who isn’t, since it isn’t written on their passports?
And so on and so forth.
When I first heard of Trump’s proposal, I thought it evidence of the fact that he’s bored with the race and doesn’t want to be president any more, if in fact he ever did, and that what he really wants is to touch the third rail of American politics and get attention as well as sparking a discussion of the things we’ve been shying away from. But on second thought I’m not at all sure; there are plenty of people who will love Trump for this, and it might even increase his popularity, particularly coming as it does after the San Bernardino attack.
My own position is this: Trump’s proposal, and the reaction to it, highlight the fact that we’ve got a problem, a big one. The problem is already so overwhelming that people’s reactions are extreme. The problem is that Islam calls itself a religion, but since there is no separation of church and state in Islam it also is of necessity a religious worldview that involves politics and is in many ways incompatible with the values of the Western Enlightenment and with liberty itself. One of those values is religious freedom and separation of church and state. And there are many Muslims who are willing to kill us over this and other differences.
Many Muslims in the West solve that dilemma by assimilating, at least somewhat—enough to support their adopted countries and live in them without incident. Others do not and will not, although some of that latter group pretend to do so in order to undermine their host countries and change those countries from within. We don’t know the exact percentages of each group among our Muslim population, but the latter group most definitely exists and its numbers are already large enough to cause enormous trouble both now and in the future, and more immigration will certainly swell those numbers.
This is a problem, and Donald Trump did not create it. He’s just reacting to it with a “burn all the spindles in the land!” approach of zero tolerance. This is an approach that clashes with our values of religious tolerance and the rights of citizens. That’s another problem.
Contrast Trump’s zero tolerance with the Obama administration’s wide welcome and even encouragement of more Muslim arrivals from Muslim countries in turmoil, and you have the alpha and omega of approaches to the problem. At least Trump addresses it and is aware that it is a problem, while Obama pretends it does not exist.
That’s why San Bernardino was and is a nightmare for Obama. The perpetrators shattered the picture he’d been trying to convey about Muslims in this country because (1) one terrorist was a citizen born in this country and very well assimilated (2) the other terrorist was a new arrival who had supposedly been vetted by the sort of process Obama has been assuring us is effective and thorough (3) there were red flags galore that were ignored; and (4) the terrorists had characteristics that Obama had tried to assure us would make a person harmless: for example, one was a woman, and they were a married couple with a newborn baby. Not exactly “widows and orphans” but close, pretty much the family next door.
Put it all together and San Bernardino demonstrated graphically and violently that Obama’s system cannot possibly keep us safe. Enter Donald Trump with his radical solution. Somewhere in-between lies sanity, but where? America does not trust Obama to find it, that’s for sure.
My own proposal would be to fight ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups more vigorously abroad, severely restrict but not eliminate visas from Muslim countries to the US, and step up our intelligence program both here and abroad. That’s far from a perfect solution and I’m not entirely satisfied with it, nor do I know how to operationalize it. It won’t prevent further attacks, and the government might abuse its power.
The best approach would have been prevention, which would have involved building on the gains of the Bush years in Iraq rather than precipitously and totally withdrawing as Obama did. But it’s too late for that, and although all our solutions now are bad, we must try to choose the least bad one and get on with it. Unfortunately, that won’t be Obama’s solution, and I don’t think it will be Trump’s.
[NOTE: Also take a look at this (hat tip “Ann”).]
I’m with Jonathan Tobin at Commentary, who says Trump’s just done Obama and Clinton a huge favor:
Ann:
I agree with Tobin as well.
Trump fuels Obama’s “anti-Islamaphobia” argument perfectly.
When I heard that on the radio last night, I jumped up and shouted “OH HELL YES!” I have been saying that literally for years.
If he’s even halfway serious about this, he has my vote locked up.
rickl:
He already had your vote locked up.
What about the questions I raised in paragraph 4? Do they not trouble you?
Since 9/11 I’ve been thinking we should cut back the visa and refugee programs from these countries (except for Christians and others fleeing religious persecution). But that is a different thing than Trump’s proposal. It is Cruz who best matches what I’d like to see happen.
I am with the donald on this particular issue. I want to see a moratorium on entry for anyone coming from muslim majority states and areas; especially American citizens, green card holders, or various visa holders who have traveled to jihad zones (all muslim nations) during the past 3 years.
Raise your hand if you think its perfectly normal in a refugee crisis for 70% of the ‘refugees’ to be males between the ages of 15 and 50 as is the case in the current invasion of Europe. There is absolutely no way, short of water boarding, to vet these people. Gitmo can not hold millions. Keep them out, seal the gates, and while I understand the compassion for the displaced in Syria, I feel far more compassion for the people of France and my home land. If the wealthy arab nations do not want them, I certainly do want them in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, or within 3,000 miles of me and mine.
Trump calls for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”
Neo wants to “severely restrict but not eliminate visas from Muslim countries to the US”, duration not mentioned.
Do I have those right, Neo?
If so, I do not appreciate an earth-shattering difference between them.
I do see a rather disgusting pile-on, great hyperbole (prevent Trump from entering St. Pete, an unconstitutional act if ever I saw one), vile disgusting and repellent words by the Dems (as always) and Repubs(in their foolish hopes of gaining media affection).
This is the way Trump has been handled from the beginning.
Makes me stand with Trump, and I am not alone.
For the life of me I will never understand this centuries long Sunni v. Shia death feud.
Frog:
Of course you don’t have it right; there is a world of difference between those two views, and if you don’t already see it then I can’t imagine that explaining would help.
But “visas” to enter this country are not something citizens get, and that’s just for starters. Visas are for temporary visits by non-citizens, and refugees or asylum-seekers are non-citizens applying for refugee or asylum status. Perhaps you’re aware of those distinctions?
The other differences are pretty obvious, too (religion vs. country of origin; scope of proposal in general). Oh, and “until we figure it out” is an open-ended proposal as well. Mine is open-ended when I stated it in the post, but obviously it would also be until it were deemed safe to end the restrictions, which would be far far in the future if and when the Muslim world reforms.
Does Trump realize that every outrageous tweet and policy he comes up with will be preserved forever on the internet (he can check this out with Hillary)? The internet does not stop at the shores. Everything he says is read and will be repeated by foreigners whenever they try to recruit more terrorists or when they oppose our foreign policy plans. The latter goes also for our allies, especially when their leaders are facing domestic pressure from the left.
Trump loves the Art of the Deal, but he doesn’t realize that a president can’t negotiate behind closed doors, at least not when CNN and Twitter are putting his positions out for all to see. This man may be very good at riling up frustrated, mistrustful Americans, but he is hasn’t got a clue about diplomacy or foreign affairs.
How would Trump react if King Abdullah wanted to come to America? He is a Muslim, but he is also one of our most trustworthy friends. Would he provoke some kind of rebellion against Abdullah by Jordanians who are outraged by Trump’s remarks.
Trump is the most provincial uneducated idiot I’ve every seen.
And by the way, I long ago proposed taking away citizenship for citizens of this country that had actually become terrorists for groups such as al Qaeda or ISIS or fought against us (see this and this). You may also notice, if you read those posts of mine, that the earlier one was a reaction to a Joe Lieberman proposal, and the later one a reaction to a Ted Cruz proposal.
But that is not what Trump is proposing here; his proposal is much much broader.
“Of all the outrageous statements he’s made in the past, his call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on” may be the one considered the most outrageous.” neo
“When you’re one step ahead of the crowd, you’re a genius. When you’re two steps ahead, you’re a crackpot.” — Rabbi Shlomo Riskin
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” — Arthur Schopenhauer
I suspect Trump meant banning all future Muslim immigrants/refugees/asylum seekers (one step ahead of the crowd). But that is a half measure because the jihadists are already here and, as long as a population of Muslims provides ‘camouflage’ they can always infiltrate more into America.
The longer half measures and denial endures, the greater and more painful will be the price that reality extracts.
Future events will either force America to expel ALL Muslims (due to fundamental incompatibility and Taqiyya/Muruna) or face either; Israel’s fate of never ending terrorist attacks and living under semi-martial law OR if the attacks are bad enough… full on nationwide, Martial Law in which our liberties are non-existent.
You cannot stop a totalitarian ideology with less than the amount of force that ideology seeks to use to force surrender. You cannot stop a totalitarian ideology while denying the full nature of the threat.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu
Those who accept the premise that Islam is a religion, know not their enemy.
“By their ‘fruits’ shall ye know them”… a 1st century carpenter, living far from civilization’s ‘elite’.
Geoffrey Britain:
That is part of what I was trying to say. The problem with Islam is a fundamental (pun intended) antipathy to liberty. And the cat is already out of the bag (or in the bag, depending) in that there are already plenty of jihadis here. So the solution is not Trump’s solution nor of course is it Obama’s. I hope it will never get to the point of a huge war but it might, and that’s been clear at least since 9/11 and probably earlier. I believe that may be the basis of Richard Fernandez’s “three conjectures” piece.
I think the same question we put to Obama about gun control should be the question put to Trump about shutting down specific immigration: What exactly are you proposing doing?
Alas, that’s no fun and that won’t be done.
It did occur to me that Trump has again taken the air out of possible bad news cycles for Obama and Clinton, feeding the conspiracy speculations that he’s a plant. He’s not – he’s far too narcissistic to do anyone that kind of favor. But one wonders if intentionality even matters.
OTOH, Trump acting crazy seems to be pushing Obama to be crazier, and that may work out fine, as Clinton has to make a choice, then.
I don’t predict, however. Nor do I believe too many other people’s predictions at this point. We are in uncharted territory here.
Assistant Village Idiot:
I agree that Trump’s action feeds the conspiracy theories about his intentions.
I also believe we’re in uncharted territory. But we’ve been there since the Obama presidency began, at the very least.
This is a problem, and Donald Trump did not create it. He’s just reacting to it with a “burn all the spindles in the land!” approach of zero tolerance. This is an approach that clashes with our values of religious tolerance and the rights of citizens. That’s another problem.
actually not. as that is the propagandic never ending story and perspective. how about this one.
someone gives you a bag of jelly beans.
they tell you that one jelly bean contains cyanide
how many will you eat?
this is not about religion, this is about conquest
the fact that the conquesting group is a statist religion is not supposed to render us idiots, but it does, as the stuff you deleted in the last thread was laying out the idea of liberalisms purpose is suicide… ie. inability to defend or even think of doing so because your being literal and doctrinaire in idiotic ways.
would the separation of church and state make it ok to have human sacrifices if the sacrificing persons were volunteering? no
did the separation of church and state allow for the practice and use of peyote by american indians or others who say its part of their religion?
how about marijuana and rastafarians?
seems we had no problem with that, but somehow post lbieralism we cant even say i dont want to eat a jelly bean from a jar that contains one poisoned one.
so how many would you eat? one? ten? half the bag? what if they didnt tell you there was a poisoned jelly bean? what if there isnt and that lets another take all of them without protest?
this is idiocy on stilts and religion has nothing to do with it… but for liberals who want atheism it suddenly a point… so why are they all now up in arms to protect religion when they are killing free speech, free association, and so on?
its convenient and the idiots wont be able to argue against their own distorted ideas!!!!!!!
First, “separation of church and state” is a strawman proposed by people who desire to establish their own church or cult. Not only does everyone have a faith, since exceedingly few people actually respect the limits of the scientific domain; but, everyone also has a religion or moral philosophy, and almost certainly something organized, including America’s own State-established quasi-religious pro-choice (i.e. selective principles) cult.
Second, the only legitimate class construction is based on commonly held principles or uniformly expressed behaviors. Class diversity schemes are depraved and predatory extensions of the old racism, sexism, etc. enterprises. National allegiance is equivalent to other forms of class allegiance, including to an organized religion or cult.
Unfortunately, Islam is a religion marred through marriage to a left-wing ideology. It is universal and spread through coercion and force. This supports classification of all Muslims based on commonly held principles, if not actually uniformly expressed behaviors.
The problems we’re experiencing are caused by class diversity schemes that resurrected racism, sexism, etc. under another name that denigrate individual dignity. Also, immigration policies that are not contingent on assimilation and integration; and generally anti-native policies that are designed to marginalize and suppress dissenting voices. Finally, there is elective abortion of wholly innocent human lives under the pro-choice doctrine and clinical cannibalism (e.g. Planned Parenthood) that terminates over one million American lives annually and serves to debase human life generally.
Here is an example of what I was talking about:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the-world-reacts-to-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslims-entering-us/2015/12/08/50eea1dc-9d4a-11e5-9ad2-568d814bbf3b_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_evening
The anti-Americans will be using this against us for ages. And the people who like America will be shaking their heads and wondering when will the country wake up.
Neo, I see.
The Donald speaks of people.
You speak of visas.
Out of concern, perhaps, for American Muslims returning. Or European Muslims bearing gifts with their visas.
The Donald was insufficiently detailed in his remark, is that it?
Drew M @ Ace’s also has some interesting things to say. Tobin’s article makes some good points but I think his conclusion, “….Trump has undermined any sensible critique of the president’s policies….”, is a stretch. It’s not Trump’s fault that most Republican’s can’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag. His timing, when the focus was on Obama’s weak speech, sucks though.
Artfldgr:
Of course Islam is not a religion like other religions. But in certain respects it is similar to a religion and/or is functioning as a religion (belief in Supreme Being, clerics, houses of worship, guides to living, belief in afterlife). And moreover—as I pointed out in my post, if you read it carefully—“The problem is that Islam calls itself a religion.”
Religion does have something to do with it, because as a religion (or as something with many aspects of a religion that calls itself a religion) it promises an afterlife in paradise for its terrorist murderers (just to take one example). Even Communism couldn’t offer its followers that; the rewards it offered were in this life, if they were higher-ups in the Party. So, as a religion of sorts, Islam can do two things (although not just these two things): it can use our own principles of religious tolerance against us to destroy us and those principles, and it can whip its followers up to even greater fervor by its promises about rewards in an afterlife that will last forever.
I repeat: religion definitely has something to do with it. It’s just not a religion like most other religions, and in many respects (although not all) it goes beyond what we think of as a religion.
If Islam did not call itself a religion, it would not be so difficult to rally support for fighting against jihadis, who present the added problem of masquerading as just being followers of a regular religion rather than a murderous apocalyptic death cult.
Neo:
That goes to why it remains critical to set the record straight on OIF and discredit the false narrative of OIF at the premise level.
Re-normalizing the strong-horse American leadership that manifested with OIF is not a time machine that can go back to save post-Surge Iraq. But de-stigmatizing OIF is necessary to re-normalize the paradigm of American leadership manifested with OIF that’s needed going forward.
Your proposal for a third way from Obama and Trump’s circling “alpha and omega of approaches to the problem” is reasonable, but it’s politically disqualified because it’s contained in the range of action stigmatized with OIF, thus it’s shunted outside the Overton Window.
In order to establish the condition necessary to reify your third way, you need to move the Overton Window by breaking the taboo based on the stigma derived from the false narrative of OIF that’s the implicit premise for Obama’s approach. Doing this wouldn’t take us back in time to recover post-Surge Iraq, but it establishes a necessary political condition for restoring the paradigm of strong-horse American leadership with the range of action that contains your proposal.
Frog:
You are an intelligent man. Why are you acting so unintelligent?
Let me try one more time, and I’ll make it very very simple.
Trump’s spokesperson indicated Trump included Muslim citizens who travel out of the country and tried to return. I did not. This is not a small or insignificant distinction. I also never said all; I said to make the visa and refugee rules more restrictive, not to eliminate visas and refugees entirely. Trump also made religion itself the criteria; I made country of origin. I also proposed long ago that citizens who are terrorists or join terrorist groups should lose their citizenship (in addition to being tried for treason if appropriate).
Donald wants to cut off Muslim in migration until our representatives find out what the problem is.
Well, that cutoff won’t last very long. At least 51%, and probably much higher, of the citizens know what the problem is. It is Wahhabist/Salafist/radical Islam jihadis who want to kill us or convert us.
Now here’s a something to contemplate: Not all Muslims are jihadis. But all jihadis are Muslims. Thus, those Muslims who are not jihadis need to realize that they are suspect because of their membership in Islam. If they want to change that, the solution for them is to reform their religion. Otherwise they will always be tainted by belonging to a religion that is known for its intolerance, violence, and inability to change. As long as that intolerant, violent part of Islam is allowed to exist, we have no reason not to suspect all of them.
When an individual in this country has written a manifesto that includes the murder of anyone who doesn’t accept his views of God, and then carries out such murder, we hunt him down and imprison or execute him. We call him a murderous cultist. Yet, when a religious group does the same thing, we say we must be tolerant because of the First Amendment. In a country with adult leaders who are governed by reason, we would have taken steps some years ago (say in 2001-2002) to determine if Islam was:
1. A religion/cult.
2. Compatible with Western culture and political values.
If found to be a cult and incompatible with Western political values, taken steps to ensure the cult would either reform or be excluded from immigrating to the West.
None of that has happened and we now know that the problem is an existential one that cannot be solved by the old bromides that “We are a nation of immigrants,” “We treasure our tolerance and the First Amendment,” “We are better than they are.”
So, IMO, Trump’s call for answers is not the issue. The issue is that we (at least a large part of us) don’t want to know the answers.
If I was President, I would be getting behind the movement by Muslims in the U.S. to reform Islam. Such as you can read about here:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/american-muslim-groups-band-together-to-call-out-extremists/
It’s a start!
I think it’s pretty safe to speculate that San Bernardino is going far in waking the Sleeping Middle from their political slumber.
And that hide-bound pols (and the donor class) expectations of an ordinarily compliant-and-ambivalent electorate to willingly continue to trust that various mysterious alphabet soup agencies are-or-will-be-able-to “thoroughly” (hahaha /sarc) vet incoming Muslim refugees – and successfully separate the wheat from the chaff – is increasingly a non-starter.
The decidedly non-PC Trump tapped that rich vein of awakening common sense suspicion …and, indeed, the outright alarm over the unmistakeable evidence of terrorists in our midst by the ordinarily Somnambulant LIVs.
Out loud.
…to the utter outrage of the pacifist and dissembling Left.
Oooh.
Someone’s lifting the veil.
Another win for Mr. T.
We can easily change the definition of Islam: from a “religion”, to the theopolitical philosophy with secular implications it actually is …much akin to our historical validated response to Communism: which is a secular political philosophy with religious implications – for example.
…thus avoiding any constitutional ambiguities about freedom of religion.
Islam? A religion? That is – or at least can be – a matter of opinion.
If it smells like a duck, quacks like a duck …etc.
Wa-la! Problem solved.
Really …not seeing all that much to get worked up about.
In essence – IMHO – all the master showman did was win the news cycle. Again (watch closely Cruz’s numbers in Iowa now lol).
…I still like Cruz …but I have zip-zero-nada problem with Trump.
…and he is you must admit proving to be vastly entertaining in exhibiting his mastery over the hostile media.
That is a new thing, I think.
—————————
Trump is kind of proving to be the anti-Obama when it comes to the media.
The media in a very real sense made Obama …by their enthusiastic support (and obfuscation: they hid the very real flaws of their man-god).
Obama’s “triumph” is on that level merely his basking in the glow of their worship.
The media is “making” Trump, too …but by their antipathy to his mastery of their obvious bewilderment (to their abject and maddening failure to expose him a’la the typical result of their ridicule and disdain …ain’t workin’ this time, kids).
I.e., Trump is the anti-Obama lol.
…Trump …successfully reading the increasing uneasiness of the electorate to the myriad failures and lies of the Obama administration …turning the media’s poisonous aversion to him to his advantage …using them …exposing both the media’s inherent anti-American biases, and the lack of clothing of their naked emperor (with apologies to Hans Christian Andersen for horribly twisting his parable to fit my rant).
Trump the Antidote.
Trump the Master of Media.
—————————
It’s still a time of war.
Too many people aren’t acknowledging that.
War changes things. Especially long wars. Especially wars fought in your backyard.
Too many people still aren’t acknowledging that either.
They will. They …will.
Trump knows.
We may look back at this brilliant Trump move as the point at which he won.
As (I think) RedState said he has forced all his opponents (except Cruz) to support Obama and Rodham, thus he is the rightmost candidate in the race. They all look weak, leftist, hysterical.
Hinderaker was on Ingrahams show and pointed out that the Immigration and Naturalization law gives the President specific authority to by decree halt immigration from any country for any time period or do the same for any group. I think it is section 212F of the law.
continued:
Another way around objections is to simply halt immigration from the OIC list of countries (organization of Islamic Conference).
3 conjectures is a bit interesting, but does not address several issues. First of all Pakistan and NK have the ability to produce nukes and need hard currency. Will they be willing to provide them to jihadists? Secondly, Iran will soon join the nuke club and there can be no doubt about their willingness to use nukes through a proxy. Third, creating chemical and biological weapons is not nuclear physics, it can be done in a cave. Fourth, delivery of a nuke, chemical, or biological wmd is easy; we have open borders and open ports. Fifth, what a glorious way to meet allah and collect those virgins.
I call “Straw Man” on that statement. The “separation of church and state” came about thanks to the symbiotic relationship between the two in England. The Church would grant moral sanction to the State, and the State would grant lands and wealth to the Church. (This was the prototype for Crony Capitalism, but I digress…)
The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” In the first place, nobody is talking about establishing a religion here. Americans can believe whatever they want, but they can’t go around killing people. It’s absurd to think that our Founders intended to sanction the free exercise of a religion that ordered its adherents to kill non-believers. The First Amendment is not a suicide pact.
Our Constitution DOES, however, grant Congress the power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. If they chose to do so, they can Constitutionally forbid ANYONE from coming to America to stay.
I think Trump is right on this. Build the wall and stop issuing Visas…at least for a while
On “separation of church and state”—there’s freedom of worship and there’s also the “no establishment of a state religion” part of the First Amendment. That’s what I was referring to. Technically that is a better phrase than ‘separation of church and state,” but it is often referred to in that latter way. I assumed it would be understood that I meant it in the “no establishment of a state religion” way because Islam is very much in favor of the establishment of a state religion, and I was stating that the two were in opposition (our Constitution and Islam) in that way. That was the point I was trying to make—in shorthand that apparently was confusing—so I’m clarifying that here.
snopercard:
But Trump is not saying “build the wall and stop issuing visas.” He is saying much more than that.
neo-neocon Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 3:22 pm
Actually, no. I was pretty skeptical of him at first. I’m well aware of his flaky and changing positions, and couldn’t rule out that he was a plant by the Clintons. I still can’t, but I hope that’s not the case.
But I have steadily warmed to him, and this clinches it. Islam is not compatible with Western Civilization, and Sharia law is not compatible with the U.S. Constitution. An increasing population of Muslims is a recipe for national suicide.
No. I’d err on the side of caution, and keep them all out.
expat Says:
December 8th, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Since the Europeans are even further down the road than we are to losing their countries to foreign invaders, you’ll have to excuse me if I don’t give a damn what they think about us.
The Euros were over the moon about Obama, remember? Well, I do.
“So the solution is not Trump’s solution” neo
What factual basis is there for imagining otherwise?
“those Muslims who are not jihadis need to realize that they are suspect because of their membership in Islam. If they want to change that, the solution for them is to reform their religion.” J.J.
My position is that Islam is theologically incapable of reform without a concomitant collapse in its theological foundations.
The Muslim Reform Movement to which you link J.J. argues otherwise. Here is a link to their principles. While I find them eminently admirable, implementing them would destroy Islam. That is because they are an implicit rejection of Muhammad’s most fundamental claim, that Allah is the Qur’an’s direct author (the archangel Gabriel being literally a perfect transmitter, incapable of error).
There’s no way to square that circle. Accept Allah as the Quar’an’s author and you cannot ‘reform’ Islam, as reform requires embracing the notion that fallible man may ‘correct’ infallible Allah. Reject that claim and you reject Muhammad by implicitly declaring him to have been either a liar or deluded.
That is the immovable stumbling block to reform of Islam.
Of course I rememberthe Europeans’ love of Obama, but remember that was a reaction to Bush, who had long-been identified as a right-wing know-nothing Republican. It was also an attempt to show that they were superior to the racist Americans without have to make attempts to integrate their own minorities.
You may not care about what Europeans think of us, but do you care whether their intelligence agencies cooperate with us, whether military facilities in Germany allowed us to treat soldiers wounded in Iraq, whether American products are bought in Europe, whether our researchers work together on a multitude of projects, etc. There is a lot more at stake than simply the opinions put out by the MSM on both sides of the Atlantic.
I’ve been following things in Europe for decades, and since Bush’s election, I’ve been following things very closely. For instance, did you realize that the now hated Merkel was one of the few Germans who didn’t fall in love with Obama. She denied him permission to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, and she was no more than diplomatically correct when she talked with him. Do you also know that the formerly very leftist Interior Minister praised John Ashcroft for his work in establishing information sharing programs after 9/11. Don’t write off our allies so quickly. We need some of the people who don’t make the CNN daily news.
The stopping has to start somewhere.
Launching off into the fine details, hypothetical consequences, as a rebuttal — does not work.
The perfect can’t be allowed to thwart the good… or better.
Not sure if this is a new position for her, but in a November piece on the Foreign Policy website, Ayaan Hirsi Ali did not rule out the possibility of Islam getting its act together:
She ends the piece with this:
When muslims regularly inform on the jihadists who live in their communities, I will begin to allow for the concept that islam can be reformed. Otherwise, wake me when the war begins.
Neo asks: “What about constitutional issues–although Trump himself seems to have no interest in those?”
James Taranto reports: “All of these claims are mistaken. Quite obviously the Constitution’s provision on religious tests for public office has no application to immigration policy. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is equally irrelevant, as it applies only to states. (It does prohibit state discrimination against aliens, including in some contexts illegal aliens, but decisions about which aliens to admit are entirely under federal purview.)
Yale-Loehr is correct that the Trump proposal requires an act of Congress, but that act has already been enacted. Title 8, Section 1182 of the U.S. Code provides in relevant part:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
What about the First Amendment? Would a religious exclusion for immigrants violate their right to free exercise?
That is a novel legal question; as far as we know Congress has never enacted, nor the executive branch practiced, such an exclusion. But the 1972 case Kleindienst v. Mandel strongly suggests the Trump proposal would pass muster.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/did-trump-just-win-1449604108
I highly respect Ayaan Hirsi Ali but she exhibits a last vestige of denial and it is that vestige of denial that weds her still to Islam.
Hirsi states, “The second group – and the clear majority throughout the Muslim world – consists of Muslims who are loyal to the core creed and worship devoutly but are not inclined to practice violence or even intolerance towards non-Muslims. I call this group “Mecca Muslims.” The fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts.”
That is quite correct and is why Islam has always been and will remain a breeding ground for violent jihad. Meccan Muslims, the majority, refuse to face the truth of their ‘religion’.
She then states, “The future of Islam and the world’s relationship with Muslims will be decided by which of the two minority groups – the Medina Muslims and the reformers – wins the support of the Meccan majority. That is why focusing on “violent extremism” is to focus on a symptom of a much more profound ideological epidemic that has its root causes in Islamic doctrine.”
Here Hirsi recognizes that Islamic doctrine is the root cause of the “ideological epidemic” that gives rise to the symptom of “violent extremism”.
Then the willful blindness emerges; “It’s possible to claim, following Mohammed’s example in Mecca, that Islam is a religion of peace. But it’s also possible to claim, as the Islamic State does, that a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina.”
Hirsi fails to admit that it is NOT merely ‘possible’ to claim that “a revelation was sent to Mohammed commanding Muslims to wage jihad until every human being on the planet accepts Islam or a state of subservience, on the basis of his legacy in Medina”. That is what Muhammad claimed that Allah ordered as a permanent theological imperative!
Reject that ‘interpretation’ and you are implicitly declaring Muhammad to have been either a liar or a deluded madman after he reached Medina…
Devout Muslims know this, some intellectually but all in their gut, so there will be NO throwing out of Muhammad’s declarations of war upon the unbeliever.
Thus Islam’s “doctrine of abrogation” was created to resolve the contradiction between the earlier peaceful Meccan passages and the later, virulently violent Median passages.
Hirsi clings to an irresolvable conundrum. What she embraces was anathema to Muhammad. She wouldn’t last a minute under his rule.
“When muslims regularly inform on the jihadists who live in their communities, I will begin to allow for the concept that islam can be reformed.” parker
“former FBI Counterterrorism Agent John Guandolo said on Monday’s Breitbart News Daily (6AM-9AM EST on Sirius XM Patriot channel 125) that since 9/11, “we collectively have received nearly zero help from the Muslim Community.”
Mecca versus medina, internal strife within islam, mohammed redeemer of humanity (restricted to arabs) or mohammed wielder of the sword to slay all infidels, and so on and so forth. My patience with islam ended 11/4/79. Shia or sunni my give a damn is busted. Its been 36 years and we still hesitate to call it out for what it is, barbaric, and show them the real might of the great satan. Forget “pussy” and lets admit “pussy footing” around the core issue as we are walking on egg shells least we microaggress.
Neo:
Outrageous? or real and reasonable?
Isn’t a temporary halt a reasonable expectation during the emergence of a new, real threat? That of homegrown terrorism, rooted in Islamic Jihadism?
I find all these hyperventilating hysterical mongering overlooking smears of Trump to be offensive.
Just one Paris-style ISIS terrorist hit on the US, involving multiple targets – maybe stadia, maybe shopping malls or concert venues – and Trump’s remark becomes the center or sweet reason.
We have had seven years of PC from Obama – smears of bigots and racists of people questioning His failures to secure the border – seven years of a President so unserious that he cannot even name our enemy! Much less act to defend us and uphold his oath of office….
Why is anyone surprised that someone finally stands up to His pussiness? And that this person is Trump?
An immigration timeout for a decade has already hit the Pubbies debates last summer – this new fracas focusing onTrum is entirely measured and moderate by comparison.
And haven’t Cruz and Rand Paul also endorsed time-outs on immigration, already?
Talk about narcissistic disproportionate reaction by Trumps opponents? There ya are….
Orson:
Read what I wrote carefully: “may be the one considered the most outrageous.”
And that’s exactly correct. Many many people are apparently considering it the most outrageous.
As for my opinion, I merely think it’s the most counterproductive and most impossible to implement. For me, the “outrageous” part of it is the fact that his spokesperson explained that his proposal included the idea that American citizens who are Muslim, and who leave the country, would not be allowed back in.
I have long been in favor of cutting back on immigration in general, as well as the visa program, and particularly from Muslim countries. Do you understand the difference between that and Trump’s suggestions relating to citizens of the US?
Of course, there are some people over-reacting to everything Trump says. But here there are some very reasonable and serious causes for concern in what Trump is saying.
Cornhead asks:
No – of course you do.
The issue is that Islam requires a unitary state, politically.
But the Kor’an is far too otherworldly and abstract to guide real world behavior and public policy.
Thus, when Muhammed died, the split emerged over inheritance, agency, and who would now ‘speak’ authoritatively about such matters after the Founder was gone.
Islam’s problem clearly reflects the secular problem of monarchy, familiar to all who have studied western history and the evolution of government.
Who rules? And how can one know who’s authority is legitimate?
It’s just that simple – and just that complex. Islam has not achieved a resolution any more than other Royalist traditions have, save superseding it with popular rule.
Instead, unlike others, because of the inerrancy of the Kor’an itself, the conflict is worsened because such high-minded ends (guardian of tradition and all that) is to be ensured though such low means like brute force.
Geoffrey B., your knowledge of the Quran is outstanding. I know you have read it and your interpretation of Muslim theology is that all of them accept the idea that it is the literal word of Allah. However, when you look at the various Islamic schools of theology, such as here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Islamic_theology
you will find that there are differing ways the schools interpret the Quran. Only the Athari school (or Salafi school) believe in the literal interpretation of the Quran. The Salafi doctrine was reiterated by Wahhab in Saudi Arabia and later by Qutb in Egypt. These men called for a strict, literal interpretation of the Quran as opposed to schools of theology that are summarized as adhering to “science of discourse”, which holds that theological truth may be discovered by means of discourse or reason. These schools of Islamic theology are not presently as powerful or well known as the Salafi because Saudi oil money has trained Wahhabi imams and setup madrassas to carry the word far and wide. It is my opinion that we need to work with men like el Sisi in Egypt, any Islamic theology scholars who don’t subscribe to the Salafi school, and any other moderate Muslims willing to join the movement to promote the reformation of Islam. We should do this in an open way while constantly repeating that we want to live in peace and tolerance with the Muslim world.
Another point about the Muslim world. Literacy is in short supply. Very few Muslims in the MENA actually have read or understand the Quran. What they know they are told by their imams. Would some of them be unhappy to learn that they have been used and manipulated by the Wahhabi imams?
If Islam can’t be reformed, how do we account for the Kurds, who are mostly Sunni Muslims. They don’t buy the Salafi school’s interpretation. There are others, but none as easily identified.
Also, read this article at the Blaze.com about Robert Spencer’s book on Muhammad. He claims and I agree with him that: “…. Islam, unlike the other massive faith systems, has never truly been given the academic attention and examination it deserves. Like Christianity, he maintains that the faith is one that “deserve[s] historical scrutiny.” The article is here:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/05/05/did-the-prophet-muhammad-really-exist-this-is-robert-spencers-shocking-answer/
Although I think we will have to militarily defeat the Wahhabis (ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Harum, al Nusrah, etc.) we need to think outside the box and at least explore the avenue of advocating reform. It couldn’t hurt.
Yes, but we’ve been there, seen that, done that…how many times before? – ho, hum.
Yes, details – but not Devilry (unless Reagan was the Devil!)
I have long been in favor of cutting back on immigration in general, as well as the visa program, and particularly from Muslim countries. Do you understand the difference between that and Trump’s suggestions relating to citizens of the US?
Of course, but there are obvious ways to cut the cake, as it were and achieve almost identical ends (as I explained on your other thread.) No real problem do I see.
Almost EVERYONE is overreacting!
What’s more important is that the people identify with his conviction and voice during a crisis lacking in any genuine leadership from past and “empowered authorities.
Given the enemy and his nature, the first thing you do when you’re in a hole is to STOP! Simply stop importing more potential jihadis.
This isn’t genius – it’s only common sense!
In a PC age, common sense in all public spheres is what’s most dangerously lacking.
Trump fills that righteous gap. Discussion is thus called for – not hysterics.
Harold Says:
What does Trump say in “Art of the Deal?” Stake out the most EXTREME possible stance at the outset – then use that platform as the basis for a reasonable compromise, which is close to what one wants, anyway.
It’s so simple (and susscessful on multiple levels).
Two things:
1. Neo – it is NOT freedom of worship, but freedom of religion (in the fact that practicing our own religion, nor what we do for a an hour or 2 or 3 on Sunday, or Wed/Sun, or Saturday, etc).
2. The LIVs, the fed-up Republicans (like some in my own family) and I bet a fair amount of blue-collar dems will eat this up. He has no actual plan? No details? I doubt most people care. They recognize that any details do not survive the first brush with reality. Or in other cases, that no matter how detailed the plan, (most) politicians lie. Most people want SOMETHING to be done and Trump has the bully pulpit to start talking about something/anything, regardless of how politically incorrect.
I’ve read much criticism of Cruz, and think Cruz is just following Reagan’s 11th Commandment, and is both brilliant and a good man for doing so.