Home » One more try and then I’m finished with this for now

Comments

One more try and then I’m finished with this for now — 32 Comments

  1. Also in that McCarthy piece:

    …Islam is more complex in practice than in theory.

    In our non-Muslim country, there is no point in debating what the “true” Islam says or whether Muslims are at liberty to ignore or reform classical sharia. There may not be a true Islam. Even if there is one, what non-Muslims think or say about it is of little interest to Muslims. Our job, in any event, is to preserve the Constitution and protect our national security regardless of how Islam’s internal debates are ultimately resolved – if they ever are.

    With that understanding, it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and – within the strictures of American law – culturally.

  2. One reason lists of known terrorists consulted are not nearly enough is simply that one preeminent list of known terrorists — the Islamist jihadists held at the Guantanamo detention facility — is consulted for the purposes of releasing these same men back into the wild where they rejoin their comrades in arms, frequently enough to be found in the lead in their jihad against America.

  3. Good. I didn’t like the convolutions of the past few posts.

    War is war. Equivocators are de-facto collaborationists.

    As to Islam, it wouldn’t be much of a problem here if the womyn truly objected.
    They don’t.

  4. I for one am quite clear on where you stand neo and the prescriptions you advocate are certainly well reasoned, constitutional and arguably, fair.

    Unfortunately, they are insufficient to the threat.

    That is because even if they were all implemented and not one jihadist got through the new procedures, it would only temporarily lessen future jihadist attacks. Attacks that are certain to increase in severity.

    Even if we could also round up and imprison/deport every jihadist in America today… plus deport the 20% of Muslim Americans who support violent jihad it would not be enough.

    That is because Islam’s most fundamental tenets ensure that every generation of Muslims will produce violent jihadists. It’s what Islam does… 1400 years of history testifies to that assertion.

    The ‘tell’ is that 51% of Muslim Americans admit that they support Sharia Law. Which as we all know is antithetical to American principles. Which in turn proves that 51% of Muslim Americans do NOT embrace the American Constitution.

    Plus, the percentage of violence inclined Muslim Americans will rise because both recent history (European rape, etc) and demographic birth rates guarantee it.

    Eventually, Islam will drive you to the very solutions that you currently deplore.

  5. Geoffrey Britain:

    I repeat what I wrote yesterday—ALL prescriptions at this point, including most definitely Trump’s, are insufficient. The cancer of Islamic jihadism has already metastasized to the West. But my suggestion (and McCarthy’s) is the best and most realistic one at present, I believe.

    If it all fails and a larger conflagration happens, that would be horrific. But I have yet to find a suggestion that is feasible and would prevent it.

    I have written this several times recently so I’m not sure why we’re having this same argument again.

  6. As others have pointed out, Islam is a political system with a veneer of religion. It is an absolutist dictatorial system of government to which everybody must submit. Banning Muslims is no different than banning communists or Nazis.

  7. Ray and Geoffrey Britain:

    I assume you think McCarthy doesn’t have a clue re Muslims based on what he wrote:

    …it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society. They have varying rationales for taking this position: Some believe sharia mandates that immigrants accept their host country’s laws; some believe sharia’s troublesome elements are confined to the historical time and place where they arose and are no longer applicable; some think sharia can evolve; some simply ignore sharia altogether but deem themselves devout Muslims because they remain Islamic spiritually and – within the strictures of American law – culturally.

  8. The smaller we can keep any enclaves, the more chance we have of assimilating Muslims to some extent. Radicals are able to bully those Muslims that can accept our principles. This is why the Fench outlawed headscarves in schools. Girls not wearing them were bullied and raped. Their families were threatened. You have to break through the power of these people to control other Muslims. This is obviously easier with smaller groups, which can only happen when the total numbers are lower. It would also be a good idea not to give space for CAIR to pretend to be the voice of all Muslims. Ignore them.

  9. Ann:
    Following paragraph:
    If we continue mindlessly treating Islam as if it were merely a religion, if we continue ignoring the salient differences between constitutional and sharia principles – thoughtlessly assuming these antithetical systems are compatible – we will never have a sensible immigration policy.

    The wimps at NRO probably forced in your quote…
    After all, they forced out the great John Derbyshire.
    Too many wimps …

  10. This is why the Fench outlawed headscarves in schools. Girls not wearing them were bullied and raped. Their families were threatened.
    Yup, and not just their own:
    Woman’s Bikini Outing Going Just Fine…Then Muslims Show Up

    No Mooslimes!

  11. For those who haven’t seen it, here’s an article by David French about Trump’s smashing of the Overton window (H/T ace.mu.nu):

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428200/donald-trump-overton-window-american-political-debate

    Although neither a big Trump fan nor an apologist, I have always found his presence in the campaign useful. Having read French, I might even say necessary.

    Ace pointed out that until Trump, the national dialogue (bounded by the Overton Window) was shaped primarily by the left and that conservative arguments (think RINOs) boiled down to “our’ conservative’ policies will build a better liberal world than liberal policies.” Again this goes back to my respect for Newt Gingrich (and now Ted Cruz) who simply refused to accept the playing field defined by liberal parameters. Again, as Ace pointed out, Trump has made it okay to speak outside of those limitations; it’s a sad fact that so many of the Republican candidates reveal their progressive indoctrination by their failure to grasp that.

  12. I wish I had never heard of Islam. The Muslims need to stay in their own countries and leave us alone.

    The definition of pathology is this insane Sunni v Shia war that’s been going on for centuries.

    Trust me when I say we could be North America energy independent today with the right government policies. Then we could mostly ignore those lunatics and let them kill themselves.

    And don’t forget. Hillary and Barack created the disaster that is Syria, Iraq and Libya.

  13. It would also be a good idea not to give space for CAIR to pretend to be the voice of all Muslims. Ignore them.

    At WSJ, a different Muslim voice — Our Duty as American Muslims:

    After San Bernardino, American Muslims have to come to terms with an ever more apparent truth: that we, and our mainstream Muslim brethren, are the only ones who can lead a winning fight against the radicalism crippling our faith. …

    It isn’t enough to condemn radicalism–we must actively engage in counter-extremism messaging. We must build an intellectual and theological case against radicalism. Our religious leaders must educate and warn our youth about the dangers of searching for spiritual guidance on the Internet. And we have to be vigilant. When someone stops coming to mosque and disappears from a community, abruptly after marrying a Pakistani woman in Saudi Arabia whom he met online, it shouldn’t take two years and 35 Americans getting shot (including one from that very congregation) before we notice.

    There is a war going on that extends beyond Syria, and American Muslims are under siege. Not by a fringe group of bigoted Americans, but by a fringe group of Muslims abroad who seek to tear our Western communities apart. They are trying to target the disaffected among us, hijack the mosque pulpit, and convince us that we’re unwelcome in our own country.

    But in order to lead this fight with unified support, certain things will have to change. We can’t call out prejudice against our faith without also calling out the gender inequality and homophobia that we find in some of our communities. We can’t be champions of our own religious freedom without also championing the rights of all traditions across the globe that wish to peacefully practice, including other Muslim sects we may disagree with doctrinally. We have to change the way we think about Islamic law and vilify the medieval judicial practices that persist in the Middle East. And we must have uncomfortable but necessary conversations about where much of the funding for this cancerous supremacist ideology is coming from–Saudi Arabia.

  14. Ann:

    In other words, as commenter “Eric” would say, Muslims who oppose jihadist Muslim extremism have to learn the activist game in order to counter its propaganda.

  15. This is my favorite thread on the subject.
    Geoffrey, I think we are all where you are.

    Trump’s crassness is sure to not help. All people who support hims should divest their interest in him. They should all speak like Neo. 🙂

  16. Ann,

    No one holds McCarthy in higher regard than do I.

    That said,
    “…it is simply a fact that many Muslims accept our constitutional principles and do not seek to impose sharia on our society.”

    “51% of U.S. Muslims Admit to Wanting Sharia”
    Which means that half of Muslims admit that they do NOT accept our constitutional principles and do seek (as a theological imperative) to impose sharia on our society. How many of the other 49% are lying? How many will change their minds as Muslims increase their numbers?

    25% Admit They Are Okay with Violence Against Americans

    U.S. Annually Admits A Quarter Of A Million Muslim Migrants

    “One in five Syrians say Islamic State is a good thing, poll says, 82 percent said that they believe the Islamic State was created by the United States and its allies.”

    In a 2007 poll of Syrians,
    74% believed it was very important to provide “financial support for groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah”.

    78% supported financial assistance to Hezbollah terrorists.

    77% supported financial aid to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

    77% supported financial assistance to “Iraqi fighters”, a group that was then heavily Al Qaeda.

    Consider those facts and only by living in denial can you remain complacent.

  17. neo,

    No disagreement that “The cancer of Islamic jihadism has already metastasized to the West.”

    But while your suggestion (and McCarthy’s) is, given current conditions, the most pragmatic, it is IMO not the best because as denial is extended, so too will the butcher’s bill be increased.

    When a cancer metastasizes, you cut out as much as needed. My assessment is that considerably more surgery will be required, than you currently are willing to act upon.

    I hope you’re right and I in the wrong.

  18. I think I should paint this picture.

    You have a crowd of armed Islamists surrounding you. All you have is you and your family and a pistol.

    You can’t shoot your way out of that situation because when you run out of bullets – they will behead you and your family.

    You can’t expect the government to help.
    You can’t espect a new religious test policy to help.

    What you can do is hard. What you can do has been done in situations before. Use your words. HOw will you figure your way out of this tough situation which is the worst situation you can be in.

    Trump isn’t the answer.
    Ben Carson figured out what they want and wants to provide them their welcome mat back home.
    Obama wants the crowd of armed Islamists to swell into the millions.
    Cruz seems to understand it and says similar things to Ben Carson.
    Rubio has been all over the board in the past trying to strike deals with Obama.
    Trump is building a furor and not helping the debate. Many people will die because of him. I”m sure of it.
    Many people will die because of Obama also.

    This is THE worst situation for the idiots in Eurpope and the U.S. and Canada and you have to figure out how to be pursuasive. Period.

  19. A little history from a March 28, 1786, letter written by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who were American diplomats at the time, to U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs John Jay reporting on their conversation in London with the ambassador from Tripoli regarding piracy by the Barbary States:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

    The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

    Has anything changed since then?

  20. No.
    Nothing has changed.
    So let’s take the pistol and start shooting ?

    Or. Figure a legitimate way out of the problem which is complex and tough?

  21. I found the above quote at Jerry Pournelle’s website. The rest of his essay is excellent: The Caliphate and other nightmares. Grief and recovery. Just a sample:

    The Caliphate — ISIL as the President seems fond of calling it — accepts the command. It gives as a sign of legitimacy that it rules lands and in those lands applies the Law of the Koran; this demonstrates its legitimacy in the eyes of God. All Muslims must give it allegiance, for it rules by the will of Allah. And so long as it can make this claim of legitimacy, it grows, as more and more Muslims, including middle class citizens of the United States find they have no choice but to render it obedience. This not “radicalizing”; this is obedience to the fundamental marching orders that have prevailed since the Prophet returned to Mecca. To those who have accepted the Caliphate — ISIL — they have seen the sign, and they accept its commands.

    The Caliphate grows daily. It must someday be defeated. It grows stronger daily. It is far more difficult and costly to defeat today than it was a year ago when the President of the United States pronounced it contained and called it the junior varsity. And it will never be easier to defeat than now.

  22. McCarthy wrote:

    But limiting the cuts to Muslim-majority countries would exclude Christians and other non-Muslims and also ignore Muslim immigration from non-Muslim countries such as India, Russia, France, and England.

    Apparently, McCarthy is suggesting limiting immigration from certain countries and suggesting it is not the way to go, though his alternatives are not clear.

    Surely Christians from the ME could be allowed in as refugees from genocide. The test should be adherence to Sharia law, no matter where potential immigrants come from. Adherence to Sharia is incompatible with pledging allegiance to the United States flag and the Constitution, and should be grounds for rejection. Calling for Sharia law to be applied in the United States should be regarded as treason. I would equate it to German immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s promoting Nazi ideology.

  23. Folks we are looking straight past REALITY.

    FAKE documents are milled out by the thousand in the MENA even at this time.

    ALL of the above nostrums rest on the keystone of knowable facts — of honest testimony.

    Neither is even remotely in prospect during the international civil war between the Muslim factions — and they are many.

    %%%

    neo…

    Your reasoning is so “Westphalian.”

    It does NOT compute with Muslims.

    &&&

    Countless thousands of Americans have had dealings with Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The unpublished — unadmittable — facts:

    Muslims over there lie with aplomb — even when it is a certainty that their lies will be soon exposed.

    The Ten Comandments have NOT clicked in over there.

    Swearing on a Koran ? ‘Tis to laugh.

    ‘Tis as if one swore on Mein Kampf.

    BTW jihad translates as kampf in German.

    And, as we all know, it’s a best seller across the MENA… usually second only to the Koran.

    GB has it right.

    With your modest proposal — we may be left with Ripley’s solution: “Nuke’em from orbit — It’s the only way to be sure.”

    We need nothing less than a US Constitutional amendment that specifically targets Islam — and the other totalitarian collectivisms.

    Otherwise, we have a house divided against itself. It didn’t work out too well back then, either.

  24. yes sir. and nutty also

    secretly i support muslims from entering the country. wouldn’t it be great if we had a president, senate and house that would just do it with 100% support, explain why, show article after article for hours to the american people.

    What we have instead is a very divided country with a million or so muslims, a passport generating machine in the hands of ISIS, no stomach to even stop or put on hold the fiance visa’s.

    Easy things are easy. yet they are hard. We just stopped people from 4 countries but yet that stopped Christians as well. And I’m not even sure the Senate passed that bill yet.

  25. PatD: “The test should be adherence to Sharia law, no matter where potential immigrants come from. Adherence to Sharia is incompatible with pledging allegiance to the United States flag and the Constitution, and should be grounds for rejection. Calling for Sharia law to be applied in the United States should be regarded as treason.”

    Just so. A religion that brooks no separation between mosque and state is completely incompatible with our government and our justice system.

    Muslims who want to be devout in the way they dress, eat, pray, etc. and still be good American citizens have an example they can follow. It is the Amish. The Amish hold themselves apart from all other faith groups by their practices, but they give allegiance to the Constitution and pose no threat to their fellow citizens.

    It is the Wahhabist doctrine of literal translation of the Quran, which turns Islam into a governmental system (Sharia) with religious trappings that has become the main problem in Islam. This teaching has been steadily gaining ground in the Muslim world since Saudi Arabia began using petrodollars to finance madrassas and imams worldwide. A first step would be to outlaw Wahhabi Islam (also called Salafi or political Islam) as being a threat to our Constitution. We could then refuse to let Wahhabis into the country and deport those who are already here. That would include making the preaching of Wahhabi doctrine an act of sedition.

    The inconvenient fact about all this is that Saudi Arabia is the fountainhead of Wahhabi Doctrine. We must isolate them insofar as possible. Yes, the world (not the West so much anymore) still needs their oil, but we don’t need the murderous poison that is emanating from their sand box. A way must be found to keep them and their cult in their box while still buying their oil.

    I know many here disagree with this point of view. But I ask, is it not better to encourage a reformation – (A return to the Islamic school of thought which considered the Quran as a constructed work [Much like the Bible], that allows for deductive reasoning to interpret the Quran in light of changes in the world since the time of Mohammad.) before we turn to the other alternative, which is a War against all Muslims – all 1.5 billion of them?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>