Who really believes in assimilation?
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In my view the wisest strategy of resistance to the Jihad is not engagement but isolation — not isolation of ourselves, but of them. We should make it our policy to have as little contact with the Islamic religion as possible. A sizeable and dynamic faction of this religion, with roots stretching back to the antiquity of Islam, is committed to an uncompromising principle of revolution. Its adherents aim to transform our country utterly, by any means available. Sedition is their piety. Our ability to distinguish this faction from the broader society of Muslims is piteously inadequate. Our capacity for even the rudiments of clear thinking on this subject, for even the first steps of firmness and vigor in our public counsels, is very meager. Our readiness to be cowed by simple tactics of intimidation, to be brought to heel by a few tired slogans, seems almost boundless.
Read on.
It is something of a mystery to me that many of those who are most energetic about a policy of engagement with Islam, are also those who are least confident about our ability to impose our will at home. We can impose our will upon distant lands and alien peoples, but it is a horror to attempt such a thing upon the aliens in our midst. Now assimilation, as we often talk about it in American history, is just that: the imposition of will upon the alien. I realize it makes men uncomfortable to talk like that, but this is a fact. The neoconservative Norman Podhoretz, perhaps the most energetic of all democratizers — that is, those who support a policy of democratization of the Islamic world — relates in one of his books how his grammar-school teacher in 1930s Brooklyn took it upon herself, with no consultation with his parents, to eradicate his Yiddish accent: in short to destroy this vestige of his immigrant culture and replace it with something American. At times in American history, the force of this imposition of will became almost an element of the atmosphere itself: vague, indefinite, but very real. Someone back in my ancestral past (my ancestors include the first Italian family to arrive in Denver) felt this pressure to such an extent that he changed the pronunciation of his last name: from Ch-ella to S-ella. Italian became American. At other times, the imposition of will was tangible indeed, as when, confronted with a rebellion in New York City against the Conscription Act, fomented in part by immigrant gangs, Lincoln did not hesitate to send in steely veterans of Gettysburg, backed by grapeshot, to effect obedience to the law.
My point is that assimilation — the principle upon which, when pressed, defenders of generous immigration policies (including, for our purposes here, policies generous to aspiring Muslim immigrants) almost invariably retreat — is very often indistinguishable from coercion. In many cases it is a painful dispossession of a cultural inheritance. In some cases it amounts to a kind of despotism. Until this fact is realized — until, in practical terms, we see at least in embryo a movement to require this sort of cultural dispossession from the immigrant communities that, willfully or otherwise, incubate our enemies — we are authorized to doubt the seriousness of those who seek to assuage us with invocations of assimilation. We want to dispossess Muslim communities of the doctrine of jihad; and the plain fact is that any attempt to do so will be perceived by a great many people as attacks on Islam itself. We can make all the distinctions between doctrine and religion that we like (and indeed the distinction is a real and meaningful one): it will not disarm the grievance-mongers and sophisters, whose manipulation of our obsessions will undoubtedly sow perplexity and alarm. A man who cries loudly when pressed: “noble Assimilation, make our country whole,” but who sees any manifestation of it as little more than bigotry, is not, in fact, a man who venerates the principle of assimilation.
Engagement, which is the policy we have pursued since September 11th, has resulted in assimilation, alright: the assimilation of us to them. Government bureaucracies and corporations beyond count have forced their employees through Islamic sensitivity training, but I have yet to read of a Muslim organization putting its employees through American sensitivity training. We read now that the military is similarly assimilating to Islamic mores and traditions. Marines at Quantico, for example, are “allowed to have some time off to prepare for their fasting break and not to go to physical training” during Ramadan.
Were the assimilation moving in the other direction, we might read of the military’s demand that Muslims recruits change their name to accommodate easier pronunciation; or the insertion of a line repudiating the doctrine of jihad in the Oath of Enlistment; or the institution of special background checks for Muslims recruits (if the reader considers this question of no practical importance, it may be useful to recall the cause of the first American casualties in the Iraq war); or the implementation of careful and intrusive additional oversight of military imams; or a dozen other of the sort of policies that would verily scream “discrimination” into the sensitive ears of our Liberals but would actually mean “assimilation” — or at least the attempt at it.
I would genuinely like to hear from the devotees of Assimilation: how would you react to policies and pressures which, when brought to bear in a serious way, would mean uncomfortable and even painful demands on Muslims immigrants? Would you be prepared to defend a school teacher (were such an intrepid soul to emerge) who imposed assimilation on Muslim students is a way similar, mutatis mutandis, to young Podhoretz’s English teacher? Would you stand and be counted with the adversaries of CAIR, quickly heaped with abuse and slander by a pliant press, when it launches its media campaign against a proposed loyal oath for Muslim enlistees in the Army? Would you support a federal bureaucrat who, perhaps a bit sanctimoniously, made himself a cause célèbre by refusing to submit to Islamic sensitivity training until the outfit that demanded it asks its employees to enter classes in American history and government? Would you willingly set yourself under the black paintbrush of calumny, and stand with a Congressman who proposed a resolution (not even binding legislation) declaring America’s firm intolerance of the doctrine of Jihad and demand that American Muslims renounce it at once? Would you, in short, stake your reputation on the enforcement of the principle you promote?
If you answer No to all of these hypotheticals (or other similar ones that might be imagined), then I would say to you, with respect, that your commitment to assimilation is a shallow one indeed; that wherever this stated and abstract commitment comes in contact with the hard work of actually making it so, your resolve falters and your ideal is betrayed; and that your endorsement of a policy of Engagement, given the feebleness of your support for Assimilation, is tinctured with darker things like Surrender and Appeasement. And since I suspect that the effort of will required to replace this feebleness with resolution is beyond the means that we here possess, prudence counsels an alternative policy. If we cannot muster the strength and self-possession to impose our will, as our fathers before us did, let us try to avoid exacerbating the cultural confrontation, underway all over the world, which can only result in the imposition of someone’s will upon someone else. Let us take steps to isolate of the Islamic world.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Check Out Time Nears — Comments (30) »
Who really believes in assimilation? 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I'm not offended, and I can understand your vexation with me; but a criticism of which begins with the admission that you did not read my argument, is hardly a criticism I can take seriously.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Excellent post Paul, and I echo your thoughts.
Too many moslems are tolerating extremists in their midst.
Until we have moslems openly and strongly attacking those terrorists and extremists seeking to impose sharia and demanding special priveleges like not being searched at airports, etc., we are very justified in being wary and reluctant to through open the doors to our national house.
Those who would seek a perversion of the Islamic faith to try and impose it upon others should be shunned, and rightly so. But there are plenty of practicing Muslims who are just as concerned with the threat of Islamic jihad, and we shouldn't force them to give up their faith because of those who use it for their own twisted ends.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
we do not try to ostracize a religion which, with the exception of the radical extremists in foreign lands, is mostly peaceful. I hold many disagreements with the Islamic faith; hence, I have chosen a different faith. However, my interaction with Muslims in this country has been one where I have vastly benefited in terms of understanding and intellect. There are those who seek to gain power from a perverse understanding of Islam, just as there are those who would seek to do it in this country under the guise of a false Christianity (see Fred Phelps).
Assimilation is great-heck, I've been arguing that immigrants must assimilate to our culture for as long as I can remember. But to start out your story by saying that it should be mandatory for one to give up one's religion when they have made no motions in the way of extremism is simply a reverse extremism.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
The failure to say anything more serious than "Assimilation is great" is precisely the reason for the admittedly provocative nature of my opening statement.
I would ask that you consider the questions I put to you (as an avowed enthusiast of assimilation) in the later half of the essay.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I believe you are spot on in showing that we have too often been willing to make accomadations for those who are not willing to reciprocate. However, your essay starts off with a denunciation of the Islamic faith as a whole. You admit to trying to be provocative in your opening statement, and indeed you are. I fear, though, that it is wholly unneccessary, as the vast majority of the people at Redstate agree wholeheartedly that we cannot make accomadations to people who wish to live here, yet don't wish to take our culture.
To answer your questions, I would say this:
I believe that assimilation does have to come with a forthright rejection of jihad. It also has to come with people willing to take that loyalty oath of enlistment when they join the armed forces. They have to take to heart the principles that we as Americans hold dear. I would also contend, though, that there are many Muslims who have done this. Why would we try to isolate them simply because of their faith or cultural background? Podheretz's teacher was wrong to erase traces of his Yiddish ancestry. Your ancesters should have been able to keep their pronunciation of Ch-ella. Those are traits which are not necessary to assimilation. A knowledge of American history and governance is, however, crucial, and cannot be wiped away.
I think I would have responded more nicely to your essay if it hadn't been for the unneccesary provocation.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.
especially those who are American citizens we have no choice but to go with assmiliation. Isolating such people already in our midst could have the exact opposite effect of radicalizing them. Ultimately an assimilated American Islam could feed back into world Islam and defuse its illiberal tendencies, much as American Catholicism helped reconcile the Roman Catholic Church to democracy, religious freeedom and modern science and technology.
Helped break the global version of its incessant obsession with ancient ethnic hatred, reflexive bowing to State power, and incessant nastiness to Catholicism?
No, wait, that didn't happen. Never mind.
Honestly, Aleks, limit yourself to topics within your understanding.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
I believe assimilation implies a certain willingness on a partaker to surrender traditions in the interest of common good. Accordingly, we, the willing, have discarded vestiges that make us different from the cultural fabric and social mores in which we choose to exist. In some cases, when practical, we do not leave these behind but save them as part of parochial heritage, tradition and ethnic pride. This allows us to coalesce as a country in unity based on principle and foundations in which we all aspire and agree to exist.
When we start to make exceptions to this societal rule in the interest of advancing parochial cultural practices it is a destructive means to an end. Where does it stop? Other will rightly say; why are my traditions not woven into the fabric?
Commitment implies an attachment to basic principals and foundational philosophy. Since when are such principals modified or selectively followed like a Chinese menu? That modus operandi lies in one who dwells outside the philosophical boundaries, seeking to destroy that which is sacred from within. Such is the effort to inculcate institutions with Islamic traditions and practices. They are the practitioners whom scream about freedom from religion; yet promulgate a Muslim institutionalization under the guise of sensitivity. This is a far greater and destructive threat to our freedom than any action or law adopted since the commencement of this war. It is an effort to alter the fabric of that we find most sacred, our country and common societal creed.
You will find no honest takers to admit they are fractional practitioners of assimilation; only cultural heretics that parse words, meanings and engage in exploitation, while opining the society at large is the problem
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
That may not be possible. What did it take us to cure the Japanese of their Bushido Code psychosis from 1941 to 1945?
The same extended effort may be needed again this time to cure them of 'Jihad'.
It took military superiority and the mass killing and arrest of their murderous leaders for us to 'cure' Japan of the expansionist perversion of its heritage.
The problem is, though, that our enemy now lacks such clear homogeneity and centralization. There is no one definite hierarchy we can attack and no one city we can burn to the ground, if we wanted to follow that model.
--
Run like Reagan!
according to the American left its us that are the problem.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Supposing one learns English, follows US law, and makes some effort to exist comfortably in American culture, I'd thats assimilation enough for me. Being a devout Muslim isn't at all mutually exclusive with being American. Which pillar of Islam is incompatible with the constitution?
More importantly, futitle attempts to isolate and exclude Muslims will only inflame those that are prone to extremism. Making Muslims second class citizens, or not letting them be citizens at all plays directly into terrorist propoganda and will only serve to assist terrorist recruitment. Discriminating against an entire civilization only ensures that the entire civilization will become our enemy, as oppossed to the tiny fraction that is now. Your ideas would only fan the flames.
Jihad is incompatible with being an American. Whether it is a pillar of Islam I leave for Muslims to decide. Any assimilation that does not include the renunciation of this doctrine is no assimilation at all. I suppose you must have overlooked by emphasis on the doctrine.
Your second paragraph amounts to an admission that our freedom of action is already hampered by the machinations of the Jihad; in short, that we have already "assimilated," to some degree, to it.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Jihad only means to struggle in the way of God. A particular interpretation of it--to use of violence to spread Islam-- does indeed create a problem, but luckily, that is only one interpretation. If being a Muslim meant that one must strive to use violence to spread Islam, banning Muslims wouldn't be wrong. But the reality is that only a portion of Muslims suscribe to this doctrine and the rest live peaceful normal lives. Asking Muslims to renounce Jihad--a concept found in the Koran that is open to interpretation--is descriminatory and simple minded; asking them to renounce violence is perfectly acceptable.
Of course it is true that it will be difficult to tell if any given Muslims is one that has rejected violence or considers it part of his religious duty. Unfortunately, there is no better solution to attempting to discern if a given Muslim has in fact rejected violence. Its impossible to kick out all the Muslims already in the US and it would be counter productive to discriminate against Muslims immigration in the future. Doing so would only give credence to terrorist propoganda that the US is anti-Islam and worthy as a target of violence. It would only isolate the moderates while giving strength to the extremists. We should not descriminate against Muslims because its immoral to do so; we should not discriminate because its practical and in our best interests.
Admitedly, assimilation will be difficult and will appear insensitive at times. Yet there is nothing inherent to Islam that is truley incompatible with life in the US.
Show me where the concept is open to an accepted, different interpretation than what is promulgated today (historical cite or otherwise).
Than lets talk about Itmam al-hujjah and killing those who are non believers.
Since this is not a religious blog, I will stop there.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_of_Islamic_scholars_on_Jihad
Even if one did interpret jihad as using violence, there would still be a difference between those that allow violence for personal or community defence once attacked, and those that advocate as an offensive force to be used against innocents.
The doctrine of Jihad used as justification for terrorism is a minority intrepretation. At the very least, to be Muslim doesn't mean to accept the use of violence against innocents, as I am sure many good American Muslims can attest.
Cut out the pedantry, alright. We all know perfectly well what Jihad means in this context. If necessary, in the course of legislation or something, we could specify the "lesser" Jihad. But something tells me that will hardly placate anyone.
"Only a portion" of Muslims subscribe to Jihad -- except that we really have no idea how high a proportion it is. The Pew studies suggest 10% at the low end, which works out to a massive population of disloyal residents and potential jihadists.
"Asking them to renounce violence is perfectly acceptable."
Hardly. So vague a demand is either absurdly onerous or so indefinite as to be worthless. Shall we demand that men become pacifists?
There is a strongly-worded sedition law on the books today; it need only be amended to include specific mention of Jihad as the most clear and present manifestation of sedition.
We should not descriminate against Muslims because its immoral to do so; we should not discriminate because its practical and in our best interests.
If prohibiting jihad is tantamount to "immoral" discrimination against Muslims, then you have, by simple logic, acceded to the interpretative claims of the jihadist, whose view it is the jihad an Islam are inseparable.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
1. Apparently we "all" don't know that we are referring to the lesser interpretation of Jihad since already one person has asked me to give proof when Jihad meant anything other than violence.
2. 10% is more or less "a portion". And as I said above, this 10% (or more) does indeed create a problem. But, the way to deal with this problem isn't to ban the other 90%, which I assert would only push more into the 10% category.
3. How about banning "terrorism" and accepting those that wish to worship peacefully. This is more or less the current policy.
4. Jihad and Islam probably ARE inseparable, but because Jihad does not equal violence, there is no problem in allowing Jihad. There is nothing wrong with banning violence or terrorism; there is a problem with lumping violence together with a vague religious concept that can be interpreted in many ways.
Simply stated, banning "jihad" impliciltly assumes jihad means violence--this is wrong and discriminatory. Banning terrorism is fine.
I don't know if it is a pillar or just a plank in the structure, but it's there. I suppose if one believes "jihad" means "persomal struggle", then "abd" must mean "puppy".
...unless "abd" really means "puppy"...and don't try to sell me "servant". Don't try to sell me anyone.
All Muslims, including the jihadis, read the same holy book and from it they take different lessons. They claim the same God; one sees a God demanding understanding and acceptance, the other a God demanding obedience and death. One claims piety in all things, the other demands dominance.
My heart and soul tell me that we cannot condemn all Muslims for the actions of the jihadis. My brain tells me there does not appear to be a way to tell the difference.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
We attack the doctrine of Jihad (and perhaps the aspiration to Sharia law), not the Islamic religion. We prohibit and ruthlessly suppress the former, and hope that the peaceful adherents of the later will be sheltered by this grim task. This will require some hardheadedness on our part, but I must say that my hope is not enlivened when I see that virtually every critical commenter today has failed to perceive the importance of the imperative distinction between a doctrine and a religion.
By this failure, they implicit accede to the argument that Jihad is indeed inseparable from Islam.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
is that other doctrines allow, nay encourage, false treaties, dissembling, concealment, etc., in the pursuit of Islam's dominance. So how does one trust that you are being told the truth when jihad is renounced and peace extolled? 'Tis a puzzlement to be sure.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
there will certainly be cases of deception, people might commit perjury when taking loyalty oaths, etc.; but the point is that we would to demonstrating our intolerance of Jihad, and everyone would know about it.
The cold jihadist will not be caught up in this sort of thing (if he is smart), but the half-hearted one, the sympathizer, the fence-sitter -- he will take note. And even against the cold jihadist, we now have an instrument that allows us to strike against him before he has taken action.
More legal tools, more public demonstration of will, more pressure on the enemy.
___________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
that is, one not run by liberals wearing "kick me" signs stapled to their backs, should be able to tell the difference between a normal Muslim living a normal life in America and the nutcases conspiring with foreign enemies. The NSA wiretaps, wisely used, seem just the thing here until the jihadist threat goes away.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Until there is open, blatant, "from the rooftop" shouting...and we can clearly see who IS and who ISN'T asserting the so-called peaceful vestiges of Islam...and THEMSELVES purging their religion of these vermin, we have but little other choice than to mind Paul's original assertions.
What we do in life echoes in eternity.
-Maximus Decimus Meridius
If we did indeed separate as best we could, you'd still be left with the problem of discerning who is Muslim and who isn't. Additionally, you'd have to deal with the new legions of Muslims who were descriminated against and are really pissed off.
Its completely impractical to isolate ourselves from Islam. You'd essentially have to ban everyone who lives in a country where Muslims live. You'd have to live with the news stories of US police shutting down Mosques, and kicking our doctors from India who've been in the US for decades. It would anger the world over and solve no problem.
We all convert or what?
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I don't want to convert. So what happens to me, death?
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
wrong jihad, my bad. :>)
It is completely impractical to instanteously isolate Islam -- as in, do it all at once. It is perfectly practical to do as I said and make that the object of our policy, beginning will small steps and moving on from there.
For instance, let's start with a loyalty oath or affirmation, administered to all prospective Muslim immigrants, requiring a public renunciation of Jihad. You want to come here? Fine, formally repudiate this doctrine. Too onerous for you? Fine, stay where you are.
Secondly, let's deport all Muslims here illegally.
Two steps, neither of which is a horrifying leap into nativism, neither of which even touches upon American citizens, but both of which begin to indicate our resolve in dealing with this wicked doctrine.
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
So how do you tell Muslim from non-Muslim then?
The same way we knew who was a member of SDS, the SLA, the Weathermen, or the Black Panthers. We monitor and infiltrate mosques, especially the more radical ones, and collect information. It was right to monitor those radical organizations in the 1970s, even though certainly not everyone involved was going to be putting pipe bombs under police cars and robbing banks. It's the right thing to do today.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
And then you wonder why the party has poor popularity among muslims?
Anyway, your ideas of forcing Muslims to change names or not accomodating their traiditions when they're in the Army is ridiculous. If ever we need more Muslims in the military, it is now. There is nothing wrong with accomodating a Christian, or a Jewish, or a Muslim recruit for that matter, and allowing extra break time during Ramadan during training time is OK as far as I'm concerned.
Second, your idea that we should isolate the whole of Islam sounds flawed. Actually, I am not sure if that's what you want but you do state it several times. We should do the opposite - keep engagement with the Muslims who do not embrace militancy and isolate the rest.
Regarding the oath to denounce Jihad, don't you think it's pretty meaningless. The oath we take during citizenship already does that without explicitly specificying one religion's extremists. The questions we go through at the embassy to get a visa already involve questions such as our opinion about terrorism, etc. I am an immigrant, I've been there and I can tell you that everything that I've proclaimed is already incompatible with militant Jihad. Asking Muslims to specifically renounce certain interpretations of their religion is downright pointless.
Finally, I just wonder, do you know any Muslims? Are you friends with any? I really wonder what they might think of you after reading such a collection of anti-Muslim rhetoric.
There are all kinds of people living in the US that believe in all kind of different rules to live their lives by. There are Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Hassidic Jews, native Americans and others who have differing degrees of strictness to how the people who belong to their group should live. I do not have a problem with that. Now if somebody decides to strap explosives to his body and go out into a crowd of people and kill himself and everyone around him then I got a big problem with that. Folks I do not have a solution for how to stop some crazy fool who is H*ll bent on killing himself and as many others as he can. I disagree with anyone who thinks that a solution is to hate an entire group of people because of their religion. This kind of hate has been tried before and it never does any good.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Should we tolerate the intolerant? Sure Muslims can live here if they act peacefully, but do we have to let more of them in here?
History shows us that whenever they reach a percentage of any population much more than about 5% they begin to cause all sorts of problems.
You state that there are many people with many beliefs, ok, but just what does the Muslim culture have in common with ours?
Lets see, intolerance and intimidation of ethnic and religious minorities. Lack of human rights and especially womens rights, Holy war, no separation of church and state. Not a lot of ideas we need to be importing into our nation.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
when it comes to the topic of religion it is hard give a satisfactory answer. There is only 1 thing I can think of that Muslims have in common with us. That is getting out of someplace where they endured religious persecution to a place that is tolerant. The US is young compared to other countries in the world, but we never had an established religion in this country, and that is a good deal.
The comments you made in your last paragraph are also applicable to other groups of people besides Muslims. There are sexists and racists folks living in the US that are not Muslims. I hate some of the things that Fred Phelps and his folks do. I am not going to therefore isolate myself from all Christians.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
between any of the groups you've mentioned and Muslims.
First of all, while each of those groups have some practices that are unique to their group, none of them demand that we change our culture to accommodate them. Second, they are all self-policing.
Muslims around the world are insisting that countries accommodate them. It hasn't happened here yet, but at the rate we're going it won't be long. See CAIR.
I keep hearing that 90% of Muslim are peaceful. I haven't seen it. I'm still waiting for the 90% to take measures to control the 10%. They don't do it anywhere. The Muslim community in the US is, by and large, silent about terrorism in the Middle East and about terrorist acts in Europe last year related to the "cartoons", etc. They are at best enabling the 10%, at worst they are supporting them. I can't tell which is which.
Right now the war is a pretty distant event. It really doesn't effect all that many people directly. Let one big act of terrorism happen here that takes many thousands of lives and things will get different quickly. I honestly don't know if Muslims are the enemy or not. I will say that, given the actions of prominent Muslim organizations (CAIR and MAS for two) they are no friends of US.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
that CAIR and MAS are no friends of the US. I think that other groups however in their own kind of ways try to change our culture to accommodate them. For example religious groups who are absolutely against photo ids that sort of thing. I just am reluctant at the moment to go as far as it seems some people here at RS would go with respect to dealing with US Muslims.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
issue a non-photo id. I know there have been tifs over Muslim women wanting photo ids with their face covered. Those went nowhere.
Also, some groups refuse to serve in the military requesting CO status. They are accommodated by law, and some of them will serve as medics/corpsmen others won't. I know that in some instances, CO's who refuse all military service have been imprisoned. In no case, however, have we altered our culture to accommodate them.
My whole point here is that Muslims appear, through their organizations, to be very strident in their expectation that we in the West will accommodate them. It hasn't been a real big deal so far, but I think the irritation level is growing, and growing rapidly. If we have a terrorist act, especially one that is carried out by US based Muslims things will change in a big hurry.
US Muslims are in the position right now to head off most potential problems by taking a vigorous stand against terrorism, against terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah, and actively do something to stand against terrorism. Telling CAIR and MAS to shut up and go away would be nice too.
I'm not holding my breath. Based on what's happening in Europe I don't hold much hope of Muslims assimilating into Western society in large numbers. What I see is the very real potential for major violence in the streets in the US and Europe.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/067/chapter73/s73.3.html
scroll down to exemptions
In some states like Pennsylvania they have exemptions to give people a non-photo ID for religious reasons. I agree with you that Europe is not looking too good right now. Maybe it is partly because Europe went from having established religion and monarchy to atheist socialism and its a wreck. Hopefully the US will not follow Europe. The one thing the US citizens have in common is that they are descendants of folks who endured many hardships to come here and live without being persecuted for their religious beliefs. People like this will not take kindly to Muslims or anybody else trying to coerce them into 1 state established religion.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Its clear that its a struggle to reconcile Western values with Islam, so we should do what we can to limit the growth of the Muslim population in the United States. The Diversity Lottery Visa program should be abolished immediately, and family-reunification based visas should be limited to the spouse (i.e. female wife of a man, or male husband of a woman), minor dependent children, and parents of citizens and permanent legal residents. Together, these steps would prevent explosive chain migration from the Middle East.
That we haven't yet had serious problems with our still small Muslim population should not be taken as an assurance by proponents of mass immigration that an ever-growing Muslim population would work out just fine. Since we don't need large-scale Muslim immigration, then why should we take the risk? Europe is already experiencing serious problems with this experiment, and its likely to get worse. Do we really want to risk travelling down that path?
When Muslims are the majority they are violent towards the non-Muslim minority. Result is second class citizenship, democide, forcing out, and genocide.
When Muslims are the minority, they are violent towards the non-Muslim majority. Results are slavery of majority, e.g. by Barbary Pirates towards Europe, violent death, and eventual conquest.
There are a few exceptions like the reconquest of Spain, but not many.
The conclusion is that Islam really is violent Jihad, just like Muhammad said and did.
Where does this come from? It comes from the Quran and from Muhammad.
put some thought into this. There are countless instances of Muslims living at peace with their non-Muslim brethren, particularly when the latter submit (dhimmitude), and there are countless instances of Muslims being less generous to their non-Muslim brethren (kidnapping of the janissaries, massacres of the 19th century Ottoman Empire, etc etc). To boil it down to one simplistic statement is to deny local, religious and cultural nuance.
Can you show where Muslims in the majority have not eventually democided, genocided, forced conversion or fleeing?
Which majority Muslim nation today is not engaged in violence towards its minorities?
Dhimmitude is not peace, its violent. The rules of evidence and procedure are such that Muslims can engage in personal violence against non-Muslims and get away with it. This is shown countless times in history.
As to minorities, look around the world. Russia, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, UK, France, Spain, America we see violence from rape and street crime up to massacres.
The US started as a nation in 1776. From that time, and before, its people were taken as slaves by the Barbary Pirates. In 1786, Amb. Adja of Tripoli told Jefferson and Adams it was the law of their Prophet, it was written in the Koran, that they must wage war against any nation that did not submit to Islam. Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa said the same thing.
In 1914, 50 percent of Constantinople was Christian, today's its a tiny minority. Bethlehem was 85 percent Christian in 1948, today its 12 percent.
There is no Muslim land where non-Muslims are not fleeing, being subject to democide, are not in fear, and are not subject to discrimination.
when the Ottomans were in the ascendant the Christian majorities were fairly well accepted (with some notable exceptions). When the fortunes of the Porte waned and the minorities started to forge ties to the ever more powerful European states violence began on a large scale. Muslims have in recent years tended to treat minorities as internal manifestations of external enemies (eg the disappearance of Jewish communities throughout the Arab world). Muslim self-confidence was bolstered by its martial success. Now, as the Muslim world is reminded daily that it is a few billion barrels of oil away from irrelevance, many of the Islamic faith find their confidence shaken. And a people the masses of whom possess a political consciousness scarcely above the level of Europe circa 1650 respond by acting like petulent children, with deadly consequences. I'm not suggesting there is no merit in what you say, I'm simply trying to prod you toward making a better case for it.
Depopulation of Christians in Middle East
Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent
Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent
Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent
Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent
Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent
The same applies to Jews in Muslim countries in the last 75 years.
the decline of the Christian population of Turkey has much more to do with the post-WWI exchange of populations between Turkey and Greece, largely voluntary and while destructive not entirely the fault of the Turks.
The link above has links to source material on genocide of Christians and Turkish laws.
From January 13, 1915 New York Times:
“Talaat Bey, the Minister of the Interior, has stated to the Councillor of the Greek Patriarchate that in Turkey henceforth there will be room only for Turks. While he was profuse in assurance to the Greek Minister regarding the cessation of anti- Greek persecutions, no real amelioration of the situation is perceptible.”
There was a confiscatory tax law in 1942
This was not a peaceful exchange. There was continual violence to Christians in the Ottoman Empire and in Turkey.
It was the young Turks who genocide over 1 million Christians.
Before that it was the Sultan in the 1890's and before.
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad by Andrew Bostom
In the early 19th century Adams was complaining about the Ottoman Empire's massacres of Christians.
Adams:
quote
“The last appeal of the Sultan to the fanaticism of his people, and to the protection of his prophet, has been vain. He told them, that since the happy time of their great prophet, the faithful Mussulmen had never taken into consideration the numbers of the infidels. He reminded them, too truly reminded them, how often they had put millions of Christians to the sword; how many states and provinces they had thus conquered, sword in hand.” 9 [p. 302]
end quote
The Bostom article has more detail on other historical periods as well.
Any exchange in the 1920's could not be viewed as voluntary since it was preceded by a genocide of over 1 million Christians by the secular Young Turks.
The population exchange was largely of Greek Orthodox Christians who were concentrated in the Ottoman province of Eastern Rumelia, Istanbul, and in communities along the Mediterranean and Black Sea coasts. The genocide (and I would agree with the term) was of Armenian Christians, most of which were found in the interior of Anatolia and in the direction of the Caucasus.
You have a sophisticated knowledge AnonCon, but I respectfully
point out the following:
THE GENOCIDE OF THE EASTERN CHRISTIANS OF THE CITY OF SMYRNA IN 1922
RESEARCHED AND DOCUMENTED
AS NEVER BEFORE,
BY PROFESSOR M. H. DOBKIN
Smyrna an
ancient Greek city on Aegean coast wiki
Several incidents. Starting with an 1851 massacre of Americans by Turkey.
"1851 — Turkey. After a massacre of foreigners (including Americans) at Jaffa in January, a demonstration by the Mediterranean Squadron was ordered along the Turkish (Levant) coast."
search on: US ship Turkey massacre Smyrna
There were massacres in Constantinople in 1914.
NY Times reports on massacres in Constantinople Nov 12, 1914, Jan 11, 13 1915
Warning last is a pdf that opens slowly and can lock your browser for a long time.
and "voluntary" was probably an inappropriate term; both the Greeks and the Turks sought to compel citizens of their ethnic counterparts within their borders to flee. The violence at Smyrna had much to do with Greece's occupation of the city in the belief that the Western powers would recognize the ethnically Greek city as their territory. It was the fallout from a military defeat as distinguished from neighbor killing neighbor, as was the case with the Armenians.
Your comments on Smyrna are insightful, but the overall context of Turkish invasion and warfare from 1300 onwards define the context.
quote
The only "sin" of those millions of persons was to live where their ancestors had lived for thousands of years before the Turkish invasions. The Turkish rulers carried out with unimaginable cruelty their plan to create a "Turkey for the Turks."
end quote
This was a war from 1300 and earlier onwards by the Turks and before them the Muslim Arabs from 633 AD. This is an over 1300 year war of Muslim invasions on Christian and Jewish populations that were living in peace in the Eastern or Western Roman Empire.
The entire Turkish Caliphate was engaged in violence. The Barbary Pirates were states, Tripoli, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. From before 1500 to after 1800 they took over 1 million Europe Christians and Jews slaves. Most died. That was also part of the Caliphate. The Sultan approved this as based on Islam and the Koran.
This included war with the United States by the Caliphate. The Caliphate was at war with the United States in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. This was a war of Islam as a unitary religious, military, political entity. That was a war founded on the Koran and the laws of the prophet.
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams reported on their 1786 meeting with Amb Adja of Tripoli, part of the Caliphate, i.e. of the Ottoman Empire.
quote
These future United States presidents questioned the ambassador as to why his government was so hostile to the new American republic even though America had done nothing to provoke any such animosity. Ambassador Adja answered them, as they reported to the Continental Congress, “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 Musselman who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
end quote
December 16, 2005, 9:55 a.m.
"America’s Earliest Terrorists"
"Lessons from America’s first war against Islamic terror."
By Joshua E. London
The Sultan-Caliph waged his war in the name of Islam. The genocides were out of the Quran. The above quote is based on the Verse of the Sword Quran 9:5, slay them were you can find them. Bin Laden's 1998 Fatwa is based on the same.
Put it in chrono order and read Chapter 9 Repentance, which abrogates all prior peaceful verses in chrono order.
"On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it,"
The Verse of the Sword, Quran 9:5, Adja's statement to Jefferson and Adams in 1786, and bin Laden's Fatwa are all parallel, and show its the Quran that is the basis of Islam's war on the West.
they just had the misfortune to have the country of their ethnic origin engage in a headlong retreat and leave them at the mercy of the victorious Turks. Tragic, to be sure, but hardly unique in the history of any civilization. And while technically the Barbary Pirates' attacks were those of Ottoman citizens the Barbary states owed little more than nominal fealty to the Sultan at this point in time, having more in common with the Pope's sort of religious leadership than with an actively managed empire. After a certain point, perhaps the Congress of Vienna (1814-15), perhaps even the defeat before the gates of Vienna (1683), the Ottomans ceased to be a threat and became the Sick Man of Europe, and it is at this point, the point at which foreign interference in Ottoman affairs came to the fore and the Porte's grip on its farflung territories became extremely limited, that many of the deprivations of Muslims against the non-Muslims who lived among them began.
quote
“[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his subjects]...‘all infidels are but one nation…This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.’”
end quote
this is John Quincy Adams quoting the Sultan, who as Caliph was the religious head of Islam.
These are the Sultan's own words for this very point of discussion. They show his motives in writing. The frank nature of his expression also is conclusive. He is stating clearly that this is one unitary war of all Islam against the rest of mankind. This passage is derived from the Koran in various ways, one can see certain phrases.
Following has text and photos at bottom.
THE GREEK HOLOCAUST OF THRACE, ASIA MINOR AND PONTOS
search John Quincy Adams sultan
quote
The Hellenic Genocide was the systematic torture, massacre and ethnic cleansing of several millions Hellenes (Greeks) perpetrated by the Turks in Asia Minor, Constantinople (called Istanbul by the Turks), Eastern Thrace, Imvros, Tenedos, Macedonia, Cappadocia and Pontos between the beginning of the 1890's and the end of the 1950's.
Millions of children, men and women were tortured and massacred or expelled from their homes only for being Hellenes. In the same places and often at the same time, were also massacred millions of Armenians and Assyrians.
end quote
quote
Ambassador Morgenthau's Story
CHAPTER XXIV:
"The Turks adopted almost identically the same procedure against the Greeks as that which they had adopted against the Armenians. They began by incorporating the Greeks into the Ottoman army and then transforming them into labour battalions, using them to build roads in the Caucasus and other scenes of action. These Greek soldiers, just like the Armenians, died by thousands from cold, hunger, and other privations."
end quote
one most common to the Hellenophiles. Others, and I count myself among them, choose to view the Armenian genocide as a qualitatively different phenomenon. There was no (believable) explanation of wartime exigency nor were there similar atrocities on the opposite side, for the Armenians did not really have an "opposite side."
See above links and quotes on John Quincy Adams and the Ottoman Empire in the 1820's and 1830's.
Following are John Q Adams' writings quoted by Bostom:
quote
“[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his subjects]...‘all infidels are but one nation…This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.’”
..
Those provinces are the abode of ten millions of human beings, two thirds of whom are Christians, groaning under the intolerable oppression of less than three millions of Turks. Those provinces are in some of the fairest regions of the earth. They were Christian countries, subdued during the conquering period of the Mahometan imposture, by the ruthless scymetar of the Ottoman race; and under their iron yoke, have been gradually dwindling in population, and sinking into barbarism. The time of their redemption is at hand.” [p. 303]
end quote
So we went from being 2/3 Christian in the 1820's to under 2 percent Christian in Turkey today. That's more than just voluntary exchange plus Armenian genocide.
The above posts include NY Times newspaper accounts of massacres in Constantinople in 1914 and 1915.
from Bostom article
quote
John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,
“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”
end quote
That's John Quincy Adams writing almost 100 years earlier. This was the motive of the Ottoman Turks, Islam from the Koran. Its in their Sultan-Caliph's own words. The Caliph was the head of Islam, a unitary religious, political, military entity set up by Muhammed in 622 AD and which has been attacking Christians and Jews from that time to now as commanded by their God in the Koran.
I am less sure about John Quincy Adams the demographer. By most accounts the Turks made up over half the population of Anatolia and the Muslim majority was still larger (with the ethnic Arab and Kurdish minorities included). The Christian population, while substantial, was nowhere near 50% in what I have read on the subject.
The Turks conquered a Christian Jewish land starting in 1300. Today its over 98 percent Muslim. Between those two points you can divide out the percentage points as you want, but you still are taking out 98 percent.
The 1914 era had some surveys. If you look at the sources cited, you will find references to the Turks undercounting Christians. Even then Christians were a substantial minority.
At the time that John Q Adams was writing, the Ottoman Empire still had parts of the Balkans under it.
The statements of the Sultan show his motives. They are the best evidence that its a war with all infidels as one nation and that its ordered by the Quran of all Muslims. His phrases all are familiar if you look at the Koran, especially chapter 9, Repentance.
Old Atlantic has, I believe, shown admirable patience and calmness in discrediting this opinion, but I would particularly emphasize the sad absurdity of describing dhimmitude as a legitimate instance of "Muslims living at peace with their non-Muslim brethren."
This, in plain cold logic, is analogous to saying that Jim Crow was an example of "Southern whites living at peace with their black neighbors." It is unsustainable, and worse than that, it is massively unfair to those who toiled, and still toil, under Islamic oppression.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Muslims in America, UK, France and Russia will eventually get our own nukes and use those on us. That's their 1400 year history. That is what is commanded to them by God in their Quran. Until we submit to Islam by becoming an Islamic Republic under Sharia Law, the Quran commands them to defeat us, no many how many Muslims have to die to accomplish that.
As the Caliph, the Sultan was the head of Islam as a unitary religious, political, legal, educational, and military entity.
"We should make it our policy to have as little contact with the Islamic religion as possible."
As I think you're aware, much of my extended family is Muslim. So I hope you won't be offended that I did not read much past the idea that Americans should shun, ignore, or ostracize them.
If you really believe that being Muslim alone is some kind of black mark against an American, I am saddened to hear it.
______________________________________
Social Security Choice - Club For Growth