Part II: moderate Muslims and the concept of religiosity
[NOTE: Part I can be found here.]
I ended Part I with the idea that I would write a Part II that offered some suggestions on how to deal with the problem posed by moderate Muslims vs. jihadis.
It’s not only not an easy problem to solve (that may be the understatement of the year), but it’s not an easy one to state and describe, because it has so many parts. For example, there’s the problem of telling the difference between the two, compounded by concepts such as taqiya. There’s the distinction between native-born and/or citizen Muslims, and those who are immigrating. There’s also the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and between different kinds of legal immigrants (those who flee for political reasons and are refugees or who seek asylum, those who come to work, those who come for jobs, those who come on legal visas but who overstay, etc.).
So believe me when I say that this will not be the definitive word on the subject, and will only just scratch the surface.
Let’s start with citizens. There are millions of Muslims already in this country, and Part I described the fact that many really are “moderate” and good citizens. Unfortunately, a very significant and yet unknown percentage are not. To deal with those people, I’m with Ted Cruz, whose idea (which has been very widely criticized, of course) concerns increased patrolling and securing Muslim of neighborhoods. It seems he had in mind (and I definitely have in mind) something akin to what this NYPD unit did in a program that used to be in place under Mayor Bloomberg but is no more (the program was also described in this 2009 book). It was an aggressive approach that did this sort of thing, for example:
…[T]he department dispatched officers to Pakistani neighborhoods and “instructed them to look for reasons to stop cars: speeding, broken tail lights, running stop signs, whatever. The traffic stop gave police an opportunity to search for outstanding warrants or look for suspicious behavior. An arrest could be the leverage the police needed to persuade someone to become an informant.” It established the Terrorist Interdiction Unit to handle these informants, who included “mosque crawlers,” “café crawlers,” shopkeepers, and nosy neighbors.
The fact that programs like that have been stopped is the sort of thing that has led to what I consider the over-correction represented by the “deport all Muslims, including citizens” advocates. Such an approach does not consider the distinctions between the innocent and the guilty, the citizens and the non-citizens, those who mean to harm and those who do not, or to distinguish the religious triumphalists (see Part I) from the rest. It also eliminates the very people who could become informants.
What’s more, it’s unworkable. How do you define “Muslim”? Is it by birth, for example? If the Muslim is a citizen, where on earth would that person be deported to? How much of a government presence will this require? Does it matter if Muslim citizens have been born in this country? What about converts? Meanwhile, there are other approaches that don’t require such Draconian measures.
People often have made analogies to World War II and the fact that in that war we bombed all Germans whether they were Nazis or anti-Nazis. But such analogies are inappropriate. We were at war with the country of Germany, and therefore all German residents living in Germany (including those who hated Nazism) were at risk.
A much better analogy is to those people of German extraction who resided in the US during WWII. Here’s the scoop on what happened to both the non-citizen German nationals residing in this country and the German-American citizens of this country during WWII:
The [US] government examined the cases of German nationals individually, and detained relatively few in internment camps run by the Department of Justice, as related to its responsibilities under the Alien and Sedition Acts. To a much lesser extent, some ethnic German US citizens were classified as suspect after due process and also detained. Similarly, a small proportion of Italian nationals and Italian Americans were interned in relation to their total population in the US.
In other words, such people were investigated as needed and dealt with on a case-by-case basis, even during the war, with only the worst people meriting action. I’m not sure how the evaluation was done, and I’m not suggesting internment camps for Muslims, but I’m pointing out that even during WWII the vast vast majority of Germans and German-Americans in this country, both non-citizens and citizens, were left alone. And those were very hard-nosed times, before PC-thought had made many inroads.
The history of the Japanese in this country (both citizens and non-citizens) during WWII is more well-known, but even that history has been very distorted. We certainly did not deport all Japanese, and we also did not intern them all. For example:
…more than 110,000 Japanese Americans, nearly all who lived on the West Coast, were forced into interior camps, but in Hawaii, where the 150,000-plus Japanese Americans comprised over one-third of the population, 1,200 to 1,800 were interned.
Some of the Japanese on the West Coast chose to relocate further east (it was only the West Coast that was affected), but most were interned, although in recent years the US has admitted it was unnecessary and has apologized and paid reparations.
In terms of comparison, though, another point is that the scope of the thing was much smaller. Leaving out Hawaii, where there were a large number of Japanese-Americans but few were interned, there were only about 127,000 Japanese-Americans on the US continent, and almost all lived on the west coast. That is certainly not the case now with Muslims in America, who are far more numerous and more widespread, so that even if there were no ethical drawbacks (and there are) there would be extremely formidable practical ones in comparison with WWII.
In summary, I am suggesting a program much like the one that was in place in NYC until a few years ago, which is essentially a stepped-up intelligence approach. Now, as far as immigrants (non-citizens) go, I would suggest strictly curtailing the arrival of new immigrants from Muslim countries, except for those members of minority groups there (Christians, for example) who are fleeing persecution there. Here’s a bill that’s at least a start on this; it has already passed the House but doesn’t have a good chance of getting past the Senate. But a Republican president and a Republican Congress would go some way towards helping that situation.
In the short term, I’m with Cruz on this one, a series of steps he suggested back in December:
…tonight, I challenge President Obama to finally acknowledge the enemy that the United States and our allies face. It is radical Islamic terrorism.
Second, after naming our enemy, the President should lay out a bold strategy to defeat ISIS, not to try to change the subject to gun control or the compliant media headline to global warming, but rather lay out a plan for decisive action for victory over evil.
Third, Americans want to know how this administration intends to keep them safe here at home. Border security is national security. We can no longer accept a border that is not secure and the President should announce the immediate steps he will take to ensure that it is.
…We also know that ISIS has made it clear that they intend to infiltrate the refugees in order to get to the United States. That can’t happen.
The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.
That’s what we should do. It doesn’t work as a sound bite, and it’s not simple to either state or implement, but I believe it’s the best solution at this point.
The first premise to be jettisoned is the notion of “radical” Islam as a distinction worthy of consideration. Islam is essentially radical. To appoint to it that adjective is a case of needless repetition.
Of all the world’s major religions — I refer to Islam as a religion only by the broadest of anthropological definitions — not one has ever been motivated to make a case for the existence of moderate adherents. That Islam, its exegetes and apologists, feel the need to do so, says reams about Islam proper. The greatest revelation in Islam’s history was not Allah’s testament (the Koran) to the Prophet. It was the revelation that Islam could not continue to exist, could not be, would not prevail, if it were modulated — and Islam knows this and responds in kind — desperately having initiated all manner of dogma for the purpose of its continued existence and ascendency.
Taking Christians as an example — one most familiar to most everyone in America, we find among Christians there are the overly charismatic, read nutcases, read Glenn Beck. There are high church and low church, There are the nominal Christians. And peaceniks, and missionaries, and snake handlers, and sola scripturans, and heretics. Christians, in effect, run the human gamut. Islam recognizes no such gamut.
Extend to women equality with men… and Islam crumbles. Extend to Muslim’s the freedom of religion… and Islam crumbles. Extend further to all Muslims free will and agency — thereby denying them the justification “Allah’s will” — and… Islam crumbles.
Islamic duplicity (taqiyya) does not engender confidence in dealing with Islamic States or Muslims; Islamic devaluation of women has made Muslim societies, alone in the world, culturally and socially undeveloped; Islamic disparagement of higher and broader education (anything other than Islam’s religious canons) has made Muslim societies, alone in the world (excepting the static tribes of Africa and lost tribes of West Papua), scientifically and technologically backward. There is no place for Islamic unexceptionality in a world in which Islam remains culturally, socially, scientifically, technologically primitive.
Islam may not, in a world in which it is one of many religions, demand religious freedom without providing it.
Extremism in the defense of freedom is graced by latitude, extremism in the pursuit of submission is illegitimate from the start.
Deny freedom to the one who would proscribe it.
Deny free speech to the one who would prohibit it.
Deny freedom of religion to the one who would forbid it.
Which brings me to Cruz and his vaunted street patrols. They are utter nonsense. Unless, of course, one has it in mind that the American surveillance State be beefed up to three times it present antagonisms – watching, listening, recording, defining, identifying, fabricating, entrapping — people who believe Islam beyond the pale and that Mahomet resides in a circle of the inferno adjacent Satan’s hole.
IMO, ALL immigration has to stop.
Barry Soetoro has just about Cloward-Piven’d the Hell out of our Welfare State.
As Milton Friedman well said:
You can’t have open borders AND a welfare state.
Further, the folks that are coming in this flood are sure to pull the economy backwards.
Indeed, if Europe’s experience is any guide ( it is ) we can figure that immigrating Muslims will be on the dole in perpetuity.
The average IQ of Muslims — native born in Denmark — has proved to be lower than their parents. !!
What’s going on: regression to the mean.
Their parents were above average in smarts. Whereas the kids drop right back to the IQ median seen in the Old Country.
In which case, it’s ~ 79.
This staggering gap explains why Denmark can’t get Muslim kids to learn at the same tempo as the natives. ( IQ ~101 )
Indeed, the vast majority of these hopeful Muslims can’t read or write — in any language.
Considering the way that Muslims stiff girls — and their education — and throw in civil strife — ’tis a wonder that they have any education at all.
Should we provide exceptions for Christian Syrians — that slot will be gamed by Muslims… fer sure.
It would be better if the Syrian Christians were re-located to Turkey… and we kicked in some cash to tide them over.
No devout fanatics would game the system to gain entry to Turkey. They can do that right now.
It’s much more practical all the way around.
Neo:
Why do you overlook the fact that Islam requires a caliph to rule? That Islam is utterly incompatible with the Constitution?
It is not enough to say, “Ah, but most Muslims don’t act on that”. We can’t leave it there. The Koran is the Constitution of Islam. It has not morphed in 1400 years. Amending the Koran is impossible. It cannot morph, so Islam has grown its jihadis for 1400 years.
How does one make peace with a hostile, murderous opposing force? By not attacking the non-combatants in the rear, the quartermasters and other entities that supply and support the fighting men? By compromise?
I think not. No way to fight a war to win.
All Germans were not Nazis, but all Muslims are Muslims. The seed is always there. Which is why the US now has its own “home-grown” jihadis.
From TheReligionofPeace.com, which keeps score:
“During this time period [calendar 2015], there were 2858 Islamic attacks in 53 countries, in which 27588 people were killed and 26136 injured.”
That is a lot of ‘hoods to police. One might conclude it is too many.
I know your proposals address the here and now in the USA. But, a big but, Muslims come from everywhere to the USA every day, as Trump rightly observes.
One cannot prevent spread of this sinister malevolent-potential contagion except by isolation and eradication. Anti-biotics (“bios” means life in Greek) are the only apparent answer for this evil infectious ideology that its adherents and we both pretend is a religion.
Frog Says at 6:40 pm
“All Germans were not Nazis, but all Muslims are Muslims. The seed is always there. Which is why the US now has its own “home-grown” jihadis”
Very good. Well stated.
Neo’s analogy fails because German is an ethnic group while Islam is an ideology.
Islam is vulnerable on many levels and could be easily eradicated or attenuated in Western Countries if those Western Countries were not controlled by leftists who are eager provide Islam with conditions which promote the spread and ultimate triumph of Islam over Western Civilization.
Why does the West under price food exports to OPEC ?
When Somalis were farming — they weren’t pirating.
Read this NYT opinion piece (via Hot Air) about jihadists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opinion/the-little-we-know-about-the-jihadists-in-our-midst.html
Since many of the terrorists in the west are second or third generation, I think there is something to this. I also think you have to weigh in the ability of the first generation to be assimilated and to let their kids assimilate. Much depends on how the fathers raise their sons and how much the strong man idea perserveres within the homes where the kids grow up. Are the mothers respected and allowed to exist as people outside the home? Do boys feel condemned to marry a cousin from the home country or are they allowed to have friendships with girls of their choice?
Another element is the thug and gang culture the kids are exposed to. Will they be controlled by even more radical thugs they met in jail?
I agree completely that we should scrutinize people before we let them come here. But we also have to ensure that otherwise rather moderate immigrants are not intimidated by gangs of thugs and crazy imams at a local mosque. We have to be very careful about closed enclaves where their in no integration. And we have to be very careful about letting groups like CAIR become the spokesmen for all Muslims. And finally, we have to get rid od celebrating the whole victim culture that other groups like blacks and gays use to shut us up.
The majority of “moderate” Muslims, by which I mean those who are not active jihadis, will only cooperate with Western countries’ authorities if they believe that the West, specifically the country they are in, is the “strong horse.” You get to be the strong horse in only one way — having power and using it. If the US flattens Raqaa, then goes in and mops up ISIS, and does the same thing in other countries, we will be seen to be the strong horse and will start getting cooperation from the “moderate” Muslims. (Sure, it would be nice if we could get some help from Europe, or KSA, or the other Gulf states, but I’m not holding my breath.)
So, what I want to hear most about Islam and Muslims is “Tango down!”
RS…
Such co-operation from ‘moderates’ is fleeting and rare.
The only instance I can recall was during the Surge in Iraq.
No Western power ever reports getting support at any time from co-located Muslims — instead — non-co-operation is the universal norm.
This makes sense when you realize that the imams are KSA ‘imports’ in about 80% of American mosques.
I presume that the rest are Shia.
Islamic ‘culture’ is totalitarian and wholly invasive.
Hence, no-one crosses the line.
Tips just don’t come in.
Period.
Tackling the potential problem posed by muslims in America is a sticky legal issue. There are, as neo notes, native born muslims who are either largely secular or who like Christians and Jews, pick and choose which parts of their faith they adhere to. But, the danger posed by islam is impossible to dismiss.
A first step is to stop all entry from nations where islam is the dominant religion. Secondly, all who enter from elsewhere, who do not hold a US passport, need to be sequestered and throughly vetted. Yes, it means a severe disruption to international travel, but so be it. However, abandoning the Constitution, aka the rule of law, is not acceptable.
Dennis: “Islam is vulnerable on many levels and could be easily eradicated or attenuated in Western Countries if those Western Countries were not controlled by leftists who are eager provide Islam with conditions which promote the spread and ultimate triumph of Islam over Western Civilization.”
I agree. The non-Muslim world has to stand up and point out the facts. That we cannot coexist with an intolerant religion. That the Salafi/Wahhabi version of Islam requires conversion or killing of all infidels. Point that out and swear that it will never happen. Do not coddle them. Continually point out how their religious tenets are incompatible with freedom of religion and separation of church and state. We have to face them down on the facts, and as necessary, on the battlefield as well.
I had a discussion years ago about something that somewhat pertains to this topic. And I took alot of flack for it at the time. But I believe it still has validity.
Some of this is an unforeseen side affect of the increasing use of “smart” bombs. By being so precise and limiting casualties. We have allowed the citizens of many of these counties to simply sit things out. And when you think about it its perfectly logical from their standpoint.
In WWII carpet bombing effected everyone. When a factory was targeted often an entire city could be leveled to achieve that objective. Obviously causing great pain and upheaval in that society.
Now imagine you are citizen of say Iraq. The Americans have come to in and begun to bomb your country to try eliminate the ISIS threat. We specifically try to limit casualties. You know that unless you are directly involved with terrorists. The odds of you being killed or even hurt are relatively small.
You also know that the terrorists have long memories and are highly vindictive. And that the Americans since the 60’s have proven extremely fickle and unreliable. Since your immediate safety is relatively high your best bet is to hedge your bets and play things down the middle. Even if you disagree with ISIS. You know the Americans have a limited attention span. And there are fewer consequences (like an entire city being destroyed) forcing your hand in the matter.
Now I am not saying I am advocating carpet bombing as an alternative to smart bombing. But I believe it had greatly changed both the calculus and politics of waging war. In ways we do not readily acknowledge. Or in some cases even realize.