| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
In general, Western countries should not make refugee status available to Muslims who continue to identify themselves as Muslims. If they claim that they are ill-treated under a Muslim system, perhaps because of political despotism, or perhaps because of inshallah-fatalism, or perhaps because of the mistreatment of women that is not only "cultural" but is reinforced by Islam, when it is not entirely caused by it, or perhaps because they just prefer life in the advanced West where there is great legal and social solicitude for the individual, that is all the more reason to make them either openly recognize the Muslim roots of the miserable condition of the countries from which they come, and so abandon Islam, rather than come to the overpopulated, overtaxed, disrupted and far too-tolerant and too-generous societies of the Western world, and bring their troubles to us.
The first thought should always be: what does the admission of such people, who call themselves Muslims, do to perceived Muslim numbers, and therefore to Muslim power? We have example after example of Shi'a Iraqis and Kurdish Iraqis (see Nashville, Tennessee) who claimed to be "refugees" from Saddam Hussein, and who of course are no longer "refugees" and could go right back to Shi'a-controlled parts of Iraq, or Kurdish-controlled parts of Iraq. But they stay. And the evidence suggests that they do not abandon Islam, but are disruptive and hostile and even, and not infrequently, downright dangerous to us -- to the Infidels who naively hand out that "refugee status" to all kinds of people.
Need one point out the effect on such places as Lewiston, Maine, of the Somalis now in our midst? Foundation and government grants intended for "immigrants" have at times been monopolized by Muslims who quickly learn how to manipulate groups intended to support or promote "refugees" for purely Muslim ends. There is the increase in expense for welfare benefits, as the Jizyah is complacently relied on. There is the hostility and disruption in the schools. There are the louche activities of every kind.
What are these Somali "refugees" actually refugees from? They are refugees from the misrule of Islam. Yet they bring their Islam with them. And that spells trouble for all non-Muslims. Why should we admit those who continue to be adherents of and devout believers in a Total Belief-System that inculcates the notion that for us, the Infidels, there can only be, at best, the permanent status of dhimmis under Muslim rule -- that is, a status, when Muslims rule, of humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity.
Why should we do anything at all, in any way, to make that threat larger? It makes no sense.
As for those who came from Iraq as "refugees from Saddam Hussein," need one point out that Saddam Hussein is gone, and there is no reason to continue to remain as "refugees from Saddam Hussein," especially not if, among for example those Shi'a "refugees from Saddam Hussein" are those who are great admirers of Shi'a theocracy or, if not, admirers of the demagogic likes of glowering Moqtada al-Sadr.
Take the case of Somalia, often described -- always without any explanation of what that phrase means -- as a "failed state." Somalia is indeed no longer a unified state, but one where warlords and their kalashnikov-toting bezonians compete for power. The despotism that Islam encourages, or does nothing to discourage, is found there in abundance. There is also the absence of a national consciousness, that Islam, by insisting on loyalty to a trans-national Umma instead of to a nation-state, and to fellow citizens of that state, encourages. In Somalia today all this has had the seemingly paradoxical but easily explicable effect of encouraging loyalty instead at the level that humans can understand -- that is, to those most immediately at hand, to family and extended family and to tribe or sect. And inshallah-fatalism helps to explain why there is economic stasis in any Muslim societies where the easy unmerited wealth of oil or gas is not to be found. This stasis is sometimes relieved by Infidel aid (see Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan) or by a cultivated connection to an Infidel economy (see Tunisia in relation to France). Nevertheless, there is more or less stasis and hopelessness. And indeed such inshallah-fatalism may also explain the failure of even the most fabulously rich Muslim states, such as Saudi Arabia and the sheikdoms, to develop something beyond rentier-economies, or to lessen their total dependence on foreign wage-slaves to do all the real work.
No, the case of Somalia is instructive. Whatever the misrule in Somalia, it is misrule that comes out of Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, unrescued by oil wealth or the Jizyah of Western foreign aid. Whatever the condition of Somalia, it is folly for this country, or any Infidel land, to admit any more Somali "refugees" -- whether to Minneapolis, where they were two years ago busy organizing and voting for Keith Ellison, now the standard-bearer for Islam in Congress, or in Lewiston, Maine, where just a few years ago the Mayor was hounded as a monster for daring to suggest that the influx of Somalis was bankrupting the city and depriving native Mainers (Maine is a poor state) of aid that they needed. But he was right. He was, in fact, understating the problem. For those Somali immigrants need a level of support, though they never paid into the system. And with their wives (and sometimes hidden wives) and many children (Somali cabdrivers will boast of how they or their friends can fiddle the system, can hide a wife or two), they tax the system of benefits, local and state, beyond what anyone ever contemplated.
Start making policy that is based on a clear understanding that adherents of Islam are bearers of an alien and a hostile creed, and that the more such adherents there are, the more difficult -- automatically -- life becomes for the indigenous Infidels, and for other, non-Muslim immigrants, as well.
Somali Muslims who settle in the non-Muslim Western world (especially Italy and the United States) inevitably add to the demographic problem, even if they were hard-working blahblahblah. All immigration from Somalia should be barred, permanently. We owe Somalis, Iraqis, and others absolutely nothing. Let them stay in their own countries, or move to other Muslim countries, where since they share the supremely defining feature of Muslims -- that is, their belief-system -- they may join fellow members of the Umma al-Islamiyya among whom, by the way, are many of the recipients of the most fabulous transfer of wealth in human history. Surely Saudi Arabia and the Gulf statelets, not to mention Iraq and Iran and Libya and Algeria and other members of OPEC, can take in some fellow Muslims. Isn't that what the whole idea of that single "Umma" is all about?
Posted by Hugh at July 23, 2008 10:10 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Infidels unite I say that is the best strategy to combat this menace. Stop allowing refugee and asylum to Muslims. Instead asylum and refugee status should by awarded to infidels. However, I would not be surprised that if that were to happen Muslims with the use of taquyia will pretend to be infidels. I cannot give Mohammedans any benefit of the doubt. To them evil ways are the norm. I cannot put pass them any criminal and devious behavior it is the way of Mohammedanism.
Posted by: savsiv![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at July 23, 2008 10:22 AM
Why not an interesting exchange?
All poor Filipinos (Catholics) and Sri Lankese (Boudhist or Hindus) workers (or slaves) from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states can come to Western Europe (or US) in exchange with the most sharia motivated Muslims of Western Europe!!
This deal must be accepted by all parties if there is no hypocrisy
- the Arabic Peninsula should be a "pure" muslim land (as Saudi Arabia): so replacing the infidels from the Philippines and Sri Lanka by sharia motivated Muslims from Western Europe must be accepted (it is islamically recommended);
- the sharia motivated Muslims must (it is islamically recommended) prefer to live in Dhar Al Islam than with the Kufar (infidels);
- as I am a Western European I welcome all Catholic Filipinos and Sri Lankese Hindus or Bouddhists suffering under Islamic tyranny in Western Europe: they are the real refugees.
The anti-sharia motivated Muslims can obviously stay in Europe.
Collateral advantages:
- the "sharia motivated Muslims" from Western Europe shall rapidly see what a shit the sharia is;
- if the sharia motivated Muslims from Western Europe refuse the deal, they shall have to think seriously about the reality of the sharia;
- if Saudi Arabia or other Gulf States refuse the deal, they shall encounter internal criticism and criticism from the Philipines and Sri Lanka.
at July 23, 2008 10:32 AM
Hugh really needs to run for president. Neither candidate offers such a clear and concise vision and solution of this problem.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at July 23, 2008 10:55 AM
Ending all Muslim immigration is the most important thing that this country can do to protect itself.
This drum must be beat constantly until it gets some serious attention.
I often see people write about it once and just drop the topic.
Unfortunately, when you go beyond websites such as this nobody has a clue about what Islam truly is so they think "Islamophobe"!
Its almost seven years since 9-11. There is no excuse for Americans to cotinue in this disgaceful state of ignorance about Islam.
Meanwhile, Muslims pour onto our country in increasing record numbers.
Posted by: cybo at July 23, 2008 11:00 AM
Somalis are the most worthless refugees ever thrust upon the citizens of the United States. Hmong are not far behind. Interesting how Minnesota is the state both were settled in. Other states too but Minnesota ended up with both
Hmong are big on polygamy too and "girl marriage" and could have a fine time swapping wife jokes with the Somalis..... If they any of them could get beyond pidgin English
Where are the feminist phonies on all this enslavement of women?
at July 23, 2008 11:18 AM
Hugh could never be POTUS, he makes entirely too much sense. You have to be slippery to be President.
Posted by: interestinconundrum at July 23, 2008 11:43 AM
Here's a nearly tragically comic story from my naive youth in Roanoke VA. We were getting a lot of refugees from Turkey and the West Bank. One day, a Turkish businessman, well-dressed and speaking flawless English was telling me how lonely he was in America and how he didn't know any other Turks in the area. Well, I helpfully told him I knew plenty of Turks not far from where I lived and we rode the bus together every day, yada yada yada...and he gave me his business card and said, Please give this to them so we can meet. And I did.
The family in question was Turkish.....Kurds, and the businessman was Turkish....not so Kurd. I wonder how the meeting went. I just love multiculturalism.
at July 23, 2008 12:17 PM
These are plain, clear thoughts, well put together in simple words. I am going to translate parts of it for my own site and for the sites of my friends.
First occured this principle to me a couple of months ago, as I read the news, that some 1000-2000 Somalis wanted refuge in Israel. Now, before geting to Israel they could have asked for refuge in Egypt or in Saudi Arabia - even in Mekka itself!
They use our refuge system to overrun us. Its the same tactics as Attilas Huns used: They drove some foreign tribes in front of them. And the Islam drives their refugees and use them agains us to islamise us. As long as they have their refugees they dont need any millitary against us.
Posted by: Kybeline at July 23, 2008 12:57 PM
There will always be misrule in most, if not all, Muslim countries. This can be attributed to Islam itself, to the fact that Muslims are taught to seek the source of political legitimacy not in the will expressed, however imperfectly, by the people, but by the will expressed, and perfectly, by Allah in the Qur'an, as glossed by the Sunnah (of which the most important written record are the Hadith, the stories thhat contain the supposed acts and words of Muhammad).
The question is: what is to be done with those who wish to flee such rule? They want, unsurprisingly, to go to the best-run places, and the best-run places are those of the Infidels. But they do not leave their Islam behind; they bring it with them. And thus they swell the ranks of Muslims, so that even if they do not participate directly in Jihad -- the "struggle" to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- their mere presence increases the perceived power of Muslims, and decreases the will of Infidel politicians, worried about Muslim support, from resolutely opposing all Muslim demands for changes and, what's more, helping to educate themselves and then others about the meaning, and menace for Infidels, of Islam.
There are 57 members of the O.I.C. There are 22 members of the Arab League. It is absurd for Great Britain, France, Italy, absurd for the United States, Canada, Australia, absurdest of all for tiny and permanently imperilled-by-Jihad Israel, to be expected to take in, or indeed to take in, any of these so-called "refugees."
And there are so many examples right now that cry out for rectification, where someone has been permitted not only entry, but allowed to fill, say, an academic post that might have gone to a local Infidel, and from that post to spread his venom about his host-country, and its policies. I am thinking right now of one Sami Ramadani, in Great Britain, who bills himself as "a refugee from Saddam Hussein." His vitriolic attacks on British policy, and on Infidels more generally, entitle us to look more closely at him and at the position he has obtained. If he was a "refugee" from Saddam Hussein, he is such a "refugee" no longer, for Saddam Hussein, last I looked, was in the cold cold ground. Why, then, has the government of Great Britain not taken steps to strip Sami Ramadani of his "refugee status" and politely but firmly show him the exit, telling him that in the vastness of post-Saddam Iraq he will certainly be secure from Saddam, Uday and Qusay, and all their former works and days. If he is Sunni, he can go to Sunni-controlled territories. If Shi'a, to those controlled by the Shi'a. And if he doesn't like Iraq, there are all those Gulf sheiklets and sheikdoms, not to mention Saudi Arabia, always needing outside workers. Surely, if he is deemed valuable to society, he will be deemed valuable up and down the Arabian peninsula.
Or am I missing something? Does Sami Ramadani have a divine right, even though he is no longer a refugee, even though he expresses views dangerous to the health and well-being of British Infidels from a British-funded perch, to remain forever in Great Britian, a country whose laws and customs, whose literature and art and political philosophy, in every way, in letter and in spirit, contradict and are contradicted by, the Islam, and the attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, that Sami Ramadani brought with him, undeclared, to Great Britain when he arrived claiming to be a "refugee," and which he decanted once he had been safely granted asylum.
He should by now be gone. He, and many other so-called "refugees" from a regime that no longer exists.
And in the future, let other Muslim states, if they wish -- and they come in every political hue, with ever-shifting alliances and tendencies -- to take in any Muslim "refugees" from this or that Muslim regime or state.
Infidels have so much to worry about, that they do not need to make their own already-obvious problems with Islam any greater. It makes no sense.
Posted by: Hugh at July 23, 2008 1:20 PM
From Al-Jazeera, broadcasting from, and supported by, Qatar, where every material want is satisfied, we find this celebration of the birthday, this grotesque mass-audience honoring (no doubt viewers of Al-Jazeerea will clap and wail along with the monotonous "music") the child-murderer Samir al-Kuntar:
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1818.htmand
Take a good look. And email that Al-Jazeera clip around to everyone you know. And of course to members of Congress, and to members of the media, and asking them if Qatar is still to be called an "ally" or a "staunch ally" of the United States. It is neither. It is filled with people whose minds are on Islam, whose hearts swell with Islam-prompted hate for Infidels, or for those Infidels who dare not to yield, not to succumb.
The sooner we see Qatar, and all the qatars, plain, the better for the construction of policies that make sense, policies based on an understanding of Islam, and how Islam explains not only the political and economic and social failures of Muslim societies, but the intellectual ones, or, as on display here, the moral failures that, for most Infidels, would once have been, but are no longer, beyond belief.
Posted by: Hugh at July 23, 2008 1:35 PM
One additional request: Repatriate all Somalis in the U.S.
Posted by: Seymour Paine at July 23, 2008 1:40 PM
Hugh's article concentrates on Muslim refugees, but I'd like to weigh in on the broader issue of immigration.
We can all agree that immigration restrictions on Muslims is key to fighting the Jihad here at home. The question is how to do so in a cultural climate where such a common-sense policy would be immediately and vociferously denounced by critics as openly discriminatory and racist. We have to comprehend that advocating immigration restrictions and seeing them instituted are two very different things.
We can wait until the political climate is such that this kind of "discrimination" has developed broad public support...which may take decades, unless of course a catastrophic terror atrocity that dwarfs 9-11 belatedly brings Americans to their senses. But is our choice really limited to squandering precious years or awaiting? Not necessarily.
The alternative is to push an immigration policy that on its face is not discriminatory towards Muslims, but that will result in a de facto reduction of Muslim immigration to a trickle. We could for example stipulate that we will only accept immigrants from countries that adhere to minimal democratic standards - not just free elections but the legalization of political parties, labor unions and media. Exemptions might be made on a case-by-case basis regarding political asylum.
Such a standard would disqualifying the overwhelming majority of the Islamic world without specifically spelling out intent to do so. The policy would be presented as a "tough-love" measure to compel democratic evolution throughout the world.
This is a specific proposal designed to circumvent the political-correctness that today precludes any real immigration reform in America, particularly one that targets our ideological enemies.
Comments?
Posted by: Cornelius at July 23, 2008 3:13 PM
@ Coaltaxopeuh
I am born in Germany of largely German ancestry and I agree 100%. The people you have in mind are more than welcome.
Just get RID of the filthy hordes of moslmes who sully our streets as much as they offend the eyes, the ears and the nose.
Posted by: Ummah Gummah at July 23, 2008 3:14 PM
A difficulty with implementation of Hugh's suggestion is that the US government never asks, and does not want to know, the "religion" of anyone. It is generally against the rules for government agencies to inquire along those lines. For example, the Census Bureau asks about race and ethnic background, but never religion. I doubt that "homeland security" or "immigration" bureaucracies are different.
Posted by: del at July 23, 2008 3:36 PM
Fitzgerald: No more Muslim refugees from Muslim misrule
.. and hold the politicians accountable:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/news/refugee.php
at July 23, 2008 4:06 PM
WE have a big problem with extremists from Third World countries coming here and not assimilating.
Posted by: Alice L. at July 23, 2008 4:15 PM
Refugees = tip of the spear.
Posted by: Mr.Fitnah at July 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Cornelius
Following your recommendations would mean that 'democratic' Islamic countries, such as Malaysia, would be privileged, and that apostates trying to flee Islam aren't going to be allowed in. In the meantime, Copts trying to flee Egypt, or Christians trying to flee Pakistan or Iran, will find themselves automatically barred from entry.
No, any immigration policy that is not explicit about how Mohammedans - given their role in problems today - would be treated is a non starter for me.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 23, 2008 4:33 PM
"We have to comprehend that advocating immigration restrictions and seeing them instituted are two very different things."
Posted by: Cornelius at July 23, 2008 3:13 PM
I concur, and I must also admit that the task of implementation is quite daunting given the current climate of political correctness.
To us, the need is apparent, but until this reality is more broadly accepted by the mainstream, it will not happen.
It will take considerable time, in the absence of another catastrophe.
Posted by: awake at July 23, 2008 5:12 PM
During the Cold War it was not unusual for the U.S. to take in political refugees from the previously communist Soviet Union.
Most, if not all, of the refugees denounced communism, and were relieved and happy to live a nation where that style of government did not exist.
So, yes, why DO we take in muslim "refugees" who are fleeing from muslim persecution?
Posted by: PorkFatRules at July 23, 2008 5:35 PM
INFIDEL PRIDE: "Following your recommendations would mean that 'democratic' Islamic countries, such as Malaysia, would be privileged, and that apostates trying to flee Islam aren't going to be allowed in. In the meantime, Copts trying to flee Egypt, or Christians trying to flee Pakistan or Iran, will find themselves automatically barred from entry."
RESPONSE:
1) Malayasia might have trouble qualifying...remember the jailing of opposition leader Anwar (forget his last name) by Mahathir back in the late 90s. It is sort of a gray-area country. How free is the press? How free are the Trade Unions? Turkey would be another such case. But I get your point: My program would not explicitly exclude Muslims as immigrants. Still, it would certainly cut down their numbers.
2) As for Muslim apostates and religious minorities from the Muslim world fleeing persecution, I reiterate, asylum would be granted on a case-by-case basis. The hope would be to use some common-sense latitude in dealing with these particular groups facing such persecution.
This is not a panacea folks...it's a trial balloon suggesting that anything is better than nothing. As 'Awake' has confirmed, our task is daunting; advocating blanket restrictions on Muslim immigration may make us feel good, but it hasn't a chance in hell of becoming policy...at least in the absence of the mega-catastrophe that we all hope will never happen.
I'm wide open to alternative programs...but please, let's take into account viability.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 23, 2008 6:05 PM
I believe I would want to ask Ayaan Hirsi-Ali about this before going forward with it - There clearly is a real need for refugees to be able to take refuge. There clearly are people who do wish to escape places like Somalia. How do we balance that with those who would do harm?
Posted by: laish at July 23, 2008 8:39 PM
Cornelius & Awake
Point taken. As far as Malaysia goes, note that the State Department, which is what calls the shots on these issues, not only recognizes Malaysia as democratic, but tends to do that for a lot of Islamic countries that aren't anti-US, whereas Muslim-dominated countries that do crack down on Jihad, such as Uzbekistan, have been recipients of harsh criticism.
Okay, even if Malaysia is a bad example, how about Bangladesh? Democracy - has regular elections. But if you had a bunch of Bangladeshi Mohammedans come here (and you would, if you weren't filtering them out for being Mohammedan), that would be like importing another Somalia. So while your idea would reduce it quite a bit, there remains big holes.
Not to mention what to do about known Jihadis who are citizens of Western countries like UK, France, Germany, et al: only grounds for rejecting them, if they are not wanted by FBI, would be that they are Mohammedans. On what other basis would an Hizb ul Tahrir activist from Londonistan be blocked from coming?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 23, 2008 10:45 PM
Koranist refugees leave the ummah to escape Koranist misrule. When they arrive in the land of infidels, they then want glorious sharia and all that comes with it. After replicating the original conditions they had once escaped in their new land they must move on and start the process all over again. You know what this sounds like? It sounds like how a virus spreads. What happens when they run out of infdel countries to infect-will they move to Mars and try it out there?
Meanwhile, as all this takes place, the poor infidels (the ones who survive) pine for their lost rights and civilization that the virus had thoroughly taken over and destroyed.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at July 23, 2008 10:58 PM
Infidel Pride,
I agree with you, but one parameter which is crucial to any immigration control debate is reciprocal protection for religious freedom.
According to a majoritarian notion of democracy, malaysia may well be a democracy, but the nation does not grant religious freedom, notably the right to change religion, and the right to equal treatment under the law. So rather than arguing over whether a nation would qualify as a democracy -- a meaning the right of the Muslim majority to impose dhimmi laws on its Christian or Hindu minority, we should rather focus narrowly on whether the western notion of religious freedom is granted under the law.
I think the annual religious freedom report may be a good starting point for any neutral justification for waiving or tightening immigration controls. The yardstick for any country specific regulation is reciprocity. Restricting immigration from nations notorious for religious freedom violations could first seep into public discourse as a human rights issue. Soft sanctions may include exclusion or punishment of businesses with headquarters in Islamic nations. In the beginning, private boycotts and bad press may do what our dhimmi politicians don't have the will to do.
at July 23, 2008 11:40 PM
PerH,
Excellent point! Just the kind of idea I was hoping would come to the forefront.
If religious freedom - including freedom of conscience (the right to apostate) - is a central component in our defining of a democracy (as it absolutely should be), then we obviously put the onus on the Muslim world.
The main drawback would be that if a given country's legal code were modified to allow for apostasy, and yet family members or zealous citizens took it upon themselves to dispense Islamic justice by murdering apostates, then we're back to square one.
The only remedy for this state of affairs would be the demand that perpetrators of these crimes would receive severe sanction (e.g., the death penalty or life in prison)...and not the slap on the wrist so characteristic of the Muslim world.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 24, 2008 12:06 AM
Cornelius,
The purpose of my proposal would not necessarily be changing any facts on the ground. We may assume, at least until evidence to the contrary, that any modification to the legal code of any prodominant Muslim nation would not from the Muslim point of view be a good faith effort to accommodate the right for its own sake, but just a reaction
to the projection of western power. The ottoman empire was never contend on permitting apostasy, until the balance of power shifted in the favor of the Christian powers. And even then, the reforms were never effective lest implemented in good faith. From an infidel point of view, however, the efficiency of any reforms is not really the pertinent issue. The reason for pressuring Muslim nations on the religious freedom issue is that we, regardless of the outcome, are blessed with a justification for showing reciprocity in our immigration policy. Discrimination against Muslims who are permanent residents or naturalized citizens is unlikely in the current political and legal discourse, but restricting immigration from Muslim nations is feasible, at least if done properly.
Arguing explicitly that Muslims can't participate in a visa waiver program, or get green cards is a no no, but arguing instead that citizens from nations guilty of religious freedom violations, should as an act of state reciprocity not be granted favorable treatment is consistent with the traditional foreign relations paradigm.
If or rather then Muslim nations refuse to alter their legal framework, which is unlikely as the proverbial snowball in hell, the OIC must concede its agenda by defending the sharia discrimination and the penalty for apostasy. This can only be a win win situation for the infidel oxident.
I think that Hugh is mostly right on the money, but his positions would be more persuasive to a larger audience if he would take into account
how deeply entrenched non-discrimination is in the prevailing liberal discourse. Breaking down the monopolly of political correctness may require reframing of the issue in a way highlighting the absurdity of granting nondiscriminatory treatment to a intolerant alien belief system.
at July 24, 2008 12:42 AM
Okay, this side-discussion began with Cornelius suggesting
We can all agree that immigration restrictions on Muslims is key to fighting the Jihad here at home. The question is how to do so in a cultural climate where such a common-sense policy would be immediately and vociferously denounced by critics as openly discriminatory and racist. We have to comprehend that advocating immigration restrictions and seeing them instituted are two very different things.Okay, so after exploring whether a mere Sharansky formula of demanding that only people from democracies be allowed in, we are now at the point where we suggest that instead of going by the State Department definition on which countries are democracies and which ones aren't, we are now proposing allowing countries that support religious freedoms.
Two problems here:
at July 24, 2008 3:08 AM
Infidel Pride,
1. Relieving the conditions of minorities in Muslim majority nations would not be the goal but only a pretext for restricting immigration from Muslim nations. Even Muslim states ruled by secular regimes are unstable and since these populations are also majority Muslim, keeping out as many Muslims as possible is better than keeping out none. Extending the policy to other Muslims with European, Indian or Israeli citizenship is impractical for now for several reasons. And before even giving the idea serious consideration, the intellectual foundations for a break with the majority Muslim world must have gained sufficient public acceptance.
2. The concern on the short term should not be protecting nonmuslim minorities in Muslim majority nations, but stopping dawa through immigration and infiltration. In any case, helping the Christians of the Middle East or Africa becomes a moot point, if we even can't or won't stop Muslim infiltration of our societies.
3. Appealing to human rights discorse and reciprocity is not likely to yield any internal change for the better within the Muslim world, so the only reason for keeping up the charade is giving Islam the last and unmistaken opportunity to show its true color. When it becomes irrefutable to almost anyone that Muslim nations due to their nature can never reciprocate fair play, hopefully the blinders falls off.
at July 24, 2008 3:37 AM
Our own home grown haters could not argue against the crux of the human rights argument. Pakistan and Egypt are western allies, but in the case of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are also those with the worst record on religious freedom for nonmuslims.
at July 24, 2008 3:45 AM
But it's all the fault of "Western colonialism" didn't ya know?
Posted by: londongirl at July 24, 2008 4:25 AM
"If the Islamic nature of this threat has not been recognized, which is what prevents it from materializing in the first place, what makes one think that a demand for religious freedom from countries like Egypt or Pakistan, that are at least nominally US allies, will find any support except among US haters, and that too more for the sake of undermining those regimes, rather than any genuine sympathy for Infidel minorities?"
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2008 3:08 AM
This is an excellent point and vital to the discission. In my estimation, this is exactly what JW/DW is doing and quite successfully, albeit slower than ideally desired. Educating the masses to the inherent threat of Islamic supremacism through various avenues of jihad, which is the central tenet of Islam.
Cornelius asnd PerH made some excellent points, about a workaround to the PC roadblocks. The concern for true apostates who seek to escape the bonds of Islam is also a concern, but public policy of tolerance in Islamic countries compared to the reality of Islamic justice at the grass roots level is a colossal problem and therefore, religious tolerance reciprocity is not sufficient, in my estimation.
No, the issue must be addressed at the doctrinal level. It will not be sufficient to acknowledge Islamic supremacism through oppression as existing, being taught, but not necessarily acted upon. In that scenario we are right where we are now. For every "moderate" preaching tolerance, a call to arms will be issued by three others, with the immutable god-given Qur'an for their justification.
This is being said, not as an admission that any change to the text is even remotely likely, but rather as a key foundational point to argue in favor of a moratorium on Muslim immigration.
Political correctness and its influence, like all things, has its limits. Continued education of non-Muslims, coupled with the inevitable words and actions of the Islamists themselves is required to alter the mainstream view of Islam by non-Muslims in order to circumvent political correctness on this issue.
You can not practice discrimination against a particular religious group without the proper pretext and justification for doing so. We (the West), unfortunately, are not there yet, with regards to the comprehension of what Islam's ultimate goal truly is.
When the average person starts to think like you or I, then the implementation of discrimination of Muslim-specific immigration will not be an issue.
Now we just need to get there...
Posted by: awake at July 24, 2008 8:58 AM
QUOTE londongirl But it's all the fault of "Western colonialism" didn't ya know?Yes we do, there wasn't nearly enough of it, not by a long shot. But...
How about they stay home and solve their own problems?
Posted by: muslim_watcher at July 24, 2008 9:07 AM
The discussion on immigration illustrates the many difficulties involved in dealing with this issue. Might I suggest that what we need is a time-out, a temporary moratorium (say 10 year) on ALL immigration, while we reform the system and design a whole new policy whose object is to benefit the country as a whole and not to serve the cheap labor lobby or pander to ethnic pressure groups. I think the ultimate result will be a great reduction in the immigration flow. Mark Krikorian, in a recent book, asks whether the need for mass immigration may have come to an end.
Posted by: RBLA at July 24, 2008 10:10 AM
Agreed with most everything said here. I'm with 'Awake' and 'PerH'...yet, 'Infidel Pride' has made some good arguments.
'PerH',
What I think you've overlooked is that some Muslim countries WILL institute laws legalizing apostasy. After all, in some countries today, apostatizing from Islam is not illegal; Turkey comes to mind. This doesn't mean apostates are not murdered in Turkey, just that they are not killed by the state.
So, even for our limited purposes - finding a mechanism to reduce Muslim immigration as opposed to transforming the Muslim world, the policy will not be air-tight. But it is a start...and certainly many Muslim countries will not qualify, even those that mandate lessor penalties for apostasy than death.
So if this is the ticket, as some of us seem to feel, it means ratcheting up the public discourse about religious freedom around the world, making this a central plank of Human Rights. We must fight to incorporate the issue into the Republican Party platform this fall...perhaps ignoring the connection with immigration for the time being. As the issue grows greater resonance and then is mainstreamed, we can introduce the trade and immigration components.
It's a start.
We need to communicate our concerns to the McCain camp and the RNC through letter-writing and emails, that a strong stand against religious persecution abroad will figure prominently on whether or not we will vote Republican. But we've got to get the word out to facilitate numbers in the letter-writing campaign. Perhaps Robert and JW can help?
Posted by: Cornelius at July 24, 2008 10:20 AM
PS - Cooperation from the Republicans is probable since the issue will certainly resonate among millions of Evangelical voters.
Posted by: Cornelius at July 24, 2008 10:22 AM
"Might I suggest that what we need is a time-out, a temporary moratorium (say 10 year) on ALL immigration"...
Posted by: RBLA at July 24, 2008 10:10 AM
That is an excellent idea. It would essentially halt Muslim immigration (temporarily), provide more time for the education and understanding of the prime Islamic objective, and not be perceived as discrimination against a particular group.
The caveat remains as to what to do with legitimate apostates looking for asylum in non-Islamic countries and also non-Muslims fleeing persecution in Islamic countries as well.
The biggest problem, speaking sopecifically of the US is that any moratorium on immigration is a hollow threat given the current inability and lack of desire to halt illegal immigration at all.
Posted by: awake at July 24, 2008 10:33 AM
Cornelius,
My criteria for whether a Muslim country qualifies for blacklisting or lesser sanctions is not just whether there is a verbatim death penalty for apostasy under the nation's statutory law. The situation is complicated by Constitutions incorporating Islam as the state religion with a contradiction clause with derivative obligations on the part of courts to impose criminal punishment. In Afghanistan, the Constitution states that no law may be contrary to Islam, but the criminal code does not as far I'm aware impose the death penalty itself. Some nations like Iran have made representations to the United Nations subcommittee on Human Rights that apostasy is not illegal under the local law, but according to Mayer, Ann. Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics, Westview, cop. 1999, the regime instead charges apostates with other capital offenses, usually releasing them if they recant.
Repealing the verbatim penalty for apostasy would therefore not be material to the larger evaluation, but equallly how it is going to be applied in practice. It might well pass that some nations replace apostasy with a more secular sounding offense of treason to society, or that of undermining its moral foundations. However, such a shift would itself force the Muslims to abandon explicit defense of apostasy as required by Islamic doctrine, and would not fool the western observer.
Kuwait, Malaysia, Jordan and Egypt have no death penalty for apostasy, but apostates are deprived of their civil rights, property and marriage on account of changing religion.
The only category of discriminatory laws, I would not hold up against Muslim nations is denial of citizenship to nonmuslims. We should therefore not necessarily punish a nation like the Maldives for denying naturalization to a nonmuslim, since we may thereby have a good reason for responding in kind. The annual religious freedom report is a comprehensive survey on both the legal and practical state of religious freedom.
at July 24, 2008 11:42 AM
Cornelius,
I think you can safely bet that most Muslim nations would never abandon the symbolism of legal discrimination against nonmuslim minorities. So the contradiction of facial
compliance on the governmental level and toleration of private 'justice' meeted out to apostates is not a substantial likelihood to fear.
at July 24, 2008 11:51 AM
To all - awake, Cornelius and PerH
Just to clarify - much as I sympathize with minority Infidels and apostates from Islam, the point of my arguments wasn't that they had to be saved at all costs: if they have to be sacrificed to keep citizens of Infidel countries safe in an environment where they can't tell the difference between Infidel settlers and Mohammedan stealth invaders, then unfortunately, so be it. I also recognize the points Cornelius made that such measures would reduce the magnitude of the problem, albeit without eliminating it. Question then arises - what is the statistical magnitude of this problem, and how much of it would one be eliminating were such policies to be adapted? 10%? 50%? 90%? In other words, once a cost benefit analysis is done, is it worth all the downsides we've already mentioned?
Awake also makes a good point about how we are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of the public at large understanding of Islamic doctrines, coupled with the fact that even if Islamic countries were to officially adapt a policy of religious plurality, the honor-killing mentality of the average Mohammedan would more than compensate for that, making the supposed parity between dar ul Islam and bilad ul Kafir a mockery.
Awake is also right about JW/DW educating people about the threat of Islamic supremacism and various modes of Jihad. That said, much as I adore JW/DW, I sometimes wonder how effective we are. How many of the 23m+ visitors who've come here since sitemeter was tagged here are repeat visitors, and how many are new? And given that JW/DW are unlikely to be read by 100s of millions of Americans, question is - is it being read at least by the people on our side who matter (no smart-ass remarks about how CAIR notices, please), be it @ the RNC, DNC, White House, Congress, State Dept, Pentagon, CIA, et al? And given the policies we see followed, so far the influence it seems to be having seems at times to be negative! At any rate, I'd avoid the temptation of projecting the readership of this site to the public at large, or else, we wouldn't have been having this discussion.
I agree with RBLA that a moratorium on all immigration could be a solution, but then, be prepared for Corporate America to scream foul, and send even more jobs offshore. Awake is right that given the absence of action even against illegal immigration, something like this is even less likely to fly. As a legal immigrant myself, I find that an almost hypocritical stand to take, but then, had I been prevented from immigrating in a post 9/11 environment, I wouldn't have screamed foul, but just done what I always do - curse the Mohammedans.
I do disagree with Cornelius that the GOP is the natural home of the anti-Jihad movement. With the Grover Norquists, the George Bushes, the Condi Rices, yes, even the John McCains, the party is way too compromised. I'd like to see the Loyalist Party build on this central issue, coupled with other related policies like energy independence, reciprocative foreign policies, isolation of the OIC, et al. It's time to let the GOP continue in its free fall, and a real Right wing party take over.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2008 2:06 PM
I forgot to provide the Loyalist Party link above, so my plug of the day
Robert, Hugh, Marisol, Raymond
Please add this to the links list, if it isn't there already, even if you don't plan on endorsing them.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2008 2:17 PM
One more point about the religious pluralism/democracy criteria for not blocking out whole countries - regardless of what changes they undergo, Pakistan will remain Pakistan, Egypt will remain Egypt, et al, and their immigrants who come here will remain as lethal as they currently are. I therefore don't see how turning a country on or off based on the type of regime they have makes any sense.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2008 2:21 PM
Infidel Pride,
Blocking immigration from Pakistan and Egypt would be based on the type of legal and practical reality, but since this reality in turn will always be inseprable from the Muslim majority makeup of the country, it's only another way of stating that we want to keep out lethal Muslims at any cost.
If all these Muslim countries actually permitted religious pluralism, they would cease being Muslim, so saying that Egyptians or Pakistanis can't come here as long as their nations impose punishment for apostasy, is just another way of stating that people from Muslim countries aren't welcome. It's cynical but the highest priority is stopping the demographic conquest, so even if it costs the lives of a few apostates, more here will die anyway, if Muslim immigration continues.
at July 24, 2008 2:48 PM
Infidel Pride,
I am intrigued by the platform of your Loyalist Party. I have become convince that such a nationalist party is precisely what America needs as a counter to the Fast Death (Democrats) and the Slow Death (Republicans) parties. Might I suggest, however, that the two primary planks must be real immigration reform, preferably preceded by a moratorium and economic nationalism, i.e. fair trade replacing so called free trade. This combination will attract many of the blue collar Reagan Democrats who have since returned to the Dems and have become a key Clinton constituency. I don't think we can yet sell them on an anti Islam agenda; they don't yet feel it and wouldn't understand it. However a time out would halt the deterioration and buy us time for the important process of education. Before we can heal we must first stop the bleeding.
In addition I think the model for such a pary should be the once significant Conservative Party in New York State. Before the middle class was driven out, the Conservatives were a significant force, pulling the Republicans toward their ideology and even electing a Senator, James Buckley when liberal Republicans and Democrats divided the vote. They did that by cross endorsing candidates from other parties, mostly Republicans but sometimes Democrats that were close to their views. When they could not find someone satisfactory they would run their own candidate. So it should be with the Loyalist or other such party.
Posted by: RBLA at July 24, 2008 10:35 PM
RBLA
The policies you outlined are planks of the Loyalist Party, but anti-Islam is their central plank. They might disagree with your proposal to ban all immigration, since worldwide, they wish to create an anti-Islamic coalition. But they are very stringent on illegal immigration and the like. On Fair Trade, that's a very controversial issue within the GOP itself, and was part of what undid Mike Huckabee.
I would agree with your latter part. If your local candidate is a Sue Myrick or a Vijay(?) Kumar, then by all means, vote GOP. But if it happens to be a George Voinovich, or a John McCainesque candidate, then vote Loyalists. Make the ambivalent Republicans know that pro-Islamic Republicans just won't be supported, no matter what.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 24, 2008 11:54 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)