Patriot: “A person who loves, supports and defends his country.” American Heritage Dictionary
Patriots disagree with one another about what their country should do. There was a time when, if you wore a gray uniform, it was patriotic to kill other Americans who wore the blue uniform. The definition of patriotism changes over time and I wonder what the definition is now.
Let’s assume that in 1942 there were American citizens who completely identified with the goals of Germany, Italy and Japan. They wanted to see the Axis powers win the war and have those three "superior" ethnic groups rule the world using the political style of National Socialism rather than liberal democracy.
Let’s further assume that there were American citizens in 1946 who completely identified with the goals of the Soviet Union. They wanted to see Communism dominate the world, replacing the American Constitution with the Constitution of the Soviet Union, replacing our liberal democracy with a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Can those citizens of 1942 and 1946 be described as American patriots?
Let’s further assume that there are American citizens today who completely identify with the goals of traditional Islam. They want to see Islamic law become the law of the land, replacing the Constitution, and Islam the dominant religion in America.
Can those citizens be considered American patriots?
Finally, let’s assume there are citizens who completely identify with the social values and rules in the Bible. They want the Bible (as explained by their particular sect) to replace the Constitution as the source of our laws, replacing our liberal democracy with a Christian theocracy.
Can these citizens be considered patriots?
To the extent that Fascism, Communism, Islamic law or Christianism become politically dominant in America, our heritage of liberal democracy dies. An American patriot will resist them all.
We need to draw a line, and it is not easy to do. We should continue to guarantee free speech, but only to those who do not advocate forcible overthrow or incite to violence. I have serious doubts that advocates for Islamic law qualify for that guarantee because Islamic law does not prohibit the use of violence to overthrow infidel governments .
All the above ideologies fail to qualify as replacements for liberal democracy for the same reason. Not one of them is capable of producing the equality of opportunity we get from liberal democracy. Each of the above ideologies creates a favored class of citizen and less favored classes—us and them.
An American patriot will resist them all.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Learning to discriminate between Muslim friends and Muslim enemies
I am a Libertarian. For me, that means leaving others alone to live their lives as they see fit. I am 72 years old and this is the first time I have ever suggested scrutinizing the way other Americans live their lives.
Islamic terrorism has caused me to go against a lifelong habit.
We know some things. Osama bin Laden, Major Nidal Hasan and many other Muslims, American citizens and otherwise, are a danger to us. There are many other Muslims, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD for example, who are not.
We also know that the body of religious law that defines Islam is neither monolithic nor consistent and that this causes substantial disagreements between Muslims on what should be the proper attitude toward non-Muslims.
How can we learn to distinguish Muslim friends from Muslim enemies?
One way is to ask Muslims to declare what they believe and which part of Islam they are allied with by asking questions, such as:
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death)
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/it-is-not-the-role-of-the-west-to-tell-muslims-what-is-islam-and-what-is-not-islam.html
Islamic terrorism has caused me to go against a lifelong habit.
We know some things. Osama bin Laden, Major Nidal Hasan and many other Muslims, American citizens and otherwise, are a danger to us. There are many other Muslims, Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of AIFD for example, who are not.
We also know that the body of religious law that defines Islam is neither monolithic nor consistent and that this causes substantial disagreements between Muslims on what should be the proper attitude toward non-Muslims.
How can we learn to distinguish Muslim friends from Muslim enemies?
One way is to ask Muslims to declare what they believe and which part of Islam they are allied with by asking questions, such as:
Who provided the money to start your mosque?
Who holds the title to your mosque building and the land it is on?
Who pays the salary of your imam and any other mosque employees?
From what theological school did your imam graduate?
What is the relationship between you and/or your mosque and any organizations affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood (the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust especially)?
Which school of Islamic jurisprudence do you consider to be authoritative in your practice of Islam?
What are that school’s rulings on the desired status of Islamic law in non-Muslim countries?
Do you believe that Islamic law should be the highest law of the land, no matter where you live?
Does Islamic law allow the use of force to spread Islam?
Does your school of Islamic law support separation of religion and state?
Does your version of Islamic law require that your first allegiance should be to the Islamic Umma and not to the American (or any other non-Muslim) nation? Are Muslims who have moved to America immigrants or colonizers? Can you explain the Hijra as a model for Islamic immigration to non-Muslim countries?
Can you explain the meaning of the terms Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb and the doctrine of Al Wala wal Bara (Loyalty and Enmity, Koran 60:4)?
Do you support the three options allowed by Islamic law to non-Muslims when they are defeated in war by Muslims? (Conversion, payment of jizya to indicate submission or death)
What punishment does Islamic law prescribe for Muslims who leave Islam?
In Islamic law, are unbelievers considered to be unclean?
In Islamic law, what is the punishment for blasphemy? Do you support the death penalty fatwa against Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses? Do you support the calls for punishment of critics of Islam such as Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Geert Wilders, Kurt Westergaard and Lars Vilks? Was the killing of Theo Van Gogh justified in Islamic law?
According to your version of Islamic law, do women have rights equal to men and is polygny allowed? Is wife beating allowed?
What does Islamic law prescribe as punishment for homosexuality?
According to your school of Islamic law, what limitations should be placed on artistic expression?
Can you explain the doctrine of abrogation in Islamic law and its relationship to the two stages (Meccan and Medinan) in which the Koran was revealed to Mohammed?
Can you explain why no Muslim-majority country subscribes to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Are Hamas and Hizballah terrorist organizations according to Islamic law?
Have you or has your mosque given zakat to any charity (such as the Holy Land Foundation) that supports jihad (violence against infidels) with the funds?
Does your school of Islamic law allow jihad to be waged “to rid the land of unbelief”?
Do you believe that any of these Islamic legal positions need to be reformed and why?
I have one final question.
Robert Spencer, a prominent critic of Islam, says this:
The one thing that Western non-Muslims assume exists and is widely accepted, an Islamic theological and legal argument against jihad warfare and Islamic supremacism in general, establishing the principle that Muslims should live as equals with non-believers in a non-Sharia society on an indefinite basis, has never actually been produced, except in the non-traditional presentations of individual scholars who have no significant following in the Islamic world.
Can you supply rulings by jurists from any of the recognized Sunni or Shi’ite madhahib, declaring that jihad is not to be waged against unbelievers in order to bring them under the authority of Sharia, but rather that non-Muslims and Muslims are to coexist peacefully as equals under the law on an indefinite basis, even when the law of the land is not Sharia. Can you show evidence of any orthodox sect or school of jurisprudence that teaches this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/it-is-not-the-role-of-the-west-to-tell-muslims-what-is-islam-and-what-is-not-islam.html
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Misdirection
A friend recently sent a video with clips of Obama that support the idea that he is a Muslim.
Whether or not he is a Muslim, and I doubt it, that is the wrong part of him to be concerned about. A good magician will get his audience to look at what he wants them to see while he does what he must to make the trick work. That’s misdirection.
In the Cold War, some Americans, who were not members of the Communist Party, were called fellow-travelers. They condemned the worst actions of Communist Russia but supported the idea of Communism as a worthy addition to the American political scene.
This is what Obama is doing. He sends drones to kill Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but supports the idea of Islamic law as a worthy addition to American jurisprudence. Three examples of this support:
-- legitimizing the burqa and niqab,
--legitimizing the use of Islamic charity contributions to support jihad
--legitimizing the use of Sharia compliant finance instruments in AIG, a company in which the US Government holds a majority share.
He is approving the legal jihad while ostentatiously opposing the open warfare of jihad. Which of those two things is more dangerous for America?
It is clear to me that the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America and the Organization of the Islamic Conference are a much greater threat to America than bin Laden, Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad combined. This is not an argument to stop killing jihad warriors, but to at least get started in fighting back in the ideological part of this war.
That is the battlefield on which this war will be won or lost. At present, we are losing.
Whether or not he is a Muslim, and I doubt it, that is the wrong part of him to be concerned about. A good magician will get his audience to look at what he wants them to see while he does what he must to make the trick work. That’s misdirection.
In the Cold War, some Americans, who were not members of the Communist Party, were called fellow-travelers. They condemned the worst actions of Communist Russia but supported the idea of Communism as a worthy addition to the American political scene.
This is what Obama is doing. He sends drones to kill Muslims in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but supports the idea of Islamic law as a worthy addition to American jurisprudence. Three examples of this support:
-- legitimizing the burqa and niqab,
--legitimizing the use of Islamic charity contributions to support jihad
--legitimizing the use of Sharia compliant finance instruments in AIG, a company in which the US Government holds a majority share.
He is approving the legal jihad while ostentatiously opposing the open warfare of jihad. Which of those two things is more dangerous for America?
It is clear to me that the Muslim Brotherhood organizations in America and the Organization of the Islamic Conference are a much greater threat to America than bin Laden, Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad combined. This is not an argument to stop killing jihad warriors, but to at least get started in fighting back in the ideological part of this war.
That is the battlefield on which this war will be won or lost. At present, we are losing.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Incompatibility
Islamic law of the Shafi school of jurisprudence (according to Reliance of the Traveller, pp. 607-09) describes the conditions which non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state (AHL AL-DHIMMA) must accept:
--Pay the Jizya (non-Muslim poll tax); 4.235 grams of gold per person per year
--Wear special identifying clothing
--They are not greeted with the traditional greeting accorded Muslims—“as-Salamu alaykum”
--They must keep to the side of the street when passing a Muslim
--Must not build as high as or higher than Muslim buildings
--Do not publicly celebrate their religions, display pork or wine, ring church bells or display crosses
--Do not build new churches
--Do not live in the areas around Mecca, Medina or Yamama
If the non-Muslim violates any of the following five rules, he is then considered a prisoner of war:
--Marries or commits adultery with a Muslim woman
--Conceals spies of hostile forces
--Leads a Muslim away from Islam
--Kills a Muslim
--Mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam
Given that many American Muslims have expressed their desire for Islamic law to be the highest law of the land, the question is this—what should the attitude of American non-Muslims be toward Muslims who support this traditional Islamic law?
-- Reciprocity—dhimmitude for Muslims, a taste of their own medicine? (No—we have already tried having a society with second class citizens and we don’t like it. We do not aspire to become Saudi Arabia.)
--Expulsion on the grounds of irreconcilable differences?
--Imprisonment for sedition or incitement to violence?
The list of options is short and unappealing.
The least painful option is for moderate Muslims who have no desire to live under Islamic law to get serious about reforming it.
This sort of Islamic law will not take root in the West. At some point, American Muslims will have to choose between American and Islamic law. The Danish and South Park cartoons, the rights of former Muslims, the loyalty of Muslim soldiers and the rights of Muslim women are only the tips of an iceberg of incompatibility between Islamic law and Western human rights and responsibilities.
Muslims still have time to avoid a bloody collision, but right now the proponents of Islamic law are twisting the tiger’s tail—treating Americans as if they were living in an Islamic state subject to Islamic law.
--Pay the Jizya (non-Muslim poll tax); 4.235 grams of gold per person per year
--Wear special identifying clothing
--They are not greeted with the traditional greeting accorded Muslims—“as-Salamu alaykum”
--They must keep to the side of the street when passing a Muslim
--Must not build as high as or higher than Muslim buildings
--Do not publicly celebrate their religions, display pork or wine, ring church bells or display crosses
--Do not build new churches
--Do not live in the areas around Mecca, Medina or Yamama
If the non-Muslim violates any of the following five rules, he is then considered a prisoner of war:
--Marries or commits adultery with a Muslim woman
--Conceals spies of hostile forces
--Leads a Muslim away from Islam
--Kills a Muslim
--Mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet or Islam
Given that many American Muslims have expressed their desire for Islamic law to be the highest law of the land, the question is this—what should the attitude of American non-Muslims be toward Muslims who support this traditional Islamic law?
-- Reciprocity—dhimmitude for Muslims, a taste of their own medicine? (No—we have already tried having a society with second class citizens and we don’t like it. We do not aspire to become Saudi Arabia.)
--Expulsion on the grounds of irreconcilable differences?
--Imprisonment for sedition or incitement to violence?
The list of options is short and unappealing.
The least painful option is for moderate Muslims who have no desire to live under Islamic law to get serious about reforming it.
This sort of Islamic law will not take root in the West. At some point, American Muslims will have to choose between American and Islamic law. The Danish and South Park cartoons, the rights of former Muslims, the loyalty of Muslim soldiers and the rights of Muslim women are only the tips of an iceberg of incompatibility between Islamic law and Western human rights and responsibilities.
Muslims still have time to avoid a bloody collision, but right now the proponents of Islamic law are twisting the tiger’s tail—treating Americans as if they were living in an Islamic state subject to Islamic law.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Why Iraq cannot be an American ally
A STRATFOR piece on Iraq starts:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100419_baghdad_politics_and_usiranian_balance?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100420&utm_content=readmore&elq=482d22c5cb5a46ea9e49aa20d10199be
The first assumption was correct--the Iraqi military never stood a chance in a direct confrontation with us. The Arab world was shocked at how quickly we destroyed the second best Muslim military force in the world.
It was the second assumption that was false. This is where the wheels came off the bus.
There is no element (Sunni, Shia, even Kurd) in the Muslim world that is or could be a long term ally of America. This has always been true and will continue to be true until the coming confrontation between Islam and the West is settled. Iraq turned into a quagmire because we identified the enemy in the war on terror incorrectly.
To the exact extent any Muslim country honors its commitment to Islamic law, it cannot be a long term ally of any infidel country. We Westerners will continue to flounder in this war until we accept the truth of that statement and act on it.
The Saudis proved that point in the first Iraq war. They used us to repel Saddam, but immediately turned against us in the second Iraq war. Long term, their interests and ours will never coincide because their world view and ours are competitors.
The exact historical parallel is that we fought with the Soviets to repel Hitler, but we were never long term allies of the Soviets, and we could never be--because of our competing ideologies.
The United States invaded Iraq on the assumption that it could quickly defeat and dismantle the Iraqi government and armed forces and replace them with a cohesive and effective pro-American government and armed forces, thereby restoring the balance of power.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100419_baghdad_politics_and_usiranian_balance?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=100420&utm_content=readmore&elq=482d22c5cb5a46ea9e49aa20d10199be
The first assumption was correct--the Iraqi military never stood a chance in a direct confrontation with us. The Arab world was shocked at how quickly we destroyed the second best Muslim military force in the world.
It was the second assumption that was false. This is where the wheels came off the bus.
There is no element (Sunni, Shia, even Kurd) in the Muslim world that is or could be a long term ally of America. This has always been true and will continue to be true until the coming confrontation between Islam and the West is settled. Iraq turned into a quagmire because we identified the enemy in the war on terror incorrectly.
To the exact extent any Muslim country honors its commitment to Islamic law, it cannot be a long term ally of any infidel country. We Westerners will continue to flounder in this war until we accept the truth of that statement and act on it.
The Saudis proved that point in the first Iraq war. They used us to repel Saddam, but immediately turned against us in the second Iraq war. Long term, their interests and ours will never coincide because their world view and ours are competitors.
The exact historical parallel is that we fought with the Soviets to repel Hitler, but we were never long term allies of the Soviets, and we could never be--because of our competing ideologies.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Refah v. Turkey
Refah v. Turkey
The opinion that sharia (Islamic law) is incompatible with democracy and advocates the forcible overthrow of democratic governments has been confirmed by rulings of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998, the Turkish court banned the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) because the rules of sharia promoted by Refah “were incompatible with the democratic regime …Democracy is the antithesis of sharia.” The European Court of Human Rights agreed on appeal in 2001 and 2003.
The convention referred to in Wildhaber’s remarks is the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has heard nine cases on banning Turkish political parties. Refah is the only one it has banned. The presently ruling party, AKP, is the Refah party-- renamed and pushing the same Islamist agenda.
The Court’s judgment included the following observations:
• The Refah claim of freedom of association does not overcome the State’s rights to protect its institutions.
• The means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
• The final goal of the party must be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.
• Sharia does not exclude the use of force in order to implement its policies.
Sedition is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the authority of the state.”
In American criminal law, the Smith Act of 1940, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 2385, says that it is a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force of violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”
Those who advocate for Islamic law advocate for discrimination against women, gays, non-Muslims, secular government and freedom of conscience. Our freedom of speech makes such advocacy legal. But Islamic law specifically endorses the use of force to implement its goals. As the European Court of Human Rights ruled, the means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
The 1940 version of the Smith Act has been revised to allow speech advocating forcible overthrow and to punish only those actions that are taken to implement the overthrow. Those actions must be shown to be clearly connected to an imminent threat to the nation. This revision should be stripped from the law. The possibility of prosecuting those who act to implement Islamic law on charges of incitement to violence is being explored.
The opinion that sharia (Islamic law) is incompatible with democracy and advocates the forcible overthrow of democratic governments has been confirmed by rulings of the Turkish Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights. In 1998, the Turkish court banned the Welfare Party (Refah Partisi) because the rules of sharia promoted by Refah “were incompatible with the democratic regime …Democracy is the antithesis of sharia.” The European Court of Human Rights agreed on appeal in 2001 and 2003.
Noting that the Welfare Party had pledged to set up a regime based on sharia law, the Court found that sharia was incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy as set forth in the Convention. It considered that sharia, which faithfully reflects the dogmas and divine rules laid down by religion, is stable and invariable. Principles such as pluralism in the political sphere or the constant evolution of public freedoms have no place in it.
According to the Court, it was difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverged from Convention values, particularly with regard to its criminal law and criminal procedure, its rules on the legal status of women and the way it intervened in all spheres of private and public life in accordance with religious precepts.
Luzius Wildhaber, President, European Court of Human Rights
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/29AC6DBD-C3F8-411C-9B97-B42BE466EE7A/0/2004__Wildhaber_Cancado_Trindade_BIL__opening_legal_year.pdf
The convention referred to in Wildhaber’s remarks is the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights has heard nine cases on banning Turkish political parties. Refah is the only one it has banned. The presently ruling party, AKP, is the Refah party-- renamed and pushing the same Islamist agenda.
The Court’s judgment included the following observations:
• The Refah claim of freedom of association does not overcome the State’s rights to protect its institutions.
• The means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
• The final goal of the party must be compatible with fundamental democratic principles.
• Sharia does not exclude the use of force in order to implement its policies.
Sedition is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “conduct or language inciting to rebellion against the authority of the state.”
In American criminal law, the Smith Act of 1940, 18 U.S.C. paragraph 2385, says that it is a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force of violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association.”
Those who advocate for Islamic law advocate for discrimination against women, gays, non-Muslims, secular government and freedom of conscience. Our freedom of speech makes such advocacy legal. But Islamic law specifically endorses the use of force to implement its goals. As the European Court of Human Rights ruled, the means to change the State’s institutions must be legal in every respect.
The 1940 version of the Smith Act has been revised to allow speech advocating forcible overthrow and to punish only those actions that are taken to implement the overthrow. Those actions must be shown to be clearly connected to an imminent threat to the nation. This revision should be stripped from the law. The possibility of prosecuting those who act to implement Islamic law on charges of incitement to violence is being explored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)